evolution discussion with faith

As I said, it's a definitional thing. I don't accept open-ended variation, or as Modulous said, I don't accept the theory of origins.

Sorry Schraf, I don't accept your definitions, formulations or inferences about my attitude, so I can't answer your post.

It doesn't suggest it per se, it simply doesn't postulate a limit where none is observed. That is to say, it only talks about, and explains things in terms of observed phenomena.Basically ToE is the theory we use to describe how populations change. If you want to you can try to apply this to describe how massive changes in populations could occur, or little change.Perhaps there are some laws that prevent or hamper this change, who knows?At the end of the day, the theory hypothetically says, "Oh, you have a a population that has changed, let me explain how that happened", if you throw rubbish data at it, you'll get rubbish information back. In your case you may think it is rubbish data to throw dinosaur populations changing to such an extent they become birds. Not a problem, the ToE is still valid, you just don't the population in question has changed in that way and as such any conclusions drawn from the ToE are fallacious. Earlier you said that the work done with regards to ToE was superfluous to real science. That is quite disrespectful of quite a large discipline within science.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 05:50 PMThis message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 05:54 PM

Fine, I'm happy to disrespect work that's done on validating the ToE if that's what you mean, but my impression is that the vast majority of scientific work has nothing to do with this.

I added a quick edit or two there, sorry about that.But yes, of course the vast majority of science isn't about one single theory in one discipline. However, holding one theory to a different standard than other theories is...well its something and it aint good, right? I believe Herepton (Ray) would call it special pleading. 'All other theories are fine, but the ToE is a special case'.

quote:

---

Sorry Schraf, I don't accept your definitions, formulations or inferences about my attitude, so I can't answer your post. Sorry Schraf, I don't accept your definitions, formulations or inferences about my attitude, so I can't answer your post.

---

So, then can I take from this that do do not accept that the main expertise or skill of all scientists, regardless of the particular area that they study, is to formulate explanations of natural phenomena and then testing the consequences of the explanations?Do you think that some scientists are trained to do this and some are not?

I dunno. I just believe it's possible to have a big problem with the ToE without thinking scientists are stupid or nuts.

No, I don't agree.Science is a very diverse enterprise. It is difficult to come up with any simple characterizaton of what "all scientists do." What theoretical physicists do is different from what empirical physicists do. What plant biologists do is different from what animal biologists do, and in turn that's different from what paleontologists do.Social scientists do a lot of generating hypotheses, then doing statistical hypothesis testing. But you cannot generalize that across all of the sciences.In many cases, explanations emerge after discussions of groups of scientists working in related areas. They are not the product of a single scientist, but of a community of scientists.It is probably correct that all empirical scientists collect and analyse data. Many, but not all, carry out experiments. Theoretical scientists might not do any of those, but they are in communication with empirical scientists and there is a great deal of cross fertilization of ideas. No. The knowledge of a lab or field tech is typically narrower and shallower than that of the scientist. The lab or field tech needs to be able to collect the data, but need not understand the implications of that data.I can suggest some reading.How the laws of physics lie, Nancy Cartwright.
Against Method, Paul Feyerabend.Nancy Cartwright is a serious philosopher of physics, and she works with physicists. It's a good book. It is not a take down of physics, although the title ight seem to suggest that.The Feyerabend book is a bit tongue in cheek, and some people might consider it a scandalous attack on science. He is making the case that there is no easily described scientific method. Feyerabend is not actually attacking science, but he is attacking traditional philosophy of science.

quote:

---

I just believe it's possible to have a big problem with the ToE without thinking scientists are stupid or nuts.

---

But if you think the hundreds of thousands of scientists who study Evolutionary mechanisms, such as Population Geneticists all accept the ToE, and base all of their explanations for natural phenomena on it, are all gravely mistaken, then you are, by definition, claiming that thousands of scientists are in fact very poor at formulating explanations for natural phenomena and testing the consequences of those explanations.Do you think the entire field of Population Genetics is a bogus field, filled with scientists who can't do science?

I don't think you get my position well enough to ask the right questions. I've been trying to say I have no problem with science as such and you just keep ignoring that and contradicting it. I have no disrespect at all for Population Genetics but according to you I must have.

It can be based on fossils; it can be based on genetics; it can be base on morphology (structure of an organism). You might want to take a look at Allright, forget the fossils. It's a very short thread.

quote:

---

I have no disrespect at all for Population Genetics but according to you I must have.

---

Well, Population Geneticists are scientists.What scientists in the life sciences do is generate explanations for natural phenomena and then test the consequences of those explanations.If you reject the ToE, then you reject the very premise of Population Genetics.You are saying, in effect,"Hey, you! Population Geneticists! You know all of those explanations for natural phenomena you have generated and tested with the skills you learned in Graduate school, like other scientists?The explanations based upon the premise of the Theory of Evolution being correct? Well, the ToE CAN'T be correct, because I say so, and even though it SEEMS to be correct to you, because your tests of your explanations all seemd to validate it, you are all really wrong about the underpinnings of your entire field of study.You are all such poor developers and testers of explanations you haven't even realized that the ToE, which you have based all of your explanations upon, is totally wrong."This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 01:36 PM

Not so. The principles of population genetics don't need the ToE, and in fact will continue when the ToE is finally discovered to be false.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-09-2006 03:27 PM

Whereas population genetics depends on analysis of evolutionary forces, YECism, ID, OECism, etc,...all also incorporate evolutionary forces into their theories and models. Adaptation and speciation are components or accepted by creationism and ID as well. So imo, the argument that ToE is a prerequisite for population genetics is fallacious argument which essentially restates the same logical error in claiming micro-evolution equals ToE.Micro-evolution is not the same as ToE, regardless of how much evos want to say it is. They are 2 distinct concepts, related for sure, but not the same.wiki reference below (always to be taken with a grain of salt) Population genetics - Wikipedia

Imo, this presents a valid way to test Faith's claim, at least as a thought experiment. If we were to say ToE is wrong, would population genetics continue and be valid?If population genetics could conceivable continue if ToE is wrong and something like creationism or ID be correct, then it is wrong to claim population genetics cannot work unless ToE is true.