| Hypocracy of Religion.... |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Waspinatrix ® 01/26/2002, 09:48:12 Author Profile Mail author |
Has anyone ever noticed how the intellectual/scientific world (when presented to the mass populous) tends to be schitzophrenic in presentation of persons, facts, and theories? A person, like Ptolomy is 'revered' for his objective and detailed acount of history (of mankind), but quickly swept under the rug/discredited for just as thuroughly giving an account of 'the Gods and their history/geneology' - "He was sick in the brain; or temporarily delusional"... A Place is convieniently glossed over if not easily explained (who here remembers Baal-Bek in their history books? Or what about the ruins of a city in Death Valley with vitrefied(sp?) walls?). An object: (like foot prints - shh!!! Man and Dinosaur never simultaniously exsisted! Or the layer of glassing in Babylon that very closely resembles the test range in Nevada - and can't be explained away by 'lightning in the sand'?) Those 'laughable mythologies' of the Rigda Vita, and Sodom/Gamorrah. These human histories that are easier to discount then wonder about. Despite the fact that Humans (even if we accept poplular theory of the race *only* being 100-300 thousand years old) has been claimed to be as intelligent back 'then' as we are now. Except they were primitive, because they 'believed in things'... We've evolved beyond that! Or have we? Every human needs something greater than themselves to 'believe in' even if it is Science itself... I don't think 'misplaced' belief makes one 'more primitive'. If the Jelous God Popular Science Theory actually unchained the Lady Truth, the greatness of humankind would be exponentially revealed! IMNSHO! Tres Waspi~ Modified by Waspinatrix at Sat, Jan 26, 2002, 09:54:32 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
What the...I think your going deep? Re: Hypocracy of Religion.... -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vince ®
01/26/2002, 14:07:24
Author Profile Mail author
Waspi:
Has anyone ever noticed how the intellectual/scientific world (when presented to the mass populous) tends to be schitzophrenic in presentation of persons, facts, and theories?Vince:
Hmmm…is this a knock (meaning rebuke) on the mass populous or the intellectual/scientific world…or neither? Possibly this is just an observation?Waspi:
A person, like Ptolomy is 'revered' for his objective and detailed acount of history (of mankind), but quickly swept under the rug/discredited for just as thuroughly giving an account of 'the Gods and their history/geneology' - "He was sick in the brain; or temporarily delusional"...Vince:
Although I’m not familiar with “Ptolomy”, but thinking you may be referring to Ptolemy noted as “One of the most influential Greek astronomers and geographers of his time“. I think your point is that because of the flaws of a man we quickly disregard his worthy contributions…correct?Waspi:
A Place is convieniently glossed over if not easily explained (who here remembers Baal-Bek in their history books? Or what about the ruins of a city in Death Valley with vitrefied(sp?) walls?).Vince:
Interesting…I think again your point is that we should take into account lessons learned from the people of this time?Waspi:
An object: (like foot prints - shh!!! Man and Dinosaur never simultaniously exsisted! Or the layer of glassing in Babylon that very closely resembles the test range in Nevada - and can't be explained away by 'lightning in the sand'?)Vince:
I believe that the footprints of man and dinosaurs have been found to exist simultaneously. (Creation Science Evangelism, Creation Seminar Series by Fr. Kent E Hovind). I am surely missing the point here? The Babylon/Nevada thing...is this a conspiracy theory?Waspi:
Those 'laughable mythologies' of the Rigda Vita, and Sodom/Gamorrah. These human histories that are easier to discount then wonder about. Despite the fact that Humans (even if we accept poplular theory of the race *only* being 100-300 thousand years old) has been claimed to be as intelligent back 'then' as we are now. Except they were primitive, because they 'believed in things'... We've evolved beyond that! Or have we? Every human needs something greater than themselves to 'believe in' even if it is Science itself... I don't think 'misplaced' belief makes one 'more primitive'.Vince:
I would say you are correct: We “mankind” seem to be wired to believe in something…whether that something is nothing. Isn’t to “wonder” about something a form of praise? To behold something “wonder”- full, something worthy of thought.won·der·ful [wúndrfl ] adjective
1. outstanding: of a quality that excites admiration or amazement.
I would say some may refute that they need something greater than themselves to believe in, but if that person ever “wonders” themselves out they will begin to wonder about something else. I “believe” this to be the essence of life…”to wonder”.
Waspi:
If the Jelous God Popular Science Theory actually unchained the Lady Truth, the greatness of humankind would be exponentially revealed! IMNSHO!Vince:
I’m not familiar with this theory…or maybe haven’t heard it put this way before? Waspi…your thoughts are truly “wonderful”, and I look forward to understanding them more! IMHO!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Left field - Dig there!!! Re: What the...I think your going deep? -- Vince Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/26/2002, 20:31:24
Author Profile Mail author
Waspi: Ever noticed how the scientific world when presented to the mass populous tends to be schitzophrenic in presentation of persons, facts, and theories? Vince:
Is this a rebuke on the mass populous or the intellectual/scientific world… or neither? Possibly this is just an observation? It is a rebuke of the science community, and the way they have a tendancy of presenting the 'facts' that only applicable to thier model of truth. Based upon what is presented to the mass populous (public museums, school text books, PBS documentaries, the Discovery channel, etc.). Certainly... When it's found that X poplular theory no longer fits the facts (there's too many facts to ignore anymore), mainstream science will quietly forgive their pariahs (the 'Gaia theory', Pangea, and Contenental drift are good examples here). Oh, MS readily admits (30 years down the line) that MS was wrong (30 years previously) - the they are absolutely positutely right (for now).
Scientist would rather hide facts (that don't fit the preconceved notions of MS) rather than 'lose their reputation'. Their reputation of 'Credibility' is so fragile. It's funny how the pariahs of yesterdays MS (most of who died, never seeing their 'radical ideas' being gracefully forgiven, even after the JG of MS destroyed the founder of the theory, and his ability to forward the idea - awful hard to research your ideas when your denied funds, and facilities and manpower by your peers).
When Science first divorced itself from the Church, it swore never to be like it's parent... 'The search for truth was to bring enlightenment!' Indeed, it did, and does still... But the very thing Science wanted to avoid 'lying about the truth, because we already know "the Truth"' began to manifest itself in MS, and has steadily entrenched itself (IMNSHO).
For example, The need 'to explain everything in a rational way'. And to seperate itself completely from the world of religion has forced MS to come up with it's own idea of 'how creation came about'. Thus we get the evolution theory, and the revamped (to fit more findings) version, and the disreguard of 'non-sense' evidence (at least when you're trying to make the evolution theory - for instance - the "TRUTH").
Waspi:
Ptolomy is 'revered' for his objective and detailed acount of history (of mankind), but quickly swept under the rug/discredited for just as thuroughly giving an account of 'the Gods and their history/geneology'. Vince:
[I] think you may be referring to Ptolemy noted as “One of the most influential Greek astronomers and geographers of his time“. I think your point is that because of the flaws of a man we quickly disregard his worthy contributions…correct? Well, no. I'm saying that his 'contributions' are literally accepted and rejected based on what the analyzer believes is 'the truth'.
Waspi:
A Place is convieniently glossed over if not easily explained. Vince:
I think your point is that we should take into account lessons learned from the people of this time? Actually, what I'm saying is that physical objects, and places that 'can not be explained by popular theory of mainstream science' it is conviently swept under the rug. It's the classic story:
Woman (looking right at the cat): Where's the canary?
Cat (to self): Act casual... Just act casual.
Vince: I believe that the footprints of man and dinosaurs have been found to exist simultaneously. (Creation Science Evangelism, Creation Seminar Series by Fr. Kent E Hovind). I am surely missing the point here? The Babylon/Nevada thing...is this a conspiracy theory?LOL - I'm sorry. No. not as such. I don't beieve that MS is trying to start or maintain a conspiracy theory, as much as they ('they' being Popular Mainstream Scientists) are simply hang on to the mythology of 'the truth' that they have come to believe. The thing that we so easily forget, when dealing with practitioner of any science disipline - these people are Human first, second and last.
My referances are, for the most part actually drawn from athiest, and agnostic sources...
"Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race"
by Michael A. Cremo, Richard L. Thompsonand...
"Secrets of the Lost Races: New Discoveries of Advanced Technologies in Ancient Civilizations"
by Rene NoorbergenMaybe you might find these helpful...
Waspi:
Human histories that are easier to discount then wonder about. Should read: Human histories that are easier to discount as preimitive myth, then it is to put aside pre-conceptions of 'TRUTH'.
Despite the fact that Humans have been 'assumed' to be as intelligent back 'then' as we are now. We are still taught by MS that 'they' were primitive, supersticious people - because they 'believed in Gods' and 'lacked technology, philosophy, law, etc...' - We've evolved beyond that! Or have we? Every human needs something greater than themselves to 'believe in' even if it is Science itself... I don't think 'misplaced' belief makes one 'more primitive'. Vince:
I would say you are correct: We “mankind” seem to be wired to believe in something…whether that something is nothing. Actually, if I may... It's not that athiesm is 'nothing' it is a belief in reality, emphasis on self-reliance, minus 'God'...
Isn’t to “wonder” about something a form of praise?
Yes... Having read your interpertaion of the word, I corrected the above statement. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
I “believe” this to be the essence of life…”to wonder”.
I hope I have clairified my point.
'Blue Skies'
Waspi~
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
more anti-science rhetoric Re: Left field - Dig there!!! -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/27/2002, 13:15:14
Author Profile Mail author
Waspi, You say, "It [your previous commentary] is a rebuke of the science community, and the way they have a tendancy of presenting the 'facts' that only applicable to thier model of truth. Based upon what is presented to the mass populous (public museums, school text books, PBS documentaries, the Discovery channel, etc.). Certainly... When it's found that X poplular theory no longer fits the facts (there's too many facts to ignore anymore), mainstream science will quietly forgive their pariahs (the 'Gaia theory', Pangea, and Contenental drift are good examples here). Oh, MS readily admits (30 years down the line) that MS was wrong (30 years previously) - the they are absolutely positutely right (for now)".
You have a serious misperception of how science works. Theories are adopted based on their ability to satisfy certain criteria, such as inclusiveness, fruitfulness, and parsimony. I know of of no examples of researchers hiding data as you assert. I do know of instances where researchers withhold data because they need more time to check it out. I myself have withheld data because I was uncertain about it, and I felt that it needed further testing.
You say, Scientist would rather hide facts (that don't fit the preconceved notions of MS) rather than 'lose their reputation'
This is complete and total nonsense. I have worked as a researcher for more than 20 years, and I know of no instance in where this has occurred. It would be extremely difficult and dangerous for researchers to hide facts. This is because other researchers can repeat their work and invalidate their claims.
You say, Their reputation of 'Credibility' is so fragile.
The stock and trade of a scientist is credibility, and that can only be assured by honesty about data and theories developed to explain data. of course, theories can be incorrect, but the longer a theory withstands scientific scrutiny, the more solid it becomes. To borrow from Carl Sagan, the scientific peer review process is a "refiner's fire".
You say, It's funny how the pariahs of yesterdays MS (most of who died, never seeing their 'radical ideas' being gracefully forgiven, even after the JG of MS destroyed the founder of the theory, and his ability to forward the idea - awful hard to research your ideas when your denied funds, and facilities and manpower by your peers).
Typically researchers are not funded to do crackpot things. That would be an enormous waste of taxpayer (or company) funds. Instead, researchers are typically funded when after their proposals have survived a rigorous review. The researchers need to make the case for their ideas, and rightly so.
You say, When Science first divorced itself from the Church, it swore never to be like it's parent... 'The search for truth was to bring enlightenment!' Indeed, it did, and does still... But the very thing Science wanted to avoid 'lying about the truth, because we already know "the Truth"' began to manifest itself in MS, and has steadily entrenched itself (IMNSHO)
Please document this claim. You are attacking the very thing that has provided you with the standard of living that you now enjoy. Science works, and, if it didn't, you would not be able to make such ridiculous assertions over the Internet.
You say, For example, The need 'to explain everything in a rational way'. And to seperate itself completely from the world of religion has forced MS to come up with it's own idea of 'how creation came about'. Thus we get the evolution theory, and the revamped (to fit more findings) version, and the disreguard of 'non-sense' evidence (at least when you're trying to make the evolution theory - for instance - the "TRUTH").
Evolution is supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from many different disciplines. I would be happy to lay some of that evidence out for you. There is no evidence for the Creationist position.
You say, Ptolomy is 'revered' for his objective and detailed acount of history (of mankind), but quickly swept under the rug/discredited for just as thuroughly giving an account of 'the Gods and their history/geneology'.
Ptolemy should be and is respected for his correct insights. His incorrect ideas are disregarded, as they should be. A person can be right on one issue and wrong on another.
You say, I'm saying that his [Ptolemy's] 'contributions' are literally accepted and rejected based on what the analyzer believes is 'the truth'.
In science, there are specific criteria for judging the likely truthfulness of a theory (such as fruitfulness, parsimony, includiveness). If an idea fails to satisfy those criteria, it must be rejected in favor of a theory that better satisfies these criteria.
You say, Actually, what I'm saying is that physical objects, and places that 'can not be explained by popular theory of mainstream science' it is conviently swept under the rug. It's the classic story
Nonsense. Inconsistent evidence is considered by scientific researchers. Of course, it is and should be considered within the context of the existing data set. It is like a connect-the-dot puzzle. If we find many dots that together create a consistent picture, and we also have an outlier dot that does not fit our picture, we should rightly be suspicious of the outlier. Now, it pccasioanlly happens that we have enough outliers that we can begin to see a somewhat different picture, in which case, we can redraw the picture, but we should not redraw it with disregard for the previously established data points.
You say, I don't beieve that MS is trying to start or maintain a conspiracy theory, as much as they ('they' being Popular Mainstream Scientists) are simply hang on to the mythology of 'the truth' that they have come to believe.
More conspiracy theory nonsense. Scientists simply try to interpret the evidence available. Theories are revised when sufficient contrary evidence is obtained. In fact, we often say, "There goes another beautiful theory murdered by a brutal gang of facts". Of course, we are reluctant to let go of a theory that is abundantly supported by evidence from many disciplines, as is Evolutionary Theory.
You say, The thing that we so easily forget, when dealing with practitioner of any science disipline - these people are Human first, second and last.
Of course, researchers are human. So? The important point is that science includes a system of checks and balances that helps us to avoid self deception.
You say, Despite the fact that Humans have been 'assumed' to be as intelligent back 'then' as we are now. We are still taught by MS that 'they' were primitive, supersticious people - because they 'believed in Gods' and 'lacked technology, philosophy, law, etc...' - We've evolved beyond that! Or have we? Every human needs something greater than themselves to 'believe in' even if it is Science itself... I don't think 'misplaced' belief makes one 'more primitive'.
The question is whether our beliefs are justified or not. Science provides a belief system that is justified by evidence.
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Science - BadBadBad! Re: more anti-science rhetoric -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/27/2002, 20:38:49
Author Profile Mail author
I don't need you to tell me the ideal methodology of science. I understand them. It isn't a perfect system in and of itself, but it is more than sufficient to do the job. The thing that I've been complaining about was the human factor which has interferred with information.
You obviously didn't note that the methodology of science was never called into question. or you confuse the actual ideal of methodology with the myth of 'if human is scientist then they'd not (accedentally or purposely) be falible'.
You use your personal experience of being a scientist as this example. You, being a scientist, should know that a claim shouldn't be made unless substanciated. Yet you have helped my argument by presenting only your limited experience to support your counter claim.
As to your alligations (by implication and claim) that I am an anti-scientific-creationalist-consperacy-theory-buff. You are pulling some of the games that I'm accusing the science community of doing. Where did I state that I was anti-science? Where did I *not* actually show pro-science sentiment? Where did I ever say that the Evolution Theory was absolutely wrong? How does my claim of 'suppression of facts that don't fit into the context of current evolutionary theory' translate into 'Evolutionary theory is bogus!'???
I'm sure you'll be more than happy to show me all your evidence as to why I ought to be brought around to your way of thinking when it comes to your conceptions of Mainstream Science. How willing are you to go check out my sources? I listed some of them in a previous post - which I noticed that you edited out when commenting on my quotes... They're readily availible...
I just get the feeling that I'm not going to get a fair trial because I get the impression that you rever Science as perfection to be revered and protected. Human know, who wants to be 'wrong'?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
the self-correcting nature of science Re: Science - BadBadBad! -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/27/2002, 22:06:23
Author Profile Mail author
Waspi, You say, I don't need you to tell me the ideal methodology of science.
You clearly need someone to explain to you the methodology of science. If not me, than someone who you trust and are willing to listen to.
I understand them.
I see no evidence of that.
It isn't a perfect system in and of itself, but it is more than sufficient to do the job.
Given your previous posts, I wonder what job you think science is "more than sufficient to do." In previous posts, you have implied that it is filled with lies and liars .
The thing that I've been complaining about was the human factor which has interferred with information.
You have done more than that. You have accused science and scientists of conspiracy to deliberately deceive.
You obviously didn't note that the methodology of science was never called into question.
Perhaps unwittingly, you did call it into question. The methodology of science is the key to understanding why the human factor is less troublesome in science than in other areas. It is clear to me that you do not understand the quality control and checks-and-balances that are built into the scientific discovery process.
or you confuse the actual ideal of methodology with the myth of 'if human is scientist then they'd not (accedentally or purposely) be falible'.
Nonsense. What you fail to understand is that scientists are engaged in an enterprise which is self-correcting over time, and tends to expose and correct mistakes.
You use your personal experience of being a scientist as this example. You, being a scientist, should know that a claim shouldn't be made unless substanciated. Yet you have helped my argument by presenting only your limited experience to support your counter claim.
What exactly is it that you wish to have evidence for? I am happy to provide evidence, but I am unclear what your point is. I can provide evidence to support my characterization of your views. I can provide evidence for evolutionary theory.
As to your alligations (by implication and claim) that I am an anti-scientific-creationalist-consperacy-theory-buff. You are pulling some of the games that I'm accusing the science community of doing. Where did I state that I was anti-science? Where did I *not* actually show pro-science sentiment?
Of course, you did not explicitly state that you were anti-science. You were too clever for that. Instead you said things like: "It [referring to your original post] is a rebuke of the science community, and the way they have a tendancy of presenting the 'facts' that only applicable to thier model of truth. " I read that as an attack on science and scientists, and a basic misunderstanding of the checks and balances present in science.
Later in the same post you say "Scientist would rather hide facts (that don't fit the preconceved notions of MS) rather than 'lose their reputation'.
If that is not an attack on scientists then I do not know what is.
You ask, Where did I ever say that the Evolution Theory was absolutely wrong?
Your approach is less direct and involves more sophistry and sarcasm. You said, The need 'to explain everything in a rational way'. And to seperate itself completely from the world of religion has forced MS to come up with it's own idea of 'how creation came about'. Thus we get the evolution theory, and the revamped (to fit more findings) version, and the disreguard of 'non-sense' evidence (at least when you're trying to make the evolution theory - for instance - the "TRUTH").
Your words suggest to me that you believe the theory of evolution is simply a reactionary alternative to Creationism.
How does my claim of 'suppression of facts that don't fit into the context of current evolutionary theory' translate into 'Evolutionary theory is bogus!'???
You are too clever (in a nice lawyerly way) to say that Evolutionary theory is bogus. I am sure that you realize that you would be pinned down with evidence, if you clearly made such a claim. Aspersion, innuendo, and sarcasm seem more to your liking.
I'm sure you'll be more than happy to show me all your evidence as to why I ought to be brought around to your way of thinking when it comes to your conceptions of Mainstream Science.
Actually, I am fairly confident that you could care less about evidence.
How willing are you to go check out my sources? I listed some of them in a previous post - which I noticed that you edited out when commenting on my quotes... They're readily availible...
I have already had a gutful of the kind of literature you are advocating. I wasted a good deal of my youth believing that kind of stuff. I don't need more of it now. It is not peer reviewed. It has not survived the refiner's fire. I have no reason to trust it as accurate.
I just get the feeling that I'm not going to get a fair trial because I get the impression that you rever Science as perfection to be revered and protected. Human know, who wants to be 'wrong'?
I certainly do not consider science "perfect". However, I do know that science is self-correcting. In the search for truth it may well be the best that we mere mortals can come up with.
Craig
(edited to correct HTML)
Modified by Craig C. at Sun, Jan 27, 2002, 22:52:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: the self-correcting nature of science Re: the self-correcting nature of science -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/28/2002, 01:46:16
Author Profile Mail author
I don't need you to tell me the ideal methodology of science.
I understand them.Craig: I see no evidence of that. You clearly need someone to explain to you the methodology of science.
You see no evidence of it, because you chose not to. You claim to be a scientist, and certainly you may draw a paycheck for such a job description. But your analysis of what I know, and what I need tutoring in - This is a perfect example of what I'm rebuking. You wouldn't have even taken issue with my blasphemous claim unless you felt attacked in the first place.
[Scientific Method] isn't a perfect system in and of itself, but it is more than sufficient to do the job.
Craig: In previous posts, you have implied that it is filled with lies and liars.
And most explisitly I had said "Mainstream Science" and "Popular Science" As in *what is tought to the general public*. And indeed, I do believe that popular ... Maybe I shouldn't bother to differentiate rather it's a cat, a rat, or a bear it'll all be whales to you.
[My complaint was] about the human factor which has interferred with information.
Craig: You have done more than that. You have accused science and scientists of conspiracy to deliberately deceive.
Oh you're sooo right Craig... You are a good, scientific example of not taking my words out of context, of not propetuating the conspiracy that I have a conspiracy. You even remembered not mention the fact that I made allowances for accedental or non-malicious posibilities, it makes it easier to present your case against me.
You obviously didn't note that the methodology of science was never called into question.
Craig: The methodology of science is the key to understanding why the human factor is less troublesome in science than in other areas.
What areas of Human Perfessionalism would you say Scientists, those having the superior virtue of Science behind them, superior too? Do you have any hard evidence of this, outside of your personal experience? And even so, unless you want to argue the point, you do allow for human error...
Craig: What you fail to understand is that scientists are engaged in an enterprise which is self-correcting over time, and tends to expose and correct mistakes.
Kind of like that popular theory of evolution. You place a lot of value on intellectualism. Love the process, respect - disreguard the persons, their character has no baring in this at all, neh?
Yet you have helped my argument by presenting only your limited experience to support your counter claim.
Craig: What exactly is it that you wish to have evidence for?
You've made the opposite claim of Mainstream Science. Implying that the virtue of the methodology (of Science) makes it (Popular Science) immune to falicies of thought and deed of its human practicioners. You went on to mention that you, as a scientist, and scientist you know have, to you knowledge, never hidden facts that would challenge a Popular theory. If you never have, bravo, you are indeed a man of marit. But you limited personal example cannot ipso facto represent the scientific community and it's encompassing moral standards. You mentioned said experience as why, if not to present as supportive fact for your argument? If, as you seem to be implying, that you understand the methods of science and the presentation of fact better than I do, then your example of said fact does indeed lend creedance to my argument of human failibility has hampered Science in its quest for truth.
As to your alligations (by implication and claim) that I am an anti-scientific-creationalist-consperacy-theory-buff.
Craig: Of course, you did not explicitly state that you were anti-science. You were too clever for that.
Yep. I'm so clever that I magically (we have to use that word - technology is just too close to that 's' word) found a way of hypnotising you not to see all that I've written before you decided exactly what my beliefs beyond the current posts were all about. Did it ever occure to you that maybe, just maybe if I actually believed half the things you assume I do that I'd have not waisted my time and gotten right to the point? If I wanted to bash the evolution theory I'd have made a lot more head way simply stating 'Evolution is wrong, and this is why - fact one, fact two, etc...' If I had wanted to swim in conspiracy theories I would have said 'all scientists were lying sceming crackpots wanting to take over the world.' And finally, if I thought that Science methodology is a bad thing, I'd have said that too...
Craig: Instead you said things like: "It [referring to your original post] is a rebuke of the science community, and the way they have a tendancy of presenting the 'facts' that only applicable to thier model of truth. " I read that as an attack on science and scientists, and a basic misunderstanding of the checks and balances present in science.
Now we can say we are getting to the issue of your beef with me... I'd as you to please read it again... Only this time please read the word 'community' and try not to assume that I'm including Science Methodology.
Craig: Later in the same post you say "Scientist would rather hide facts (that don't fit the preconceved notions of MS) rather than 'lose their reputation'. If that is not an attack on scientists then I do not know what is.
Not to be rude, but do you get out of the lab much? Do you truly feel that all scientists have their eye single to the glory of truth? Never mind, retorical question. I conceed that I over generilized that above statement. But I still believe that human, rather they're scientist or not, are still human... Even to the vary issue of keeping their job, which they have basically flushed down the toilet if they lose the reputaion we've spoken of.
Where did I ever say that the Evolution Theory was absolutely wrong?
Craig: Your approach is less direct and involves more sophistry and sarcasm.
The issue at hand has been steept in sophistry and sarcasm... The issue at had was human tendancy to shut out the truth when it challenges 'the truth'. This isn't a 'put science on trial thread', like you think it is. Just because I used the Evolutionary theory as a primary example of where human corruption lay, it has nothing to do with the actual veracity of said Evolutionary Theory. All that I'm explicitaly stating is that some evidence has been, and is still being with held, downplayed, written off, lost, and/or destroyed. Evidence that does NOT question Evolutionary veracity, but would force it to be re-evaluated.
Craig: Your words suggest to me that you believe the theory of evolution is simply a reactionary alternative to Creationism.
Historical evidence indicates such a plausibility exsists. Observe a few animals, a few bones. Have a deepseated need for recognition. And there you go. And it certainly presented a God-free world-view that allowed athiests, and their usurped child-of-religion, Science to unshackle themselves from the bonds of closed-minded clergy. Of course this is my opinion based on what I know. It wasn't stated as a Evolution bad, Creation good. It was stated as one reason that lead up to the the case that the suppression of facts can, and has happened.
Craig: Actually, I am fairly confident that you could care less about evidence.
You're right. But let's be specific here - I could care less of evidence accumulated by you, or rather the theoretical conclusions you've so scientifically drawn.
How willing are you to go check out my sources? I listed some of them in a previous post. They're readily availible...
Craig: I have already had a gutful of the kind of literature you are advocating. I wasted a good deal of my youth believing that kind of stuff.
Just a stab in the dark... Danielik(sp?)? Sitchen? Some other wack book about 'the face of mars'? I hope that's not what you thought I meant when I listed those sources... Then again, you assumed I adhere to creationalism, and have nothing better to do than shuffle around 'half-baked' conspriacy theories.
Craig: It is not peer reviewed. It has not survived the refiner's fire. I have no reason to trust it as accurate.
If a book is written by one scientist, who specializes in a particular field, and it's comentary about fellow scientists (both of the same field - and fields that are used to corroberate original field), evidence known of by the scientific community (but not neccessarily by mass populous), methodology - or lack thereof... Does it need the thumbs up in Scientific America? Or would you be satisfied with fellow scientists arguing for and against it?
Craig: I certainly do not consider science "perfect". However, I do know that science is self-correcting.
Its self-correction ability is only as good as the leeway we give it's head, unconfined by biasness, and hidden agendas.
Craig: In the search for truth it may well be the best that we mere mortals can come up with.Indeed...
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: the self-correcting nature of science Re: Re: the self-correcting nature of science -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/30/2002, 00:02:50
Author Profile Mail author
Waspi, You say, You see no evidence of it [that I understand the methodology of science], because you chose not to.
No, that is incorrect. The reason I see no evidence is because you have not demonstrated that you understand the self-correcting nature of science or its quality control methods.
You claim to be a scientist, and certainly you may draw a paycheck for such a job description. But your analysis of what I know, and what I need tutoring in - This is a perfect example of what I'm rebuking. You wouldn't have even taken issue with my blasphemous claim unless you felt attacked in the first place.
I am only able to analyze what I read on the screen. So far, you have not provided evidence that you understand the methodology of science. My analysis may be flawed, but only if you have been misrepresenting your understanding with the words that you write.
Previously I wrote, "In previous posts, you have implied that it [science] is filled with lies and liars".
And you respnded, And most explisitly I had said "Mainstream Science" and "Popular Science" As in *what is tought to the general public*. And indeed, I do believe that popular ... Maybe I shouldn't bother to differentiate rather it's a cat, a rat, or a bear it'll all be whales to you.
Now you almost seem to be admitting that you believe that mainstream science and popular science is filled with liars and lies. "Mainstream science" only becomes "mainstream" because it has withstood the refiner's fire of testing and peer review. These aspects of the way science is done and communicated prevent lies and liars.
Clearly, what is taught to the public (what you refer to as "popular science") does not always accurately represent the consensus of mainstream science and there are many reasons for that. The most common is probably a communication gap between scientists and the popularizers of science or the popularizers and the public, not some intent to deceive.
[My complaint was] about the human factor which has interferred with information.
and I wrote, "You have done more than that. You have accused science and scientists of conspiracy to deliberately deceive".
To which you responded, Oh you're sooo right Craig... You are a good, scientific example of not taking my words out of context, of not propetuating the conspiracy that I have a conspiracy.
Another sarcastic but ultimately empty twist of words.
You say, You even remembered not mention the fact that I made allowances for accedental or non-malicious posibilities, it makes it easier to present your case against me.
Sorry about that. I will mention it now. Thank you for allowing for the possibility of accidental or non-malicious possibilities.
Previously you said, You obviously didn't note that the methodology of science was never called into question.
And I responded, "The methodology of science is the key to understanding why the human factor is less troublesome in science than in other areas."
and you asked, What areas of Human Perfessionalism would you say Scientists, those having the superior virtue of Science behind them, superior too?
I am not claiming that scientists themselves are inherently more virtuous human beings than others. I am claiming that the system in which scientists are obliged to work enforces honesty.
Do you have any hard evidence of this, outside of your personal experience? And even so, unless you want to argue the point, you do allow for human error...
I can offer hard evidence that the scientific method and the peer review process do infact yield accurate and truthful understanding. Perhaps the best examples are the innumerable engineering applications of scientific understanding. The fact that your computer works is evidence that the science underlying the design of your computer is accurate and truthful.
I certainly allow for human error, but the scientific method of peer review and continuous testing and rechecking eventually separates the wheat from the chaff.
Previously I said" What you fail to understand is that scientists are engaged in an enterprise which is self-correcting over time, and tends to expose and correct mistakes."
and you responded, Kind of like that popular theory of evolution.
Evolution is thoroughly documented. It is as well-established as any theory could ever be. It has survived the refiner's fire and emerged unscathed.
You place a lot of value on intellectualism. Love the process, respect - disreguard the persons, their character has no baring in this at all, neh?In science, the scoundrel and the fraud will eventually be uncovered because their work will be repeated or tested and exposed. (BTW, as a personal matter, I think character is absolutely critical).
Yet you have helped my argument by presenting only your limited experience to support your counter claim.
I have provided more than just my limited experience (which others might not consider so limited).
Previously I asked, "What exactly is it that you wish to have evidence for?"
And you responded You've made the opposite claim of Mainstream Science. Implying that the virtue of the methodology (of Science) makes it (Popular Science) immune to falicies of thought and deed of its human practicioners.
No, what I actually said is that science is self-correcting over time. Over the short-term, a fraud might be perpetuated - though at great professional risk to the person who does so. Eventually the fraud will be exposed.
You went on to mention that you, as a scientist, and scientist you know have, to you knowledge, never hidden facts that would challenge a Popular theory. If you never have, bravo, you are indeed a man of marit. But you limited personal example cannot ipso facto represent the scientific community and it's encompassing moral standards. You mentioned said experience as why, if not to present as supportive fact for your argument?
Yes, I do think it is important to know that scientists generally act in an honorable way, so their work is trustworthy. Now why is that? Not because their morality is intrinsically better than anyone else's, but because they would be committing professional suicide by lying.
If, as you seem to be implying, that you understand the methods of science and the presentation of fact better than I do, then your example of said fact does indeed lend creedance to my argument of human failibility has hampered Science in its quest for truth.
Your logic here completely eludes me. Human fallibility hampers all human endeavors. It is less likely to go undetected in systems that have checks and balances. Science is one such system.
Previously you wrote,As to your alligations (by implication and claim) that I am an anti-scientific-creationalist-consperacy-theory-buff.
And I reponded, "Of course, you did not explicitly state that you were anti-science. You were too clever for that".
To which you responded, Yep. I'm so clever that I magically (we have to use that word - technology is just too close to that 's' word) found a way of hypnotising you not to see all that I've written before you decided exactly what my beliefs beyond the current posts were all about. Did it ever occure to you that maybe, just maybe if I actually believed half the things you assume I do that I'd have not waisted my time and gotten right to the point? If I wanted to bash the evolution theory I'd have made a lot more head way simply stating 'Evolution is wrong, and this is why - fact one, fact two, etc...' If I had wanted to swim in conspiracy theories I would have said 'all scientists were lying sceming crackpots wanting to take over the world.' And finally, if I thought that Science methodology is a bad thing, I'd have said that too...
Actually, a direct approach seems unlikely given your previous posts. Your general approach is to cast doubt using innuendo and sarcasm.
Previously, I cited the following quote from your original post, "It [referring to your original post] is a rebuke of the science community, and the way they have a tendancy of presenting the 'facts' that only applicable to thier model of truth. " I read that as an attack on science and scientists, and a basic misunderstanding of the checks and balances present in science.
And you commented Now we can say we are getting to the issue of your beef with me... I'd as you to please read it again... Only this time please read the word 'community' and try not to assume that I'm including Science Methodology.
OK, I did as you requested. Your position is still incorrect.
Later in the same post you said "Scientist would rather hide facts (that don't fit the preconceved notions of MS) rather than 'lose their reputation'. I commented that if that statement was not an attack on scientists then I do not know what is.
And you responded Not to be rude, but do you get out of the lab much?
Yes, I do.
I must admit that it a clever thing (in a cynical sort of way) to say, "Not to be rude, but..." and then proceed to say something rude.
Do you truly feel that all scientists have their eye single to the glory of truth? Never mind, retorical question.
No, I do not. Most scientists are very ambitious people, but in science, cheaters get caught and punished, so it does not pay to cheat.
You say, I conceed that I over generilized that above statement. But I still believe that human, rather they're scientist or not, are still human... Even to the vary issue of keeping their job, which they have basically flushed down the toilet if they lose the reputaion we've spoken of.
Yes, that's an important point. Scientists do not wish to lose their jobs. They will lose their jobs if they lie.
You asked, Where did I ever say that the Evolution Theory was absolutely wrong?
And I replied, "Your approach is less direct and involves more sophistry and sarcasm".
To which you responded The issue at hand has been steept in sophistry and sarcasm... The issue at had was human tendancy to shut out the truth when it challenges 'the truth'. This isn't a 'put science on trial thread', like you think it is.
Actually, you have put Science on trial because you accuse it of systematic and even deliberate falsehoods. This demonstrates that you do not recognize that the error-correcting nature of the process.
Just because I used the Evolutionary theory as a primary example of where human corruption lay, it has nothing to do with the actual veracity of said Evolutionary Theory.
Why did you bring it up then? Why didn't you pick a topic that you can demonstrate to be false?
You say, "All that I'm explicitaly stating is that some evidence has been, and is still being with held, downplayed, written off, lost, and/or destroyed. Evidence that does NOT question Evolutionary veracity, but would force it to be re-evaluated.
Here is where you are wrong. Evolutionary theory is rock solid, with many lines of supporting evidence. I personally cannot think of a single contradictory piece of evidence. Moreover, even if such evidence did exist, I would ask what alternative view such evidence supports? I would also want to know how the alternative view explains the enormous body of evidence and facts that supporting variation and selection as the critical factors in the development of life forms.
Previously I wrote, "Your words suggest to me that you believe the theory of evolution is simply a reactionary alternative to Creationism."
and you replied Historical evidence indicates such a plausibility exsists.
Please document that assertion.
You say, Observe a few animals, a few bones. Have a deepseated need for recognition. And there you go.
Now, you demonstrate enormous ignorance of both geology an biology, and the overwhelming body of evidence that exists in both disciplines for evolutionary theory. I would suggest that you take a college-level course in either Geology or Biology (preferrably both) or go read a good freshman-level college text on these subjects.
You continued, And it certainly presented a God-free world-view that allowed athiests, and their usurped child-of-religion, Science to unshackle themselves from the bonds of closed-minded clergy. Of course this is my opinion based on what I know. It wasn't stated as a Evolution bad, Creation good. It was stated as one reason that lead up to the the case that the suppression of facts can, and has happened.
Now we arrive at the root of your problem. You view science as a threat to religion. Of course, evolution says nothing about God. Many Evolutionists believe in God.
Previously, I wrote, "Actually, I am fairly confident that you could care less about evidence."
And you replied, You're right. But let's be specific here - I could care less of evidence accumulated by you, or rather the theoretical conclusions you've so scientifically drawn.
Yes, I expected that response. That is why you should go speak to someone knowledgeable in science who you trust or you should go read some standard textbooks.
You asked How willing are you to go check out my sources? I listed some of them in a previous post. They're readily availible...
and I responsded, "I have already had a gutful of the kind of literature you are advocating. I wasted a good deal of my youth believing that kind of stuff."
And you replied, Just a stab in the dark... Danielik(sp?)? Sitchen? Some other wack book about 'the face of mars'? I hope that's not what you thought I meant when I listed those sources... Then again, you assumed I adhere to creationalism, and have nothing better to do than shuffle around 'half-baked' conspriacy theories.
If you do not adhere to Creationism then what do you adhere to? How do you explain the origin of life forms? Why are your beliefs better justified than those that have been developed through consensus and rigorous testing int eh scientific community?
I also wrote: "It [the literature you referred me to] is not peer reviewed. It has not survived the refiner's fire. I have no reason to trust it as accurate."
And you responded, If a book is written by one scientist, who specializes in a particular field, and it's comentary about fellow scientists (both of the same field - and fields that are used to corroberate original field), evidence known of by the scientific community (but not neccessarily by mass populous), methodology - or lack thereof... Does it need the thumbs up in Scientific America? Or would you be satisfied with fellow scientists arguing for and against it?
As I have said before, if a researcher's work passes peer review then that work has more credibility. if it survives long periods of scrutiny and testing, then we can safely say that it is correct. I am not particularly interested in spending my time on speculative ideas - especially those outside of my area of expertise - if those ideas have not passed through the peer review process within that discipline.
Previously I wrote, "I certainly do not consider science "perfect". However, I do know that science is self-correcting".
And you respondedIts self-correction ability is only as good as the leeway we give it's head, unconfined by biasness, and hidden agendas.
Science is not a monolithic "head", as you depict it. It is frequently fiercely individualistic and competitive. Researchers love it when they have a chance to disprove the theories of another. Hidden agendas, bias, or other misconduct does not long survive the refiner's fire.
Craig
(corrected for HTML)
Modified by Craig C. at Thu, Jan 31, 2002, 22:50:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Very fine, Craig Re: Re: the self-correcting nature of science -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
01/31/2002, 21:34:24
Author Profile Mail author
Craig, My comment here is primarily to express my admiration for the methodical, point by point analysis in this dialogue. It is eloquent and superb. I also wanted you to know that at least one other was reading these exchanges.
On a point just mentioned in discussion regarding “what is taught,” an observation. Both science texts and history texts are marketed by publishers at the grade and high school levels. Those texts frequently (and in my view unfortunately) are subjected to parental review along with review of educators. The publishers want their texts to be purchased. Large school corporations in particular sections of the country mean large profits for the publisher.
Our faculties in grade and high school have, on occasion, yielded to parent-pressure groups who reject the best science books in favor of “science” books which conform to their own (religious) bias. History texts marketed in the mid-west are slanted to exclude objectionable history which some parents might oppose. Colleagues of mine in the South look at different versions of “history.”
As you no doubt know, the state board of education in Kansas strongly recommended the adoption of science books which excluded the word “evolution” and derivations of that word. Some members if not most wanted equal teaching time given to “creationism.” The publishers are more interested in selling texts than good science.
We have had Christian fundamentalist parents, influential with the local board and even ON the local board have the last word on “selected” texts. It is an unfortunate reality (in my judgment).
No need to comment to me as I realize this concern is off topic for your current discussion with Waspinatrix.
My main reason for posting here is to express great respect for your responses.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Very fine, Craig Re: Very fine, Craig -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/31/2002, 21:46:09
Author Profile Mail author
JAK, Thank you for the nice compliment. Also, thanks for the additional important point that "popular science" can be distorted into pseudoscience by religious and political pressures.
Highest regards,
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: more anti-science rhetoric Re: more anti-science rhetoric -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: sojourner ®
01/28/2002, 23:08:26
Author Profile Mail author
Waspi: "For example, The need 'to explain everything in a rational way'. And to seperate itself completely from the world of religion has forced MS to come up with it's own idea of 'how creation came about'. Thus we get the evolution theory, and the revamped (to fit more findings) version, and the disreguard of 'non-sense' evidence (at least when you're trying to make the evolution theory - for instance - the "TRUTH")." Craig: "Evolution is supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from many different disciplines. I would be happy to lay some of that evidence out for you. There is no evidence for the Creationist position."
Are you suggesting that evolution addresses the issue of the origin of life? If so, in what way?
Thanks in advance,
- sojourner
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: more anti-science rhetoric Re: Re: more anti-science rhetoric -- sojourner Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/30/2002, 00:37:16
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Sojourner, I am not sure who your post was directed to, but I will offer a response.
You ask, "Are you suggesting that evolution addresses the issue of the origin of life? If so, in what way?"
Evolutionary theory supports the view that all living organisms have a shared ancestry. There is good evidence that the first cellular life forms were simple unicellular microorganisms. How these life forms came to be is a nice mystery. There are many theories but little hard evidence. This is not surprising given the enormous time period that has elapsed (3.5 billion years) and our poor understanding of the chemical environments present at that time. There is also a theory that microscopic life originated on Mars and was transported to Earth.
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Evolutionary theory Re: Re: more anti-science rhetoric -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: sojourner ®
01/30/2002, 11:19:24
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Craig, Thanks for your response. Allow me to preface this discussion with the statement that I am sorely lacking in my understanding of evolutionary theory and am only hoping to learn more.
Craig: "Evolutionary theory supports the view that all living organisms have a shared ancestry."
Is that to say that all living organisms have arisen from a single, unicellular microorganism? Or is it that all living organisms have arisen from various and multiple unicellular microorganisms?
Craig: "There is good evidence that the first cellular life forms were simple unicellular microorganisms. How these life forms came to be is a nice mystery."
So evolutionary theory isn't meant to address the origin of life, but the subsequent development of various life forms? I need to get this straight because I've come across people who say that the theory of evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for how life came to be, case closed. And I am unable to grasp how that is so. You know, like, which came first, evolution or the unicellular microoorganism?
Craig: "There are many theories but little hard evidence."
Is there one theory that, as a scientist, seems at least plausible to you? Would you happen to have any links I can check out?
I have many questions, and I appreciate your willingness to educate me.
- sojourner
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Evolutionary theory Re: Re: Evolutionary theory -- sojourner Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/31/2002, 09:52:20
Author Profile Mail author
Sojourner, Previously I said that "Evolutionary theory supports the view that all living organisms have a shared ancestry."
And you asked, "Is that to say that all living organisms have arisen from a single, unicellular microorganism? Or is it that all living organisms have arisen from various and multiple unicellular microorganisms?"
All living things share a common genetic code, with minor deviations in the code among some protozoa. This universal code makes it possible for the cell to convert the sequence of nucleotides in DNA into a corresponding sequence of amino acids in proteins. The commonality in this code and the shared biochemistry of all living things point to a common unicellular ancestor. From this common ancestor, three distinct cell types eventually evolved: bacteria, archaea and eukarya. All plants, animals, algae, and protozoa are Eukarya. You would think that there would be little exchange of DNA between these distinct cell type, but that it not what happened. Bacterial and virus genes often show up in the DNA of eukaryotic organisms! In fact, a critical part of a eukaryotic cells is its mitchondrion. This organelle has DNA that looks like bacterial DNA. So it seems that eukaryotic cells were created when a bacterium infected another cell type and eventually became a kind of symbiont! Since then, there continued to be periodic exchange of genes between different cell types. We have 1000 nearly complete virus genes integrated in our own genome, and there is one particular type of virus that makes up over 1% of our entire genome!
I mention all this to show that after the first cells formed, many different combinations were likely created, resulting in the three major cell types. Even after these cell types formed, exchange of genetic material continued to the present day.
You ask, "So evolutionary theory isn't meant to address the origin of life, but the subsequent development of various life forms?"
To me, tt really isn’t a question of what evolutionary theory is meant to address. It is more a question of evidence – how far back can we find evidence for variation and selection? Evolutionary theory logically leads back to a single cell, and the fossil record supports that conclusion. By extension, we can hypothesize that natural selection also gave rise to the first living cell. The sequence was probably something like this: simple molecules combined to make more complex molecules, complex molecules combined to create biochemical systems that could extract energy from the environment, some of those systems could replicate themselves. It seems likely that a key molecule for a self-replicating system was RNA or something akin to it.
You say, "I need to get this straight because I've come across people who say that the theory of evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for how life came to be case closed. And I am unable to grasp how that is so. You know, like, which came first, evolution or the unicellular microoorganism?",
I would tell them that Evolutionary Theory provides a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life but the evidence for the original events is poor. The logical (and naturalistic) bet is that evolutionary theory (variation and selection) also explains the original events, but we do not strong evidence for this. Until hard evidence is available, we extrapolate backward and make educated guesses from clues in the genome and in the way cells work.
Regarding theories of abiogenesis, you ask, "Is there one theory that, as a scientist, seems at least plausible to you? Would you happen to have any links I can check out?"
A rule-of-thumb is in science is to pick the most simple explanation. For that reason, I tend to doubt the theory that life began on Mars (though I would love to be proven wrong). To me, the idea that microscopic life began on Mars, and was transported via a meteorite through space to the Earth seems less probable and simple than a terrestrial origin. I also doubt the idea that life formed in some pond somewhere. It seems more likely to me that life began in the deep ocean, near a thermal vent, or possibly in a hot spring.
Here’s a link that looks pretty good:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/CdeDuve.html
Hope this is helpful,
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Evolutionary theory Re: Re: Evolutionary theory -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
01/31/2002, 13:22:14
Author Profile Mail author
Craig, I with sojourner enjoy the education you offer on such topics, could you explain the inherent weaknesses in a irreducibly complex argument against the possibility of what you just stated.
mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Evolutionary theory Re: Re: Evolutionary theory -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Briandc ®
01/31/2002, 13:51:51
Author Profile Mail author
mikwut, This is certainly not intended to preclude Craig from answering your question but here are a few links you may fing interesting.
Ryan and Pat discuss common descent and abiogenisis
Again
Cally, another biologist chimes in.
A good essay at talkorigins.
An interesting paper discussing irreducible complexity from the position of a theist.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Evolutionary theory Re: Re: Evolutionary theory -- Briandc Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
01/31/2002, 14:16:18
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you I will read them right away. mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Evolutionary theory -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
01/31/2002, 22:32:17
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Mikwut, I think you are really asking what I think of the claim made by some that irreducibly complexity is evidence of design. My basic reaction is that this is a cop out.
A nice analogy (not original to me) is that of a natural bridge. Imagine yourself peering up at Rainbow Bridge. You notice its system of interdependent parts. If a piece is removed, the whole will collapse. Does this irreproducible complexity establish that the bridge was designed? Of course not.
The fact that parts of a system are interdependent, in their current configuration does not mean that they were always so. That is the key error, and it does not matter whether we are talking about bridges or gall bladders or proteins.
A series of biochemical reactions may start out inefficient - with lots of redundancy and sloppiness. Over time, though, inefficient proteins will be pruned away or changed through natural selection. We are ultimately left with a system that is irreproducibly complex but not designed. I would expect that many systems subject to natural selection would become irreducibly complex, as once-useful but now useless components are whittled away.
Hope that makes sense,
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
02/01/2002, 11:42:34
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you craig and it does make sense. Do scientists have actual examples that could be used in response to things such as the cell that are claimed to be irreducibly complex? I mean examples such as what functions certain components of the cell would have had with less efficient but nonetheless efficient for something before the cell as we know it evolved? Does that make any sense? I appreciate your erudite understanding in this area as everyone does want to be experts here. mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
02/02/2002, 01:27:48
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Mikwut, You ask, "Do scientists have actual examples that could be used in response to things such as the cell that are claimed to be irreducibly complex? I mean examples such as what functions certain components of the cell would have had with less efficient but nonetheless efficient for something before the cell as we know it evolved? Does that make any sense?"
An example that comes to mind is a process by which bacteria can adapt to hazardous chemicals. Often bacteria are able to fortuitously transform manmade chemicals that have never before appeared in the environment. This is because bacteria often possess enzymes that just happen to react with the toxic chemical. In some instances, some of the organisms are able to use the product of this accidental transformation to their advantage. When this happens they can grow and outcompete other cells, and their descendants will become better and better at carrying out the reaction.
As a specific example, last year I reviewed a study by other researchers that involved the feeding of vinyl chloride (a nasty toxic) to a bacterium that normally grows on ethylene. In this case, the enzyme needed to break down ethylene was indiscriminate enough that it could also attack vinyl chloride. Initially, the organisms were able to degrade the vinyl chloride but they were unable to grow on it because they could not use the products of the transformation. Over time and with continued intermittent exposure to vinyl chloride, however, some organisms evolved that were able to use the vinyl chloride for growth. You could say that this biochemical system became "irreducibly complex" because the vinyl chloride-degrading enzyme was needed to provide energy and "building blocks" for cell growth, yet both energy and the building blocks were needed to make the vinyl chloride-degrading enzyme.
In addition to gaining capabilities, bacteria also routinely lose capabilities. We work with a bacterium (Pseudomonas stutzeri KC) that can spontaneously lose big chunks of DNA when it is grown in rich medium. Under iron-starved conditions, however, that same piece of DNA is most helpful to the organism. I mention this because we cannot know the complex evolutionary history of any organism, and as a result, we cannot know what feaures might have once existed but have since been sculpted away by natural selection, perhaps quite naturally giving rise to irreducible complexity.
Hope this helps,
Craig
(edited for grammar)
Modified by Craig C. at Sat, Feb 02, 2002, 01:32:24
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: sojourner ®
02/01/2002, 21:00:40
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Craig, In your opinion, does current observational evidence support the irreducible complexity of a cell?
Thanks in advance,
- sojourner
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- sojourner Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
02/02/2002, 00:22:42
Author Profile Mail author
Hello again Sojourner, You ask whether "current observational evidence support the irreducible complexity of a cell?"
No question about it. Cells are irreducibly complex. One example: all proteins are produced using information encoded in DNA yet some of these same proteins are required for the DNA decoding. Another example: proteins are needed to extract energy from the environment (fuels and oxidants), yet the assembly of proteins requires energy. The cell is a classic chicken-and-egg situation, with many interdependent pieces.
How it came to be that way is a good research question.
Craig
(modified to correct a grammar mistake)
Modified by Craig C. at Sat, Feb 02, 2002, 14:40:03
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: sojourner ®
02/04/2002, 13:27:07
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Craig, I asked, "In your opinion, does current observational evidence support the irreducible complexity of a cell?"
To which you replied, "No question about it. Cells are irreducibly complex. One example: all proteins are produced using information encoded in DNA yet some of these same proteins are required for the DNA decoding. Another example: proteins are needed to extract energy from the environment (fuels and oxidants), yet the assembly of proteins requires energy. The cell is a classic chicken-and-egg situation, with many interdependent pieces."
Given the above, I wonder what you make of this statement made by Darwin in his book, On The Origin of Species:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
- sojourner
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- sojourner Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
02/05/2002, 01:25:19
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Sojourner, Previously you asked, "In your opinion, does current observational evidence support the irreducible complexity of a cell?"
And I replied, "No question about it. Cells are irreducibly complex. One example: all proteins are produced using information encoded in DNA yet some of these same proteins are required for the DNA decoding. Another example: proteins are needed to extract energy from the environment (fuels and oxidants), yet the assembly of proteins requires energy. The cell is a classic chicken-and-egg situation, with many interdependent pieces."
To which you responded, Given the above, I wonder what you make of this statement made by Darwin in his book, On The Origin of Species"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
I see no problem with Darwin's quote at the biochemical level. Variation and selection in small successive steps at the genome level can easily give rise to irreducibly complex biochemical systems.
Craig
(corrected for HTML)
Modified by Craig C. at Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 01:26:55
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: sojourner ®
02/05/2002, 10:48:23
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Craig, Previously, I wrote, "I wonder what you make of this statement made by Darwin in his book, On The Origin of Species - 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'"
You responded, "I see no problem with Darwin's quote at the biochemical level. Variation and selection in small successive steps at the genome level can easily give rise to irreducibly complex biochemical systems."
Given the irreducible complexity of a cell, how could it possibly form through variation and selection in small successive steps? Take away a part and the whole ceases to function, correct?
- sojourner
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Irreducible complexity and design Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- sojourner Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
02/05/2002, 14:49:56
Author Profile Mail author
Hello again, Sojourner, You ask, "Given the irreducible complexity of a cell, how could it possibly form through variation and selection in small successive steps? Take away a part and the whole ceases to function, correct?"
A good non-biochemical example is that of the natural bridge which I mentioned in an earlier post. The bridge is irreducibly complex because if you remove one part of it, the whole will collapse. How did it form? By the removal of parts. A biochemical system can operatemuch the same way under the pressure of selection: by removing pieces, we are left with a system that is irrreducibly complex.
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Natural bridge? Re: Re: Irreducible complexity and design -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/05/2002, 18:50:16
Author Profile
