Satan And Science

[citizen28]

Submit it to an evolutionary biology journal. If you can get it past peer review, I will listen to what you have to say.

Darn, you beat me to the chase.

Franktalk, I understand that as someone whose first axiom is that your religion's truth claims (as you understand them) are valid, you would be apt to over-exaggerate the subjectivity of the science, holding out the hope that all of your religion's truth claims will eventually be shown to be correct. Religion has a rich history of science denial and anti-intellectualism, and I think it's perfectly clear why.

[Jeff K.]

I'm no scientist, but I'm 99% sure that amateur thought experiments and brief probability models on widely different topics are not how science is conducted.

Don't tell that to Einstien.

[Jeff K.]

Can anyone tell me definatively why intelligent design cannot work within the evolutionary model?

Evolution for the most part seems to be a workable model, I have no reason to consider it other than what it is. Intelligent design does not, in my view, go against such a theory.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Ralph Man]

I will answer questions now.

The lightening calculation assumes an equiprobable chance that a person or a lightening strike will be found in any given area in the US land area. That's obviously false. That aside, yes, the mutation calculation is going wrong in a couple different ways. If you were to guess, what do you think would be the criticism?

Maybe you can start by explaining this step and why you feel it is necessary.

Number of possible combinations in 120 X10^6 nucleotides with 4 nucleotide combinations per site

4^(120 X10^6) = My calculator did not go that high. So I used 4^1000 which

I don't mean to be so Socratic, but there error here is so obvious to me, I figured you ought to have your chance to answer the questions you solicited for.

[Franktalk]

Stargazer,

I am aware of the Voyager anomaly. I did not know they think they figured it out. I will have to check it out. But from a first thought about heating I don't think I will agree. But let me look over the reasoning. One more thing to check out on my list of things to check out.

[Franktalk]

I'm no scientist, but I'm 99% sure that amateur thought experiments and brief probability models on widely different topics are not how science is conducted.

Thank you for this response. Since the subject of this thread is about Satan and how he may influence some theories of science I thought I would post this simple model and ask why does it show something completely different than population models from biology? The models were developed in science based on the assumption that evolution is correct and they were originally based on dating from bones and rocks from geology. But we now have real mutation rates from molecular biology yet the evolutionary models were never changed to keep pace with obtained knowledge. The math in population genetics is so complex that only a few people in the world even can wrap their head around them. This is in essence a wall around their methods. There have been several studies done by philosophy of science types that have asked this very question. They question the validity of the current population genetic models. I happen to share their views.

[Jeff K.]

I think satan influences the USES of science, satan cannot influence science anymore than than he can influence a hammer. Science is merely a tool or methodology of understanding what is going on around us, science is not the knowledge we gleen from that method.

[Franktalk]

Your understanding of creationism might be a farce. Or maybe not. But I don't get the impression Franktalk is trying to disprove evolution per se, but he is demonstrating using a mathematical method that random-chance mutation alone cannot possibly account for the evolution of the human species during the currently-understood age of the Universe. I may be putting words in his mouth, but as I understand it, saying that random chance alone cannot possibly account for us, and that to achieve the human species in the required time frame requires guidance from an external source. This in itself is not a disproof of evolution. It's a discounting of random chance.

But of course one is not allowed to say such things, because the delicate emotional stability of those who cannot abide the notion of God involved in it at all in any form whatsoever will be disturbed.

Of course, if you would prefer to exclude the action of any outside influence in evolution, and be all "my way or the highway" about random-chance evolution, then there's nothing much to discuss then, is there?

But why can't you answer the mathematical model that Franktalk presented? I can understand an inability to do so, and there's no shame in this, but to answer him by basically responding "Your mama wears Army boots" (i.e. suggesting he go and find a pre-Cambrian human skeleton to dig up) shows a lack of willingness to have an intelligent conversation.

Just sayin'.

You are correct. My model is not proof against evolution it is as you say a model which shows current thinking to be wrong ( and only in species to species evolution ). So we must ask ourselves just what is going on here. I could understand science sidestepping the new data from molecular biology for a short time thinking (as kuhn put it ) for science to explain away the issue using the current theory. But it has been going on for to long. I do believe that there is some core of people that have decided to hide this from the rest of science. This really could be Satan's playground. I have to admit that I personally have not dismantled the equations for population genetics. It would take to long and I trust others to do that work.

Normally when a model is made you use the variables and arrange then in some fashion and adjust they relationships so that the output of the model matches observed nature. But that is not what population genetics does. It modifies the answer to arrive at the same answer. The ultimate in circular thought. They took the conclusion which was an assumption of evolution and drove the variables into another conclusion. I do believe we are in the middle of the biggest scientific hoax in history. But since I have not done the work myself it is only an opinion at this time.

[Franktalk]

The lightening calculation assumes an equiprobable chance that a person or a lightening strike will be found in any given area in the US land area. That's obviously false. That aside, yes, the mutation calculation is going wrong in a couple different ways. If you were to guess, what do you think would be the criticism?

Maybe you can start by explaining this step and why you feel it is necessary.

I don't mean to be so Socratic, but there error here is so obvious to me, I figured you ought to have your chance to answer the questions you solicited for.

You are right. The number I used for the possible combinations is smaller than the real calculated number. But this error helps the mechanism of change. And since I thought that people would plug in these numbers into calculators I decided to use a number that a normal calculator could handle and not consider the number infinite. I did not hide this in the model. Knowing this the results of the model are off by a factor of 100,000 or so, maybe more. But this just drives a large number even larger. I am surprised you did not find that I used the number of mutations on the whole of the DNA but only applied them to the 4% area in question. This again helps the mechanism of change by concentrating the mutations in one area. But in this case by a factor of twenty or so. Since I knew the results were so massive in the time requirements I was generous in giving mutations every chance of doing what many say they can do.

[Franktalk]

Can anyone tell me definatively why intelligent design cannot work within the evolutionary model?

Evolution for the most part seems to be a workable model, I have no reason to consider it other than what it is. Intelligent design does not, in my view, go against such a theory.

The issue is one of design and how some systems require a base number of parts to function. Like a motor needs a minimum number of parts to work and any less parts the motor has no function. ID says that some systems that have developed (according to evolutionary theory) require too many parts as a base and the mechanism of change could not produce them all at once. It is the all at once where the argument rest. Read the book "The Edge of Evolution" to get a good view of the limits of the mechanism of change. But this is a view of our current understanding. We may in the future find new processes that change the mechanism.

Evolutionary theory states that natural selection drives species into complex systems. But if a system is nonfunctional until all of the parts are assembled then natural selection can't act on the nonfunctioning system. If this happens then there is no pressure to drive towards the complex system and evolutionary theory fails to explain complexity in life. It is my belief that both sides don't have enough data to make their case.

[Ralph Man]

You missed my point Frank. Let me rephrase.

In modeling the evolution of humans from chimps - granting that - why do you find it necessary to calculate every possible linear sequence combination of the degree of nucleotide difference? After all, every conceivable nucleotide variation did not evolve from the hominid ancestor and that's not the target.

[Franktalk]

You missed my point Frank. Let me rephrase.

In modeling the evolution of humans from chimps - granting that - why do you find it necessary to calculate every possible linear sequence combination of the degree of nucleotide difference? After all, every conceivable nucleotide variation did not evolve from the hominid ancestor and that's not the target.

Another great question. You are so right that if we have been lucky on our path from apes to man that not all of the combinations are required. But just how lucky do we have to be to obtain man from the common ancestor?

The required change is 120 x 10^6 mutations.

Required change size x change rate = changes in single ape creature for one generation.

(120 x 10^6) x ( 1.8 x 10^-8 ) = 2.16 mutations per ape creature per generation

I will not use the whole of the population of ape creatures for this model since it is beyond silly to think that all million ape creatures would mutate in the target direction every generation. Although if they did it would take time for all of those changes to be acquired by the whole population.

Now assuming that the 2.16 mutations per generation went in a straight line towards being a human

required change / change per generation = number of generations

(120 x 10^6) / 2.16 = 55.5 x 10^6 generations

Generations x length of generation in years = years required

(55.5 x 10^6) x 20 = 11.1 x 10^8 years

According to current theory man came from a common ancestor some 10 million years ago. So it is off by a factor of 100. So if 100 ape creatures all had mutations that all were in a perfect line to man and they only breed with each other, and they shared DNA instantly each generation then they barely have enough time to make man. So over ten million years not one mutation would be outside the straight line to humans. That is quite the luck.

[Stargazer]

Can anyone tell me definatively why intelligent design cannot work within the evolutionary model?

Evolution for the most part seems to be a workable model, I have no reason to consider it other than what it is. Intelligent design does not, in my view, go against such a theory.

Jeff, I agree.

But it cannot be allowed to be left alone, even as an unproveable hypothesis, because much like an Imam who will respond to a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a bomb turban by inciting his followers to blow things up (thus demonstrating that the cartoon had a valid if perhaps overstated point), fanatic evolutionists cannot stand any argument against their favorite evidence that God doesn't exist, and will respond by logic-wrenching, name-calling, appeals to authority, and throwing strawmen at their interlocutors (thus demonstrating that they are painfully insecure in their own convictions).

I will demonstrate thusly: "Although it is probably unproveable, it is my opinion that God guided evolution with intentional forethought to ultimately produce the result we see all around us."

Comments on the quoted sentence above, gentlemen? Or did I give you too much warning that it was a gotcha?

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

I am aware of the Voyager anomaly. I did not know they think they figured it out. I will have to check it out. But from a first thought about heating I don't think I will agree. But let me look over the reasoning. One more thing to check out on my list of things to check out.

Oops, this turns out to be an anomaly of the Pioneer, not Voyager probles. My bad.

Anyway, the article I read two weeks ago (that I cannot now locate) suggested that there was now a definitive answer as I indicated above. However, I just checked the Wikipedia article on the subject and it indicates that the jury is still out on the cause. Assuming it isn't out of date. I don't have any time to investigate further this morning, as my employer pays me to program computers not research astrophysical phenomena.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

"Evolutionary theory states that natural selection drives species into complex systems. But if a system is nonfunctional until all of the parts are assembled then natural selection can't act on the nonfunctioning system. If this happens then there is no pressure to drive towards the complex system and evolutionary theory fails to explain complexity in life. It is my belief that both sides don't have enough data to make their case.".

That is simply Irreducible Complexity.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, I agree.

But it cannot be allowed to be left alone, even as an unproveable hypothesis, because much like an Imam who will respond to a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a bomb turban by inciting his followers to blow things up (thus demonstrating that the cartoon had a valid if perhaps overstated point), fanatic evolutionists cannot stand any argument against their favorite evidence that God doesn't exist, and will respond by logic-wrenching, name-calling, appeals to authority, and throwing strawmen at their interlocutors (thus demonstrating that they are painfully insecure in their own convictions).

I will demonstrate thusly: "Although it is probably unproveable, it is my opinion that God guided evolution with intentional forethought to ultimately produce the result we see all around us."

Comments on the quoted sentence above, gentlemen? Or did I give you too much warning that it was a gotcha?

If it is built into the system it may indeed be impossible to detect. Like dark matter, it may require sophisticated instruments we don't presently have. It may have some valid basis until we can show that such can actually exist. Much of it by this time is indeed inference through the interpretation of evidence (an interpretation that may go the other way too).

[Franktalk]

Oops, this turns out to be an anomaly of the Pioneer, not Voyager probles. My bad.

Anyway, the article I read two weeks ago (that I cannot now locate) suggested that there was now a definitive answer as I indicated above. However, I just checked the Wikipedia article on the subject and it indicates that the jury is still out on the cause. Assuming it isn't out of date. I don't have any time to investigate further this morning, as my employer pays me to program computers not research astrophysical phenomena.

I think you are right. Anyway one of those guys is still sending signals way way past when they thought it would go dark. Barry Setterfield thought he had it figured out but he has since rewrote his theory. I am not sure it still solves the problem in his mind.

I still remember V ger on Star Trek. That goes back a few years.

[cinepro]

He Stargazer, FYI you can't receive any more personal messages.

[thesometimesaint]

We are very fortunate that any of them is still working. Especially after being target practice for Klingons.

[keith_brian]

Don't tell that to Einstien.

Einstein's theories of relativity were nothing more than quaint and pleasing thought experiments (much like string theory today) until we obtained experimental confirmation of them through the observation of stars near the sun during a solar eclipse in 1919. In fact, the scientific community was so hesitant to recognize his theory of general relativity (for fear that it might prove experimentally wrong) that they actually awarded him the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the photoelectric effect -- even though GR was his more famous achievement.

So, even with Einstein, experimental validation of thought experiments was important.

[Jeff K.]

In essence proving that thought experiments can indeed hold scientific truths, even when they haven't been fully verified.

[keith_brian]

In essence proving that thought experiments can indeed hold scientific truths, even when they haven't been fully verified.

True.

But, without evidence, nobody will ever know one way or the other. God could indeed exist, but I have never personally seen any evidence for it that could be verified to the standard that science demands.

Also, by the same token, werewolves could exist.

[Franktalk]

I have provided a simple challenge to the theory of evolution. Although simple and I was careful to use only sources for my data that are supported by the science community, it was none the less ignored. What I have found out over time is that we all have our own sources of what we consider valid data. Any new argument not going through that source is cast off as unimportant. It was the same way with Christ when He was on the earth. He performed miracles in front of men but most of them cared not and their view of the world did not change. And those who think I am comparing myself to Jesus are blind to the most simple of ideas. That idea is simply one is of the world or not. If someone is of the world then any new data or anomaly that comes along will be put aside as Kuhn so well put. The idea that evolution is true or false is not really the issue. What is the main issue is just how much attachment to the world does one have. I have cast off the world long ago so for me any anomaly that comes along no matter how weak is more than enough reason for me to cast off any (and I do mean any) worldly theory of man. But for some they have both of their world view feet firmly planted in the world and there is nothing that will change that except some event outside of normal existence. For others they strattle the fence between the world and spiritual faith. They truly feel they can manage both but they compromise both in the end. Lastly there is the man who has cast off the world. For him the world is filled with unknowns because he refuses to see it solid. The theories of man which try to bring order to the universe have no power of truth to him.

Now with these three types of people and world views Satan will do his best to try and push those that he can from the path of faith in God. Those who he sees as solidly in the world he will use the world to try and destroy their faith. Those on the fence Satan will push to get them to abandon spiritual faith. Those who have cast off the world Satan will use other methods to reduce a person's faith so the world becomes attractive to that person. One has to remember that Satan is the god of this world (in title) until it is taken away from him. Now if someone believes in God and sees the world as just some temporary place then the power of Satan is diminished.

[Stargazer]

He Stargazer, FYI you can't receive any more personal messages.

Uh, I guess I my message box was full. I've cleared some out. Thanks for the headsup.

[keith_brian]

I have provided a simple challenge to the theory of evolution. Although simple and I was careful to use only sources for my data that are supported by the science community, it was none the less ignored. What I have found out over time is that we all have our own sources of what we consider valid data. Any new argument not going through that source is cast off as unimportant. It was the same way with Christ when He was on the earth. He performed miracles in front of men but most of them cared not and their view of the world did not change. And those who think I am comparing myself to Jesus are blind to the most simple of ideas. That idea is simply one is of the world or not. If someone is of the world then any new data or anomaly that comes along will be put aside as Kuhn so well put. The idea that evolution is true or false is not really the issue. What is the main issue is just how much attachment to the world does one have. I have cast off the world long ago so for me any anomaly that comes along no matter how weak is more than enough reason for me to cast off any (and I do mean any) worldly theory of man. But for some they have both of their world view feet firmly planted in the world and there is nothing that will change that except some event outside of normal existence. For others they strattle the fence between the world and spiritual faith. They truly feel they can manage both but they compromise both in the end. Lastly there is the man who has cast off the world. For him the world is filled with unknowns because he refuses to see it solid. The theories of man which try to bring order to the universe have no power of truth to him.

Now with these three types of people and world views Satan will do his best to try and push those that he can from the path of faith in God. Those who he sees as solidly in the world he will use the world to try and destroy their faith. Those on the fence Satan will push to get them to abandon spiritual faith. Those who have cast off the world Satan will use other methods to reduce a person's faith so the world becomes attractive to that person. One has to remember that Satan is the god of this world (in title) until it is taken away from him. Now if someone believes in God and sees the world as just some temporary place then the power of Satan is diminished.

List of evolutionary biology journals

Instead of grandstanding about your research on a religious message board, can you please type this up and submit it to one of the journals listed above?

I can help with the electronic submission process if you'd like (I've done it before for other scientific journals). Usually, it takes about 1-3 months to hear back whether your paper has been accepted, rejected, or accepted with revisions. If your paper is rejected, they will give you a clear list of reasons why they rejected the paper, and you will have a better understanding of where your research stands in relation to the scientific community.

In any case, if your work is so brilliant, then please submit it for peer review. If it gets published, you will have called into serious question evolution by natural selection and quite possibly sparked a revolution in scientific thought.

What do you say?