evolution discussion with faith

I don't know. Perhaps you could be more specific.

I have no idea, Schraf, I'm not a scientist. Seems to me to be necessary but I don't know how education in science is structured, how the priorities are stacked. You'd have to tell me.

I guess I have to take your word for it, don't I? It's a pretty abstract statement though. Could you give an example of how this is done in daily scientific work?

You have my permission.

Hey I understand that kind of research quite well. Thanks for giving an example, and it would be very helpful to have more, so let's have Coragyps give his (hers?) too.

Nice little story of science at work. Thanks.

Of course science is dependent upon previous discoveries in science. I love to read stories like this too. In fact I'd like to hear a lot more of them before we turn to Schraf's main topic here. But if you must introduce it, then you can't just rest on abstractions, you must give examples that demonstrate that the ToE has any practical application in science.

I admire all the hypothesizing that goes into workaday science of the sort that Coragyps illustrated. That IS science, and I assume scientists do it every day and do it well. I'd like to see LOTS more examples of it.This, however, is not on the same plane as the ToE. I know you insist it is but I'd like to see this subject approached from the workaday science level as I am convinced it isn't on the same plane, and convinced the ToE does not have much in the way of practical applications in science, or to the extent it does it's purely accidental. So let us continue with examples and steer clear of the abstract pronouncements for a while, OK?Medical testing on animals that has relevance to humans does not require the ToE. If you want to claim it does, then give a SPECIFIC DETAILED example that demonstrates it. Coragyps' post is a good model to follow.Perhaps the thread should be retitled, Practical Applications of the ToE, or Science as Opposed to the ToE.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 05:40 PM

I notice you haven't developed this in any detail such as you gave in your oil example. Show us in detail, please, HOW the ToE has any application whatever in the science that involves bird flu or vaccines.

It's also irrelevant to this thread as developing a natural history of life on earth is at best an armchair pastime, with no practical application. Applying biological principles such as selection does not require the ToE in any way whatever. Whether the mechanism that provides the variability really is random mutation or not is open to question, but whether it is or not this is simple practical biology and we don't need the ToE for this practical work. Nobody disputes that variation occurs and that selection operates on it, and the practical experimentation with the effect of antibiotics is quite practical without any reference to the ToE. All this is accepted by creationists. Everyday science does not need the ToE and you have not demonstrated that it does.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 06:08 PM

I understand all the stuff about dating and it wouldn't prove anything to me. I'd really like to see this thread stick to workaday science like the example Coragyps gave. The ToE didn't enter into his example at all and it doesn't in most science.What is in question is my respect for science and that's where the focus should be. I respect it just fine, which would be shown in such everyday examples if only we could avoid the usual "proof text" mentality that goes on in discussions of the ToE. Unfortunately I can see this is headed in the direction of trying to trip Faith up with the most unanswerable examples in support of the ToE and get away from the original topic of what everyday science does. MOST everyday science DOES NOT even TOUCH on the ToE.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 06:16 PM

IF this is a recognition that most science doesn't touch on the ToE thank you. That right there should end the accusation that because I don't believe in the ToE I therefore do not respect science or scientists. I believe I also respect biology.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 07:01 PM

This is only all about replication and selection, which creationists do not deny. The fact that this kind of work can be done in the laboratory does not support the ToE and nobody disrespects it.

Not I. I grasp the concept and deny that it proves ToE.But we are not in the business of proving the ToE on this thread, but proving that it has practical applications in scientific work. You have to prove this, you may not merely assert it. Not so. You also see the mechanisms that bring it about. This is one of the biggest blind spots for evos, that you equate the theory with the processes which have nothing to do with the ToE. No, not the ToE but the principle of mutation or selection or whatever processes apply in the given situation, not the ToE. Yes, and again this is the problem, which evos simply define tendentiously. Creationists accept all the processes but not the ToE. When you are working with genetic variation and selection this is NOT the ToE. The ToE is this overarching definition that is supposedly fueled by all these processes. Nope. We know the processes operate but we deny that they ever lead to anything beyond a certain genetic limit.But this thread is not supposed to be about the ToE. I respect all the processes of science but not the ToE, and perhaps you can at least appreciate HOW I arrive at this view whether you agree with it or not. I am NOT denigrating science or scientists when I reject the ToE. I consider it a superfluity to real science. This is a BIG mistake and let me TRY finally to answer this thing that keeps coming up. All the processes that are now subsumed under the ToE are perfectly useful for describing VARIATION. Selection and so on. This is useful knowledge but it is NOT dependent on the ToE. You do NOT need the ToE to have this knowledge. For all I know historically it was important that the ToE made it possible, but logically it is not necessary. The processes by which populations vary ARE necessary and useful and creationism does NOT reduce science to primitive experimentation without regard to these processes. They are the workaday science, the ToE has nothing to do with it. No, you have not demonstrated that antibiotics research is a practical application of the ToE at all, only an application of the principles of variation and selection that creationists also acknowledge, that are presently co-opted to the ToE.

True, you won't. I've offered my own theory about the built-in limit to open-ended change many times here. But that's another topic.