evolution vs creationism (Page 4)

Geoff: **Sigh**

BSE causes no genetic mutations. BSE is responsible for the corruption of proteins, not corrupting genetic material but corrupting how it is interpreted.

Kinda like thalidomide, which disrupted HSP90 and prevented it from correcting genetic abnormalities (which had been present in the genome for dozens of generations), and didn't cause phocomelia, but simply caused it to manifest.

duncan124:
The Spanish had it during the Peninsular War, if you were thought to have caught it you were sent to India where its mutations stopped due to the environment there.

Geoff: And believe me, I really do know about this subject. My dissertation is based around it.

duncan124:
So was Corvins.lol

Corwin: Yeah, but what about the computer program, Geoff.... the imaginary one that worked with Darwin's theories but couldn't turn apes into humans?..... Duncan really has us over the barrel with that one.

duncan124:
You are a follower of OCD !

Geoff: But it is too complex.

If you spent on developing the software what NASA spent on getting Neil & Buzz to the moon, you'd still not eliminate the discrepancies. And the smallest error in the input would lead to the most massive of errors in the output. The problem of such a complex program is that GIGO is magnified by each revolution. And something like that would need a huge amount of revolutions through the programming loop.

We can't produce a Turing proof AI yet, we certainly can't replicate a few million years of real life.

Corwin: Do you think that maybe OCD is a monkey for real, that got BSE and now she's evolving into a monkey that speaks english and can talk on the internet?

Geoff: Sorry - GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Kinda like Duncan.

duncan124:
I think Darwins theory was too complex for some.

Geoff: @Corvin - Bahahahahahahahahahahaha

Geoff: Darwin's theory is not complex at all. But from the simplest of rules, over a long enough time span, you get something called emergent behaviour - from the rule of 0 and 1, you get a computer that can beat a human at chess.

Corwin: Well said, Geoff.

CoIin: Once again I'm puzzled by the uncompromising defence of evolutionary theory (and other theories) in this thread, as well as others, by Wireclub members who are supposed to be friends of science. Their views, while no doubt well intentioned, I find to be shortsighted and indeed inimical to the spirit of the whole scientific enterprise.

I shudder each time I'm told that evolutionary theory is "carved in stone" or "proven fact". Without even going into the conceptual reasons why such remarks are misguided, a cursory glance through the history of science should be sufficient to disabuse any reasonable observer of notions of immutability in science.

Would you really wish for the "truths" of science to be carved on stone tablets, next to the ten commandments, to be venerated but never questioned? God help us all .

In the face of a perceived threat from religious fundamentalism, it's not hard to see the motivation underlying such patriotic panegyrics, however I think your loyalties, if there must be such a thing at all, would be better directed solely to "truth" and not to any particular hypothesis, theory or paradigm.

The devotion of the doctor should be to the health of the patient; not to any particular medical instrument, diagnostic device or technique. As soon as a better technique comes along, the old one should be discarded without hesitation or remorse. And that day should be looked forward to; it should be celebrated, not feared.

Let's look at the issue from the perspective of "progress" - a notion I trust we can all agree should be part and parcel of the scientific enterprise. We might divide progress into two kinds - horizontal and vertical.

The Boeing company making improvements to their 747 model so that safety, efficiency, etc achieve higher standards would be an example of horizontal progress. The replacement of the 747 by an entirely different and superior model would constitute vertical progress.

I hope we can all agree that, while both forms of progress are desirable, vertical progress (which represents a qualitative change) is to be preferred over horizontal progress (which represents only a quantitative change).

Well, surely the company executives who insist that the 747 is as good as an aeroplane can be are in fact RESISTING progress of the vertical kind. Likewise I submit that these diehards who cannot see beyond evolutionary theory as "proven fact" are in fact acting as an impediment to progress in science.

The triumph of the Copernican worldview over the Ptolemaic system epitomizes vertical progress. And despite what some biased or misinformed science teachers or textbooks might tell us, Einstein's relativistic mechanics was not an IMPROVEMENT on Newton - it REPLACED Newton.

Newton provided us with a useful calculating instrument, but at the level of "truth" he was plainly wrong, at least according to the present understanding. Similarly, you won't go far wrong with a Ptolemaic calendar, but no one these days would claim that Ptolemaic cosmology is a true description of the solar system.

Accuracy is not a measure of truth. A true theory must necessarily be accurate, but the reverse doesn't follow; an untrue theory can be astonishingly accurate, as the examples above should attest.

So to the "friends of science" out there, I ask... Are you convinced that despite constant flux before now, science now has it all more or less right? Are you satisfied that all scientists need to do now is iron out the wrinkles in current theories - calculate Planck's constant to an ever greater degree of accuracy, find new planets, explain new fossils in the same old way, ....

(I think I've heard this described as the "porcupine effect" - "We've found a certain trait in rats, beavers, hedgehogs, and capybara. Now we're trying to identify it in porcupines" ).

If this is indeed the end of science, then all revolutions are a thing of the past and all we have to do now is sit around and get fat. If you believe this, you're a braver man than I, although I'm certainly not averse to a bit of decadence now and then

On the other hand, if qualitative progress is to continue, you may have to face the fact that current evolutionary theory is wrong - and it's a good thing. Smile!

CoIin: P.S. When the optimistic theist claims to have proof of God, the jocular atheist is apt to retort "Which one?"

Well, when the science fan tells me that evolutionary theory is "proven fact", I'm apt to ask the very same question. (There have been more than one, you know)

Corwin: That is a great schpeil there, my snickering hound friend....

But what you are suggesting is that there is some other mechanism that has brought us from the primordial slime to our present state... something other than the struggle to survive.

Can we in all good "logical" conscience really entertain the notion of a "God-force"??

And seriously... what else is there?? If you are going to refute Scientific Method, at least give us some kind of rational alternative... you have offered us nothing but speculation... without even a clue as to what you are proposing to replace this... other than to distrust all and every rational explanation of the evidence we have presented to us... and instead give us examples of when we have been wrong in the past.

I am not convinced... if you can show me an example of the apple NOT falling from the tree... for whatever reason... then I will consider that.

Laws are laws.... the laws of society can be broken... and not even punished if you can get away with it... the laws of Physics can NOT be broken... not even for a time, waiting for the Science-Cops to bust you for your blasphemous crime...

This may sound insulting (not my intention)... but... anybody who cannot "see" Evolution at work.... is blind...
Just as someone who would refute that the apple falls to the ground.

CoIin: Well, the whole point is that the superiority of a new paradigm will only be recognized in hindsight. Consider the case of Galileo. It turns out he was right, but his "evidence" was laughable by the standards of the old paradigm.

Vindication came only centuries later. In the early 17th century, geocentrism was "proven fact". It was "carved in stone". Anyone who couldn't see this was blind. (Einstein had to await vindication too, but not nearly as long)


[ Edit : @ - "And seriously... what else is there?? "

We can't know that right now. My suggestion here is not that evolutionary theory be dropped. The doctor would be foolish indeed to throw away his instruments and techniques before something better came along. And scientists, like all the rest of us, tend not to abandon their beliefs/theories until an alternative presents itself.

My critique here is rather directed at the mindset which asserts what we have now is very good (and I for one certainly am not denying that it's an excellent theory) - therefore (1) it cannot be improved upon qualitatively (i.e.superseded, replaced), and (2) it must be TRUE. These are inferential leaps which rationality cannot justify. ]

CoIin: @ - " if you can show me an example of the apple NOT falling from the tree"

Well, look at what you're saying. The word "fall" presupposes the notion of "up and down". Nature knows no such things.

Your "fact" is man-made. Nature is indifferent to the human construction and construal of "facts".

@ - "Just as someone who would refute that the apple falls to the ground"

Ok, I refute that . I claim that the ground falls to the apple.

CoIin: Actually, Corvin, your insistence on the apple falling to the ground as an unshakeable fact (presumably to be used as evidence in the support of some particular theory of gravity) is redolent of the "tower" argument which was used to debunk Galileo's silly ideas. It was considered irrefutable at the time - even by the top scientists of the day.

If we drop a stone from the top of a high tower, the stone will land directly below the point it was released. FACT

Therefore the Earth does not move. FACT

(When a theory is at odds with the "facts", the problem does not necessarily lie with the theory)

duncan124:
Indeed. Any reader can see that the posts of some posters lack any scientific ideas and we can guess the poster has not had any scientific education and would not be safe with chemicals even.

Colin says a stone dropped will always land on the same spot. When it doesn't it is clearly the wind that is moving it.This can be tested by dropping the stone several times, a fact which is not often argued, and seeing if it lands in the same spot as the constant force of gravity would cause.

Humans and computers could not make humans out of apes. Darwins theory does not work as he described it , it requires another factor.

Geoff: OK - All of the evidence demonstrates that all life on Earth developed from a single, simple source.
By comparing the genetic structure of any two species, we can determine how long it has been since they shared a common ancestor. By comparing the physiognomy of two more closely related species, we can start to deduce what environmental factors lead to the split between them.

If we look at the fossil record, we can see changes, that life then was not as life is now.

So while the current neo-Darwinian synthesis may not be the perfect explanation of any future evidence, and while it may be supplanted when new evidence comes to light, at the moment it is the best we have. So forgive me if I don't throw it away because of vague doubts, all of which are proposed by people with ulterior motives.

Should someone on here come up with a better alternative, and the evidence to support it, then I'll be quite happy to adopt their ideas. Putting forth their skewed, god fearing (or rather repeating the words of the "Don't take my tax break" preacher) arguments, when they don't really know what they are talking about, and are just repeating parrot fashion what they have been taught, is not going to move me.

Of course, not everyone who argues against evolution is a god bothering nut. Some are just plain nuts.

duncan124:
Genetics are a new science. No one could or has studied Apes genetics in comparison with Humans genetics.

CoIin: @ Corvin - "Laws are laws.... the laws of society can be broken... and not even punished if you can get away with it... the laws of Physics can NOT be broken... not even for a time, waiting for the Science-Cops to bust you for your blasphemous crime..."

Well, this simply shifts the focus from theories to laws. Assuming what you say is true - laws are laws and cannot be broken - the problem still remains for us to identify what these laws are. As with theories, history once again is quite adequate to demonstrate that what we believe to be a "true" law may in fact be nothing of the kind.

Our man Newton provides a prime example. We still speak of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. In fact these are still taught as laws to schoolchildren when scientists themselves know them to be untrue.

And once again we see a word being thrown around as if it's uncontroversial. Yes, we all know what a "law" is, don't we? Well, in fact the concept is not well-defined or well understood at all. Try writing an essay on what a law is (and isn't) and you'll soon discover the difficulties. If you don't, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.


@ Geoff - "Should someone on here come up with a better alternative, and the evidence to support it, then I'll be quite happy to adopt their ideas"

I think this misses the point. If I were to show you the evidence (assuming I had any - it may not be available now) to support my alternative, and you found it satisfactory, we would necessarily be operating in the same old paradigm. Evidence which you find palatable under your current conceptual nexus is likely to herald progress only of the horizontal kind.

Progress of the vertical kind I described above requires a revolution, a paradigm shift, a whole different way of looking at the world. In such cases, the new paradigm is likely to be "incommensurable" with the old. It's not just that they speak different languages (languages can be translated), it's more than that - they are conceptually incompatible.

(No capitalist would ever be convinced of the superiority of another system, say, anarchism, BEFORE it had been implemented. It is, however, conceivable that some might look back 20 years later and recognize the superiority of the alternative - or vice versa)

Eg. Newton and Einstein's theories both involved "mass" - but they most certainly were NOT talking about the same thing.

To continue the Boeing analogy, it would be like me asking for funding for a brilliant idea for a radical new flying machine and you demanding to see it fly first ( "Show me your evidence!" ). The only way to be sure it flies is to build one. And to build one requires at least partial acceptance of my new conceptual scheme. I cannot prove the worthiness of my new scheme when operating within the confines of your old scheme. Under the strictures of your paradigm, my idea DOESN'T WORK.

The point of this oversimple analogy (and it's not a very elegant one, I admit ) is not that there are lots of undiscovered aeronautical geniuses out there, but rather that the evidence vindicating a new paradigm can only be adduced AFTER (perhaps long after) it has been adopted. And such evidence is bound to be antithetical to the older paradigm. In other words, you wouldn't like it if you saw it right now.

As I said to Corvin earlier, if a new hypothesis is found to be at odds with established facts, we tend to assume that the hypothesis must be wrong. And this may well be the case. It is not inconceivable, however, that the facts are wrong, or in Galileo's case, that the facts are being misconstrued.

Galileo's genius lay in being able to point out that, what everyone else took for granted to be a simple fact, was in fact a combination of observation PLUS interpretation. It had never even occurred to anyone else that such a basic observation (the stone lands at the base of the tower) required interpretation.

Of course, I understand what you're saying about wasting time with crackpots. At the same time though, your comment which I quoted above is reflective of burdensome scientific conservatism. When a true visionary does appear on the scene, conservative elements in the scientific community ( i.e. everyone ) are NEVER "happy to adopt their ideas". On the contrary they will be resisted with tooth and claw.

The visionary will be variously anathematized as "nuts", "blind", "stupid", etc. Until 100 years later - then he's suddenly a "heroic genius who was obstructed by shortsighted fools".

P.S. I got three "for" s in one verb phrase up there

CoIin: I'm really not trying to be annoying here, but I find the parallels between religious fundamentalists and hardcore science fans to be quite striking.

Eg. Every generation of Christian fanatics believes that theirs will be the generation when Christ returns, conveniently ignoring the fact that every previous generation has believed the same but was wrong.

Every generation of science fans believes that their theories are "carved in stone" or "proven fact", conveniently ignoring the fact that the scientific knowledge of every previous generation has been found wanting.

Geoff: I did include the line, "it may be supplanted when new evidence comes to light". So my defensiveness of evolution by natural selection may seem to be little different from the fundamentalist defending a literal interpretation of Genesis, I do leave mental room for being wrong.