Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Just a quick note.

This is a thread about evolution, a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it, so let's keep our own emotions in check.

:)

---

that's called begging the question.

purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

that's called begging the question.

purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?

---

Or, it was just a reminder to the other posters to keep the discussion civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

that's called begging the question.

purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?

---

No.

This:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Or, it was just a reminder to the other posters to keep the discussion civil.

---

...and....

...if there are questions of the science, we can answer them rationally and emotionlessly as the answers are there.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.

Regards,

Istvan

---

I thank Billl for his comments Re your above response to me. I'm sorry that you missed the point I made about the need of science to accept certain basic terms "on faith." Billl apparently got my point, and I'm sure others did as well. Calling my notion puerile doesn't relly help your argument.

You seem to think that I am anti-science. That's not the case. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology and medicine. I consider myself to be a scientist. I'm not a "bench researcher," but I've been working for over 20 years as a physician, and have even published peer-reviewed clinical research in my areas of specialization.

As a scientist, I understand that there are limits to what we can "prove" by rational argument. Anyone who has studied mathematics knows, for example, that we must begin our logical arguments with unproven (and unprovable) "postulates." These are usually very basic ideas, such as "number" (0, 1, 2, 3, etc), physical quantities ("mass," "space," "time"), operations (+/x), associational rules (commutivity/distributitivity), and various sorts of "relationship identities" (greater than, less than, equal, not equal), time-related identities (before, during, and after), and finally, the idea of causation, i.e. that "A causes B," or at least that "A is associated with B." These postulates are things that we agree to accept "on faith." We accept them on faith because we must, because we have to begin somewhere. Why stop at these fundamental "unprovable" postulates? We stop there because we our ability to "think" can go no further. That's the way our minds work.

Nick,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

As a scientist, I understand that there are limits to what we can "prove" by rational argument.

---

If you actually were a scientist, you wouldn't make such a big deal out of our inability to prove something. Nothing is truly ever proven in scientific endeavor. We merely formulate theories to explain observations: the strength of a theory depends on how much subsequent testing fails to disconfirm the theory.

And I stick by my claim that the type of faith involved in the assumptions of scientific inquiry is completely different from the type of faith involved in religious belief. It isn't a matter of degree, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Your argument seems to rest on the fact that the word faith can be used to describe both, and that's a woefully inadequate basis on which to equate them.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).

---

Historically, it's been just the opposite. Limiting the amount of variables to those which can be empirically verified is what makes up methodological naturalism, the very basis of contemporary scientific inquiry. Pasteur didn't create a revolution in biology by letting his imagination run free and theorizing about magic beings or mystery forces. He set up experiments to test his theory that there is a material cause for fermentation and putrefaction.

By all means, if you'd like to list the amount of scientific advances that have been made through postulating religious and magical concepts as the basis for natural phenomena, I eagerly await your response.

Regards,

Istvan

I'm reading this fascinating book right now: The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit by Melvin Konner. I haven't read much of it yet, which is to say I've only gotten as far as chapter 2--Adaptation. I'll come back with more on the subject; in the meantime, I highly recommend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Nick,


If you actually were a scientist, you wouldn't make such a big deal out of our inability to prove something. Nothing is truly ever proven in scientific endeavor. We merely formulate theories to explain observations: the strength of a theory depends on how much subsequent testing fails to disconfirm the theory.

fails to disconfirm is an interesting double negative way of saying "confirms."

And I stick by my claim that the type of faith involved in the assumptions of scientific inquiry is completely different from the type of faith involved in religious belief. It isn't a matter of degree, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Your argument seems to rest on the fact that the word faith can be used to describe both, and that's a woefully inadequate basis on which to equate them.

The difference between "faith" in science and in religion is both a matter of degree and in the different attitudes towards that which is taken on faith, (i.e. the assumptions or postulates, as I said in my original post on the subject. Science limits the assumptions to very basic concepts that reveal the limits of our ability to reason. We have to stop (or more accurately begin)somewhere, mainly to avoid "circular reasoning" in our proofs. Furthermore, as I originally posted, science allows for experiment to check the validity of the application of our ideas to the operation of the world as we perceive it. Religious faith does not permit this sort of experimental testing of religious ideas, and it responds quite differently to experience that contradicts the religious articles of faith. Scientists may be reluctant to accept new evidence that contradicts a prevailing theory, but eventually they will be forced to accept the evidence and change their theory. Sientists who present the new evidence and come up with new theories may face a lot of resistance. But religious folk who come up with ideas that run counter to prevailing religious beliefs are usually branded as heretics (and literally branded or killed by other means).

As regards your comment that nothing is truly provable in scientific endeavor, that is true insofar as our understanding of the world is based on our ability to reason and to perceive the world. Our reason is limited by our mental ability, which is a function of our brains, which have evolved by natural selection (to keep us on topic here). Our ability to perceive is also evolving, based on technological and scientific evolution. So it is reasonable to assume that our most current ideas about the world are subject to continuous testing and potential need for revision.

I should have highlighted the difference beween scientific and mathematical "proof." Even in mathematics there are limits to what can be proven as "true." Godel "proved" that in every mathematical system based on postulates there are higher order statements that may be true but whose truth can never be proven using the system's postulates. This could also apply to science based on postulates (the articles of faith I referred to in science).

Regards,

Istvan

---

Regards,

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Historically, it's been just the opposite. Limiting the amount of variables to those which can be empirically verified is what makes up methodological naturalism, the very basis of contemporary scientific inquiry. Pasteur didn't create a revolution in biology by letting his imagination run free and theorizing about magic beings or mystery forces. He set up experiments to test his theory that there is a material cause for fermentation and putrefaction.

By all means, if you'd like to list the amount of scientific advances that have been made through postulating religious and magical concepts as the basis for natural phenomena, I eagerly await your response.

Regards,

Istvan

---

:lol: I wasn't talking about religion, you goof. Try to keep up: you said that when it comes to species diversity, feelings count for nothing. With that in mind, re-read my post and try again.

On second thought, don't. Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I've schooled enough pseudo-scientist bullies in my short lifetime, and like The Atheist said, this thread is about evolution. I've already made my thoughts on that subject clear.

Sorry, but my last response to Babba was incorrectly formatted. I should have used multiquote. My response was embedded in the large passage that appears as a quotation field.

Also, I regret that the discussion about faith and reason has strayed from the main topic of this thread, which is evolution. Let's get back on subject.:redface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

:lol: I wasn't talking about religion, you goof. Try to keep up: you said that when it comes to species diversity, feelings count for nothing. With that in mind, re-read my post and try again.

---

Since you either didn't read my response to you here or are trying to ignore it, maybe it's you who needs to keep up. Thanks again for the personal insult.

Quote:

---

On second thought, don't. Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I've schooled enough pseudo-scientist bullies in my short lifetime, and like The Atheist said, this thread is about evolution. I've already made my thoughts on that subject clear.

---

Yes, obviously you've "schooled" plenty of people with the careful attention you pay to the details of a debate. This is why you continue to misrepresent my position on how relevant feelings are to the subject of assessing the validity of a scientific construct such as the evolution of species by natural selection.

Whether this misrepresentation is deliberate or not, it seems you're not inclined to engage with what people are actually saying. Please read a book like Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher or Tower of Babel: Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock if you want to develop a working knowledge of what science and species evolution truly are and aren't.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

The difference between "faith" in science and in religion is both a matter of degree and in the different attitudes towards that which is taken on faith,

---

Saying it again and again doesn't make it true, Nick. Scientific endeavor doesn't involve faith, it employs a completely different approach to knowledge (and to the unknown) than religious belief.

Empirical evidential inquiry works in an inductive, cumulative fashion to give us a certain statistical reliability to the theories whose validity we affirm. Nothing is ever proved, and we're never certain. A person with this perspective realizes that additional information can change or even refute what he currently believes.

Religious belief is merely certainty for free. It makes people affirm the validity of claims that are often times nonsensical, and to do so enough times so that the believer finally stops doubting it. A person with this perspective only recognizes new information that seems to confirm what he already believes, and ignores anything that may change or refute it.

Regards,

Istvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

...if there are questions of the science, we can answer them rationally and emotionlessly as the answers are there.

;)

---

Keeping civil - fine. I agree with you. But the above isn't quite what you originally said. You said evolution has hard evidence behind it.

(I want to post more, but I'm about to jump into finals at college. I'll post more over break...:lol: I just don't know when I've had enough, do I?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

Keeping civil - fine. I agree with you. But the above isn't quite what you originally said. You said evolution has hard evidence behind it.

---

It does. The post you quoted was just about keeping an interesting and informative thread on track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

(I want to post more, but I'm about to jump into finals at college. I'll post more over break...:lol: I just don't know when I've had enough, do I?)

---

Good luck!

:D

I have not read the twelve pages of post before this but I have a pretty good idea of how the discussion went because I have been there before. I [B]used to be a creationist. First of all evolution happens...I cannot deny this fact. It is just as clear to me as pouring vinegar on baking soda. I have done a lot of study (informal as it is) on this subject.

If you throw your bias away and study a little biology you will realize that life is simply chemistry. The argument that life formed then...therefore it should be forming now is a fallacy. The conditions on earth are much different now than they were then. Therefore life will not come into existence now. Even if anything evolved toward life were formed it would be eaten by the life the is already here.

You would also know that bacteria (in rare cases) even exchange genetic material. Bacteria have sex!

Life does not evolve from one form to another as in white to gray to black. It can evolve from white to black. It does not move in a straight line from simple to more complex in all cases. It is selected because it "fits" in its environment. Being more complex or less complex is not considered. Evolution does not think.

If you are a creationist...just open your eyes...what about Australia? How did the animals move all over the world and "adapt" so quickly? How did they get from place to place?

So here's a question: let's say you take some metallic ore (iron, copper, zinc, etc.) and pile it up in some dusty corner of the universe and let it sit about a gazillion years: would it eventually evolve into a Swiss watch?

Answer: no.

Why? Two reasons: (1) the Laws of Thermodynamics wherin the energy of a body tends towards less and never more; wherein there is no 100% energy-efficient chemical reaction; wherein you can't evolve up without energy input; wherein everything devolves down, energy of a body is 'lost' in chemical exchange (i.e., transformed into other matter) and (2) without information input (i.e., design) nothing can be built up.

This is the fallacy devised originally (I think) by Lecomte du Nouy . And it rests in the assumption that pure chance is the guiding factor and that atoms can fit together in any fashion at all. We don't depend on chance alone, but on chance guided by the laws of nature.

In the 1920s a biologist named Haldane suggested that since coal was of plant origin, and plants obtain their carbon dioxide from the air, there must have been much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before life evolved on earth.

Furthermore, the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by the same reactions that absorb the carbon dioxide and places it in the plant tissue.

In the primordial atmosphere there would be no oxygen in the air and no ozone either. It follows then, that the ultraviolet radiation from the sun (much stronger than today because of lack of ozone) would serve to combine molecules of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water into more and more complex compounds that would, finally, develop the attributes of life.

The energy is supplied by the sun. And chemical reactions happen all the time.

Your thermodynamics argument is moot... and nonsensical.