Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 78 (711582)
11-20-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Atheos canadensis
11-19-2013 8:55 AM


Re: Disappointing
I guess it is easier to ignore one's logical inconsistency than defend it.
(1) they don't feel they need to defend it ... it's <.insert>authority of choice<./insert>'s word, and
(2) the first level of cognitive dissonance reduction is to ignore and deny contrary evidence.
Cognitive dissonance - (Wikipedia, 2010)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing them.[2] It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision". The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
If you want to see an example, you can look at mindspawn's posts on Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-19-2013 8:55 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-20-2013 10:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 78 (711649)
11-21-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Atheos canadensis
11-20-2013 10:25 PM


calling marc9000 ...
see On The Limits of Human Talent for another example.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-20-2013 10:25 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-21-2013 11:49 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 26 of 78 (715410)
01-05-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:29 AM


Hi AndrewPD, welcome to the fray.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message) your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
I assume it is Message 1:
Evolutionary biologists look at the morphology of organisms to infer relatedness. This is a robust method that is pre-ToE and that produces results that are almost always consistent with more recent molecular evidence of relatedness. Creationists are inconsistent in their application of this method ...
when you reply
Are we referring to homology here?
I don't see how you can make a strictly lawful inference this way.
If you Google look alike's you'll see surprising images of strangers who happen to look strikingly like celebrities. Isn't it true that we don't conclude from this they are related directly? Unless you have a twin you tend to resemble family members to some degree but don't tend to look identical. The resemblances can be quite subtle
It seems clear that there are cases of resemblance that do not occur due to relatedness.
Can you tell me how evolutionary biology knows that these two critters are only very very distantly related?
Morphology means much more than surface appearances.
By "Pre-ToE" Atheos canadensis means the system was developed before Darwin and the classification nomenclature system was developed by Linneaus.
If you have a theory then you can make evidence support that theory by careful selection but without scrutinising the assertions you are making in that process.
Which implies that you think science is a conspiracy to fabricate theory and then only select evidence that supports it. Do you have any evidence of such a conspiracy?
With a huge numbers of species and fossils all with some different aspects in common then there seems to be a degree of arbitrariness in how you chose which features to make a pathway between.
And your conspiracy theory does not explain why the use of morphology to develop a tree of life pre genetic science is virtually identical to the one that comes from genetics: if the system was prone to errors why is there such consilience in results?
Also if we found a fossilised bonobo chimp we might assume it is our ancestor but bonobo chimps coexist with us.
With nothing more than the skeleton we would assume that it was an ape. Where it would likely fit into the tree of life would depend on the age of the fossil and its relation to other fossils in the area.
I can see how homology might be some kind of evidence but at the same time I don't see how you can draw strong conclusions from it based on what I have said.
Perhaps because what you have said just covers a surface inspection of the science rather than an in depth critique.
See An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution for general information on evolution science and Homologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution in particular to learn about homologies and analogies. It should not come as a great surprise that scientists have already considered your "problem" and determined methodologies to ensure confidence in actual relatedness rather than haphazard guessing.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : ,

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:29 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 12:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 78 (715422)
01-05-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 12:48 PM


It is not about a conspiracy theory it is about valid interpretation of evidence. Its about whether the logical leap is valid.
But your thesis depends on all scientists making the same mistakes in the same lineages ... it's either due to conspiracy or it is due to proper derivation of relationships from the evidence.
There are fossils like the Ida fossil declared with pomp as a an ancestor then the claim challenged or refuted.
By other scientists yes? This is part of science -- testing, replication, and peer review. That this occurs does not mean the process is wrong or prone to errors, it means that people are people. It also means that as we learn more we know more.
Homoplasy shows that similar features that would have otherwise indicated ancestry can coexist.
Convergent evolution in similar habitats -- like the flying squirrel (placental) and the honey glider (marsupial) shown in Message 26, analogous rather than homologous. Like flight in birds and insects.
Similar features can either be derived, ancestral or homoplastic (analogous)
See Building the tree - Understanding Evolution regarding shared derived traits. Shared derived traits are homologous by definition. See also Homologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution and Using parsimony - Understanding Evolution
quote:
Of course, this was just an example of the tree-building process. Phylogenetic trees are generally based on many more characters and often involve more lineages. For example, biologists reconstructing relationships between 499 lineages of seed plants began with more than 1400 molecular characters!
The more characteristics you can use in developing the phylogenies the more likely you are to have correct results and there gets to be a point fairly quickly where the arrangement becomes statistically unlikely if due to chance or random choices.
On the subject of DNA I don't know how many fossils contain DNA so that the fossil homology claims are backed up by DNA also there are similar DNA patterns in many species and so many species that you could easily create a tree based on coincidental similarities.
I'm not sure you understood the question. The question is that
  1. we have two independent ancestral phylogenic trees
  2. one is developed solely from morphology and shared derived traits as discussed by Berkeley's Evolution 101 series (links above), and
  3. one is developed solely from genetic evidence of shared genetic traits and non-coding inserts, and
  4. they match virtually 1 for 1 on their division of all life on earth into the various phylogenic distributions ... so
  5. why does this match occur if either is prone to errors and random choices
For example both morphology and genetics independently tell us that our closest relatives are chimpanzees and we are more distantly related to gorillas.
Both morphology and genetics independently tell us that flying squirrels and honey gliders are only related by their ancestral division of mammalia into placental and marsupial mammals, that the honey glider is more closely related to the kangaroo than the flying squirrel and the flying squirrel is more closely related to the kodiak bear than the honey glider.
If either tree were based on "coincidental similarities" then they ought to be different at many places. They aren't.
The consilience is easily explained by them both representing the same process of evolution over time.
It is not explained so easily by any other mechanism ... (unless perhaps you want to consider the evidence to be intentionally 'god-did-it' made to deceive ... and I don't think you do).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : ....

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 12:48 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 34 of 78 (715448)
01-05-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:59 PM


approximation of reality vs known truths
Do you agree with this claim on wikipedia?
"Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:"
Not Found
Curiously they do explain what the problems are and the scientific methods to resolve them as accurately as possible from the known information.
Of course I would agree. This is stating scientific tentativity, that nothing is proven in stone, scientific concepts, hypothesis and theories can be invalidated by contrary evidence. The accuracy would extend to knowing that there is no intermediates or other branches in the phylogeny as well as not knowing that the best explanation of all the evidence is the actual phylogeny. If we knew all that stuff it wouldn't be science it would be fact.
Accuracy refers to the ability to hit the bulls eye of the target, so if you don't know where that bulls eye is it is difficult to measure the accuracy.
Precision on the other hand refers to the ability to hit the same place over and over, and so what we see are fairly precise derivations of phylogenic relationships that hit the same places.
Science approximates reality by testing it and discarding notions that don't work, the end result is not a known fact but a tentative conclusion, one we can have high confidence in the more it is tested.
These phylogenies are tested by every new piece of information, and so far -- since Linnaeus -- all known life fits this overall pattern. This is not a surprise if evolution is true.
In this case there is no contrary evidence to date in testing the phylogenic trees and high consilience between two independent systems.
Perhaps you have an alternate explanation that also covers all the evidence? If so please present it, if not then accept that this is the best explanation to date and that you can expect further refinement as time and new information becomes available.
There is a limit to how much I could refute genetic claims but I would not surprised that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them. ...
So you don't know but you are willing to make up stuff? In science we require evidence to substantiate assertions.
And this still doesn't explain the consilience -- different errors in different systems would not be consilient. Perhaps you don't know what consilience means?
consilience:
quote:
In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.
The principle is based on the unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures the distance between the Great Pyramids of Giza by laser rangefinding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick - in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.
Bold for emphasis.
For example if I have three tree dendrochronologies (tree ring chronologies) that extend to 8000 BCE and we measure the amount of 14C in each tree ring in each chronology and find that there is the same amount of 14C in each ring of the same tree ring count (age) in each of the chronologies but see that the amount of 14C varies with age in each chronology, it would be an extraordinary coincidence that those identical 14C measurements for identical tree ring counts occurred for every ring count due to pure chance, random error, and misalignment of tree samples used when making each chronology -- would you not agree?
Consilience means taking two or more systems that have strong correlations -- such as morphology with evolutionary lineages and genetics with evolutionary lineagess -- and showing how they all point to the same result, thus consilience is stronger than any single set of evidence.
... Just like a car and a bus have similar wheels without a reproductive link. ...
Which is stunningly obvious unless you know of wheels that are capable of reproduction. Because they are products of manufacturing by wheel making companies I would be stunned if they weren't similar in basics (with some variations in size, materials, treads, etc etc etc).
But how does this apply in any way to biology? Planets orbit the sun and they are similar in general characteristics, so should I include them in a phylogenic tree of biological life?
... I think there is a limit to what kind of valid claims we can make about the past.
Curiously, opinion has been shown to be relatively unable to alter reality in any way shape or form.
Rather than "think there is a limit" why don't you show evidence of it -- at what point don't we know that life is descended from life?
Take for example the Jack The Ripper case. It happened relatively recently in history but we are unlikely to be able to prove the perpetrator despite quite a lot of preserved evidence. ...
Again I don't see how this applies to biology ... but we could draw a pretty good time sequence of events, locations where and when each murder took place, how similar the murders were, what differences (if any) occurred, who the victims were, etc etc etc ... and we can do this without knowing who the ripper was, yes? We can approximate the truth from the facts we know.
Historical biology necessarily works with incomplete information, but it is still able to draw strong conclusions from the information that is available. It is an approximation, but every new test -- and it is tested every year -- brings that approximation closer to reality.
... So I would not make large claims about things with no hope of really proving them conclusively.
So I guess we should chuck all of science and go back to chewing on roots and living in caves eh? Can you prove conclusively that you exist?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:59 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 78 (715545)
01-07-2014 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:07 AM


For instance if someone is assaulted in a local park the park becomes a crime scene and things like peoples activities and cigarette butts become part of the evidence. Without the crime everything becomes innocuous.
But everything that doesn't relate to the crime remains innocuous.
If you posit evolution you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't. ...
You sure have a funny idea of how science works.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
This has been observed in all breeding populations of all living organisms, so it is a fact that this happens to life as we know it.
(2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
This is also called the process of speciation, as this results in a non-arbitrary division into two diverging species. This is the process that forms branches in the tree of life.
This too has been observed happening, so it is a fact that this happens to life as we know it.
(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Once you develop an hypothesis the next step is to test it and specifically to see if you can falsify it, and a theory is a tested hypothesis.
.. you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't. ...
Curiously what scientists try to do is to falsify theories not make up support for them. In science anyone caught manipulating data in any way to bias the results is out of a career.
To date, after over 150 years of trying, no evidence has been found that falsifies the theory of evolution.
... And cases like eugenics are the worst examples of this. You start to interpret things through a paradigm and impose interpretations on things.
But eugenics is not a result of evolution, but of biased sociological thinking and using evolution as a justification.
Typical creationist pablum, AndrewPD.
There are varying degrees of falsifiability and plausibility of claims ...
You need to explain this further -- it seems muddled to me. Falsification is a yes\no proposition.
... but some claims are giving plausibility by dint of association with the paradigm (see evolutionary psychology)
Which again has nothing to do with the science of biological evolution. You need to learn what you are attacking so that you don't keep making mistakes. I suggest a thorough reading of evolution 101 before you proceed and then see if your arguments are mentioned there.
On the case of the consillience of morphological/homological and molecular trees I have noticed that the initial refutation of this is that similar morphology would be linked to similar biochemistry then this claims is apparently refuted by notions like common pseudogenes.
This article says:
The term ‘pseudogene’ was originally coined to describe a degenerated RNA- or protein-coding sequence that is incapable of being transcribed or translated into functional RNA or protein products. The key in this defnition is that pseudogenes are biologically nonfunctional. However, in practice, it is virtually impossible to experimentally establish nonfunctionality; the lack of any observable phenotypic effect upon the deletion of a putative pseudogene does not necessarily mean that the deletion has no phenotypic effect, because the effect may be too subtle to observe.
Scientific tentativity again. Also note that the emphasis is that you cannot prove a positive, which is why falsification is used to eliminate concepts that don't work.
If a function is found for a gene then THAT gene is not non-functional, but that would say nothing about the others.
So far you are just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks.
Are these issues presented to the lay person? I would prefer not to have to do a degree in every subject to get a decent sample of the issues involved.
A good high school education should suffice to give you a working knowledge, but if you didn't get that, then either you or your school are at fault. For remedial study you can read
evolution 101
and I strongly recommend it.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:07 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 78 (716475)
01-17-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:20 PM


Re: approximation of reality vs known truths
The link I quoted says
"Ultimately, THERE IS NO WAYto measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not.."
This is not a case of tentatively it is an acknowledgement of a real conceptual limit. I am talking about whether of homology or relation claim can be logically or validly proven.
I think you are clearly overstating the case for the evidence.
Not at all. There is NOT ONE THING that is proven in science ... ultimately there is no way to measure whether any theory is accurate or not.
Notice the difference between accuracy and precision:
Below are some definitions that I think may be useful in this discussion, as these terms have been used frequently and I want to be sure we mean the same thing when they are used:
ac•cu•ra•cy
[ak-yer-uh-see] noun, plural ac•cu•ra•cies.
  1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
  2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def 6).
  3. Mathematics . the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def 5).
In scientific use Accuracy means your ability to hit the bulls eye of a target. If we take a bow and shoot 200 arrows at a target, and all the arrow locations average out to a bull's eye, then the average result is very accurate, the closer they cluster to the bull's eye the greater the degree of accuracy, even though there may be significant error in any one shot and there may not even be a single bull's eye in the whole group. There could be a fairly large degree of scatter in the data and still have an accurate overall average result.
pre•ci•sion
[pri-sizh-uhn] noun
  1. the state or quality of being precise.
  2. accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.
  3. mechanical or scientific exactness: a lens ground with precision.
  4. punctiliousness; strictness: precision in one's business dealings.
  5. Mathematics . the degree to which the correctness of a quantity is expressed. Compare accuracy (def 3).
Again, in scientific usage Precision means the ability to replicate exactly the same results. With our bow and arrow example we now have 200 arrows all clustered very close together, but they may or may not be located near the bull's eye. There is very little scatter in this case, so it is highly precise, as the degree of scatter defines the precision.
As you can see these terms are not quite the same, and ideally we would like to have a system that is both accurate and precise.
To be accurate you have to know where the bullseye IS ... and if you knew that, then you wouldn't need the theory.
You can be highly precise and able to independently replicate results over and over and over ...
... but we don't know where the bullseye IS so we can only make approximations that get refined by determining where the bullseye isn't. It's like playing pin the tail on the donkey, every miss means the bullseye is somewhere else.
Take the case of a finger print. A clear fingerprint is likely to be linked to a person. A smeared fingerprint, whilst being a fingerprint is largely useless. There is not a simple continuum from a clear fingerprint to different degrees of clarity. Some evidence looses all its strength unless it is very clear.
Evidence is not theory, it is fact. Something we accept as true in order to base a hypothetical model to see if we can predict more\new evidence.
So a close genetic pattern in families benefits from lots of shared features. Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.
You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or ...
Again you are confusing evidence with theory.
Theory says that humans and bananas are distantly related, and predicts that if this is true that then there should be some DNA sequences that are shared.
There are, and thus the test has been run and the results validate-but-don't-prove the hypothesis. There is no reason to expect matching sections without some mechanism of relatedness, so if there were NO matching sections between humans and bananas then the hypothetical relationship would be falsified.
So I guess we should chuck all of science and go back to chewing on roots and living in caves eh? Can you prove conclusively that you exist?
This is a horribly dishonest straw person. Why does accepting a limitation in one area of study imply that you are wanting to invalidate the whole of science? I have not said anything remotely likely that. This implies you are trying to force evolution on science like an inseparable package for reasons I couldn't fathom.
First off, evolution IS science, a much investigated, tested and validated science. There has not been ONE thing that has invalidated evolution as an overall working model of life on earth, from the fossil record to the historic record to the record of life all around you. The model works, it gives results and it is massively tested.
Second you don't impose restrictions on reality (you don't limit what can be studied about gravity for instance), only on your understanding of it. Wallow in ignorance if you want but don't call it science and don't call it a reasonable approach to science or knowledge.
The ONLY limitation on science that is rational and intellectually honest is in knowing where there is insufficient objective empirical information to allow a logically consistent hypothesis to be formed to explain the evidence ... and even that doesn't rule out the possibility of that information becoming available at a later date.
So if you want to limit the knowledge about reality that is available to you , then you are free to do that for yourself, but you have no right to ask other people to be so encumbered. Passing laws or regulating science in any way will not stop reality from existing, nor will it stop science from being a valid methodology to investigate reality and to form concepts to explain it. All it could do is delay the inevitable.
... Why does accepting a limitation in one area of study imply that you are wanting to invalidate the whole of science? ...
Have you ever heard the statement that "as long as one person is not free, then none of us are free"? Think about it AndrewPD ... where do you draw the line? where do you stop? at a point that you are comfortable but someone else isn't? Science is not something that can be voted on.
This is a horribly dishonest straw person. ...
No it isn't -- it is taking your precept to its logical limit.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 78 (716479)
01-17-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:35 PM


Confusion and misinformation.
DNA and inheritance via Miescher and Mendel respectively were discovered independently of evolution.
But not independent of biology. Darwin, Miescher and Mendel were contemporaries working on different aspects of biology, and it's a shame that there wasn't communication between them because that might have helped Darwin understand how traits are inherited better.
But Mendel did not have a model for mutation, and in fact had to deal with a small amount of mutation that meant his hereditary tables did not add up to precise mathematical categories.
Miescher classified molecules as (now) nucleid acids, and posited that they were involved in heredity, but again there was no model for mutations.
The picture is not complete until mutations are demonstrated to be the mechanism for introducing new variation into hereditary traits. So yes, technically this is "independent" of evolution, because both mutation and selection are involved.
Curiously, independent discovery in science is something that occurs frequently, because many people are involved in the search for knowledge, not just some maverick or two.
Alfred Russel Wallace is considered by many to be a co-discoverer of evolution and is also considered the "father of biogeography".
The claims in natural selection have been abused by the Social Darwinist eugenicists. The Nazis, Lysenko and others. A scientific theory can be abused and unjustified far reaching conclusions drawn from it.
For example the Nazis "Alles Leben is Kampf" (All life is struggle) and Das erbe
The short movie Das Erbe (1935), which leads over from the animals' struggle for survival and natural selection to a plea for forced sterilization of the mentally ill, marks exactly the point where Social Darwinist biologism turns into Fascist racial policy providing the reasoning for the necessity of euthanasia.
Das Erbe - Wikipedia
And the Nobel Peace Prize was established by the inventor of TNT to reward peaceful use of knowledge due to his dismay at the use for war.
That knowledge can be misused for personal gain or bias is nothing new. That doesn't mean that the knowledge is intrinsically bad, just the people making that misuse argument.
Explanations of evolution are ideologically and conceptually loaded. ...
Nope. What you are seeing is your ideology and conceptual framework getting in the way of understanding the science. Please see [mid-715545] again for information to help you better understand what evolution is.
You would also be well advised to discard anything you "learned" about evolution from creationist sites as it is more likely to be misinformed misinformation than fact and often full of falsehoods.
... A trip to the moon is not. And just because science can do something such as create a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it should unless you don't want science to abide by an ethical standards.
A trip to the moon can be a nefarious ideologically conceived plot to conquer the world if it is to set up a missile base. All knowledge can be misused, but that doesn't mean it should not be pursued, it just means it shouldn't be misused.
One of the best ways to prevent misuse is to make sure people have a solid understanding of the science.
The claims in natural selection have been abused by ... Lysenko ...
Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics ...
This is a falsified hypothesis, discarded by science.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:35 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:43 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 78 (717223)
01-25-2014 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 1:43 PM


Confusion, misinformation and misuse
The abuse of TNT was not an abuse of a theory it was an abuse of a disposition of TNT.
It was a misuse of knowledge. It doesn't have to be a theory to be misused. It stems from misrepresenting evolution as "survival of the fittest" (so therefore the "fittest" are superior ... then convince yourself that you are superior). Evolution is survival of those able to survive, and that determines "fitness".
The abuse of evolution has been the use/abuse of theoretical assumptions such as a hierarchy of species and fitness. It allowed people to assume a humans or ethnicity group was on a different level of a hierarchy and people could be deleterious and that humans could be extinguished to improve the process of selection.
So? The fact remains that this was incorrect. There is no ladder of evolutionary development, as all living organisms are the result of equal evolution. The "tree of life" is more like a bush, and all the limbs are the same length.
The Belgian Ethnologists used this assumption when handing out ID cards and identifying Rwanda as either Hutu or Tutsi. They gave people with paler skin and more European features higher status. They were using homology here and what previously a serious scientific theory phrenology.
It is the theory that allows for the propagation of these ideologies that directly follow its logic.
No, it is ideology that misuses knowledge, ideology that makes car bombs with TNT. The idea of some group of people being superior to others did not arise after Darwin, but has a long human history.
This is History. Evolution theory was used to justify atrocities ...
And here you have it in the correct light. The people doing the atrocities are no different than groups using different knowledge to justify atrocities, whether genocide or terrorism.
... it is not a case of the assumptions in the theory simply being benign truths.
All knowledge is benign, it is the use that is the problem. Nuclear information can be used to make bombs or generators. Should we not study nuclear physics because a terrorist country dropped an atomic bomb on civilians?
This is history, this isn't science.
Edited by RAZD, : st

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:43 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 12:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 78 (717225)
01-25-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 2:56 PM


What assertion based on the potential age of the hidden rock is at play?
The observation that new rock can cover old rock but old rock cannot magically rise up to cover new rock without some force that overturns the rocks.
It's called the law of superposition:
quote:
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.
The law was formulated in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.
If a volcanic ash deposit covers a sedimentary deposit which is more logical -- that the ash is newer than the sediment or that it is older than the sediment?
The "geological column" was developed by relative dating of rock layers long before radiometric and other means were developed to provide absolute dating of many types of rocks (not all).
A good source for information on radiometric dating is Radiometric Dating.
I am not sure what work the age claim is doing?
Some layers are observed to have oil/etc in them, other layers are observed to never have oil/etc in them. These layers are observed to have certain relative ages in the geological column. Drilling to those layers is observed to have a high positive result in finding the oil/etc. wanted.
Curiously absolute dating is not necessary to accomplish this.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:56 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 78 (717414)
01-27-2014 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 1:58 PM


Well that's not profound or rocket science is it?
Nope. But it still took a while to catch on ... even if Leonardo da Vinci may have understood this ...
I would still value an actual article from the mining community.
This is probably older than the internet.
What I see here as using induction to assess what might be in a rock layer not a strong assertion about the date of the rock.
Not needed to build a model of relative ages of rocks in layers as they overlap around the world. This was essentially done in the 1800's and early 1900's before the advent of radiometric and other absolute age measuring systems. These systems have not only validated the layering and relative ages but provided more accurate age determinations.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:58 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 78 (717415)
01-27-2014 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 12:23 AM


Re: Confusion, misinformation and misuse
The point with the Rwandan case is that they abused the concept of homology and morphology in creating false classifications.
So once again misuse occurs, not because of the information but because of the ideology\beliefs of the misusers.
There are implications behind making homology and hierarchical claims.
Correct, and when the knowledge and methodology is correctly used then the implications reflect reality. When those homology and hierarchal claims are tested by DNA analysis and validated then we have an increase in knowledge built on the shoulders of previous knowledge. When two different systems are consilient in their results, the evidence is strong that these results represent reality even if each system on its own is weak.
Someone describing how the heart works does not carry those ramifications. ...
Except for those who think the heart is where emotions lie?
... And notable Atheists like Dawkins have actively used evolution to make socio-political anti religious points. ...
All people are free to express their opinions. Personally I find Dawkins treading outside his field of expertise to be just as un/informed as any other person expressing their opinion. And as I have said before, opinion\belief has shown a very poor track record in affecting reality in any way. Thus opinion\belief needs to be based on knowledge of reality as much as possible to be as valid as possible. Thus science informs philosophy rather than the other way around.
... The people in the field are the ones who have tried to enforce the alleged ramifications.
If the ramifications of knowledge of reality affects your opinions\beliefs in a perceived negative manner, then the responsibility is yours for having those opinions\beliefs.
I don't think you can claim humans evolved and not expect to have deep consequences to how we view ourselves and society.
Hopefully it would result in a more reality based view of ourselves and society than one based on fantasy, imagination, hatred and ignorance.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 12:23 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024