Posted on 03/22/2011 1:39:26 PM PDT by wizard1358
There's nothing "intellectual" about throwing buckets of perjoratives, IMHO.
You are, of course, quite right. Maybe a better way to put it would be “I believe in recognizing differing viewpoints.” The perjoratives are adding insult to injury in context, but ironically, it’s all some people have up their sleeves.
type faster than i think.
i didn’t expect the spanish inquisition.
nicely put.
t
Thanks!
While neither evolution or creation can be proven scientifically, here’s some food for thought:
One of these statements is true:
1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.
Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.
Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states (basically) that energy is running down and we will eventually have no usable energy left. At that point we will suffer “heat death”....the sun can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.
One more thing on this.... secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.
Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed although it can change form) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).
That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law.
Can I prove that the universe was created? No. I can’t. However, natural law itself has falsified all the other options..... Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe.
“Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe.”
You got that right. Many of the viewpoints atheists express are not held by (dare I say) MOST of scientists anyway. Just like all other areas, only liberals get media attention. The are hundreds of scientists in this state alone who are not atheists, let alone other states and the world. Somehow their faith doesn’t preclude them being scientists, and they’re not an anomaly. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
There is no contradiction between Christianity and science -but there is a boat load of contradiction between “creation science” and science - over little things, like the preeminence of evidence over a priori assumptions, and the utilization of the scientific method.
Geetings allmendream.... I’m looking at your post #68 here.
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.... are you saying that “creation science” has a priori assumptions and that “secular science” doesn’t?
Are you further saying that the scientific method (observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable) has anything whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution?
If you are, I respectfully ask you to back that up.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is a scientific theory in that it explains and predicts data. Science is useful in that it provides replicable information about the natural world through attributing natural causes to natural phenomena. All scientific progress in terms of knowledge and technology has been dependent upon exactly that, using natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is absolutely useless, and provides nothing in the way of replicable information about the natural world. Attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomena is an intellectual dead end that leads to no further information.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is....
Observable: DNA cannot be replicated with 100% fidelity, thus change in the DNA of a population is inevitable. Those variations that provide a survival advantage will mathematically predominate in subsequent generations. We see this in thousands of experiments.
Testable: If I plate a single bacterial colony derived from one individual on ten plates, and subject them to ten different stresses, changes in DNA in each population will result in greater survivability to the subjected stress.
Repeatable: Try the above again and you see the same results - heat stress leads to evolution of heat resistance - cold stress leads to evolution of cold resistance - antibiotic stress leads to evolution of antibiotic resistance. Every time a novel antibiotic is put out in the environment resistance to that antibiotic develops among subjected bacterial populations. Repeatably.
Falsifiable: If we discovered an organism that could stay exactly 100% the same in DNA, or you could show that variations in DNA had no impact on survivability and fecundity, or you could show that DNA that decreased survivability and fecundity was just as likely to predominate in subsequent generations as a DNA variation that increased survivability and fecundity - then the theory would be falsified.
Thanks for your reply allmendream. I’m not one for lengthy posts but I’m afraid this will have to be one.
First of all, I notice that you didn’t respond to my question about evolutionists (ok, I’ll refrain from the term secular science) having a priori assumptions. I’m a voracious reader on this subject and I can tell you that scientists readily admit that they have them…. The big bang, common ancestry, a mudpuddle that came out of nowhere, a gene that made itself and then came to life. These are elements of circular reasoning…. “Evolution is true and there is no Creator, so here’s how it must have happened.”
To your first point… (observable). You went to great lengths to explain to me about natural selection. Natural selection can only select from traits that already exist….. when short-haired dogs die off in the Yukon, leaving predominantly long-haired dogs (because they have a survival advantage) there is no new information added that would have a dog evolve into something else.
What you’re doing here is throwing the word “change” around. Change within a species does not prove that an amoeba became a human being. What it proves is that existing genetic information can be switched on or off based on environment. No argument there….you do see that in thousands of experiments.
The theory of evolution says that all species of bacteria, plant, animal and human go back to a common ancestor….. That allmendream is not even remotely observable, nor is it testable, nor is it repeatable and it would be impossible for anyone to falsify it.
Your second point, (testable) is built on your first point so I’ll just ask you to describe to me how you would test the hypothesis that a gene in a mudpuddle became a human being. You’d have to set up a test that shows that massive gains in genetic information took place. The current story being told by evolutionists is that natural selection acting upon mutations is the mechanism for evolution from goo to you. The problem is that mutations (observably…. in science labs all over America) have never been shown to add information to the genome, they either cause information loss or they are information neutral.
Since gains in genetic information have never been observed, the information for all living things would have had to have been in that first gene….. now there’s a leap of faith. (Did I say faith?)
In your third point, (repeatable) you talk about antibiotic resistance. On the surface, that appears to be a good argument…. It is one that is used constantly by those on your side of the aisle. The truth is (when observed in the science lab) resistance has always been shown to be the result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
Here’s how it works ( I learned this from a friend who has a PhD in microbiology… really smart guy). The antibiotic is absorbed through the wall of the cell, it reacts with an already existing enzyme to create a poison that kills the bacteria. If there is existing bacteria that has lost that enzyme (mutation…. Loss of genetic info) then the antibiotic doesn’t create the poison to kill the bacteria. Therefore the remaining bacteria are all mutants on whom the antibiotic will not work. The answer then is that the antibiotic resistance occurs in a population of bacteria, not in individuals. It is not that the individual develops something to fight off the bacteria (which would be evolution in action if it were true), it is that some bacteria already lack the enzyme that serves as the agent to create the poison.
Your final point (falsifiable) relates to falsifying change. I can’t. All of science agrees that there is change. What is impossible for me to falsify is that evolutionary tale about a gene creating itself in a mudpuddle and then transforming itself over billions of years until I showed up. If you can come up with a way to test that, please let me know.
Let me just sit on the point about genetic information before I close. One of the laws of Information Theory is that information always comes from an intelligent source. It has never been observed to have created itself in matter.
In fact, by dictionary definition, information is conveyed from one person to another, so is code. Evolutionists should have to come up with another term…. Information is an improper word to define what they say happened…. Code came from nowhere.
Bill Gates made the comment a while back that DNA is like a computer program only far more complex than any software ever created. Atheists/Evolutionists would never believe that a computer could program itself (actually first it would have to create itself and then program itself) but they somehow believe that something infinitely more complex did just that.
The truth is that evolution - the kind they are teaching in the classroom, from nuttin’ to us humans is a philosophy because it can’t be tested or falsified…. If you are going to teach philosophy in science class then you should allow the problems with the theory to be brought up as well. You don’t have to teach creation in order to show the warts that are all over the hag called evolution.
That’s what education used to be about, right? Critical thinking?
What it is today is “swallow this and then regurgitate it back to me”. That’s really sad.
Blessings to you allmendream.
You sir, deserve an applause, for the best and most thought out post I have seen in months. Thank you for your well reasoned, logical, and moving post. I’m impressed (and that’s not common, lol)!
I also just looked at your profile, but was in no way surprised that you’re from the “Show Me” state!
“No new information”? So all the gene variations to make all the types of dogs that exist all existed in the wolf? No, different variations arose within dog/wolf populations that were selected for or against - traits like short hair vs long hair, long limbs vs short limbs, long muzzle vs short muzzle, etc, etc.
How are you going to stop this variation from arising in a population, considering that DNA cannot be replicated with 100% accuracy? Once this variation exists, how is it not going to be subject to natural selection?
Change in the DNA of a population is evolution by definition. This is not a matter of transcription control (for those of you in Rio Linda, that would be the turning on and off of genes in response to environment - you drink milk, you turn on the lactase gene that makes the lactase enzyme that metabolizes lactose).
The difference between a Methocillin resistant bacteria and a non resistant one is not that the non resistant one didn't turn on its Methocillinase gene - it is that it doesn't HAVE a mutated enzyme capable of metabolizing Methocillin - it doesn't HAVE a Methocillinase gene.
Before Methocillin was invented as an antibiotic that couldn't be metabolized by Penicilinase - there WAS no gene that could metabolize Methocillin, and if that variation arose, it would have been eliminated from the population because it would be genetic dead weight.
If by “evolution” you mean “the common descent of all species” say so, as they are not the same thing.
This is like someone saying ‘erosion is not observable’ and when I point out that it is, they point out that by ‘erosion’ they mean ‘the formation of the Grand Canyon’ - which they insist was not created by erosion over millions of years, but by the release of water from ‘the foundations of the deep’ within a few thousand years.
Can you tell me with a straight face that the bacteria that digest nylon, a substance that didn't exist until mankind invented it, LOST information?
We domesticated a wolf, and through LOSS of information, we derived the beagle, the greyhound, the wolfhound, the pitbull, the yorkie, and the bloodhound?
This so called “loss of information” seems to be able to derive a HOST of useful and beneficial traits that increase survivability in populations.
Your understanding of antibiotic resistance is negligible, and your friend is either a lousy teacher or doesn't have an inkling of what he is talking about.
And you end as you started, with your futile strawman of Athiest/Evolutionist.
Is the Pope an “Atheist/Evolutionist” for saying “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”?
“By “evolutionist” you mean scientist?”
No, I mean evolutionist. There are many PhD level scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution.
You can find a list of aome of them here:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
““No new information”? So all the gene variations to make all the types of dogs that exist all existed in the wolf?”
That’s correct. God built variation into his creation. I’ll repeat what I said before..... mutations do not add information and this is not even arguable. It is observable science. Natural selection adds no information either... it only selects from available traits.
My question is very simple... you claim that information is added. From where? One of the laws of Information Science is that information always (law...never observed otherwise) comes from an intelligent source...it has never been observed to originate by itself in matter. That being the case, you have to show me the intelligent source.
I’m saying that God created with variability built in and that He is the intelligent source.
“How are you going to stop this variation from arising in a population,”
I’m not....
“Once this variation exists, how is it not going to be subject to natural selection?”
I really don’t understand this argument..... if there was variability in the creation, of course that variability would be subject to natural selection.
“Change in the DNA of a population is evolution by definition.”
If that’s the definition, we have no argument. Unfortunately that may be your definition of evolution but evolution that is taught in our schools is this:
everything came from nothing
life came from non-life
we all have that common ancestor
Somehow, somewhere along the way, asexual reproduction gave way to sexual reproduction. There just happened to be two creatures with two different sets of plumbing but the exact right DNA that evolved at the same time in the same place and their plumbing turned out to be just right, one had sperm and the mechanism to inject it into the the other and it just happened to fertilize the eggs had by the other who also had that whole reproductive system that went along with it.
Observed? no. Testable? No. Repeatable? No. Falsifiable? No.... but it had to happen that way, otherwise we’d have to bow to the authority of a creator.
“The difference between a Methocillin resistant bacteria and a non resistant one is not that the non resistant one didn’t turn on its Methocillinase gene - it is that it doesn’t HAVE a mutated enzyme capable of metabolizing Methocillin - it doesn’t HAVE a Methocillinase gene.
Before Methocillin was invented as an antibiotic that couldn’t be metabolized by Penicilinase - there WAS no gene that could metabolize Methocillin, and if that variation arose, it would have been eliminated from the population because it would be genetic dead weight.”
I will have to research this and get back to you. While I’m doing that, I encourage you to look into whether mutations add information to the genome.
“If by “evolution” you mean “the common descent of all species” say so, as they are not the same thing.”
Allmendream, I’m sorry... but that is what is being taught in classrooms all over America..
“Can you tell me with a straight face that the bacteria that digest nylon, a substance that didn’t exist until mankind invented it, LOST information?”
Yes. I can also tell you that bacteria that was revived from the mid 1800s were resistant to the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin neither of which had been developed until the mid 1900s. Either they saw it coming or they already had the mutation.
“This so called “loss of information” seems to be able to derive a HOST of useful and beneficial traits that increase survivability in populations.”
Loss of information doesn’t necessarily have to be deletarious. A beetle on a windy island can lose the information for wings. He would then not be blown out to sea.
The hemoglobin mutation associated with sickle cell anemia also makes you resistant to malaria... that could be considered a mutant benefit.
“Your understanding of antibiotic resistance is negligible, and your friend is either a lousy teacher or doesn’t have an inkling of what he is talking about.”
My friend’s pedigree is this:
PhD in Microbiology
Postdoctoral Fellow
College professor teaching molecular genetics at the graduate level.
Currently a research microbiologist doing molecular analysis of bacterial interactions and molecular genetics.
Has had more than 20 papers published in scientific journals on the subject of microbiology.
I believe that speaks for itself.
“Is the Pope an “Atheist/Evolutionist” for saying “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”?”
What the Pope does or doesn’t think or say is of no consequence to me and has no bearing on what is truth.
I have answered you respectfully and with out rancor. I’d appreciate it if you would do the same.
No, that is not correct. Short muzzles do not exist in the wolf, but they do exist in the bull mastiff.
Mutations CHANGE the “information” in the genome. Research all you want to. It was a mutation in the genes that control the shape of the muzzle that caused a short muzzled dog - that variation does not exist in the wolf population - it arose as a variation among dogs through mutation and was selected for in some breeds.
There is far more genetic variation among all different breeds of dogs than exists in the wild wolf populations. This variation arose through mutation. There are no wire coated short legged floppy eared wolves.
A pedigree? Is he a dog?
What the Pope said has bearing on your ridiculous strawman that to accept Evolution is to be an atheist.
Can you make a reasoned argument against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism?
Apparently not.
GGG is this you again? I seem to remember a “friend” with a “pedigree”.
Interesting that he should use the example of breeds of dog to demonstrate evolution. All breeds of dog are of the Genus Canis, and the Specie C. lupus, and are IN FACT, ALL THE SAME SPECIES. Thus, his own argument that we can see evolution in action is laughable. Dogs (OF ALL BREEDS), and wolves will interbreed and product fertile offspring, the classical definition of species. And “scientifically,” no matter how you slice it, they’re the SAME species. (Let alone that science determines what species are closely related by the classification of the time, like the hyrax being closely related to the pachyderms, but that was recently decided, I mean “discovered.”)
A wolf didn’t transform into a dog. According to the same science (classification if you will), that “allmendream” uses to make his dog wolf allegory, a dog is a in fact wolf, with traits selected by breed. We just named it “dog” in english but scientifically, it’s Canis C. lupus, same name, same species. I absolutely love the unfamiliarity with science that’s always on display by people who attempt to flout science as their trump card in an argument, ie. the idea of evolution from nothing (as you’ve explained), cannot ever be part of science, so this poster backs it up with more false claims of “We changed a wolf into a dog” ranting. Now, I’ll finish reading the posts.
Wow, so pompous. You’re even willing to argue about another word (In addition to science, species, etc.), “pedigree” for which you know no definition.
Pedigree: 4. background: the background, history, or origin of something, especially a group
It’s a commonly used phrase in the academic community, something you show ever increasingly to have no familiarity with. Talk about the “straw man” fallacy you keep spouting, you’re not using a dictionary when a word’s definition is outside your understanding, yet claim your own ignorance like it’s a superior understanding. Wow, just wow.
I have yet to hear an academic refer to his education as a “pedigree”. I find it amusing that you keep your “pedigreed” scientist on a short leash.
Way to fixate upon speciation when I am talking about evolution of dogs from wolves. Speciation, like common ancestry, is A result of evolution, but it is not necessary for speciation to occur for there to be evolution taking place.
Much like a valley need not be formed in order to demonstrate that erosion is taking place. Yet valleys do form due to erosion.
Much like a planet need not be formed in order to demonstrate that gravity is taking place. Yet planets do form due to gravity.
Humans are all the same species, yet those populations from northern climates have evolved pale skin in order to absorb sunlight for making vitamin D and avoid rickets.
What mechanism do you suppose is responsible for local climate adaptive traits in Human populations?
And dogs are an excellent example of variations that arise within a population that are subject to selection (in this case human selection).
Contrary to your uninformed opinion - there are no variations of wire haired short limbo floppy eared wolves. All those genetic variations are mutations from the wolf design - and they are adaptive and useful variations.
That is what you are, last time I checked, making an argument against. That a domesticated wolf population is only going to ‘lose information’; and that there will NOT be useful and adaptive CHANGES to that information.
Try to stick to the subject.
“evolution of dogs from wolves”
A dog is a wolf, you still don’t get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.