Satan And Science

[Franktalk]

What do you say?

I say that I am not interested at all. What you see as important I don't see as important at all. Where you see someone seek status and recognition from the world I do not seek recognition from the world. I know in my heart that all of the arguments in the world will never save a single soul. The reason I post here is to show others that a connection to the world is not required and a spiritual path should be considered. I believe my positions on various ideas of men are reasonable and I will argue for my position. But it is God who will cause a burning in your soul that will lead one to take the leap of faith to become a spiritual person. I am but clay in the potters hands, we all are. But few admit it.

[Ralph Man]

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?

You're about to shift your argument entirely in the next few lines, so a quick word:

Your reasoning contained a variety of errors. I honed on in the mistake that had the most magnitude. The evolution of humans from something that has 4% genome difference doesn't imply that every possible nucleotide combination of that 4% of total base pairs need evolve. Only a tiny, tiny fraction has to. That's a very basic error. I think people are being polite when the suggest you submit to a journal. You are proposing a simple thought experiment that would refute one of the most well-attested theories in science. Think about what that suggests about both your importance/ability and the state of science for a moment.

Ok, on with the new argument.

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.

So there's a lot wrong with this too. I give you two examples:

Your estimation of mutation rate per locus of living progeny is off.

That's because the calculation [(120 x 10^6) x ( 1.8 x 10^-8 ) = 2.16 mutations per ape creature per generation ] has a wrong variable entry. There's about 3 billion base pairs in human DNA. You have about a 120 million. That's because you confused 4% for 100%.

Second, your model assumes mutation accumulation in a couple can only occur at the rate of the average mutation rate of one individual per generation. That's crazy. Mutations accumulate in populations from more than one organism. You say you did this because it would be silly to think all apes would mutate in the target direction - which is silly - but it's also just totally unfounded to then assume the population rate has to be restricted to the rate of one individual. And you speak like you are familiar with pop genetics.

These aren't complicated errors.

So not only was your lightening thought experiment wrong because it failed to recognize that people and lightening aren't equiprobably distributed over land area, your last two attempts also involve some serious mistakes in thinking. Surely this should inject some humility?

[Franktalk]

You're about to shift your argument entirely in the next few lines, so a quick word:

Your reasoning contained a variety of errors. I honed on in the mistake that had the most magnitude. The evolution of humans from something that has 4% genome difference doesn't imply that every possible nucleotide combination of that 4% of total base pairs need evolve. Only a tiny, tiny fraction has to. That's a very basic error. I think people are being polite when the suggest you submit to a journal. You are proposing a simple thought experiment that would refute one of the most well-attested theories in science. Think about what that suggests about both your importance/ability and the state of science for a moment.

There is a difference of 4% of the code between humans and chimps. That number is 120 X 10^6. Please explain to me how only a tiny fraction of the DIFFERENCES need to evolve. If they are differences would they not all need to change to become the same?

So there's a lot wrong with this too. I give you two examples:

Your estimation of mutation rate per locus of living progeny is off.

That's because the calculation [(120 x 10^6) x ( 1.8 x 10^-8 ) = 2.16 mutations per ape creature per generation ] has a wrong variable entry. There's about 3 billion base pairs in human DNA. You have about a 120 million. That's because you confused 4% for 100%.

No I did not. Whereas in the first model I was generous in using all of the DNA to determine the number of mutations I actually should have used only 4% which was the difference. In the model to represent luck I only used the area to be changed in the mutation number to be more accurate in the result. The part of the DNA that remained unchanged had mutations as well but the theory says that those were weeded out by natural selection. So all of those mutations you wish to roll up into the changed areas do not represent reality. What you are saying you want to do is have all mutations only effect 4% of the DNA and have no mutations in 96% of the DNA for 10 million years. I guess I could work up the chances of that happening but I will tell you that it is zero.

Second, your model assumes mutation accumulation in a couple can only occur at the rate of the average mutation rate of one individual per generation. That's crazy. Mutations accumulate in populations from more than one organism. You say you did this because it would be silly to think all apes would mutate in the target direction - which is silly - but it's also just totally unfounded to then assume the population rate has to be restricted to the rate of one individual. And you speak like you are familiar with pop genetics.

You are right in populations mutations occur all over the place. Most are not good and the host dies or has a harder time surviving compared to others. The good mutation is rare. But when it does happen it can be wiped out just by chance in the way that half the code is eliminated in sex based creatures. Then events which have little to do with natural selection can eliminate the good mutation as well such as famine. Then there is the problem of getting the good mutation fixed in the population. That takes time for the mutation to spread around to become dominant and then mix with other good mutations. I could have generated a more complex model with these kinds of variables but all of them work against a quick line to the target. Once you open the door to the whole population you must then include the slowness in which a good mutation spreads. Much slower than my 2.16 towards the target per generation. I also was generous in that I used the 2.16 mutations in each generation towards the target knowing there are actually four states and in actually 1/4 of them would actually work towards the target. So if you wish to include some additional variables then we have to include all. We can't pick the ones we like. I think my assumptions were reasonable. Of course you may feel otherwise.

So not only was your lightening thought experiment wrong because it failed to recognize that people and lightening aren't equiprobably distributed over land area, your last two attempts also involve some serious mistakes in thinking. Surely this should inject some humility?

You are right that the population of man is not equally distributed and lightning is not equally distributed as well. But where man is concentrated then the fewer strikes in that small area will strike people in that area. Something like fish in a barrel. The law of averages works well in these kinds of environments. If indeed you are right we would not have statistics, but we do. Are you ready to show me how statistics can't work because nothing is equally distributed?

[Ralph Man]

There is a difference of 4% of the code between humans and chimps. That number is 120 X 10^6. Please explain to me how only a tiny fraction of the DIFFERENCES need to evolve. If they are differences would they not all need to change to become the same?

You calculated the odds of every possible nucleotide sequence combination of 120 million base pairs. There's no point in doing that, as not every possible combination did or needed to evolve. To have a 120 million base pair difference, literally only one possible combination is necessary. That's slightly less than your 4 to the thousandth power estimate. In reality more need to happen than that - if only because the difference is an average over diverse genomes within populations - but your assumption makes no sense. Like, "F" in a high school class lack of sense.

You are right in populations mutations occur all over the place. Most are not good and the host dies or has a harder time surviving compared to others.

While you are revolutionizing science, it should be noted that most mutations are phenotypically neutral.

I could have generated a more complex model with these kinds of variables but all of them work against a quick line to the target. Once you open the door to the whole population you must then include the slowness in which a good mutation spreads. Much slower than my 2.16 towards the target per generation.

Well that number was just made up with no basis.

I also was generous in that I used the 2.16 mutations in each generation towards the target knowing there are actually four states and in actually 1/4 of them would actually work towards the target.

One of your mistakes that I did not outline is that you aren't accurately modeling evolution if you think some specific nucleotide sequence is a "target" that has to be evolved to. There are many possible variations in genetic variability that still get you to "human." Humans wouldn't be genetically diverse if this wasn't the case. What you are doing is looking at your poker hand and at marveling how rare that sequence of cards is, regardless of the sequence of cards.

You are right that the population of man is not equally distributed and lightning is not equally distributed as well. But where man is concentrated then the fewer strikes in that small area will strike people in that area.

Do you think it is wise to protect yourself from rain during a thunderstorm by running with a piece of sheet metal over your head? Your model doesn't actually model what happens in reality.

Something like fish in a barrel. The law of averages works well in these kinds of environments. If indeed you are right we would not have statistics, but we do. Are you ready to show me how statistics can't work because nothing is equally distributed?

Statistics doesn't require equal probability distributions over space.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ralph Man

[Franktalk]

You calculated the odds of every possible nucleotide sequence combination of 120 million base pairs. There's no point in doing that, as not every possible combination did or needed to evolve. To have a 120 million base pair difference, literally only one possible combination is necessary. That's slightly less than your 4 to the thousandth power estimate. In reality more need to happen than that - if only because the difference is an average over diverse genomes within populations - but your assumption makes no sense. Like, "F" in a high school class lack of sense.

Thank you for you post. I will give your comments all the consideration they are due.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

[katherine the great]

I haven't read the entire thread because I should be on my way out the door, but this is a very tempting topic to me. Maybe this has already been said, but I believe that there are so many atheists among scientists because science does a much better job than religion at explaining the natural world. I don't know about the 80% figure, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me. Scientists are keenly interested in nature and unless they happen to also be keenly spiritual by nature, they don't NEED to believe in God to explain the universe. To believe in and even begin to comprehend God, one has to tune in to their spiritual nature and that is much easier for some people than others. Of course Satan will cover all of his bases. He will do his best to deceive everyone. I think one of his ways is to convince religious people that science is evil because if or when that person ever comes to understand science, a religious literalist will fall off the deep end completely because they won't be able to allow the two things to coexist in their minds. If they become convinced that a worldwide flood never happened, then it can all fall apart for them very quickly.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

I don't know about the 80% either. But even assuming it is true. It makes for no change in science. Science doesn't get involved with God, but the individual scientist sure can.

[WalkerW]

Yet, he invoked god to explain how multiple bodies influenced each other. It's not that Newton couldn't solve the problem- it's that his religious beliefs prevented him from discovery.

Either that or Newton wasn't sure where to go with it, so he plugged in God. It is rather inconsistent to praise Newton for his work and discoveries (all of which he made while holding religious beliefs) and then say "it was because of religion" that he was unable to make another one.

[WalkerW]

The percentage of religious scientists seems to be closer to 50%. See Elaine Howard Ecklund, "What Scientists Think About Religion," The Huffington Post (June 28, 2010). Her work was published through Oxford.

Edited May 25, 2011 by WalkerW

[Franktalk]

katherine the great:

I don't know about the 80% either. But even assuming it is true. It makes for no change in science. Science doesn't get involved with God, but the individual scientist sure can.

This response is a general post and does not reflect your attitude towards this subject.

In reality city where I live there is no difference between science and the people who call them self scientist. There is no magic land of pure science thought and then at the end of the day these people return to normal lives and have normal faults. The errors and weaknesses of the people manifest in the field of their choice. The rules of science are broken all of the time. The list of scientific anomalies that go unreported and swept under the carpet is staggering. If you are a person of faith do you really want someone of no faith telling you how the world works. Do you think you will get an unbiased opinion? Satan wants you to believe that science is pure and can be trusted, don't fall for his lies. With most of the world wallowing in the sewer how can any one expect a bunch of atheist to be pure. This group of people as any group of people has some good people and some bad people. I am not saying an atheist is a bad person. I am saying any scientist that willfully sways their scientific opinion to promote an anti-god agenda is a bad person. As to the beliefs of the scientist:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."

But percentages mean nothing. Just how many bad men did it take to cause the biggest event in history? It took as few as twelve but only few dozen for sure to cause Christ to be crucified. So how many bad scientist does it take to sway the use of science to be a tool of Satan? I say not many.

[cinepro]

"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."

But percentages mean nothing. Just how many bad men did it take to cause the biggest event in history? It took as few as twelve but only few dozen for sure to cause Christ to be crucified. So how many bad scientist does it take to sway the use of science to be a tool of Satan? I say not many.

This raises another question.

If even 20% of "scientists" are theists, then why are they doing the same kind of science that the atheist scientists are? Why hasn't "science" branched into two separate endeavors, with atheist scientists propagating their flawed and deceptive theories and theist scientists promoting their purer and un-satanic (and more accurate!) theories? This would also have the theists exposing flawed-atheist science for what it is.

Ultimately, "science" is a free market of ideas. If theist scientists consistently showed that their theories were more accurate and useful than the Satan-deceived atheist scientists, then the world would reject atheist science in preference for the better theist science.

I'm not a scientist, but I know a way you can contact reputable theist scientists. Try any of the science departments at BYU. Why not email them and nicely share your theory with them and see what they think? Whichever branch of science you suspect has been corrupted, I'm sure BYU has a department of scientists teaching and studying it at this very moment.

Or, to put it another way, if all of the LDS on this board that support atheist-science in general were convinced by your thesis and decided at this moment to only listen to faithful LDS scientists, what would we have to change? Which of our currently held theories would the faithful LDS scientists disabuse us of?

Edited May 26, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

True. I received the bulk of my scientific training at BYU, and there is no difference in my science and the science of an Atheist.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

True. I received the bulk of my scientific training at BYU, and there is no difference in my science and the science of an Atheist.

Oh. My. Gosh.

It's worse than I imagined.

They've gotten to BYU too...

Edited May 26, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

And this was in the 1970's.

[keith_brian]

Your reasoning contained a variety of errors. I honed on in the mistake that had the most magnitude. The evolution of humans from something that has 4% genome difference doesn't imply that every possible nucleotide combination of that 4% of total base pairs need evolve. Only a tiny, tiny fraction has to. That's a very basic error. I think people are being polite when the suggest you submit to a journal. You are proposing a simple thought experiment that would refute one of the most well-attested theories in science. Think about what that suggests about both your importance/ability and the state of science for a moment.

Just to be clear, my proposal to him was more of a "put up or shut up" type statement. Peer review strongly discourages the type of ad hoc thought experiments that this guy was doing. I didn't want to take the time to shoot him down either (nice job to Ralph on that, btw), so I was waiting for him to get smacked down by a peer reviewer, if he was serious about trying to promote his theories to the larger scientific community.

[Franktalk]

This raises another question.

If even 20% of "scientists" are theists, then why are they doing the same kind of science that the atheist scientists are? Why hasn't "science" branched into two separate endeavors, with atheist scientists propagating their flawed and deceptive theories and theist scientists promoting their purer and un-satanic (and more accurate!) theories? This would also have the theists exposing flawed-atheist science for what it is.

Ultimately, "science" is a free market of ideas. If theist scientists consistently showed that their theories were more accurate and useful than the Satan-deceived atheist scientists, then the world would reject atheist science in preference for the better theist science.

I'm not a scientist, but I know a way you can contact reputable theist scientists. Try any of the science departments at BYU. Why not email them and nicely share your theory with them and see what they think? Whichever branch of science you suspect has been corrupted, I'm sure BYU has a department of scientists teaching and studying it at this very moment.

Or, to put it another way, if all of the LDS on this board that support atheist-science in general were convinced by your thesis and decided at this moment to only listen to faithful LDS scientists, what would we have to change? Which of our currently held theories would the faithful LDS scientists disabuse us of?

Thank you for your suggestion. I will not be contacting anyone at BYU. Why is it that most people think that consulting a so called expert will solve there problems in matters of faith. Do you not see that the faith I speak of has no experts of man that can help. The only expert with true knowledge is the Holy Ghost and He is but a prayer away. In fact once one forms a relationship with the Holy Spirit I have found that most communication occurs outside of prayer and what appears to be random times. Why would you think that someone in the middle of spiritual warfare would be aware of it. That is quite the assumption and quite false. Satan's biggest asset is that many people do not think he exist. So if science is influenced by evil spirits and swayed by worldly thoughts generated by this outside interference the parties would not know it. So why would I ask the blind to lead me?

I will post a simple outline of the history of population genetics. In reading the paper one can find many areas where the founders of the models made assumptions and accepted outcomes based on prior acceptance of evolution. I have no problem with this. And the models were made using assumed results and the variables adjusted to drive to the previous assumed conclusion. This was out of necessity due to the lack of data in the process (mechanics of change).

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2746/1/MillsteinSkipper-PG-final.pdf

The whole process is circular reasoning but it is accepted because we have no direct observations of the past. We have the present and the data that goes with it. Then we suppose a connection and weave a story into a possible past. We do not know if we have all of the variables but we weave a story anyway. Then this model based on circular reasoning is used to declare that we know for sure how the past unfolded. I don't reject the hard work in obtaining the models but I do reject the overstated conclusions.

Most theories in science are not accepted by all scientist. Some have widespread disagreement. So the split you think should happen if indeed theories were influenced by a third party actually has occurred. Of course the influence of a third party is not going to be accepted but from an outside observer's perspective it could very well be driven from a third party.

[Stargazer]

Just to be clear, my proposal to him was more of a "put up or shut up" type statement. Peer review strongly discourages the type of ad hoc thought experiments that this guy was doing. I didn't want to take the time to shoot him down either (nice job to Ralph on that, btw), so I was waiting for him to get smacked down by a peer reviewer, if he was serious about trying to promote his theories to the larger scientific community.

Perhaps you think that Ralph's "shoot down" hit the target -- I'll admit to not having followed it closely enough to have much of an opinion -- but perhaps it didn't hit it at all. Perhaps his theory and his thought experiment isn't ready for a peer review, because his comments about what he was doing contained clear indications that what he was doing was a "back of the envelope" spur of the moment kind of thing, and so perhaps he munged the figures badly. Perhaps not.

But your demand that he put in front of peer review tread closer to insult than debate. Ralph_Man has an argument that is to the point, and it is clearly debatable. I read both Franktalk's and Ralph_Man's point-for-point rather superficially, so I haven't qualified myself by way of understanding the details well enough to respond. So I shut the heck up. Unless you can do something rather more constructive than effectively calling out "Your mother wears Army boots!", why don't you do the same?

I do understand that the science behind genetic drift and rates of mutation and so forth make it at least possible to model the mathematical probability of certain results occuring within the time period constrained by the age of the earth's biosphere. I also understand that there is a powerful temptation on both sides to jigger the numbers so as to get the preferred result. On top of that, I have my doubts that we know enough to be able to make objective calculations in order to come to any real conclusion at this time. But in the meantime, wouldn't it be nice to argue numbers instead of calling insults?

Just sayin'.

[Franktalk]

Just to be clear, my proposal to him was more of a "put up or shut up" type statement. Peer review strongly discourages the type of ad hoc thought experiments that this guy was doing. I didn't want to take the time to shoot him down either (nice job to Ralph on that, btw), so I was waiting for him to get smacked down by a peer reviewer, if he was serious about trying to promote his theories to the larger scientific community.

A thought experiment is a thoughtful idea that has not been done before. It is an organized concept dealing with a new view of past data. The simple model I have posted is not a thought experiment at all. The raw data came from reliable sources. The types of calculations are common in statistics. The assumptions I made are common to the field of biology. So I did nothing new. There was nothing that advanced any area of thought. Therefore no thought experiment.

So just like you misread the world around you you have misread my post as well. I am not surprised at all. You also missed completely the reason I posted the model. Where you think I want to show the world that evolution is false and I am a smart guy my sights were much different.

As I go into the world I come across new things all of the time. I examine them and form a view of the world based on direct observation. What I do not do is observe the world and then go read a peer reviewed magazine to see if what I saw is real or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Science is predicated on the assumption that this world/universe is understandable, and people can make rational predictions about it. Remove that assumption and we're better hiding in the caves, afraid of the dark.

Next time you truly believe that gravity is just a devil inspired theory(There is a difference between the fact of gravity and the theories of how it works that scientist argue over) jump off a high cliff sans parachute. I hear it is a thrill 99%+ of the way down. It is the sudden stop of reality that is the problem.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Science is predicated on the assumption that this world/universe is understandable, and people can make rational predictions about it. Remove that assumption and we're better hiding in the caves, afraid of the dark.

Next time you truly believe that gravity is just a devil inspired theory(There is a difference between the fact of gravity and the theories of how it works that scientist argue over) jump off a high cliff sans parachute. I hear it is a thrill 99%+ of the way down. It is the sudden stop of reality that is the problem.

I never said that Gravity is a devil inspired theory. One of the marks of a weak argument is to add a strawman which your opponent never stated and then make the argument that the strawman is false. Your comment about a parachute is the same.

What I find amazing is the comments I get from people like you. Everything I have stated leads to the conclusion that I rely more on direct observation than most and have a wait and see attitude. But somehow in your mind you see me as rejecting direct observation. But just the opposite is true. Whereas I accept direct observation and question most theories you accept theories and seem to doubt your own eyes. Of the two of us I am way more grounded in reality.

Paul told us to cast off the world. Just what do you think he meant?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Au contraire mon amie it goes to the very heart of what we are discussing. Because IF the devil uses science to mislead the scientist then all bets are off the table. There literally is nothing that can be verified by science or observable/testable personal experience.

We are to reject the worldly, not the world. IOW to be in the world, but not of the world.

[cinepro]

Most theories in science are not accepted by all scientist. Some have widespread disagreement. So the split you think should happen if indeed theories were influenced by a third party actually has occurred. Of course the influence of a third party is not going to be accepted but from an outside observer's perspective it could very well be driven from a third party.

Can you give me an example of a theory that has widespread disagreement in science and point out which side of the theory is being influenced by the devil? And is the other side being influenced by God, or is it just a non-devil secular theory? Or is the devil playing both sides?

I'm also interested in understanding your theory about how LDS, priesthood-holding scientists (of which there are thousands) are also able to be deceived by Satan. If, before conducting any experiments or analyzing any data, they raised their arms to the square and commanded Satan to be cast out, would that improve the quality of their results?

As for your "outside observer" theory, I'm not buying it.

I coach and play soccer. Meaning, during soccer season I coach my kid's teams, and then I play on a local team in an adult league. I've found that playing the game has helped me tremendously as a coach, but not because of any skills or knowledge I might pick up. It's because it is a constant reminder about how different it is to be out on the field compared with standing on the sidelines, shouting directions. At the beginning of the season, I tell the parents of the kids that I don't want them shouting at their kids from the sidelines, and if they they get too enthusiastic I will draft them onto my team to play just so they can be reminded that it is a lot harder than it looks!

Reading this thread, you sound like one of the parents who has never actually played soccer but stands on the sideline of the soccer game shouting at the players. Then, when one of the players tries to explain why they do what they do, you won't listen because you think you know better just from having watched.

So far, you have a crackpot theory without a shred of evidence to back it up. Which means you're ironically attacking science with an unscientific theory. Theists have already been doing that for centuries, so we probably didn't need a new thread for you to carry the torch.

[Franktalk]

Let us examine a faith based analysis and a scientific analysis.

People of faith believe that they have a spirit. This spirit is the essence of a person and drives the behavior of the person. The spirit is separate from the body and although the body dies the spirit is held for the day when we all rise again.

In science human behavior is described by many things but a spirit is not one of them. Science does not include those things that can't be in some way related to the world.

So people of faith know for sure that science is wrong in describing human behavior. But some will say that science is still valid in most ways. They try and give science worth in this area knowing fully that the description of behavior is totally flawed. They don't wish to rock the boat. Let us consider this subject. Science is saying that we have no spirit. Now some will say that is not true they say that science just does not deal with matters of spirit. But when science defines human behavior they leave out the persons spirit. And then proceed to say that they have fully described human behavior in scientific terms. How can someone fully describe human behavior and left out the driving force of the human? So people of faith should reject the conclusions of science because it is in error because a major variable in the model is left out. If people of faith accept this argument then it is a short walk to tossing many theories in science. I believe in supernatural events so when a scientific theory describes a past without them I have to discard the theory. I can believe in the supernatural or I can believe in science, I can't do both. The Bible is clear on this point as well. So for those of you who have faith you may want to examine how you view the theories of man.

[cinepro]

I will post a simple outline of the history of population genetics. In reading the paper one can find many areas where the founders of the models made assumptions and accepted outcomes based on prior acceptance of evolution. I have no problem with this. And the models were made using assumed results and the variables adjusted to drive to the previous assumed conclusion. This was out of necessity due to the lack of data in the process (mechanics of change).

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2746/1/MillsteinSkipper-PG-final.pdf

The whole process is circular reasoning but it is accepted because we have no direct observations of the past. We have the present and the data that goes with it. Then we suppose a connection and weave a story into a possible past. We do not know if we have all of the variables but we weave a story anyway. Then this model based on circular reasoning is used to declare that we know for sure how the past unfolded. I don't reject the hard work in obtaining the models but I do reject the overstated conclusions.

Just so I'm clear, you're calling this an "overstated conclusion"?

The problematic of population genetics is to account for the dynamics of genetic variation in natural populations via the causes of evolution, viz., mutation, migration, natural selection, and random genetic drift.

The present essay has very briefly surveyed the historical development of population genetics, the current model theoretic structure of population genetics, key conceptual problems in understanding important evolutionary causes, and the problem of ferreting out those causes via theoretical and experimental work. We have here managed to pick away only at the very tip of the iceberg; there is much philosophical work to be done on the key theme of this essay – population genetics as a causal theory – as well as on other problems of the field.

Moreover, it is important to note that while population genetics aims to understand the causes of

evolution, it is generally understood as not contributing significantly or at all to our understanding of other evolutionary causes, such as the causes of speciation and extinction. That is, there is more to evolutionary studies than population genetics, in spite of the dramatic problems and progress of the field.

If anything, the conclusion was understated and tentative, with an openness (and hopefulness) to further research on the subject. And I couldn't find a single instance of "declaring the we know for sure how the past unfolded".

Did you even read the article?

Edited May 27, 2011 by cinepro