I'm bored at work today, so what the heck. Here's what I think the problem is. You don't seem to understand that science is not so much a body of knowledge or a set of beliefs, but a process. It is used to help us understand observed natural phenomena [is that the correct plural of phenomenon?]. Any scientific theory will change over time. In fact, that's what they're supposed to do. That's why scientists use the word "theory" even for things they're quite certain about, such as gravity. Gravity is a useful way to explain the observed phenomenon of things falling. If, suddenly, things should stop falling 100% of the time, science will have to go back to the theory of gravity and rethink it. Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are thousands of fossils. But don't forget that it requires a pretty complex set of circumstances to make a fossil. Thus they're relatively rare. woah boy. Did you actually show up to those 11th and 12th grade science classes? Look, you can choose to disbelieve the theory of gravity. Personally, I hold that there is a population of invisible monkeys all over the earth, who are constantly grabbing things and pulling them down. However, it is not a hypothesis supported by scientific observation and testing. It is a belief suppported only by my strong feeling that it's true. The same holds for evolution. You can choose to disbelieve it, but don't pretend you're doing so for scientific reasons. The theory - or more correctly, theories - of evolution helpfully explain everything we've observed about life on earth. They fit in with every other theory which science currently holds to be true. Believing in evolution in no way precludes believing in God. Evolution describes the history of life on earth, but like all scientific theories it does not approach the question of "why?" And that is not a shortcoming of science. It's simply not science's job.
What brand of watch does God wear? You're threatened by science because a God waiting around for humans to show up doesn't make any sense, but everything else does? You realize that you're not just going up against evolution, but against nearly every branch of science. There is no doubt that the universe is very old (in the billions of years, not thousands as "creationists" claim).
We've got to get over this. It is not a scientific issue. It's overwhelmingly likely that all organisms that have come into being on planet earth evolved from a single-celled microorganism that lived about 3.8 billion years ago. Three points to keep in mind: 1. Mitosis (cell-division) has occurred every second of every day on planet earth for about 3.8 billion years. Cells divide, on average, many times per year. Mitosis sometimes results in daughter cells that have a different genome than that of their parent cells. It also sometimes results in daughter cells that have more nucleotides than do their parent cells. Here is a link to an illustration of the DNA molecule: http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/GG/structure.html 2. Including plants, sexual reproduction has occurred every second of every day on planet earth for perhaps about 1.5 billion years. On average, organisms sexually reproduce many times per year. Sexual reproduction always results in an offspring that has a genome that is different than that of either of its parents. It sometimes results in offspring that have more nucleotides in their DNA than do their parents. (If you have time, read about meiosis, Mendelian genetics and genetic recombination. It is really interesting.) 3. Other than the kinds of events that I have mentioned, no kind of event is known to have proximately caused the existence of any genetic sequence or of any organism. For example, no group of reliable people has witnessed anything remotely similar to dust instantaneously being transformed into an elephant. For whatever it's worth, about four hundred scientists namend "Steve" (including Stephen Hawking) signed that they agree with the following statement: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate scientific debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of the public schools." Here is a link to a press release on "Project Steve":http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4023_the_press_release_2_16_2003.asp Here is a link to the scientists named Steve who signed the statement: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp Evolution is not a threat to your religious beliefs unless you hold a highly literal interpretation of Genesis. In talking to theologians, such an interpretation is theologically problematic. Also, the Pope apparently accept evolution and has said that it is not a threat to the core theological principles of Christianity. We still have things to learn about evolution. It is not completely understood why, when cells divide, the daughter-cell sometimes has a different genome than that of its parent cell. We use the word "mutation," but that just adds one more word to the causal explanation. Essentially, the notion of an "uncaused event" makes no sense, and we are trying to isolate causes of novel genomes. But it's hard. There are so many variables. It's not like physics. But, really, the mechanisms of non-biological events are also very hard to pin down. We don't deeply understand why when I release stones from my hand, they fall to the ground. We know it has something to do with difference in mass between earth and stones. But our explanation doesn't get much better than that. But, as a country, let's put this evolution issue aside. Within the scientific community, it is as decided as an issue can be. And, for a number of reasons, it would be better if religions move beyond fundamentalism.
Well put. I would just like to add that I attended a parochial elementary school. The first two hours of the day, every day, consisted of Hebrew and Judaic studies. Then the rest of the day was English, Social Studies, Math, Science, etc. etc. They taught us about dinosaurs and evolution (as much as elementary schoolers could be expected to understand), even as they had us read Genesis, in Hebrew. Of course we were fully expected to believe in God and the Bible. Yet nobody seemed to think there was a contradiction going on.
To Pakovits, and any other interested readers As far as I can tell, Pakovits and I agree on most of the facts, but disagree on the interpretations. I'll stand by my arguments, and I'm guessing that he'll stand by his. To sum up (favoring my position, I'm sure, but I hope not too unrepresentative--I do actually try to be fair while still pressing my arguments): 1) Pakovits argued that the official church is/was anti-science, main evidence being Galileo. I argued that this is untrue, evidence being Teilhard de Chardin, the universities, and Bellarmine, the very man who persecuted Galileo. 2) Pakovits argued that science was superior because it continually self-tests. I pointed out that this self testing didn't do much good in various points in time, giving evidence of the widespread acceptance of racist eugenics in the leadup to WWII. In hindsight, I would have added an argument about theology self-testing (go ask a theologian if she tests doctrines). Pakovits responded with the claim that eugenics was pseudo-science. I responded by saying that the evidence (found conveniently in Kuhl's book for those interested) suggested that society and intellectuals could not tell the difference between pseudo-science and science, so 'pseudo-science' is not a useful definition if people apparently can't recognize it at the time. This discussion also included the church and WWII. I contended that the Church acted officially and unofficially to resist Nazi racial ideology and to save Jews, but that it could have done more. Pakovits believed that the church did a little, but should have done more. We discussed Mit Brenneder Sorge and Pius XI, as well as the rise of National Socialism int the 1920s, when it might perhaps have been stopped in its infancy. I think that's everything . . . But just one last thing, changing topics really, Does this mean that you want churches to have a more active voice in political debates? And Isn't it precisely science's apparent failure to address the moral implications of its practices that gets it into trouble? Surely a friendly discussion over a cup of tea with someone from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would show this. I am not trying to say that the scientific establishment is evil, or the messiah, I'm just saying that it gets things very dangerously wrong sometimes, just like every other branch of human investigation, including theology and morality. Demosthenes, I apologize any offence. None intended. Pakovits, if you come to England, I'll buy you a Tetley's, but we can only discuss whether or not Cambridge United's amber jerseys do actually make them look 'Just like Brazil'.
helping out montana This thread is too much fun. I just like hearing myself talk. Blah, blah blahh. (I'm acting weird--it's still Friday. And the mrs. is re-reading Tristram Shandy because she's got to teach it real soon and she's really stressed, so I'm internetting 'cause I'm addicted and need to stop. Someone help me!) OK, here's the deal. I think that half of us should start helping out Montana Mike. He's clearly not a scientist. He's not really equated with the scientific arguments. It's not a fair battle. And when I say, 'help out' I don't mean pretend to help out and act all stupid, I mean try to come up with good arguments. It would be a good exercise in debate, at the least, and would make it a more fair fight. Now I'm not a literal creationist, and I don't play one on TV (though I am a Christian and believe that the Bible is inspired, I just believe that it teaches spiritual lessons, not history and science lessons). Nonetheless, I intend to try my best to help out Montana, because it's not fair punching a guy when he's down. Mike clearly believes in creationism not because of its science, but for some other reason. We've all got reasons for doing things. I love my wife, and my love for her is a lot more real to me than pi. Who am I to say that Mike doesn't have an excellent reason, that's not scientific, to believe creationism. I regret that my defence will mostly take the form of trying to pick holes in the scientific evidence, using a lot of sarcasm--this is mainly because I'm not a scientist. I try usually to stick to things I know a bit more about. Here goes . . .
Other things to keep in mind are the misunderstandings about evolution (also well-addressed at t.o.) Such as: life began from nothing, on its own. Evolution does not address how life began, only how it changes. Mutations would likely damage/kill offspring: as pointed out earlier, "mutations" are subtle. They're not of the frightful birth defect variety. Evolution is random. It's not. Just read a couple of chapters of Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" to get over that misconception.
Re: To Pakovits, and any other interested readers Yep. Actualy, my argument is this: when they've had the power to do so, most religious groups (I'll call them "churches"), at least those in the West traditions, have chosen dogma and banned any offending scientific work in those instances where dogma and scientific observation have been perceived as conflicting. I used Galileo as one example because he's the best known. I could have used more examples but that would have made already lengthy posts even longer. Science has so far proven superior as a describer and exlpainer of natural phenomena. That's it. If either Jesus, Allah, Matreiya Buddha or Poku the Cosmic Turtle comes down in glory tomorrow in a form that is perceivable to all people by human senses, scientists will revisit their theories rather than try to deny the existence of the observable phenomenon. I'm not sure how the preists, mullahs or monks would react to their particular religious traditions being demonstrated as either incorrect or obsolete by the appearance of an avatar of an opposing religion. What do you mean "self testing didn't do much good"? The rockets and atom bombs and electronic goodies developed by science before and during the war worked just fine, sad to say. Science was spectacularly successful. What? They dust for God's fingerprints? The best theology can do is to make itself internally consistent. As the continued existence of creationists proves, there is nothing to force theology to become externally consistent with objective reality as well. To which I correctly responded, btw, that this was a problem for educators, not scientists. Science cannot guarantee that every memeber of society will be either intelligent or informed. Fair enough. Religions are best when they have the ability to speak out and to exhort people by moral example but not when they become able to enforce conformity to their beliefs with armed force. If the parish priest or mullah or Zen Master wants to tell his flock "Go vote for so-and-so" or "Don't join the Such-and-such Party", that's fine as long as people have the option to ignore it. Science itself does not get into trouble. Unethical scientists might but, for the 1,427th time, science's general moral neutrality means that the actions of evil scientists do not invalidate the scientific method as a means of describing or explaining the natural world. Telling people what to DO with the fruits of scientific labors is the churches' job -and also that of secular philosophers, I might add. Both science and religion are best when they stick to their side of the fence. The trouble usually comes when religion fails to recognize the existence of the fence and blunders into science's domain and then promptly gets kicked back out. Been to Cambridge. Lovely place. Kings College Chapel is spectacular. Took the bus to the Abbey ground on a Tuesday afternoon and the kid working the counter of the club shop couldn't believe an American had even heard of them let alone would take the time to trundle over for a look-see. Bought a jersey (C&R Windows is the sponsor, IIRC) and several other items. People here in the States always mistake my jersey for Colorado University as their initials are also CU and their color is also amber. Funny, that. Got to wear Marvin Moose's head and was taken on a tour of the ground by a staff member of the club. Met and got a card signed by the members of the first team as they'd just got done practicing. Good times, good times. Edited to add: If you are ever in Chicago, I'd be happy to buy you a Goose Island Honkers Ale or five before a Chicago Fire game. How ill-mannered of me to forget to incluide that in my post the first time!
Re: helping out montana You missed the fun in the evolution of man thread in FFA. Much digital ink was spilled. I ain't doing that again.
Facts and figments How can we possibly know these figures? Certainly this estimate assumes that cells 2.7 billion years ago behaved in the same way that cells today behave? Couldn't life have started up, died off for several million years, and then started up again? How extensive is the cell fossil record for the years 3.1 billion - 2.1 billion? Isn't the record pretty thin, and the sample size (a pretty important predictor of accuracy) tiny? The number 3.8 billion is far from fact, and is mostly unproved, and currently unprovable assumption. The key element here is certainly 'as far as is known'. Up until the eighteenth century, spontaneous generation was a common theory. Serious intensive research into this has only been going on for the last 200 years. 200 years is virtually nothing in comparison to 3.8 billion years (your previous estimate regarding for how long life has been around). Isn't it rash to apply a sample size of 200 to 3.8 billion years of life? I would certainly hate to extrapolate the results of a test of a medicine on 200 people to 3.8 billion. Isn't a bit of caution in order here? In fact, literal creationism states that it is a singular event. It happened once. It wouldn't be expected to happen in a lab. Of course, life itself hasn't suddenly appeared in a lab, yet evolutionists want us to believe in that event. Four hundred Steves living (mostly in mono-cultural, in so far as westernized, societies) in the year 2000 don't really stack up against the billions of people from every continent and culture who have throughout time believed that a divine being created the world. Should I opt for: a) flavor of the month (or century), or b) the wisdom of people from every race, region, and time period. What kind of mind-control is this? Why aren't they happy with simply presenting their evidence and letting people make up their own minds? Why the need to shut out the voices of people who disagree with them? Are such bullying tactics really what we want to determine curriculum. Certainly such attempts to close minds is the opposite of real science, which attempts precisely to question the scientific sacred cows, as Pakovits keeps reminding us. "Uncaused event." Man, you're talking like a creationist there. It's a good thing that you dismissed it out of hand--we wouldn't want anyone to think that there were uncaused events. It's good that we keep repeating the mantra, in contradiction to what appears to be the case: 'There are no uncaused events, aum, there are no uncaused events.' You might want to get a tablet and inscribe on it: 1. There are no uncaused events. Perhaps there is no other explanation. Perhaps that is it. Masses attract. The end. However, deeply science goes, at all events, it always reaches the same problem--it doesn't fully understand what is going on. It definitely comes up with more accurate measurements, and comes up with better ways of predicting events and plotting space travel, but there is always something that it doesn't understand. Ultimately, the thing that it doesn't understand is usually the same thing people didn't understand to begin with. Newton knew things fell to the ground, he didn't understand why. Know we know that mass affects gravitational pull, and we can manipulate gravity much better, and predict it's effects much better, but we still don't ultimately know why stones fall to the ground, as you state. The evidence suggests that science will never eliminate mystery, although some people bury it under technical jargon, it's still there, lurking. And if we want answers to mystery (and we all want answers--science itself is the best example of that), we will have to look elsewhere. ---- There. Not too bad for a first attempt. But I can only go so far without more scientific details. How 'bout you scientists try to play devil's advocate like you are apparently constantly supposed to be doing and chip in some arguments. Mt. Mike, I hope you take my intervention in this argument in the spirit it's meant: fun attempts to see the other side of the argument. No offence or anything like that meant. I have absolutely no problem with your being a literal creationist. It's not my belief, but we all believe things for all sort of reasons, and 'scientific' ones aren't always the best ones. I don't want literal creationism forced upon me, but I also don't like the sound of 400 thought police named 'Steven'!
Re: Facts and figments http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Actually, the sample size goes back millions of years through the fossil records. And in any case, knowledge is cumulative and increases at a geometric rate. So, even though we've only been undoing the damage caused by the Christian churches to man's knowledge of the universe for four hundred years or so, we have the knowledge of most of recorded history to help us. For example, the ancient Greeks were able to use the splendidly useful tool of deductive reasoning to discover that the Earth is *gasp* ROUND despite the usual everyday experience that it isn't! Your other objections can be dealt with quickly: The popularity of an idea does among the general populace has exactly zero relevance to its objective truth value. Just because science does not have all the answers does not mean the answers do not exist. anyone who tries to make any riffs on this argument is basically telling the Wright Brothers that manned flight is impossible because nobody, not even geniuses like daVinci, could figure it out. Oops. Funny how so much of that is truly applicable to the religious experience throughout history. all the scientists want to do is keep pseudoscience from science classes. If people want to teach creationism, fine, but it belongs in Religion class. Not true. They "fall" because by "falling" they move through the shortest possible distance to their place of lowest potential energy as predicted by Galileos' concept of Inertia.
Pakovits at the Abbey This is unbelievable! I have been in Cambridge for two years and I have never, ever, had a chance to wear the moose's head. C&R was the sponsor, now Capital Sports. They change them so regularly that its hard to keep up. I once gave my opinion to a TV interviewer about the new stadium plans (this was a couple years ago), but I think she deleted it because of the accent (I'm ex-pat). That's as close as I ever got to your grand tour. Pathetic, really. The best chant has to be, however: 'It's just like watching Brazil!" (repeat ad nauseum). Comes out now and then when there's an upset underway. And it really is just like watching Brazil. When they play long-ball and decide not to have any decent first touch just to make things interesting. . . yeah, hmmm. Moving along . . . With regard to the more meaty parts of your post, I will refer readers to our previous posts. We're just beginning to repeat ourselves, I fear. I do say, though, Where is this science you keep talking about? You admit that there are some immoral (evil, is the word you used) scientists running around, but that these immoral scientists don't sully science. Certainly science doesn't have some existence that I have been missing out on? Isn't science, in the real world, defined by the practices of scientists? Science may theoretically be this great glowing beacon of constant self-examination, but in reality it often seems to reek of the stale smoke of a corporate boardroom. Other times, there are strong overtones of political agenda. Science doesn't always--but it does sometimes. We all make mistakes. And we clearly agree that scientists also make big mistakes, just like everyone else. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for the (impossible) goals of objectivity, fully critical evaluation, etc., but I guess I feel that not setting science up on a pedestal is the best way to avoid being fed 'pseudo-science', as you call it. Which, as we both agree, has had some atrocious consequences.
Re: Facts and figments Say what? Because the serious study of evolution has been going on for 200 years our "sample size" is 200? That's a ludicrous misuse of the term "sample size," as any remotely competent scientist or statistician should know. You don't do your cause any favors by throwing scientific jargon in where it obviously doesn't belong.
sure, it's not based on a mere whim, but neither is it objective, when it comes to matters like this. Scientists approach it from there point of view. They are trying to prove what they believe. Science may be neutral, but the people conducting it (on each side) are not. That does not mean that people on either side are dishonest. You'd make a good stereotypical republican with that view. [/B] See above. Science is not this never changing absolute truth that you make it out to be. It, at least in it practical stages, changes. You're smart-alec dismissal did nothing to dispute it. If species changed from one into the other over such long amounts of times, there would be multiple fossils of them. There would be be fish with subtle changes in them that helped them look like an underdeveloped lizard. No one has ever found a missing link of any kind. It does not exist. And besides, you're simply regurgitating information that you've been taught or read. It's not like you came to all these conclusions yourself, so the "script" comment is inappropriate. [/B] Sure, deer mutate so that there's the Whitetail and the mule. But, if I bred dogs, I could achieve similar results. And sure, I know that they would be sudden. But you yourself used the fruit fly example. They witnessed mutations. they "developed". But over the hundred of generations, they would have began to turn into something else. A gnat instead of a fruit fly. A crawling bug. Nothing. It is hypocritical to say that this can happen more slowly in the wild via hundred of generations in the wild but it wont in the same amount of generations in fruit flies. Furthermore, people are genetically altering the fruit flies. They are making changes in them. That doesn't happen naturally. They are messing with the experiment to fit their point of view. Sounds pretty dishonest to me. And still, in spite of all the interference and hundreds or thousands of generations (that's millions of years in fruit fly age), a fruit fly remains a fruit fly. However, those are physical laws in physics. We know it because the apple falls to the ground. There is little wiggle room in physics to adapt to someone's philosphy. F=MA. Obviously. It's not so "obvious" that matter that has always existed goes boom for no reason and here we are. It cannot be directly observed, which is the first step of the scientific method. We can speculate, but we don't know for sure. Evolutionists themselves are still not sure how they think it works. It changes frequently. (thus the politically correct comment- no it wasn't ignorance. Evolution is debated and criticized because it's a theory. Not fact. Not law. A theory. It will always remain that. Gravity, on the other hand is a proven physical law. Got it right here in front of me.
You keep saying that word "science". I do not think it means what you think it means Maybe you should go there on a Tuesday afternoon and pretend to be a tourist. Anyway, you're not missing much. It's a bit stuffy in there and diffcult to move about in a confined space like the club shop trailer. "Science" can be used to describe two things: 1) The activity/methodology 2) The body of knowledge and theories put forth by 1) above. The only "moral" component of science is "Does this observation/theory do a better job of describing the natural world than competing observations/theories?". That's it. That's the only criteria by which science as defined as either 1) and/or 2) can be judged as science. Any other criteria is a foreign import, like French wine (unless you're in France, of course). You can say that a particular observation was enabled by an immoral practice (such as animal experimentation, for any People Eating Tasty Animals types), but that does not make the results of the research any less true for all that. The morals of the scientist themselves do not affect the validity of science as defined as 1) and/or 2). Just because science does not operatea ccording to YOUR moral prejudices and its observations do not affirm your perosnal beliefs does not mean that the scientific method is not still the best tool for examining the natural world and examining the natural world is the only purpose of science as defnied as 1) and/or 2). How's that?
Like what? The worst you can say is that science follows Occam's Razor in not including irrelevant and unobservable factors in its explanations. You're just upset because sceince so far has gotten on quite nicely without having to pander to the belief system you choose to hold for whatever psychological reasons you need to hold it. Oh well... By "their point of view", I assume you mean "observable natural phenomena" as nothing else makes sense. People are dishonest when they deliberately hld views that conform to observable reality. For example, if I tell you that I'm the King of China and you go to verify this and your observations (namely, the laughing of the fellow from the Chinese embassy on the other end of the phone) and find the observation is not correct and inform me of your observations and I still claim to be the King of China, I'm probably being dishonest. Or insane. The same is true of creationism and most if not all creationist arguments. They keep getting refuting and yet they keep asserting them. Why? I'll let you decide if they're dishonest or insane. Proof positive that you do not read my posts. Either that or you just do not understand them. The rest of the specific pseudoscientific points you try to make have been refuted over at TalkOrigins. As I am not into reinventing the wheel over and over again, I refer you to that site. Until you have actually read that site and come up with legitimate protests, consider yourself refuted everywhere but in your own cranium. Gravity is no such thing. Everyone from the 17th through 19th centuries thought they knew what gravity was. Then MC Einstein and DJ Special Relativity came along and rocked their world and made the Absolute Point Of View their bitch. What? You have a Geology text book? You'd better hide that thing before your pastor finds out and you get shunned or something.
Re: Re: Facts and figments Pakovits, NGV--neither of you are now entering into the spirit of this forum. You are convinced of something, I believe in the basic sketch of evolutionary history, and Mt. Mike has other reasons for believing that aren't necessarily scientific. Why not take advantage of the chance to try out alternate viewpoints. My guess is that Einstein tested out a lot of alternate viewpoints. Now, to don my other cap--FAN (note the all caps--distinguishes me from my other persona: fan), the devil's advocate (please, if someone out there doesn't know what it means, look it up!) Quoting absurdly long web pages, as useful as they may be, is not enough of an argument for a discussion board--you need to at least list some solid evidence from the site. Cyanobacteria fossils are thought to be 3.5 billion years old. Well, actually, the remains of Cyanobacteria have been dated to roughly 3.5 billion years ago. By raising my question about gaps in the evidence, of which there are many as I understand it, I am suggesting that we actually don't currently have a chain of evidence to document for how long cells have been dividing. The quote of 3.5 assumes: a) that primitive cells behave similarly to modern cells, and b) that cyanobacteria are directly related. Isn't there a possibility that life died out for a time and then restarted? I think you discussed this topic with fan (note lower case). Been there, done that--see those posts. This FAN writing, who is not the same person as fan. Won't you also agree that the popularity of an idea among the self-proclaimed and self-perpetuating (see The Stephen Brigade thought-police) also has little relevance to its objective truth? Certainly, objective truth has little to do with opinions? It just is--regardless of whether you agree with it, can measure it, whatnot. We may never know objective truth. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we never will know objective truth in this life. I thought that was one of the tenets of science--the observer always affects the observed. If objective truth has to do with opinions, than 2,000 years of Greek ether, rehashed in various forms by the scientific community and proclaimed confidently to be 'the truth' by those who ought to know can't be wrong. I never said they didn't. I'm pretty sure we'll never know them in this life though. And deep down, I'm pretty sure that you also know that you'll never know all the answers. However, the fact that we don't have all answers hardly proves that the answers exist! Don't you think that's kind of what I meant? Did you miss the whole Moses 'get a stone tablet and write: 1. There are no uncaused actions' reference? (Remember, FAN is more sarcastic than the much more respectable and pleasant fan). The whole point is that science often seems to behave like things that are often considered, hmm, should we call them 'unscientific'. Science is becoming a religion. Bad religion, down. Yes, Big Brother wants to help me. Thank you, big brother. As discussed with the more reasonable fan, we noted that society at large (including, ahem, of the mainstream scientific community) has a history of occasionally being incapable of distinguishing 'pseudo-science' from 'science'. How can I trust that the guy in the white coat is a scientist and not a pseudo-scientist. Pakovits himself admitted that he didn't know much about physics. Presumably, he, and undoubtedly me, would not be able to tell with great certainty what as 'physics' and what was very nicely dressed up, oh so persuasive, 'pseudo-physics'. Are we just to trust that the guys with the white coats? Do straw polls ( I hope not, since we agreed that truth had little to do with opinions and voting)? Wouldn't it be better for our helpful Mr. Scientist not to say: Believe this, it's true; I wear a white coat, and lots of other people in white coats agree with me! Now shut up and think, er, do, er, learn what I tell, er, advise you to do. Wouldn't it be better for Mr. Scientist, to be content to present the evidence, along with his interpretation, and allow our little, puny minds, that couldn't possibly understand Mr. Big Steven Scientist, to make up our own minds? Without trying to put blinders on our inquiring minds? Surely, if the evidence is so convincing, then we'll be convinced. And we'll all live happily every after. And Mr. Steven Scientist will never have had to mind-control, er, infringe our rights, er, baby sit us. Pakovits, you are disagreeing with a guy who says he's a physicist and says that he doesn't 'deeply understand'--I thin that was the wording--gravity. If you understand gravity more than he does, when you have admitted that physics isn't your strong point, I congratulate you. I also complement you on your willingness to disagree with guys in white coats. Thank you for proving the point that some people attempt to bury mystery under technical description. You have given a good description of what happens when things fall, leaving out the pretty important Newtonian contributions (as far as I can tell), but you have not explained 'why' things fall, why masses attract, etc. As far as I know, and as far as you know, on some level, They just do. And that's mystery for you. Doesn't like to go away. Keeps popping up, saying 'I'm still here!' Not one person congratulated on my first attempt! Hmmpff. To tell you the truth, the attempts are just going to get worse, I fear, since I am not a scientist. Come on you white coats. Put those microscopes to work! Challenge the current scientific doctrine! Dare to be different! [hushed silence from the scientific community] [faint sounds of 'baaaaa,' which sound remarkably like 'Don't think outside the box' are heard from a vast white-coated flock, er, group] ['I know,' someone whispers, 'stop exposing them to alternate theories in school--that will do the trick'] [Vociferous attacks from the white coats, not wanting to be called a 'sissy' for kicking someone while they're down, ensue] Send all complaints to FAN. fan only works here.
Adios, muchachos Judging by the first post in this thread, the spirit of the thread is to poke fun at dogmatic creationists. Look, there's only so much obtuseness and willful ignorance a fellow can take. If people want to cliam the earth is flat or hollow or created in six days 3,000 years ago, that's fine. But I reserve the right to prove them wrong and to use some cutting wit while doing so. Anyone who does not feel like being the subject of said wit shouild go educate himself (ie, read a book or even a website with lots of *gasp* words!). Sadly, I must leave now so that I may enjoy my weekend. Here's the bottom line: While scientists do not currently have the answer to every possible question, the scientific method, when legitimately and rigorously applied, has done a better job of describing and explaining natural phenomena than a strictly literalist interpretation of the Bible. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant (in the technical, not necessarily perjorative, sense of simkply not having all the facts), lying (to himself, if not others) or insane. It's been fun. Everyone have a nice weekend. Cheers.
Fan, this is going to have to be my last, or second to last, post on the subject. For those interested in the issue of evolution, I recommend Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is. It is fairly clear and comprehensive. Fan, I’ll do the best I can. I don’t have much energy. First, 3.8 billion is perhaps too specific. Perhaps I should have said between 3.5 and 4 billion. Also, clearly, it is not “proven” that the first terrestrial life came into being about 3.8 billion years ago -- in the sense of 100% Cartesian certainty. (I’m not certain of much. I suppose I’m certain that I exist.) However, it is overwhelmingly likely that all organisms evolved from a single-celled microorganism that lived between 3.5 and 4 billion years ago. Or if you prefer, just likely. The oldest know fossils are the remains of bacteria-like organisms. I've only seen photographs of these fossils; the fossils are located in northwestern Australia. They have been dated at about 3.5 billion-years-old. One interesting note that I am unable to elaborate on: Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards youngest common ancestor is less than 1,000 years old. That is a blink of the eye in terms of geologic time. No reliable group of people has seen anything remotely similar to a matter instantaneously transform into an elephant. Humans have been looking for this kind of thing for about 150,000 thousand years. Clearly, that by itself is not sufficient to reasonably infer that evolution is true. But that plus other data, some of which I've mentioned, is suficient for it to be overwhelmingly likely that terrestrial organisms share a common ancestry. For one, very few known events are radically different from every other known event. One example: Earth is the only planet known to have life on it. Moreover, billions of known events are importantly similar to many other known events. For example, Preki keeps on scoring goals. The language I’m using is general. But I can’t do any better. I’m limited. Second, it is unclear what series of events resulted in the first self-replicating terrestrial forms. We know that life is here now. Three possibilities: 1. A deity turned inert matter into the first self-replicating forms. 2. An extraterrestrial turned inert matter into the first self-replicating forms. 3. The first self-replicating forms originated from matter that is not organic. So then the question is: which of the above three hypotheses is the most plausible? I think #3. Here is what Stephen Hawking says on abiogenesis: “Life seems to have originated in the primordial oceans that covered the Earth four billion years ago. How this happened we don’t know. It may be that random collisions between atoms built up macromolecules that could reproduce themselves and assemble themselves into more complicated structures. What we do know is that by three and a half billion years ago, the highly complicated DNA molecule had emerged” (The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 161). Here is what Ernst Mayr, professor at Harvard, says on abiogenesis: "The first pioneers of life on Earth had to solve two major (and some minor) problems: (1) how to acquire energy and (2) how to replicate. The Earth’s atmosphere at the time was essentially devoid of oxygen. But there was abundant energy from the sun and in the ocean from sulfides. Thus growth and acquisition of energy were apparently no major problem. It has often been suggested that rocky surfaces were coated with metabolizing films that could grow but not replicate. The invention of replication was more difficult. DNA is now (except in some viruses) known as the molecule that is indispensable in replication. But how could it ever have been coopted for this function? There is no good theory for this. However, RNA has enzymatic capacities and could have been selected for this property, with its role in replication being secondary. It is now believed that there may have been an RNA world before the DNA world. There was apparently already protein synthesis in this RNA world, but it lacked the efficiency of the DNA protein synthesis. “In spite of all the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life, the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in a laboratory. This would require not only an anoxic [the deficiency or absence of oxygen] atmosphere, but presumably also other somewhat unusual conditions (temperature, chemistry of the medium) that no one has yet been able to replicate. It had to be a liquid (aqueous) medium that was perhaps similar to the hot water of the volcanic vents at the ocean floor. Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions became suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago. Unfortunately we have not fossils from the 300 million years between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossiliferous rocks are 3.5 billion years old and already contain a remarkably rich biota of bacteria. We have no idea (and in the absence of fossils quite likely never will have) what their ancestors in the preceding 300 million years looked like” (What Evolution Is, p. 43)." Also, remember that there was water on early earth, and Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest known bacteria is about 3.5 billion years old. One billion years is a long time. Also, even if the probability of the first self-replicating forms coming into being was low, we know of numerous examples of events that had a low probability of occurring that did, in fact, occur. For example, it was unlikely that person X would win the lottery. And she won! No event is known to have been caused by any deities, and no event is known to have been caused by any extraterrestrials. Meanwhile, a mind-boggling number of events are known to have been proximatelu caused by events other than the intentional acts of deities or extraterrestrials. Moreover, scientists have made self-replicating macromolecules. Does anyone have a link to an article on these experiments? Also, how different is RNA from chains of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus? Well, first, RNA is comprised of said elements. Moreover, all of said elements are plentiful in the universe. And all were plentiful on early-Earth. Remember, there were lakes and oceans on early-Earth. Also, the oldest known fossils are the remains of bacteria, not the remains of elephants. One Bacterium is smaller and less complex than one elephant. Also, Stanley Miller’s experiments suggest that when hydrogen, methane and ammonia react with electricity, amino acids are sometimes a product of the reaction. Amino acids are an important part of life. However, one might object: “One molecule of carbon is much smaller and much less complicated than the RNA molecule? How on earth could carbon and other elements combine to form something like RNA?” Well, true, one molecule of carbon is tiny. But so is one molecule of RNA. And one carbon atom connected to one hydrogen atom is bigger than just one carbon atom. At what point does the combination of the lighter elements (e.g., hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus) amount to RNA? It’s not such a huge leap. Especially over 1 billion years. That’s a long time. Obviously, we still have a lot of work to do on this issue. Finally, that it is not known what series of events resulted in the first self-replicating terrestrial forms is irrelevant to whether I'm justified in believing that all organisms that came to being on planet earth evolved from a single-celled microorganism that lived about 3.8 billion years ago. There are numerous examples of beliefs that are justified when we don't know what caused an earlier event. For example, I don't know what caused the Big Bang. But I know that I had Life Cereal for breakfast this morning. I didn’t necessarily post that list to try to support any claim. I posted that list because I don't have the energy to post all this stuff that I have. Nevertheless, for someone who has had less opportunity to study the data on a given event than has someone else, the characteristics of the person who has studied the data to a greater degree might matter some epistemlogically to the person who is made aware of claims that the person more familiar with the data has made. At any rate, it is something that I would be interested in if I hadn't known about it. But I didn’t mean it as a big deal. Maybe I shouldn’t have posted it. I didn't say there are no uncaused events. I just said that the idea doesn’t make any sense. Maybe I should not have even said that. Quantum fluctuations are hard to label. And the Big Bang is weird. But it just was a throw-away line. Incidentally, I don't know of any "uncaused events." And billions of events are known to have been proximately caused by other events. My reason for saying it is just to make clear that (1) we don’t know all the kinds of events that contribute to genotypes and phenotypes and (2) genotypes and phenotypes are most likely caused by something. We don’t know what kinds of events have triggered, say, the genetic sequence that controls my prostate gland. So, I guess my point: We know that genotypes are caused by something(s). But we are still trying to get a better handle on what those things are. I don’t want people to get the impression that everything is well-understood. But that we don’t know everything doesn’t mean that we don’t know -– or at least have justified beliefs regarding -- anything.
Mike, that people have been wrong in the past is not sufficient for me to justifiably infer that they are wrong about everything. People seem to have been right a lot. For example, I’m pretty darn sure that I had Life Cereal for breakfast this morning. Therefore, that people have been wrong before is not important to whether I’m justified in believing that evolution is right or wrong. Most known organisms are anatomically similar to some known organisms that are older than they are. For instance, I'm similar to my father, and he is similar to his father. No known organism is radically different from every known specimen older than it. For example, it is not as if the fossil record consisted of mosquitoes, T-Rexes, elephants and humans. Other than bacteria, the oldest known fossils have been found in South Australia. They are known as the Ediacaran fauna because they were found near rocks of that same name. Their age has been estimated at about 600 million-years-old. Here are is a link to a site on some these specimens:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html None of these organisms looks a heck of a lot like bacteria. However, that these organisms are different from bacteria does not significantly weaken the hypothesis that all terrestrial organisms evolved from a single-celled microorganism that lived about 3.8 billion years ago. First, these organisms are about 2.9 billion years older than the oldest known bacteria. 2.9 billion years is a long time. Second, we know that a tiny fraction of a percentage of all dead organisms leave remains that humans are capable of discovering. The overwhelming majority of all dead organisms simply turn to dust. Third, in general, age tends to make it less likely that an organism will leave discoverable remains. Finally, it is clear that most, if not all, organisms that lived, say, 3 billion years ago were soft-bodied. Soft-bodied organisms are much less likely to leave remains than are hard-bodied. No person has witnessed a series of instances of sexual reproduction in which the first two organisms in the series to sexually reproduce were rodent-like mammals and the last offspring in the series is a human. However, that no living person has witnessed an event is not sufficient for you to justifiably infer that said event did not occur. There are literally billions of events that are believed to have occurred that no living person has witnessed and that are overwhelmingly likely to have occurred. For example, no one has witnessed the core of Pluto, and I'm sure it's not made of cream-cheese. No one has witnessed a living T-Rex, and I'm sure that T-Rexes ate things. No one witnessed planet earth 1 billion years ago, and I'm sure it existed 1 billion years ago. No one has witnessed a proton, and I'm sure that protons exist. No one witnessed a meterorite collide with earth 65 million years ago, and I'm quite sure that one did. Therefore, that no person at all -- alive or dead -- has witnessed an event is not sufficient for your justifiably inferring that the event did not occur. Therefore, that no person has witnessed a single-celled microorganism evolve into humans is not sufficient to justifiably infer that it did not happen. Moreover, the youngest ancestor that all Chihuahuas and all Saint Bernards share is less than 1,000 years old, a blink of the eye in terms of geologic time. Therefore, if that amount of change can occur over 1,000 years, imagine how much change could be able to occur over 500 million years. Stephen J. Gould said that evolution is both a fact and a theory. I don't like to use the word "fact." But he said the "fact" is that all organisms share a common ancestory. The theory is about how this happened. We still have a lot to learn about the how of evolution. And, although I'm not comfortable calling the hypothesis of common descent a "fact," it does seem to be an overwhelmingly likely hypothesis. Of course, we could turn out to be wrong. It's happened many times before. But it is by far the best explanation that we have right now.
There is no great distinction between "law" and "theory" as scientists use the terms. To denigrate evolution because it's commonly referred to as a "theory" is to display ignorance of, or to deliberately misrepresent, the position you're arguing against. In common speech, people use the word "theory" for what scientists call "conjecture" or "hypothesis," which is to say an educated guess. To a scientist, a "theory" is a set of testable principles used to explain observed phenomena. Newton's laws were theories; they acquired the character of law over the centuries as their ability to predict the result of future experiments was demonstrated again and again. (Of course, Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics aren't true in all cases, as others have pointed out.)