Is common descent a fact?

[TAO]

You seem to be a sincere individual. However, if you think that quantum teleportation involving photons solves the "Moroni Shuttle" problem, you need to read a lot more about quantum teleportation. Even the most cursory look at the first paragraph of the readily available Wikipedia article on this subject should quickly reveal the (fatal) problem with your assertion. Photon " quantum teleportation" does not allow for superluminary transfer of useful information (only quantum state information). If we are to believe Joseph Smith, Moroni could not have used it to transport himself here (because JS claimed that Moroni had physical body).

Oh yah, I forgot, the fuzziness XD. I forgot... the teleportation alters the photons... lol, oh well, method number two, courtesy of Mr. Kip Thorne, a very well known physcist.

1) Find a naked singularity

2) Extract a special material only found within black holes

3) Draw out and enlarge a wormhole found in the quantum foam

4) Put the special material in strips, preventing the wormhole from collapsing itself

5) TA DA! You have a wormhole.

*sorry, I am rather hyper right now*

There's no reason to believe God wouldn't be able to do this, no?

You know, this doesn't mean God uses this method. The point is, I could probably provide a million ways that God could transfer Moroni from wherever he is to here. Simply because we don't know all about the universe.

I can theorize about particles that may not exist, and since you are unable to prove or disprove them - you cannot say that God cannot transfer that way. That's why it's ultimately futile to say 'he can't do this'.

Your mistaken assertion regarding quantum teleportation

Nah, merely forgot a law regarding light that I love to cite to people. It drives them crazy. That law is simply, you cannot measure or effect anything without changing it to be different.

is not nearly as egregious as bringing up the concept of "spirit particles" without a shred of supporting physical evidence.

That's the funny thing, I don't have to. The fact that they could possibly exist merely means God possibly could use them. I don't have to have any evidence to make my statements, since you cannot say they are false. All you can say is 'there is no evidence'. And so when you object to God transporting Moroni (which I have reasons to believe that perhaps he was not transported, but that's another story), you are in fact, not doing anything to make it false. You are simply stating to us 'there is no evidence', which we reply with 'we know, but it doesn't make it not true'.

Are we now to start a discussion of your imaginary spirit particles? Or should I continue on to explain why you are wide of the mark in several of the other claims in your responses?

Well hehe, I have several theories behind spirit particles (although I am 99% sure that I am wrong on all of them). I have though that perhaps they relate to superpartners, or perhaps to virtual particles related to Hawking Radiation, but you know, there are so many great things out there they could possibly be. Or they could be something we haven't discovered yet. All I know is they exist (D&C). Spirit is matter.

Feel free to articulate on my other responses.

Actually, I have a better idea. Since I live in Florida, it is after midnight and so I'm going to get some sleep.

Ouchie... you are up really late... yah, get some sleep dude... sleep = awesome.

[Tarski]

Noting that you didn't answer my question, methinks thou protesteth too much.

Hey, dude, it's ok to admit politics are involved. We all know it, so it's not a secret that you have to take to the grave. Just admit the obvious and move on.

I don't deny politics. It affects everything. It is mostly intra-academic infighting about which field or sub-field should get the most money or hires etc. But the way you characterize the situation with evolution is off the mark. It is religion trying to push its way into the science classroom to meet the social and philosophical goals of the "wedge document".

Politics influence the field of evolution to the point that it has become a lush field for forgery and fakery. Climate science is similar, but not as much.

Bull! I estimate that there is less "forgery and fakery" and in these fields because of the attention.

Pushing your face into a hole in the ground will not make it go away. It's not anti-science, it's reality.

Evolution is reality.

Then why not a statement from the National Science Foundation regarding astrology. If ID is such a discredited field of scientific investigation, why was it necessary for them to issue such a statement, and not astrology.

That is because there is no effort by astrologists get the subject taught along science in the classroom. Astrology is not evangelized and it is politically active force. But in another culture or another time it could be.

In other words, the answer is that anti-evolution religionists have made a nuisance of themselves and thereby forced the issue! Should the same thing happen with astrology there would eventually be a statement made.

Come on! Even you can come up with the answer to that.

Why issue a cease and desist order to the scientific community to pforbid further research in this area? If it is in the same league as astrology....

CFR

What night terrors are in the heart of the foundation for Intelligent Design that this was necessary. Unless they were afraid that someone was taking it seriously, and they needed to jackboot the scientific community to stop it.

Jackboot?

Tell us what you think about that, Tarski. Can you give us an explanation without flying off the handle.

I just did.

Again: There is an ultimately religiously motivated group of people who do not like what they see as the religious and philosophical implications of some well established standard science we call evolutionary theory. They are more convinced by the Bible than they are by the data so they figure there must be something wrong with the data or the science. But there isn't. If they insist that there is a conflict with their religion, then the fault is with the religion.

Rather than face this they come up with pseudo-science and various "realpolitik" strategies to get their disguised religious ideas into the science classroom to target students while they are too immature to know how science really works and what is really at stake epistemologically.

Since they made a special nuisance of themselves, a response from the scientific community was deemed expedient.

[TAO]

Evolution is reality.

Assuming isn't the smartest idea.

It'd be better to say that 'as far as we can see, evolution is the reality'.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

True enough, but that statement and $5 I can buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[TAO]

TAO:

True enough, but that statement and $5 I can buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Perhaps you can at that XD. Either way I can't though - caffeine isn't good for running. And I've noticed too many people saying "I need my caffeine" during 0 period recently. Definitely an addiction.

[Tarski]

Assuming isn't the smartest idea.

Assuming is exactly what I am not doing. I have arived at a rational conclusion based on things like evidence.

While no scientific knowledge is absolutely certain, it is pedantic and tedious to say things like "I tentatively believe based on limited evidence that the earth is not a flat disk".

Take a closer look at religion if you want to see some better examples of just assuming.

[changed]

It takes many organisms with the same mutation for that mutation to become part of the general population--

Yes, sexual reproduction actually fixes mutations as the gaps in one parent's DNA are filled in by the other parent's... this is why there are bacteria alive today that are pretty much the same as bacteria millions of years ago, they don't change because all the little changes are fixed in the offsrping...

I am a fan of HGT, rather than VGT...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGT

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism.

HGT is not a single random mutation in which one individual is changed, but rather an entire group all undergoes the same change all at once - as they are all infected through the same virus/bacteria/bug bite... thus new traits are the product of an infection of sorts - new genetic info being placed into an entire group - rather than just a single random occurance in one individual.

HGT + panspermia explains the Cambrian explosion better than random mutations...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-XWAXe4xJg&feature=related

[changed]

Is it politics that keeps astrology out of astronomy departments?

When there is a justifiable consensus that some fringe set of ideas are just bunk, then thank goodness they are kept out of the best universities and thank goodness they don't get funding. Otherwise, someone wouldn't be doing their job. That the most promising avenues are funded over the less promising is just good policy and creationist science (aka ID) is judged in that way. Who should do the judging if not the scientists themselves? Or is every implausible unsupported idea to be given equal weight and equal money?

you have to admit that politics does play a role in who gets funding for what.

Example: the Gov wants to collect carbon taxes soooo they fund global warming projects.

example: communists don't like religious groups, because any organized group poses a threat to gov power, sooooo the gov funds projects that tear down other powerful organizations.

ID is valid science, we have observed ID, we are learning how to design life ourselves - so why not? HGT (above) is a form of genetic engineering, and is a plausable explanation of where we are, in fact - from wiki

"What elevated common descent to doctrinal status almost certainly was the much later discovery of the universality of biochemistry, which was seemingly impossible to explain otherwise. But that was before horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which could offer an alternative explanation for the universality of biochemistry, was recognized as a major part of the evolutionary dynamic."

So - HGT - not random mustations - is what "elevated common descent to doctrinal status"... although I don't know that I would call HGT "common" descent as it means who we are came, not just from our parents, but from genetic material from another organism - is that really common descent?

I know, I will get my head bit off yet again for this.... here we go round the family tree...

would it help it I posted a bunch of papers that question the family tree?

Jessica E Light et al., "Evolutionary history of mammalian sucking lice (Phthiraptera: Anoplura)" [abstract], doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-292, v10 n292, BMC Evolutionary Biology, 22 Sep 2010. "We find significant conflict between phylogenies constructed using molecular and morphological data."

Ruben E Valas and Philip E Bourne, "Save the tree of life or get lost in the woods" [abstract], doi:10.1186/1745-6150-5-44, v5 paper 44, Biology Direct, 1 Jul 2010.

Douglas L. Theobald, "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" [abstract | Editor's Summary], doi:10.1038/nature09014, p219

[44Foxtrot]

Is this your professional opinion as a marine engineer and/or statistician?

Please see current thread on Jaredite barges.

[Vex]

Please see current thread on Jaredite barges.

Done and done

[TAO]

Assuming is exactly what I am not doing. I have arived at a rational conclusion based on things like evidence.

Nevertheless, even based on evidence you are assuming.

For example, would you say people before Coppernicus and Galileo were assuming when they said the Sun orbits the Earth?

I would. And ultimately, until we know everything, to one degree or another, we are assuming.

While no scientific knowledge is absolutely certain, it is pedantic and tedious to say things like "I tentatively believe based on limited evidence that the earth is not a flat disk".

But it is not a hassle to say "evidence says that the earth is not a disk" versus "earth not being a disk is a reality". Furthermore, the implications of the two statements are completely different, and the one is very misleading.

Take a closer look at religion if you want to see some better examples of just assuming.

As I have shown in another thread - anything based on the senses takes assuming. That includes science to the same degree as religion does.

[Tarski]

But it is not a hassle to say "evidence says that the earth is not a disk" versus "earth not being a disk is a reality".

It is a reality.

[TAO]

It is a reality.

Well...

Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real.

-Tupac Shakur

So I'd say I'd have to disagree.

BTW your assuming its a reality - and TAO does not like assuming. ;-)

[semlogo]

Well...

So I'd say I'd have to disagree.

BTW your assuming its a reality - and TAO does not like assuming. ;-)

That's a completely unconvincing argument for all but, I suppose, the most die-hard of Matrix fans.

[TAO]

That's a completely unconvincing argument for all but, I suppose, the most die-hard of Matrix fans.

Hehe true, but it's no more convincing than his which was...

It is a reality.

... and so I didn't really feel obliged to go into that much detail.

I simply wished to point out that many disagree with his statement, and that it was an assumption.

If he went into more detail, perhaps a discussion could occur.

[semlogo]

Hehe true, but it's no more convincing than his which was...

... and so I didn't really feel obliged to go into that much detail.

I simply wished to point out that many disagree with his statement, and that it was an assumption.

If he went into more detail, perhaps a discussion could occur.

It may not convince you, but I think anyone else would find it rather obvious, because the evidence for a spherical earth is easy to understand to even the most science-impaired. It's visual evidence.

Then again, since you think life is just a dream, I guess anything is possible!

[TAO]

It may not convince you, but I think anyone else would find it rather obvious, because the evidence for a spherical earth is easy to understand to even the most science-impaired. It's visual evidence.

Then again, since you think life is just a dream, I guess anything is possible!

Hehe, didn't we have a dicussion about this in another thread... about how life could be a dream and we wouldn't know it?

I don't actually take the quote so seriously - I just wish he wouldn't assume and state 'evolution is reality'. There's been alot of things in the past we thought were reality which now, we realize aren't so.

The reason I posted the quote was to more get him to realize that he was assuming a bit - but it doesn't seem to have worked.

[semlogo]

Hehe, didn't we have a dicussion about this in another thread... about how life could be a dream and we wouldn't know it?

I don't actually take the quote so seriously - I just wish he wouldn't assume and state 'evolution is reality'. There's been alot of things in the past we thought were reality which now, we realize aren't so.

The reason I posted the quote was to more get him to realize that he was assuming a bit - but it doesn't seem to have worked.

It's not like evolution is a new, flash in the pan idea. It's been around for a long time, and it keeps getting better established with more supporting evidence every year. As far as we can know anything we know evolution is a fact.

[Vex]

It may not convince you, but I think anyone else would find it rather obvious, because the evidence for a spherical earth is easy to understand to even the most science-impaired. It's visual evidence.

Then again, since you think life is just a dream, I guess anything is possible!

That's a false assumption: The earth is not spherical and such imperfections cause the use of a J2 term as well as nodal regression as well as other orbital anomalies.

Just sayin'

/stirs the pot.

[semlogo]

That's a false assumption: The earth is not spherical and such imperfections cause the use of a J2 term as well as nodal regression as well as other orbital anomalies.

Just sayin'

/stirs the pot.

Roughly spherical. Happy?

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

It is every so slightly pear shaped.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

It is every so slightly pear shaped.

As the earth enters middle age, a certain expansion of the waist is only to be expected

[thesometimesaint]

[Tarski]

This thread is about proof, not "suggestions". There are many "suggestions" which disprove many of the claims of macro-evolution, so we can spend time "suggesting" many things.

If you want to open a thread on speculation, please do so, but here we are talking about Tarski's claim of proof, absolute certainty, established fact.

To claim that something is a fact is not to claim that it is absolutely certain in some idea philosophical sense. However, when something is a known fact, it is normative to speak of it in unqualified terms. To say something is a fact is a simply to claim that it is confidently held to be true by virtue of an overwhelming abundance of rationally interpreted and theoretically digested evidence. I am hard pressed to think of anything that is literally absolutely certain. If something is only known to be a fact if it has been rendered absolutely certain then there seem to be an embarrassing paucity of known facts. Is it a fact that there were civil war battles in Virginia?

What about the notion of proof? Does this refer to something that leads to absolute certainty? Are we talking about deductive proofs as found in mathematics? Or are we talking about proof as we use the term in a legal setting? We are talking about science.

To be asserted as a known fact something need only be so well established by evidence and reason that to deny it without producing surprising massive contravening evidence would be irrational.

The important point for discussions of religion is the following:

The observation that in the past some things thought to be fact were overturned does nothing to warrant a rejection of any particular item in the current list of accepted facts nor does it do anything to justify religious beliefs that seem to contradict science.

Examples give the idea:

It is a fact that copper conducts electricity under appropriate and common conditions.

It is a fact that germs are implicated in most known infectious diseases.

It is a fact that the brain is the central organ of cognition.

It is a fact that the earth is several billion years old.

It is a fact that the sun's radiant energy is produced by nuclear fusion.

It is a fact that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion (no one saw it happen!).

Does the fact that there are items that were once accepted as fact that were overturned justify a denial of any of the above?

No.

[Vex]

Oblate. Happy?

Now I am