Eugenie Scott 2/2 (The Amazing Meeting 2)

[freethinker923]

Darwinism #FTW

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo ty for your time. I appreciate you being so kind. You are of course correct. Natural is the only explanation. Perhaps one day abiogenesis will find a more natural way.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Good,...... I'd say I know a few things about this theory. Would you say it say it doesn't seem as "crazy" and you were led to believe it was?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Was that "no" to??? the last question about if I explain this as you already understood it?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Yes designer to begin. However, in ID, just like in the Big Bang we can only say there was singularity. There is no known test for where that energy came from. Was it a multiverse collision? Perhaps, but we can never test that. ID does not have an answer or test for the designer anymore than the Big Bang theory has a test for the singularity. Do I explain ID as you have already understood it?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Oh and I might add, the prediction is that some of the "junk" DNA has function. ID does not predict "less noncoding DNA". I'm not sure what that means actually, but it is not a prediction of ID.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo ahhh, I think I see now. It takes more than encoding DNA to get the job done. The "junk" DNA does things like regulate replication, regulate transcription, mark site for programmed rearrangements of genetic material,repair DNA, to name a few. We can expect some junk DNA to exist, because, alfter all, evolution does happen.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Exactly. I'm not sure where we are missing each other in meaning.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo That's not what I indicated. What I answered was the question of prediction. Evolution would assume junk DNA, ID would predict less junk DNA. It turns out the prediction made by ID was correct. Knowing functionality in no way indicates a designer.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Now you're just flirting, cause I've answered all this already.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo I won you over huh? (hehe)

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo No, I'm saying that while there is in fact nonencoding DNA, much of that DNA is not "junk" as previously thought by evolutionists. In recent times it has been discovered that the nonencoding DNA controls other functions. I'm saying that the function of much of the non encoding DNA is known. That is what you would expect to see with a design, (less junk DNA).

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Predictions of ID: It was thought, because of evolution that there would be a great deal of "junk" DNA. With ID, however, one would expect much less. This prediction has turned out to be true, as investigation of the so called "junk" DNA has turned out to have functionality. Did I leave out anything?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Science philosophers talk about the demarcation problem. That is, they have tried to define what science is and have found that there are so many different disciplines that is not possible to give one definition of science. So how you define science is not really the factor you suppose it is. It has been, however, the typical strategy taken in opposition to ID. In the long term it will be as effective as claiming evolution is not valid because atheist promote it. That wasnt valid either.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo I take it you have read about ID, not just heard these things. Because it wouldn't take but a moment to discover the answer to every objection you have. I'll do it for you in a few hours, I'm running late so back later

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo I understand what you are saying, however, at the risk of sounding like a smarty pants, "na-uh" is not a very good refutation for the historical classification of ID. When you say that you can't use ID to study the big bang, it seems you misunderstand. ID is the theory, historical science is the discipline. One a theory the other the tool. In ID we look at the information-rich structures to extrapolate the designer.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo You can't use ID to study the big bang, nor the the theory attempt to do so. I'll stop there for now and see if you disagree.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo An event that happen in times past, that is, the first appearance of life, is history. (Unless you believe it is still happening as such today, and everyone would be interested in that.) So, how that event happened is a scientific exploration, and just as other events that happened in history that are not observerable today, it falls under the realm of historical science.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Clearly we are dealing with an event which happened in history, which seems to happen no more. That's historical, and HS method applies.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo You gave great examples of HS, and just sort of drove off the cliff and said, as for ID, na uh". If the first life springing up was not a historical event, what was it? The method of multiple competing hypotheses fits fine here. Even if you build DNA in the lab, you have not solved the issue of how first life occured. It takes a historial approach. And just like "bones & dirt" and stuff to study, DNA provides stuff as well.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo ?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo You've been doing very well, I like talking to you. Perhaps I missed your point. Try me again, You say that ID is not a historical theory? Is that right? Explain please.

And, when you say no evidence of a designer. You mean that to include DNA as well?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo You missed my point on this one. I was saying that historical sciences have to make assumptions based on evidence.

No one was there to see life first spring forth, however that was. It will never be recreated with cretainty. It will always be only a "possible way". Such is often historical science.

Nature does arrange information. But then you made my case, living things are nature.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Even in abiogenesis, no one will be able to actually "prove" anything other than, perhaps one day, how life may have begun.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo That there was a designer is evidenced in the arragement of information. ID is a historical theory, historical science uses inference from evidence at hand. No one has seen a living t rex, but the evidence of bones indicate one must have lived. No one saw the formation of the Grand Canyon, but the evidence suggest it was formed by water. (although other theories exist).

This is the nature of historical science.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo No I mean the big bang and ID.

How do you test for intelligence? I shouldn't have to answer that.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo I am not saying a supernatural force working outside of the laws of nature is in ID. If I arrange the magnetic letters stuck on a refigerator to spell my name, I have not violated methodological naturalism. I am only an agent that has orginised the information. That is ID.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Again, the theory does not insist on anything, you seem like a smart person. but thus far the only difference you have pointed out between the two theories is tha one you believe infers a god as designer and the other says "i dunno, but we'll keep looking. So all I can do is say, again, ID does not infer a god.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Good, now we are getting somewhere. BUT...I don't care if they teach ID in churches, start refering to god as The Great ID, it doesn't change the theory.

We can't control what others do with the theory. All we can do is determine if the theory is valid. What say you?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo We agree on the first part. As for Behe & Minnich. They may jump over to a god belief, but again, the theory does not itself do so. Again, it would be like saying I believe in the big bang because I believe god created the singularity. I might believe that, but the theory does not call for god or anything to be the creator of the singularity. The situations are identical.

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo In the big bang, there is no cause in science for the singularity. Religious people may jump to say it was God, but science does not do away with the theory because of that jump. Does ID threaten atheist?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo I do mean mechanisms, or more precisely the limitations of those mechanisms. Natural selection has limitations given the correction models in DNA. As for ID proponents avoiding the nature of the designer, it is because the theory cannot specify. Why do atheist assume it must be a god?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo There is truth in that some forms of evolution are disliked by religious people. On that I will agree. But there are forms of evolution are also out of favor with some scientists as well. ID claims a designer that cannot be accounted for, abiogenesis has produced no results that resolve the issue. However, since religioius people lean towards ID, which states not who the designer is, can you really say they fear not being "special" anymore?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo Religious people are not afraid of evolution. That's silly, most accept it as a fact. Perhaps you confuse evolution with life origins?

[gcnengineer]

@Oreceo So you're thinking that the creationist are scared because their great great great etc,,.....grand child might not look the same was we do some day? You really don't know a great deal about religious people do you?

[drfoxcourt]

Hey those Steve guys are pretty smart! ;-)

[pestmanpat]

VERY GOOD POINT

[ThieleM]

Define what makes these other theories 'better'

[ThieleM]

When I say that all of the evidence doesn't have to support evolution I am not saying that literally. I am addressing how scientific theory works. If you understood science you would not have leaped into your silly conclusion that I contradicted myself. I did not. You simply lack the knowledge to understand my statement.

[ThieleM]

Also:

Are you an expert on all 3 of these theories. Your statement at the end of your reply would require that you be an expert for your contention that the theories are more complete than evolution. I dont think you are an expert on Evolution, Plate Techtonics and Gravitational Theory. I obviously have a wider grasp of science than you and I am absolutely NOT an expert on all 3 theories.

[ThieleM]

You still dont get it. ALL OF THE EVIDENCE DOESNT HAVE TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION FOR THE THEORY TO BE VALID. Do you question Plate techtonics? That is a theory and there are problems with Plate Techtonics. Do you doubt Gravity??? Also a theory that may not apply universally. Evolution is no different.

You dont understand science.

[ThieleM]

Evolution in organisms, simply put, means change over time. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. What drives the change over time is what people are studying.

In science a theory is the BIGGEST thing.....facts are individual pieces of data. The Theory is bigger than the fact in the science world. Most laymen don't know this.

[ThieleM]

The problem with your point is that all know SCIENTIFIC evidence DOES support evolution. What she means is that proper science and evolution go together perfectly and do in fact fit. That an aspect or individual fact that supports evolution may be tossed out as new data comes along does not diminish evolution or science.

[ThieleM]

and? Do you have a point that matters here? You just described why people do science.......

[adrianfi7]

This woman makes me sick, doing everything she can to destroy freedom of religion by perverting the term.

[ThieleM]

maybe your zombie God should strike her down.....

[Nibor7301]

xD That ending was brilliant.

[iconaclastor]

No time frame is given or the change from bear to a "more aquatic" one in nature with a growing mouth till " a creature as monstrous as a whale" is produced. The fact is that Darwin was using that example as an instance where natural selection would arrive at those changes (in the same paragraph) which is really an example of refuted Lamarckism. Darwinism is outside of experimental science and is more propped up by the philosophy of naturalism usually in tandem with atheistic commitment. .

[iconaclastor]

look in the 1st edtion in Chapter 6 titled, "Difficulties On Theory". In a reprint of the 1st edition "a Bantam Classic" June 1999, it's on page 149-150

[iconaclastor]

this was written in the very first edition that Darwin wrote. He deleted it in his following edition and it has been ommited in subsequent editions because of the negative comments he drew.

[2007regis]

Eugenie rocks my world!

[BeauLeeman]

The term 'Darwinian' evolution is required to differentiate mechanisms (i.e. natural selection of RM). Evolution IS observable. What is NOT empirically observable is the mechanism to inject novelty into the process.

Evolution appears to be an adaptive process to adjust for a changing environment, and to add diversity. Macroevolution via successive small permuative alterations to radically alter species has NOT yet been observed.

If you feel that it has, provide a reference.

[iconaclastor]

There are only two examples of the signatures that are mentioned and that is supposed to mean that all the rest of them are not accurate either? Darwinism is used to distinguish from small changes in an organism from the larger changes that are unobserved as Darwin first wrote about in his first version of "Origens" where he believed that a bear swimming could turn into a whale. Creationists recognize that natural selection is observable but it is not a way for Darwinism to happen.

[BeauClayton]

In light of such phenomena as the Cambrian Explosion, the high probability of punctuated equilibrium — in tandem with phyletic gradualism — is seldom ignored by biologists. And random genetic drift (the "Founder Effect") in small populations is as factual as it is theoretical, having been observed and documented in numerous anthropological studies.

These, among other factors, are the constituent parts of the modern evolutionary synthesis, with natural selection incontrovertibly at the hub.

[brotheroftheelements]

all named Steve...

that's hilarious.

[ironjohnlad]

Yes. Before 'evolution'(the development of life through micro-evolution, macro-evolution,cell mutation,natural selection common ancesters)you first have to have life, ie some form of biogenisis. Now life arose potentiall millions of years ago.

Creatinist formula Information + Cbemicals+ Energy + Time = Life

Evolutionary Formula Chemicals + Energy + Time= Life,

Neither formula can be shown to be false, since we are talking about wehat may have happned millions of years ago

A

[ThinkerHA]

Interesting details about the "scientific dissent from darwinianism" list.

[ironjohnlad]

We need honest debate ! She is right majority votes dont determin science ! Creationists spoil there case when they misrepresent their opponenets !

However I wish evolutionists were more honsest as well, ie by admiting that they really teach materialistic evolution, and that many parts of evolution theory are unscientific, as they are not falsifiable.

Lets have honesty on all sides.

John

[BeauClayton]

What in the world? Every aspect of the modern evolutionary synthesis follows the scientific method and is thus falsifiable; if "hit or miss" predictions deduced from the hypotheses were wrong (e.g. no telemeric bases were found in human chromosome 2, or no ancestral terrestrial whale fossils were in the record), the modern synthesis would be false, or "falsified". Can you be more specific?

[theinquisitor]

I think it's worth making a distinction between the fact that all life has a common ancestor, and whether natural selection was the only force that was in effect. There may be other forces on top of the natural selection that influence evolution, and that is where the dissention lies. You can potentially explain any evolutionary adaptation by saying with enough generations natural selection can do it, and that can lead to not looking for other influences on the evolution of life.

[BeauClayton]

Gravity, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, is caused by a curvature of space and time; the scientific method bolsters this claim.

However, there may be other forces on top of the bending of space-time that influence gravity. Truly, there may. But only when empirical evidences of such forces make themselves manifest will we suspend our understanding of gravity or the "as-is" pedagogy thereof.

And mind you, friend: Ignorance is never, as far as science is concerned, evidence.

[theinquisitor]

Indeed, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But there are other influences on a species genome such as genetic drift. There are hypotheses like puntuated equilibrium which propose a more uneven rate and tempo of phylogenetic change, as opposed to phyletic gradualism, which proposes a continuous rate of evolutionary change. I don't know much about the issue, but the point is that there is discussion about the small details of how evolution happens, but not the fact that it does.