|
MehGerbil wrote: Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet?
Yeah, sure. Just send me your bank details and I'll transfer the money. 
The main difference is that you are a concious actor; the initial results could be a deception designed to take my money. Evolution is a natural process, with no conciousness behind it; it's not going to suddenly decide to change the rules part way through.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get tangled up in the analogy.
There are many physical processes that work the same way.
Example #1:
Day 1: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it.
Day 2: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it.
Day 3: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it.
Day 4: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and it doesn't dissolve anymore because of saturation.
Now a fruit fly might live to be 2 days old and if he were a good scientist he'd claim that two table spoons may be dissolved in a cup of water over a two day period. He'd be correct. Other fruit flies could test his claim, they could observe it repeatedly.
If he were a frothing at the mouth evolutionist bot he'd claim that you could dissolve table spoons of salt into a single glass of water every day for 16 billion years. He'd pick on the other fruit flies for not believing that this process could go on the same way forever. He'd be wrong.
Example #2:
When it came to sending a man to the moon we had the best scientists in the world working on the problem. They did lots of maths, lots of physics, and lots of hard thinking but they didn't send a man to the moon until they did what?
The didn't send a man to the moon until a monkey went up first.
The reason they didn't send a man up first because despite the best minds in the world working on it they were unwilling to risk a human life until all the theory had been observed - repeatedly.
Because when it comes right on down to it there is no replacement for actually observing something.
Conclusion
If you've got some observable, repeatable, falsifiable stuff you'd like to sell me as science I'm buying; however, I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, cannot be repeated, and is not falsifiable - I mean he can talk about it, but when he calls it 'science' I just laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, ...
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
MehGerbil wrote: ... cannot be repeated, ...
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
MehGerbil wrote: ... is not falsifiable
A common misconception.
There are numerous ways in which evolutionary theory can be tested and, if found wanting, would have to be rejected. Here are just a few:
- Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
- Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
- Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
Evolution is considered falsifiable because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. Several kinds of evidence could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating, or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously. Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed and has continued to confirm his central concepts.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
We might not be able to 'see' the bonds but we can see the result in a repeatable, observable, and falsifiable manner. The salient point (giggle) is that we can observe it in real time.
Richard Deeming wrote: Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
True, but then if we had a time machine I could take you back to ancient Palestine and we could witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ together. I'd say both of our claims there are equivalent since neither will ever happen.
As for the list of quotes you Googled, they are all easily answered; however, I don't care to get into a Google quote war. (For example, the first quote by Darwin would be countered by the development of punctuated equilibrium. See: Do it quick.[^]
Instead of a quote war I'd like to cut to the chase and point out that you're no longer arguing based upon something you actually understand. You are now appealing to your priests to answer for you even though you have a paper thin understanding of the claims they are making. None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it.
In short, there is next to no difference between your approach to the truth and that of a 5 year old sitting in Sunday School. Both the 5 year old and yourself are pointing to the truth givers (Sunday School Teacher, Richard Dawkins) and having that authority figure answer for you.
It ain't a good way to live.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it.
Given the vast caucus of human knowledge, the days when one person could fully understand everything are long gone. Since we can't personally know, understand, and test every scientific theory, we have to take someone's word for it.
The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else!
The child sitting in Sunday School is taking the word of a teacher, who is taking the word of a priest, who was taking the word of their priest, etc., going back thousands of years. The "evidence" to support their claims is never available for public scrutiny, and cannot be subjected to scientific examination. They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous.
There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
In 1950 the consensus among the scientists of the world was that homosexuality was a mental illness.
In fact, the American Psychiatric Association didn't declassify it as a mental illness until 1973.
So in 1950 if you were to make the claim that homosexuality was natural I could use your own words in response:
Richard Deeming wrote: The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else!
If that quote doesn't work for the status of homosexuality in 1950 than it doesn't hold for evolutionary theory in 2013 either. This can be cited for a dozen 'facts' which the scientific community agreed upon which later turned out to be false.
I've illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is true.
Richard Deeming wrote: They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous.
You mean, like the Sunday School teacher might log onto a technology forum and talk about how stupid other people are with what they believe? Go question evolution and see what you get called.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: In fact, the American Psychiatric Association didn't declassify it as a mental illness until 1973.
<SARCASM>
Wait, you mean they changed their views based on the evidence? That doesn't sound very sensible, does it? They should have just said, "our predecessors believed this to be the case, so we believe it as well".
</SARCASM>
MehGerbil wrote: I've illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is true.
You've also illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus, unlike religious dogma, changes to reflect any new evidence.
Whilst there have been minor changes to the theory of evolution as new evidence has come to light, the central concept has not changed. That doesn't guarantee that's it's definitely "The Truth", but it's a good sign that the theory is robust. Unless and until significant new evidence is presented, evolution is the best tool we have to describe the variety of life on our planet.
And even if a new theory does emerge, it doesn't necessarily make the current theory worthless. Newton's theory of gravitation is still the best approach for any non-relativistic calculations, despite the fact that it has been superseded by general relativity.
MehGerbil wrote: You mean, like the Sunday School teacher might log onto a technology forum and talk about how stupid other people are with what they believe?
No, I mean like the teacher might start questioning whether every word in the bible has to be taken literally; whether transubstantiation is a real thing; whether the physical resurrection of their messiah is a core pre-requisite of their faith. Religions don't have a good track-record for dealing with heretics and apostates.
Not that science is perfect in that regard. There have certainly been scientists who have been shunned for their theories, only to be proven right at a later date. But that's more to do with the politics of the scientific community. The scientific method is built around the idea of challenging the consensus; it's just that individuals often find it hard to embrace that idea.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, this would be an example of why I don't typically participate in these discussions.
People get really irrational when defending their mythologies.
The point about the American Psychiatric Association and their view on homosexuality was to illustrate that your logical fallacy (appeal to authority, appeal to masses) was demonstrably wrong. Instead of admitting the point you simply adopted the point (scientists may be wrong) and are now trumpeting it as a strength of science.
Unfortunately for you, I can still beat you there.
You see, you admit that the American Psychiatric Association can change their views and you admit in the same post that sometimes the truth is buried because that's more to do with the politics of the scientific community.
So when the APA held that homosexuality was a mental illness was it due to evidence or politics?
So when the APA changed their view on the topic was it due to evidence or politics?
The truth is, you don't actually know for sure either way.
You think they've got evidence that informs their ruling because that is what they tell you.
Your position on the APA and homosexuality is identical to a little boy believing his Sunday School teacher.
Incidentally, you may have the last word as I tire of the circles. 
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so in 1950, the scientific community largely believed that homosexuality was an illness. In the same year, the religious community largely believed that homosexuality was a sin.
In 2013, the scientific community no longer believe that homosexuality is an illness. What do the religious community believe?
The change of opinion was based on evidence; research consistently failed to provide any scientific evidence that homosexuality was an illness.
The fact that scientists may be wrong is not a strength of science. The fact that they are willing to change their minds when presented with new evidence is.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: You've also illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus, unlike religious
dogma, changes to reflect any new evidence.
Except of course religions do in fact change. Sometimes very quickly and radically.
Richard Deeming wrote: But that's more to do with the politics of the scientific community
And the politics of religion. Politics is a people problem not an organization problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: we have to take someone's word for it.
Quote: a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories.
The irony here is you can say the exact same thing, except for the bolded part, about religion. And that's that, since we can't talk religion here. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: The irony here is you can say the exact same thing, except for the bolded part, about religion.
Nope. I have never claimed blah blah blah...
Edit: Sorry, misread that part as "you say" instead of "you can say". 
I would disagree with that claim. Faith is not based on a foundation of evidence; you cannot show someone evidence to support your faith and allow them to examine it. And I don't have a problem with that, so long as we can agree that faith is not science, and vice-versa.
Also, the part you have highlighted is extremely important. Scientists are actively trying to disprove their own theories; religionists actively discourage people from questioning their beliefs. Given the choice, I will take the word of someone whose ideas have been rigorously tested over that of someone whose ideas cannot withstand scrutiny.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
modified 14-Nov-13 7:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Faith is not based on a foundation of evidence
To answer this I will have to break the rules and explain how religion benefits us.
One of the definitions[^] of evidence is actually, "ground for belief" so to be technical there is plenty of evidence (grounds for belief) that a creator exists.
Quote: you cannot show someone evidence to support your faith and allow them to examine it.
This is something I have discussed many, many times on this site (in the Soapbox granted) but this statement is not actually true. It is a very common belief among those who don't believe in a creator. However, in religion someone says, "If you want to know if God exists, here are the steps...", and that IS evidence that anyone in the world can examine for themselves. Now you might argue that not everyone will come to the same conclusion, which is true, and which also happens in science even. However, the evidence is there, has been there for thousands of years, and can be examined by anyone. It is repeatable and observable.
I actually find it quite ironic how similar religion and science really are. Of course, only people like myself who believe in both religion and science seem to see this connection but it is funny to see far wing religionists argue against far wing scientists because I can see that they both have so much in common.
Quote: Scientists are actively trying to disprove their own theories;
I have to disagree with that. No one is actively trying to disprove evolution, at least never that I have heard of. What they are doing is trying to find evidence to support that theory and you know very well that you can always find what you look for.
Quote: that of someone whose ideas cannot withstand scrutiny.
I assume you mean religion. Of course you know you can't prove religion wrong, at least not the part about there being a creator which is the topic of this thread. And I would argue that since religion has been around since the beginning it has withstand much more than just scrutiny.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: One of the definitions[^] of evidence is actually, "ground for belief"
Sorry, I should have specified that I meant scientific evidence[^].
RyanDev wrote: No one is actively trying to disprove evolution
Not true. Based on the highly scientific method  of "typing it into Google", millions of people are actively trying to disprove evolution.
But perhaps you meant to say that scientists are not actively trying to disprove evolution? The fact that science has already disproved several of Darwin's ideas would seem to disprove that suggestion.
Science doesn't just make a guess, cherry-pick evidence to support it, and then claim it to be the truth. [*] There is a rigorous process in place to ensure that all the evidence is taken into account. Great scientists aren't recognized for accepting the status-quo; they're recognized for challenging it and coming up with new theories which better fit the available evidence.
[*] Individual scientists might try this, especially if offered large sums of money, but the scientific community as a whole will generally spot the flaws and refute the biased theory pretty quickly.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Sorry, I should have specified that I meant scientific evidence[^].
Well, I think we could go at this all day. From your link, it says evidence which is empirical and empirical means from observation or experience so what I said still stands. I get it, we disagree.
Quote: millions of people are actively trying to disprove evolution.
Stop it!!!  There is no way there are millions of people working on this.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: If he were a frothing at the mouth evolutionist bot he'd claim that you could dissolve table spoons of salt into a single glass of water every day for 16 billion years. He'd pick on the other fruit flies for not believing that this process could go on the same way forever. He'd be wrong.
Very probably he is wrong.
But to be fair the fruit flies are not even trying to explain what they think is happening. Nor are they trying to understand why he is frothing at the mouth. Instead they do nothing but roll their eyes and say he is "wrong". Which of course does nothing to demonstrate the intelligence of the fruit fly. Probably only demonstrates that they can regurgitate what they were taught and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see where anyone said evolution is wrong.
I don't think anyone can say that - I mean, they can believe it is wrong but it will never be proven wrong.
The theory is so elastic, so bendable that you can insert a billion years into the timeline at any point and the glob just rolls on completely unmarred. You can have dinosaurs cold blooded or warm blooded based on the availability of a grant or positive press - it does no damage to the theory because it is a vapor, apparently there, but of no real substance.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: I don't see where anyone said evolution is wrong.
Then you probably haven't been paying enough attention to reports about the debate in common culture.
MehGerbil wrote: but of no real substance.
That isn't true. There is a great body of consistent conjecture and one cannot just change an arbitrary major part of that without seriously messing up the flow of that. Which to your point doesn't mean it isn't a theory, but it doesn't relegate it to same domain as that of some theory like healing with magnetism either.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
Sure. Why not?
We also have DNA in common with tomatoes. So? Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything. That is one theory. Another "theory" is that we were created by the same creator. Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support. So, why does science favor one over the other?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything.
Go back far enough, and we did.
RyanDev wrote: Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support.
Really? Where's the scientific evidence to support a creator?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Go back far enough, and we did.
OK. But again, it's just a theory. There is also a theory that we were all created by the same creator which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that aliens baked us in an oven which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that we are all software programs which is why our DNA is similar.
The point is there are lots of theories that are supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
True. My point is there is not enough evidence to rule out all other theories leaving evolution as the lone standing theory. Therefore, it remains just a theory.
In an alternate universe, perhaps the common "rationality" there has science believing we were all baked by aliens. Just as a baker makes donuts, cakes, pies, etc, a large variety of items but with commonalities, perhaps their logic says that is the theory that makes most sense.
Evolution makes the most sense to the most number of scientists and that is the only reason it is "accepted" as being true, even though it can't be proven. Then again Obama was voted in by the majority and look how well that went. Great, now you really got me violating Lounge rules and I was behaving so well.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent:
All science is based on assumptions. Every single piece.
If I start with the assumption that there is no supernatural explanation then Evolutionary Theory pretty much follows.
If I start with the assumption that there is a God (Judeo-Christian in this case) and that the world was created 6000 years ago I can explain every single piece of evidence that you can produce now and in the future and still remain consistent with the assumption. I wouldn't be refuting it merely explaining how it exists with respect to the assumption.
The only difference in the above is the assumption.
I can do the same with Noah's Ark for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: The only difference in the above is the assumption.
And it's a pretty big assumption.
The idea that a supernatural entity created the world 6000 years ago, and deliberately planted evidence to suggest that it was far older just to test its own creations, is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
