NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Ottowa Citizen (http://www.canada.com/dawsoncreek/story.html?id=f556177f-8d82-4c24-bfa0-772da0ee3ffe):A Nobel laureate in physics believes that some intelligent force probably created the universe but He (or it) used evolution to do it.
Jenny Jackson tries to steer Nobel Laurete Charles Townes toward an agreeable centerism by presenting Intelligent design as a "third way" that is independent of evolution and creationism:
Mr. Townes didn't place himself in the middle between creationists and scientists, so much as above them, with a third theory gaining credence these days, intelligent design.
But, gaining credence where? While there are many news articles discussing creationism today, little evidence or discussion is actually happening on it in the realm of science. Says Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2): [S]erious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Also, if Intelligent Design is independent of the other two theories, that in itself would not make it a middle ground between those two theories. It should be undoubtable that I.D. has more similarities with creationism than evolution. There exists a Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/) article on the subject, saying of the primary difference:
Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone.
Creationism then, differs because it takes the extra step of naming that designer. This distinction hardly breaks the common bond between Intelligent Design and Creationism that is their full-scale refutation of a spontaneously triggered evolution. This makes Intelligent design reside much closer to the Creationism side of the divide, as opposed to any middle ground.

However, it isn't the acceptance of Intelligent Design itself that is supposed to make Townse's stance a middle ground. It is rather that he beleives it does not have to conflict with evolution. But, it should also be noted that an avoidance of conflict between two opposing sides assumes that rightness is dependent upon agreeably satisfying both sides of the debate, which isn't necessarily true.

Jackson then enters this absolutely inexcusable passage:
There are fundamentalists at both ends of the spectrum -- hard-nosed scientists at one end, religious literalists at the other -- and neither is adding much to the debate.
First, let me cite Wikipedia:
A false compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_compromise)(also known as the gray fallacy) is a logical fallacy: X and Y are opposite alternatives. So Z, a middle path, is the best choice.Jackson's sentence is a very loaded one. If a biologist can be called a "fundamentalist", they are an entirely different kind of "fundamentalist" from a Christian who interprets the Bible litterally. And if a biologist's "fundamentalism" in favor of evolution has lead them astray, their strayness is substantially more justified than any creationist strayness. Supposing the two both diverge from what is true a certain degree, their common quality of divergence does not translate into an equal degree of divergence.

But the more likely scenario is that Jackson is trying to get her evolutionist readers to accept that evolution "fundamentalists" add nothing to the debate, by granting for them that religious fundamentalists add nothing either.

It may be true that little progress is being made in this debate, but mischaracterizing the opposing sides as equal and opposite is a total opt-out on the debate itself. Positioning the two as opposing extremes and then (falsy) calling a new position the middle in no way employs critical thought or brings us any closer to an answer that is consistent with the facts of reality.

And?

Hmm... I wonder if the Kansas board of education would be happy if I started to teach kids Intelligent Design with as implied speculation that Allah was the designer.

Intelligent Design is an "alternative" to evolution, it doesn't include it - there wouldn't be any debate otherwise. Something can either evolve - depending on natural selection, or it can be designed - depending on a plan. I.D. is just a fancy name for Creationism to make it sound scientific. No theory of evolution states "there is no God", so believing in God just makes you a theist evolutionist.

Yea...you must have missed the bit where one of the chief proponents of ID conceded that it was as much as science as astrology.

Yea...you must have missed the bit where one of the chief proponents of ID conceded that it was as much as science as astrology.

But my Mars was so in Sagittarius last night. It was awesome.

Yea...you must have missed the bit where one of the chief proponents of ID conceded that it was as much as science as astrology.

and more importantly, that he actually does think that telling the future based on the stars really does count as science.

of course, we can't expect too much from these cdesign proponentsists.

cdesign proponentsists.
Hahaha, I love that you dug up that old skeleton :D

Fine. You can teach ID in "Non Science Classes" if I can teach Systemity in "Non Religion Classes". Deal? Deal.

*Runs off to start the indoctrination*

Muwahaha...

Here we've seen evolution at work - when the creationists noted that literal interpretation of the bible hasn't worked (well unless you live in the bible belt - then of course it MUST be true :headbang:) we've noticed a decline in the popularity of creationism and the development and popularisation of ID. Which is the philosophical discussion of an essentially revised creationist stance. Their argument has evolved...
Now then - lets keep science in the science classes, and if you do want to discuss ID - leave it for philosophy classes...
Of course saying that the designer could be an alien usually provokes a kneejerk christian reaction (so the pseudo-scientific veneer slips...) ;)

Peace

Hmm... I wonder if the Kansas board of education would be happy if I started to teach kids Intelligent Design with as implied speculation that Allah was the designer.

No, that would be blasphemy! Only their version of ID is acceptable as science, since we all know the Judeo-Christian God is the only true one...:rolleyes:

No, that would be blasphemy! Only their version of ID is acceptable as science, since we all know the Judeo-Christian God is the only true one...:rolleyes:
Everyone knows that,

I've found the intelligent designer! As a bonus, I also found his faithful dog.
http://www.fragglerocker.com/media/pics/doc/docsprocket.jpg

Hmm... I wonder if the Kansas board of education would be happy if I started to teach kids Intelligent Design with as implied speculation that Allah was the designer.
I much preffer that we taught the pastafarian way

http://www.venganza.org/

Intelligent Design is an "alternative" to evolution, it doesn't include it - there wouldn't be any debate otherwise. Something can either evolve - depending on natural selection, or it can be designed - depending on a plan. I.D. is just a fancy name for Creationism to make it sound scientific. No theory of evolution states "there is no God", so believing in God just makes you a theist evolutionist.

Admittedly I don't know that many Christians but all the ones I know think that God used evolution to develop human life. They tend to regard Intelligent Design and Creationism as a bit of a joke.

I much preffer that we taught the pastafarian way

http://www.venganza.org/

Truly you have been touched by his noodly appendage.:)

Fine. You can teach ID in "Non Science Classes" if I can teach Systemity in "Non Religion Classes". Deal? Deal.

*Runs off to start the indoctrination*

Muwahaha...

And the DaVinci Code in RS of course (we must teach both sides of the debate).:rolleyes:

I much preffer that we taught the pastafarian way


Yes, but they tend to dismiss that as being "silly". Or, as a boardmember even answered to the noodly-mail: mocking God[1] That is somewhat harder when one uses an established religion - albeit not the one they had in mind.

Maybe we can compromise on Shiva ?

[1] Which is odd, since I thought the official statement was that ID had nothing to do with god whatsoever and was not in any way intended to sneak religion into schools.

Admittedly I don't know that many Christians but all the ones I know think that God used evolution to create the universe. They tend to regard Intelligent Design and Creationism as a bit of a joke.
If your Christian friends believe evolution has anything to do with how the universe came to be, then they too are a bit of a joke... No offence.

If your Christian friends believe evolution has anything to do with how the universe came to be, then they too are a bit of a joke... No offence.

Why ? Many theories on stellar evolution are accepted science. Evolution merely denotes a proces; it is not limited to living things.

Why ? Many theories on stellar evolution are accepted science. Evolution merely denotes a proces; it is not limited to living things.
Even as such stelar evolution does not cover creation either but rather change

Edit: Innitial creation

If your Christian friends believe evolution has anything to do with how the universe came to be, then they too are a bit of a joke... No offence.

Sorry, I've had a bad day and I wasn't paying attention. I meant that they believe that humans evolved but God was behind evolution. I'll edit my original post.

is there ne 1 here who can say that they actually know all of the biological precepts behind the concept of evolution?
Just wondering because in all of these forum posts ID vs Evolution there is alot of reference to the "science" as if it were an infallable absolute truth.
Is this belief based on first hand inferences or on media image, what you were taught or have read etc?

is there ne 1 here who can say that they actually know all of the biological precepts behind the concept of evolution?
Just wondering because in all of these forum posts ID vs Evolution there is alot of reference to the "science" as if it were an infallable absolute truth.
Is this belief based on first hand inferences or on media image, what you were taught or have read etc?

Evolution has been around for a while now and it has yet to be disproved. Do you have a better answer?

is there ne 1 here who can say that they actually know all of the biological precepts behind the concept of evolution?

I can say I'm probably damn close. Why?

Just wondering because in all of these forum posts ID vs Evolution there is alot of reference to the "science" as if it were an infallable absolute truth.

Some people view it that way - and they are just as scary as religious fundamentalists, and no less illogical.

Is this belief based on first hand inferences or on media image, what you were taught or have read etc?

For people who actually understand science, "belief" doesn't really come into it.

is there ne 1 here who can say that they actually know all of the biological precepts behind the concept of evolution?
Just wondering because in all of these forum posts ID vs Evolution there is alot of reference to the "science" as if it were an infallable absolute truth.
Is this belief based on first hand inferences or on media image, what you were taught or have read etc?
If it's because you want to learn about the current theories, a good place to start is the local library, or websites such as talkorigins.com

Even as such stelar evolution does not cover creation either but rather change

Edit: Innitial creation

True - but the road from "loose particles" via "dustclouds" to planetary systems and galaxies is well descibed by the word "evolution".

What *started* all that initially is indeed another question.

is there ne 1 here who can say that they actually know all of the biological precepts behind the concept of evolution?

"Things can change into other things". Or specifically for biology:
"species can change into other species over time".

The actual details (like "how") are under constant revision. Which is on of the reasons it is considered science: it is willing to adapt when new information becomes available. Something most religions never can.

first of all just because something has been believed for a long time doesnt make it true the aristotelian idea of the humours and four elements etc was still widely believed as truth untill the 17th century. careful there.
From all my reading and studies in biology, there is only 1 evolutionary concept that can be scienfically refuted/proved
That is that organisms change either genetically or phenotypically in response to the environment over time(short or long). This is called selection (either natural, sexual or artificial etc)
All other references to evolution appear to be inferences about what this selection can do or to what extent it occurs. No evidence has been ever presented that 1 organism can change into another ie cats become dogs etc.
The supposed time scale for this means it cannot be observed, it therefore is not science, interesting huh

No evidence has been ever presented that 1 organism can change into another ie cats become dogs etc.
The supposed time scale for this means it cannot be observed, it therefore is not science, interesting huh
Wrong science does not require direct observation

Wrong science does not require direct observation

no you are quite wrong in fact the scientific method is a framework in which we interperate information from the observable universe. It must in some manner be observable to come under the influence of the scientific method

no you are quite wrong in fact the scientific method is a framework in which we interperate information from the observable universe. It must in some manner be observable to come under the influence of the scientific method
Yes but not DIRECT observation

There is an important difference

Edit: Example
I can observe a floating log at the begining of the river
And at the end of the river

And make an intelegent theory that most likly the log floated from begining to end

I will have observed data to reach that conclusion

But I would not have DIRECTLY observed the process of it moving from begining to end

Yes but not DIRECT observation

There is an important difference
of course but your point is?
Indirect observation is the effect of the cause on something else ie think gravity bending light etc, but there is none of that in macroscale evolutionary thought, just extrapolation on a dangerous scale

*sigh*

And this is why scientists should not be presented as authorities when speaking outside their own disciplines.

Intelligent design is not scientific theory, nor is creationism. There is one actual theory on how life developped on this planet and that is evolution. If someone wants to hold one of the other two as personal beliefs, then that's fine. It doesn't make either science though.

He seems to act as though this is his personal belief though, except that he says that religion and science should be combined in some form... which would really just produce bad religion and bad science. Religion is the result of the subjective interpretation of the supernatural while science is the objective interpretation of the natural.

of course but your point is?
Indirect observation is the effect of the cause on something else ie think gravity bending light etc, but there is none of that in macroscale evolutionary thought, just extrapolation on a dangerous scale
Oh care to show this "dangerous" extrapolation?

And if you find areas where the data does not fit current evolutionary theory BY ALL MEANS write up a report to get peer reviewed

Obviously you have data not avalable to todays scientists and that needs to be shared so that evolutionary theory can be modified to fit reality

of course but your point is?
Indirect observation is the effect of the cause on something else ie think gravity bending light etc, but there is none of that in macroscale evolutionary thought, just extrapolation on a dangerous scale
The fact that there are fossils of beings that no longer exist is all the evidence one needs to show that evolution has occured in the past. The existence of the nylon bug is all one needs for evidence that evolution is a continuing process.

Admittedly I don't know that many Christians but all the ones I know think that God used evolution to develop human life.
and there was me thinking I was the only one intelligent to realise that

Oh care to show this "dangerous" extrapolation?

And if you find areas where the data does not fit current evolutionary theory BY ALL MEANS write up a report to get peer reviewed

Obviously you have data not avalable to todays scientists and that needs to be shared so that evolutionary theory can be modified to fit reality

It easy, you cannot prove either way that a bacterium evolved into other multicellular organisms, or into a more complex cell. Certain cellular organellesie mitochondria and chloroplasts are bacterial in origin, but no evidence exists to show how a simple cell became a far larger more complex cell, or then a functioning multi cell organism. Its based on humans age old ideas that some things are superior and therefore more evolved than others, who says that a chimpanzee is inferior to a human, just different. If the human frame was judged from a chimpanzees point of view we would seem far inferior, were not supposed to live in the same environment.
Macro evolution is very subjective and antropomorphic in nature, evidence such as dna base similarities are observed anthropomorphicly and inferences are drawn from that, ie dna compared to is human, some things are more different to humans than others, they have filled vastly different niches than humans and so have been selected to be more different.
I do not disagree with biological evolution, i disagree with the extent to which the concepts are applied to suit peoples worldviews

The fact that there are fossils of beings that no longer exist is all the evidence one needs to show that evolution has occured in the past. The existence of the nylon bug is all one needs for evidence that evolution is a continuing process.

Natural selection is alive and kicking, the nylon bug is a nice example the development of MRSA in hospitals across the world is another, it happens and we cant deny it those who do dont understand enough biology. Taking that basic biological principal and applying it in an entirely unobservable sense to prove that all life evolved from a "simpler" (ha ha) organism is unfounded, it is an abuse of biology

Its based on humans age old ideas that some things are superior and therefore more evolved than others, who says that a chimpanzee is inferior to a human, just different. If the human frame was judged from a chimpanzees point of view we would seem far inferior, were not supposed to live in the same environment.
Well, humans didn't evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor.

Macro evolution is very subjective and antropomorphic in nature, evidence such as dna base similarities are observed anthropomorphicly and inferences are drawn from that, ie dna compared to is human, some things are more different to humans than others, they have filled vastly different niches than humans and so have been selected to be more different.
I do not disagree with biological evolution, i disagree with the extent to which the concepts are applied to suit peoples worldviews
I think the DNA of other species gets compared to human DNA most often because we are human, we want to know more about ourselves and how we compare to other species on the planet. There are also a number of DNA comparisons of humans to each other, chimps to each other, chimps to other primates, seahorses to other fish et c.

Taking that basic biological principal and applying it in an entirely unobservable sense to prove that all life evolved from a "simpler" (ha ha) organism is unfounded, it is an abuse of biology
It's not really unfounded. Early on all we find are fossils of simpler (less complex, if you prefer) organisms and there are a number of species for which complete fossil records exist showing how they went from being like one animal to being like a completely different one.

Well, humans didn't evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor.


I think the DNA of other species gets compared to human DNA most often because we are human, we want to know more about ourselves and how we compare to other species on the planet. There are also a number of DNA comparisons of humans to each other, chimps to each other, chimps to other primates, seahorses to other fish et c.

Yea the chimp thing is aliving example of our supposed closest ancestor, i used it to prove a point not tosay we came from them

Compaitive dna is the key piece of evidence used to evidence evolutionary relationships, or phylogeny. my point still rests, it just proves that some organisms are more different than others. It is based on the concept of the genetic molecular clock, that the mutation rate across all organisms genomes is a constant

Yea the chimp thing is aliving example of our supposed closest ancestor, i used it to prove a point not tosay we came from them

Compaitive dna is the key piece of evidence used to evidence evolutionary relationships, or phylogeny. my point still rests, it just proves that some organisms are more different than others. It is based on the concept of the genetic molecular clock, that the mutation rate across all organisms genomes is a constant
The mutation rate across all organisms is not a constant. There is no "g" for the ration of mutations across all species. Hell, it varies widely inbetween species, depending on where you are.

It's not really unfounded. Early on all we find are fossils of simpler (less complex, if you prefer) organisms and there are a number of species for which complete fossil records exist showing how they went from being like one animal to being like a completely different one.

Can you show me one of these from a reputable source and i may change my tune. As of yet all fossil evidence that i have ever read about remains partial or conjecture

Can you show me one of these from a reputable source and i may change my tune. As of yet all fossil evidence that i have ever read about remains partial or conjecture

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Can you show me one of these from a reputable source and i may change my tune. As of yet all fossil evidence that i have ever read about remains partial or conjecture
I was beaten to the punch here...

But there are also fossil records for the horse, from a small dog like creature into what we see today, the whale from a land animal into well, a whale et c.

(Oops, didn't scroll down, there they are, you can see them for yourself)

The mutation rate across all organisms is not a constant. There is no "g" for the ration of mutations across all species. Hell, it varies widely inbetween species, depending on where you are.

The molecular clock is complex, and in truth i am just coming to grips myself with it,
Here it is:
rates in 1 organism Relative to another vary based on environment, metabolism that sorta thing, but down lineages, over time the rate of mutational change in a species is constant and can be observed as such across all species

The molecular clock is complex, and in truth i am just coming to grips myself with it,
Here it is:
rates in 1 organism Relative to another vary based on environment, metabolism that sorta thing, but down lineages, over time the rate of mutational change in a species is constant and can be observed as such across all species
Bullshit. Cite that. Journals and everything.

i could send you my entire set of evolutionary genetics notes if you really want

first of all just because something has been believed for a long time doesnt make it true the aristotelian idea of the humours and four elements etc was still widely believed as truth untill the 17th century. careful there.

You are right, it doesn't make it true.

However, in science, something that has gone a long period of time without being refuted is the closest to truth we have.

From all my reading and studies in biology, there is only 1 evolutionary concept that can be scienfically refuted/proved
That is that organisms change either genetically or phenotypically in response to the environment over time(short or long). This is called selection (either natural, sexual or artificial etc)

You have just described (albeit in simplified form) the entire theory of evolution.

No evidence has been ever presented that 1 organism can change into another ie cats become dogs etc.

Maybe that is because evolution does not claim that 1 organism ever changes into another, or that cats ever become dogs.

The supposed time scale for this means it cannot be observed, it therefore is not science, interesting huh

Incorrect. One does not have to observe the entire process to study it. It can be studied bit by bit. We can observe genetic mutations - we have. We can observe natural selection - we have. We can observe genetic mutations leading to a selective advantage and thus a large change in a species - we have.

Because we have all of this evidence, the theory of evolution stands as a valid theory. Until such a time as we find something inconsistent with that theory, it will continue to stand.

i could send you my entire set of evolutionary genetics notes if you really want
Can you link to it or anything?

From the Ottowa Citizen (http://www.canada.com/dawsoncreek/story.html?id=f556177f-8d82-4c24-bfa0-772da0ee3ffe):
Jenny Jackson tries to steer Nobel Laurete Charles Townes toward an agreeable centerism by presenting Intelligent design as a "third way" that is independent of evolution and creationism:

But, gaining credence where? While there are many news articles discussing creationism today, little evidence or discussion is actually happening on it in the realm of science. Says Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2):
Also, if Intelligent Design is independent of the other two theories, that in itself would not make it a middle ground between those two theories. It should be undoubtable that I.D. has more similarities with creationism than evolution. There exists a Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/) article on the subject, saying of the primary difference:

Creationism then, differs because it takes the extra step of naming that designer. This distinction hardly breaks the common bond between Intelligent Design and Creationism that is their full-scale refutation of a spontaneously triggered evolution. This makes Intelligent design reside much closer to the Creationism side of the divide, as opposed to any middle ground.

However, it isn't the acceptance of Intelligent Design itself that is supposed to make Townse's stance a middle ground. It is rather that he beleives it does not have to conflict with evolution. But, it should also be noted that an avoidance of conflict between two opposing sides assumes that rightness is dependent upon agreeably satisfying both sides of the debate, which isn't necessarily true.

Jackson then enters this absolutely inexcusable passage:

First, let me cite Wikipedia:
Jackson's sentence is a very loaded one. If a biologist can be called a "fundamentalist", they are an entirely different kind of "fundamentalist" from a Christian who interprets the Bible litterally. And if a biologist's "fundamentalism" in favor of evolution has lead them astray, their strayness is substantially more justified than any creationist strayness. Supposing the two both diverge from what is true a certain degree, their common quality of divergence does not translate into an equal degree of divergence.

But the more likely scenario is that Jackson is trying to get her evolutionist readers to accept that evolution "fundamentalists" add nothing to the debate, by granting for them that religious fundamentalists add nothing either.

It may be true that little progress is being made in this debate, but mischaracterizing the opposing sides as equal and opposite is a total opt-out on the debate itself. Positioning the two as opposing extremes and then (falsy) calling a new position the middle in no way employs critical thought or brings us any closer to an answer that is consistent with the facts of reality.

And let's let PETA into our schools to teach why eating meat is wrong.

It easy, you cannot prove either way that a bacterium evolved into other multicellular organisms, or into a more complex cell.

You certainly *can* disprove it. All you have to do is find evidence inconsistent with the theory.

Of course you can't *prove* it. Science can't *prove* anything. It can merely provide evidence for theories.

Certain cellular organellesie mitochondria and chloroplasts are bacterial in origin, but no evidence exists to show how a simple cell became a far larger more complex cell, or then a functioning multi cell organism.

LOL! You demonstrate your complete and utter bias here. You are willing to blindly accept the hypothesis that mitochondria and choloroplasts are bacterial in origin, which comes directly out of the theory of evolution, but claim to reject the theory itself. You claim that there is no evidence for a simple cell becoming more complex, and then claim that there was a time that there were cells with no mitochondria or chloroplasts (which would make them far less complex). Please do make up your mind.

Its based on humans age old ideas that some things are superior and therefore more evolved than others, who says that a chimpanzee is inferior to a human, just different.

Evolutionary theory is based on no such thing. Nothing in evolution says that humans are superior or more evolved than any other creature. We have simply evolved differently.

Macro evolution is very subjective and antropomorphic in nature, evidence such as dna base similarities are observed anthropomorphicly and inferences are drawn from that, ie dna compared to is human, some things are more different to humans than others, they have filled vastly different niches than humans and so have been selected to be more different.

Again, you demonstrate your own bias (and ignorance). The DNA compared to is not always, or even most often, human. In order to determine the relationships between several different species, they will be compared to each other. If we are looking at how closely related a human being is to a chimp, we will use DNA from each. If we are looking at how closely related a starfish is to a jellyfish, we will compare those. And so on....

You are right, it doesn't make it true.

However, in science, something that has gone a long period of time without being refuted is the closest to truth we have.



You have just described (albeit in simplified form) the entire theory of evolution.



Maybe that is because evolution does not claim that 1 organism ever changes into another, or that cats ever become dogs.



Incorrect. One does not have to observe the entire process to study it. It can be studied bit by bit. We can observe genetic mutations - we have. We can observe natural selection - we have. We can observe genetic mutations leading to a selective advantage and thus a large change in a species - we have.

Because we have all of this evidence, the theory of evolution stands as a valid theory. Until such a time as we find something inconsistent with that theory, it will continue to stand.


You have just agreed with me i probly didnt make my self clear. The precepts of evolutionary change are not what i c as the issue, which is what all of the experiments prove, it is the common idea of the use of those precepts to prove the origins of things, which as i c it at present there is not enough viable evidence to support that point. all selection evidence can be applied to this purpose and made to fit, sound good and official and maybe fool a few people, We must have less faith in science not expect it to produce answers, so when it does they are irrefutable. Must be more perceptive and form our own ideas on things, science is not often always right

i could send you my entire set of evolutionary genetics notes if you really want
Or you could start citing journals. Different organisms have different repair mechanisms to repair their DNA. Humans have a different mutation rate then say, a virus which has almost no DNA/RNA repair mechanism. Not that it needs one.

Or you could start citing journals. Different organisms have different repair mechanisms to repair their DNA. Humans have a different mutation rate then say, a virus which has almost no DNA/RNA repair mechanism. Not that it needs one.

I do not have it as journal articles definite, i have a set of notes compiled from various sources, with some journals and others of current research.
These are the detailed lecture courses used to teach students in evolutionary genetics
If this compolation is not good enough then im sorry mate but u can live in ur denial

I do not have it as journal articles definite, i have a set of notes compiled from various sources, with some journals and others of current research.
These are the detailed lecture courses used to teach students in evolutionary genetics
If this compolation is not good enough then im sorry mate but u can live in ur denial
Which journals and where.

A constant rate of mutations in a genome across species would be fantastic, as it basically says that all DNA/RNA repair mechanisms are useless.

I do not have it as journal articles definite, i have a set of notes compiled from various sources, with some journals and others of current research.
These are the detailed lecture courses used to teach students in evolutionary genetics
If this compolation is not good enough then im sorry mate but u can live in ur denial

I hate to be rude but from what I've seen of your typing reading a whole set of your notes would drive me mad.

lets make it clear that i do not disagree with your sacred theory evolution theory. I am a student of molecular and medical biology and actually understand far more than i express possibly. Where i see a distinction has to be made is the application of biological evolutionary fact to concepts of origin, as should be the argument here, not the concept of evolution itsself.
Just thought id clear that up

lets make it clear that i do not disagree with your sacred theory evolution theory. I am a student of molecular and medical biology and actually understand far more than i express possibly. Where i see a distinction has to be made is the application of biological evolutionary fact to concepts of origin, as should be the argument here, not the concept of evolution itsself.
Just thought id clear that up

By origin do you mean you're arguing against Abiogenisis rather than Evolution? :confused:

lets make it clear that i do not disagree with your sacred theory evolution theory. I am a student of molecular and medical biology and actually understand far more than i express possibly. Where i see a distinction has to be made is the application of biological evolutionary fact to concepts of origin, as should be the argument here, not the concept of evolution itsself.
Just thought id clear that up
Origin of species? or origin of life?

You have just agreed with me

Only if you have changed your tune.

The precepts of evolutionary change are not what i c as the issue, which is what all of the experiments prove,

Those precepts are the entirety of the theory of evolution. If they are not at issue, then nothing is.

Meanwhile, the experiments don't prove anything. They simply fail to disprove the theory.

it is the common idea of the use of those precepts to prove the origins of things, which as i c it at present there is not enough viable evidence to support that point.

Again, no one is trying to prove anything. Proofs are in the realm of mathematics. In science, we create theories, and we back them with evidence. If evidence is found that contradicts them, we throw them out.

If you find evidence that organisms are not related, or that they are not related in the commonly hypothesized ways, then, by all means, publish it.

all selection evidence can be applied to this purpose and made to fit, sound good and official and maybe fool a few people,

No, it can't. If the evidence isn't there, it can't be "made to fit." If there are no shared genes between species A and species B, then there is no reason to believe them to be related, and no one will claim that they are.

If organisms from group A and group B cannot produce viable offspring (or, in the case of asexual organisms, do not share enough similarities), they will not be classified as the same species. And so on...

There is no vast conspiracy to convince people of evolutionary theory. There is simply biology.

We must have less faith in science not expect it to produce answers, so when it does they are irrefutable. Must be more perceptive and form our own ideas on things, science is not often always right

Anyone who has "faith" in science, is doing it wrong.

There is no vast conspiracy to convince people of evolutionary theory. There is simply biology.

Yes...that's right....no conspiracy. Oh, and that black van outside your house is just there to read your gas meter....honest....

Which journals and where.

A constant rate of mutations in a genome across species would be fantastic, as it basically says that all DNA/RNA repair mechanisms are useless.

Please understand that mutation occurs at a rate not affected by dna repair mechanisms, and that much of the mechanisms act in repair of coding sequence, and that much of this constant mutation is neutral or noncoding ie in introns and is so unaffected or missed. This makes the dna different as is observed in base similarity tests but phenotype or coding genotype is often not affected at such a rate
Fitch and Margoliash (1967) Science 155:279

Please understand that mutation occurs at a rate not affected by dna repair mechanisms, and that much of the mechanisms act in repair of coding sequence, and that much of this constant mutation is neutral or noncoding ie in introns and is so unaffected or missed. This makes the dna different as is observed in base similarity tests but phenotype or coding genotype is often not affected at such a rate
Fitch and Margoliash (1967) Science 155:279
I'm not talking about the rate of mutation in DNA base pairs, I'm talking about the expression of those mutations, which is really what matters when we're talking about evolution.

Only if you have changed your tune.



Those precepts are the entirety of the theory of evolution. If they are not at issue, then nothing is.

Meanwhile, the experiments don't prove anything. They simply fail to disprove the theory.



Again, no one is trying to prove anything. Proofs are in the realm of mathematics. In science, we create theories, and we back them with evidence. If evidence is found that contradicts them, we throw them out.

If you find evidence that organisms are not related, or that they are not related in the commonly hypothesized ways, then, by all means, publish it.



No, it can't. If the evidence isn't there, it can't be "made to fit." If there are no shared genes between species A and species B, then there is no reason to believe them to be related, and no one will claim that they are.

If organisms from group A and group B cannot produce viable offspring (or, in the case of asexual organisms, do not share enough similarities), they will not be classified as the same species. And so on...

There is no vast conspiracy to convince people of evolutionary theory. There is simply biology.



Anyone who has "faith" in science, is doing it wrong.


Interesting really but not quite. Yes the purest expression of the scientific method is the null hypothesis, but unfortunately there are often trials in science that aim to prove things, not just add evidence to theories.
Yes much of biology may start as a theory, but if i were to start to talk of the theory of double helical DNA as the cellular information carrier i would be shot, why because DNA has been observed to be such in every possible thinkable way, it is not a theory it is a fact as are the processes of selection.
You can talk in theory if you like but biology is in reality a science of confirmed or still to be confirmed fact. I am a medical scientist, my science is that of fact. human physiology and anatomy are as they are, all medicine is based on the knowledge of such. The theory of evolution is not just natural selection as you suppose, but natural selection is the thin peice of biology on which the rest of the theory is built.

I'm not talking about the rate of mutation in DNA base pairs, I'm talking about the expression of those mutations, which is really what matters when we're talking about evolution.

Not really, the key method of evolutionary phylognesis is that of the Comparitive DNA annealation. This is based on total strand base difference, not on coding differences. Coding only effects selection, that is not the issue, selection occurs, to a point, if an organisms traits cannot be acted on by a certain environment, those traits will not evolve to fill that environmental niche. There in lies the limit of natural selection

Interesting really but not quite. Yes the purest expression of the scientific method is the null hypothesis, but unfortunately there are often trials in science that aim to prove things, not just add evidence to theories.

Any scientist who "aims to prove things" has already broken the scientific method, and is thus not a scientist. If you are trying to prove something, you can find evidence for it - no problem. If I want to prove that the Earth is flat, all I have to do is find a big cliff, and claim it is the end of the Earth. There is no push to look for any other evidence (or evidence to the contrary).

Yes much of biology may start as a theory, but if i were to start to talk of the theory of double helical DNA as the cellular information carrier i would be shot, why because DNA has been observed to be such in every possible thinkable way, it is not a theory it is a fact as are the processes of selection.

No, it is still a theory. We could find an observation tomorrow that contradicted it. We could find that some of the observations in the past were in error. And so on...

Now, it is a theory so well-backed that it might as well be proven.

You can talk in theory if you like but biology is in reality a science of confirmed or still to be confirmed fact.

There is no such thing as a "science of confirmed or still to be confirmed fact." That isn't how the scientific method works.

I am a medical scientist, my science is that of fact. human physiology and anatomy are as they are, all medicine is based on the knowledge of such.

I would believe you, if you didn't demonstrate a lack of even a middle school understanding of the scientific method.

Of course, we can all throw around credentials we can't back up on the internet. I am a bioengineer in a biology lab. I study both biology and engineering in great depth. I don't really care if someone believes it or not, because I can back up my statements with actual science, instead of, "Oh, well I only have these lecture notes, but I swear I'm a medical scientist! Really!"

The theory of evolution is not just natural selection as you suppose, but natural selection is the thin peice of biology on which the rest of the theory is built.

I suppose nothing. The theory of evolution is the mechanisms proposed for changing a species over time. These mechanisms are mutation and natural selection. Thus, the theory of evolution is those mechanisms.

All other references to evolution appear to be inferences about what this selection can do or to what extent it occurs. No evidence has been ever presented that 1 organism can change into another ie cats become dogs etc.
The supposed time scale for this means it cannot be observed, it therefore is not science, interesting huh

This is an excellent demonstration of how little proponents of "alternative theories" understand evolutionary biology and how ignorant they are of the evidence that exists for it.

First of all, evolutionary biology doesn't claim that "1 organism can change into another." The principles of evolutionary change work on populations, not individuals. Many changes occur in multiplicity, and certain changes are a better response to environmental pressures than others. The accumulation of successful changes over time within a population leads to the emergence of a new population.

Second, there is, in fact, quite a good deal of evidence demonstrating this change in populations. The multiplicity of the hox gene in mammals, for example. The same gene exists in insects and molluscs, but as only a single copy. The hox gene is a major influence on the development of the body plan in the bilateria. We know this directly from experimentation; its influence has been shown empirically and consistently. It is possible to demonstrate the evolution of all animals with a bilateral body symmetry by charting the relative changes and number of copies of the gene present in a given group.

Please, try not to present refuted arguments as if they were authoritative. It really makes you look pretty damned ignorant.

Sorry, I've had a bad day and I wasn't paying attention. I meant that they believe that humans evolved but God was behind evolution. I'll edit my original post.
And they think intelligent design is a joke?
What you friends believe is the very base of ID.

Evolution is an explanation of the HOW not the WHY. There is no room in science for supernatural beings controling things, regardless of whether or not they are. Once science says we give up it must be a god, science becomes usless. Such a statement means that no physical laws can be relied up on. Science classes be forced to accept "Because the designer wanted it to" when asked how a rainbow is formed? If we accept ID we will have to accept this because it is the same conclusion. "I don't know, I think it's too hard to find out how it works. I say 'God' did it."
'Science' doesn't care if God created the universe, drove evolution or even if he created the world 8000 years ago "with a past". None of that matters in the class room, or the lab, because what science is trying to figure out is HOW. From discovering the HOW we can draw conclusions about reality and attempt to use the knowledge (hopefully for the betterment of man kind). This applies for ALL fields of science including evolution.
Yes evolution is incomplete (although not as incomplete as the ID and creation blocks would want you to think) this is why we must study it and not take the intellectually lasy route of "God did it".
If doesn't matter if God did it or if it was random chance. What we are trying to find out is how it happens. If God stepped in and altered a small part of the universe to be alive, then nothing is set. We can't rely on gravity, or light or e=mc2.

And the biggest issue that creationists and ID pushers have to learn is that science does NOT work in absolute truths, it works in observable evidences. It requires natural explainations, not an absolute truth.

"God says so" is of no use to engineers and scientists.

Any scientist who "aims to prove things" has already broken the scientific method, and is thus not a scientist. If you are trying to prove something, you can find evidence for it - no problem. If I want to prove that the Earth is flat, all I have to do is find a big cliff, and claim it is the end of the Earth. There is no push to look for any other evidence (or evidence to the contrary).



No, it is still a theory. We could find an observation tomorrow that contradicted it. We could find that some of the observations in the past were in error. And so on...

Now, it is a theory so well-backed that it might as well be proven.



There is no such thing as a "science of confirmed or still to be confirmed fact." That isn't how the scientific method works.



I would believe you, if you didn't demonstrate a lack of even a middle school understanding of the scientific method.

Of course, we can all throw around credentials we can't back up on the internet. I am a bioengineer in a biology lab. I study both biology and engineering in great depth. I don't really care if someone believes it or not, because I can back up my statements with actual science, instead of, "Oh, well I only have these lecture notes, but I swear I'm a medical scientist! Really!"



I suppose nothing. The theory of evolution is the mechanisms proposed for changing a species over time. These mechanisms are mutation and natural selection. Thus, the theory of evolution is those mechanisms.

I didnt realise this was a war of words then i am sorry:)
you can think as u wish of my credentials i dont care.
Yes as far as the supposed ideal of the scientific method you are correct, it seems that it is an ideal which you uphold very strongly and i admire you for such, however all my argument was is that some times the language that is used commonly surrounding issues such as these makes it appear as if the concepts in discussion are infact science fact. I can name various bits of fossil evidence that have been rejected because they do not fit the evolutionary model of man for example (6 foot human femurs and the like) things which science can deny but still in reality exist. "Science" has no right to deny viable evidence because it troubles current theories, as you have stated It was really my desire to try and bring ideas outside of the limiting framework of the accept/deny hypothesis level of the scientific theory.

Just running a standard check here, how many have read On the Origin of Species or something of the like?


P.S. I agree whole heartedly with Alchamania.

I didnt realise this was a war of words then i am sorry:)
you can think as u wish of my credentials i dont care.
Yes as far as the supposed ideal of the scientific method you are correct, it seems that it is an ideal which you uphold very strongly and i admire you for such, however all my argument was is that some times the language that is used commonly surrounding issues such as these makes it appear as if the concepts in discussion are infact science fact. I can name various bits of fossil evidence that have been rejected because they do not fit the evolutionary model of man for example (6 foot human femurs and the like) things which science can deny but still in reality exist. "Science" has no right to deny viable evidence because it troubles current theories, as you have stated It was really my desire to try and bring ideas outside of the limiting framework of the accept/deny hypothesis level of the scientific theory.

Excuse me, but I've never heard of anyone finding a fossilized six foot long human femur. Kindly provide a link to a reputable source demonstrating that this discovery has actually occurred.

Judging from everything you've written so far on this thread, I have serious doubts as to your credentials. I have never heard of science rejecting evidence that contradicts a claim. If anything, the history of science is one of the constant revision of theories based upon new evidence. Evolutionary biology itself has been so changed many times over since Darwin first put forth his ideas, as has genetic theory since Mendel. Even limiting the question to human evolution, the recent discovery of Homo floresiensis has already set in motion a change to long-held theories of human evolution and migration that have been widely accepted for the last 50 years. Why would evidence based upon a "six foot femur" be ignored when evidence based upon a very tiny skull that challenges current theory is not?

I'm not buying your argument at all. Provide evidence.

And they think intelligent design is a joke?
What you friends believe is the very base of ID.
<angry rant snipped>
Mate, calm down. Plenty of Christians follows various scientific discoveries, and adapt their faith to what we learn. You can't honestly claim that it's wrong to believe a God set everything in motion. Not unless you can demonstrate a God didn't do it.
Sure, I too find it most likely that shit just happened, and honestly think various popular ideas about God(s) are absurd.. But it doesn't nessecarily mean they are wrong.

IDism/Creationism is very different from what that guy said his friends believe. Neither one is in any way compatible with what we observe about reality. Neither accepts that speciation can be possible.

Simply saying God (or whatever else you fancy) made sure evolution would occur does not contradict anything we know, and it is most certainly not the same as ID.

Just running a standard check here, how many have read On the Origin of Species or something of the like?


P.S. I agree whole heartedly with Alchamania.

I have, and lots of much more "boring" stuff, including first-hand published papers.

Mate, calm down. Plenty of Christians follows various scientific discoveries, and adapt their faith to what we learn. You can't honestly claim that it's wrong to believe a God set everything in motion. Not unless you can demonstrate a God didn't do it.

This is called an argument from ignorance. "Nobody has proved that bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore it exists."

One can believe whatever they like, but the difference between a belief and a fact is that a fact is an assertion that can be logically proven, not one for which merely hasn't been disproven.

Sure, I too find it most likely that shit just happened, and honestly think various popular ideas about God(s) are absurd.. But it doesn't nessecarily mean they are wrong.

It also doesn't mean that they are right. Scientific reasoning is about a preponderance of the evidence, not a lack of evidence for an assertion. If the advocates of ID wish their ideas to be accepted as part of science, then they must provide the same preponderance of evidence to which all scientific theory is held — as opposed to redefining science (as in the case of Kansas) to include absolutely unsupported assertions.

Simply saying God (or whatever else you fancy) made sure evolution would occur does not contradict anything we know, and it is most certainly not the same as ID.

It does not, however, have any evidence behind it. I could as easily claim that I am personally responsible for the existence of life on earth and be every bit as correct. All I would need do is claim that I have the ability to time travel and then assert that I can't reveal what I know about the future because it would alter history. Anyone can make any claim they like; the exact role of science is to scrutinize the evidence in support or contradiction to any claim at all.

I can name various bits of fossil evidence that have been rejected because they do not fit the evolutionary model of man for example (6 foot human femurs and the like) things which science can deny but still in reality exist. "Science" has no right to deny viable evidence because it troubles current theories
I am very interested in seeing these fossils. A 6 foot human femur doesn't interfer with the evolutionary model of man. Not all hominid remains discovered are directly related to modern human. In fact most of them are more likely side branches that died off. A 6 foot femur would mean a hominid roughly 4 times larger then modern man. This would be no different then the "hobbits" found in indonesia, a hominid primate that is not on our specific branch of the "evolutionary tree", but definity on the tree.
However if only one bone has been found then it is not useful in classification of the species it was from. It could be a deformity, or even not from a hominid at all. But I would be most interested in seeing all the fossil evidence you believe to have been rejected.

It was really my desire to try and bring ideas outside of the limiting framework of the accept/deny hypothesis level of the scientific theory.
The debate is whether or not we teach ID in science class rooms. That frame work is the corner stone of science. Everything else is philosophy, an extremely interesting and enjoyable subject in it own right. Philosophy does not belong in a science class any more then maths belongs in an english class room.

Mate, calm down.
I should have made it clearer that there were two parts to the post.
The Comment at the start is not related to the content.
At first I was merely pointing out that belief that God or anyone drove the evolution of man is a form of ID.

The rest of my post was in relation to the issue of teaching ID is class rooms. I don't care if anyone believes that God drove evolution or even if they believe evolution does not occur and the bible is literal truth. I am very passionate about teaching only science in science classes.

This is called an argument from ignorance. "Nobody has proved that bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore it exists."

One can believe whatever they like, but the difference between a belief and a fact is that a fact is an assertion that can be logically proven, not one for which merely hasn't been disproven.
Very true.


It also doesn't mean that they are right. Scientific reasoning is about a preponderance of the evidence, not a lack of evidence for an assertion. If the advocates of ID wish their ideas to be accepted as part of science, then they must provide the same preponderance of evidence to which all scientific theory is held — as opposed to redefining science (as in the case of Kansas) to include absolutely unsupported assertions.
The difference here is that we aren't talking about Christian fundies who wish to outlaw science. Just perfectly ordinary Christians, who are just as interested in how the world works, and don't believe the Bible gives any sort of litteral answers to that.
Most Christians I've ever dealt with have at least a basic understanding of what science is, and they don't feel scientific discoveries & theories in any way intrudes on their faith. Rather, they veiw science as a tool for answering the How's, while their faith answers the Why's.
Ans they are perfectly aware that faith isn't a rational thing.


It does not, however, have any evidence behind it. I could as easily claim that I am personally responsible for the existence of life on earth and be every bit as correct. All I would need do is claim that I have the ability to time travel and then assert that I can't reveal what I know about the future because it would alter history. Anyone can make any claim they like; the exact role of science is to scrutinize the evidence in support or contradiction to any claim at all.
The scientific method can't be used to examine the supernatural. If you'd instead said that you magically conjured everything out of nothing, just because you felt like it, then you'd be on par with what most religions claims.

Most likely, people would incarcerate you & stuff you full of drugs. But we've decided against doing that to Christians.

If would be relatively easy to examine whether your'e capable of surviving time travel, hence any such 'realistic' (and I use the word very loosely) claims could probably be falsified relatively easily. Magic is another story altogether.

The difference here is that we aren't talking about Christian fundies who wish to outlaw science. Just perfectly ordinary Christians, who are just as interested in how the world works, and don't believe the Bible gives any sort of litteral answers to that.
Most Christians I've ever dealt with have at least a basic understanding of what science is, and they don't feel scientific discoveries & theories in any way intrudes on their faith. Rather, they veiw science as a tool for answering the How's, while their faith answers the Why's.
Ans they are perfectly aware that faith isn't a rational thing.

Regardless of who makes the claim, it is to be held to the same inspection if it is to be considered a scientific claim. Again, I'd stress that I have absolutely no objection to anyone believing whatever they like. If someone wants to believe that God, Santa Claus, and invisible pink unicorn, or Dr. Seuss came up with the idea of evolution, that's fine with me. My problem comes in when they wish to advance the idea as something other than a personal belief.

When I was an undergraduate student attending my first college-level chemistry class, there was a very religious female student. One day, the professor was explaining atomic structure theory and got around to the subject of electron pair bonding. The woman raised her hand and asked if this theory was a "proven fact." The teacher replied that it was a sound scientific theory that explained all observed examples and formed the basis of chemistry, and that no one had come up with a better explanation of how atoms bond into molecules. This student objected and stated unequivocally that she didn't believe the theory because she knew that matter is held together by God's will (or love... I forget now which exact word she used). The professor explained that she could believe anything she wanted, but pair bonding was the acepted model unless someone came up with evidence to the contrary, at which point this student left the class and never returned.

That, I think, is a problem.

The scientific method can't be used to examine the supernatural. If you'd instead said that you magically conjured everything out of nothing, just because you felt like it, then you'd be on par with what most religions claims.

Certainly it can. Ideas about the supernatural can certainly be tested for repeatability, just as any other idea. If someone claims to have magical powers, then they should be able to demonstrate them — otherwise they're lying.

If would be relatively easy to examine whether your'e capable of surviving time travel, hence any such 'realistic' (and I use the word very loosely) claims could probably be falsified relatively easily. Magic is another story altogether.

It should be relatively easy to demonstrate the mechanism by which an omnipotent force imposes its will upon the order of the universe, too. Obviously, if something is having an effect upon matter, then that effect can be measured and demonstrated. I wonder what units would be used to quantify how much will is being exerted? Is there a mole of will-units? Is it measured in Coulombs or kilojoules?