Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Teancum]

Say, T, did you notice that you're responding to ancient posts?

Well nope! But I notice now! Thanks pointing it out.

[danielwoods]

What you personally believe about such things will have

no discernible effect upon how the scientific method is 

utilized today. But what you teach your relatives and 

neighbors may eventually impact the place Science

occupies in our modern lives.

 

 

Nothing anyone believes will have an effect on the scientific method. Not me, not anyone reading this, not any scientist. No one. Not even the most influential people. Why? Because, the scientific method is based on observation, not beliefs. 

 

Rather, what does ones beliefs effect? Other beliefs, and that's the point. When scientists call things that are not facts (like 20 billions of years in the past), as if they were facts, when they are not. Then confusion then reigns because people can no longer differentiate between real facts and what is faith or belief. 

 

So, what can happen, is that some people can influence others to disbelieve the assumptions that other scientists teach as if they were facts. And that's a good thing in my opinion. 

[Uncle Dale]

Nothing anyone believes will have an effect on the scientific method. Not me, not anyone reading this, not any scientist. No one. Not even the most influential people. Why? Because, the scientific method is based on observation, not beliefs. 

 

Rather, what does ones beliefs effect? Other beliefs, and that's the point. When scientists call things that are not facts (like 20 billions of years in the past), as if they were facts, when they are not. Then confusion then reigns because people can no longer differentiate between real facts and what is faith or belief. 

 

So, what can happen, is that some people can influence others to disbelieve the assumptions that other scientists teach as if they were facts. And that's a good thing in my opinion. 

 

 

You might wish to take five minutes and read through the history

of how the scientific method was perverted and superseded during 

the darkest days of Stalin's reign in the old Soviet Union. If you

take the trouble to look, let us know what you discover about the

Genetics discipline taught and relied upon during those times.

 

I've mentioned a couple of times the case of "moderate" Muslim

scientists working in Pakistan -- on projects as important as that

nation's nuclear weapons -- and how their research, teaching and

practical application of technology have been circumvented by

ultra-conservative degrees handed down by religious authority

figures. Yes -- such scientists manage to keep useful methods

alive, and functional, through secrecy and lies. Science survived

Stalin, in much the same way.

 

But the impact of anti-scientific thinking and rule can be very

strong and, temporarily at least, very effective,

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Nothing anyone believes will have an effect on the scientific method. Not me, not anyone reading this, not any scientist. No one. Not even the most influential people. Why? Because, the scientific method is based on observation, not beliefs. 

 

Rather, what does ones beliefs effect? Other beliefs, and that's the point. When scientists call things that are not facts (like 20 billions of years in the past), as if they were facts, when they are not. Then confusion then reigns because people can no longer differentiate between real facts and what is faith or belief. 

 

So, what can happen, is that some people can influence others to disbelieve the assumptions that other scientists teach as if they were facts. And that's a good thing in my opinion. 

 

No. Science isn't based on observation. Ancient peoples looked up into the night sky and saw holes in Heaven. Science is the explanation of an observation that can be tested, and potentially be falsified.

 

The universe is really big, and really old.

SEE

 

Science by definition is always tentative, but you must substantiate your claims through science in order for science to accept it.

[ERayR]

Science by definition is always tentative, but you must substantiate your claims through science in order for science to accept it.

 

Yet in some disciplines assumptions are made that are neither observable nor substantiated but are simply assumptions made per personal bias.

[danielwoods]

But the impact of anti-scientific thinking and rule can be very

strong and, temporarily at least, very effective,

 

UD

 

There's nothing anti-scientific in saying that one can't demonstrate what they claim. 

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Edited February 21, 2015 by danielwoods

[Stargazer]

No. Science isn't based on observation. Ancient peoples looked up into the night sky and saw holes in Heaven. Science is the explanation of an observation that can be tested, and potentially be falsified.

 

The universe is really big, and really old.

SEE

 

Science by definition is always tentative, but you must substantiate your claims through science in order for science to accept it.

 

Of course science is based on observation.  Without observation there is nothing.  Imagine a deaf and blind person who feels warmth on his skin.  He "observes" this, and from his observation deduces that something outside himself is providing warmth.  He turns his body and "observes" that the heat has direction.  He moves in the direction of the heat until it becomes uncomfortable (another "observation") and then he stops.  Using his hands, he probes the source of the heat to "see" what he can about the nature of it.  He finally concludes that this is what we call "fire", although he has experienced it before but never seen it.

 

Those who looked up at the sky and saw pinholes of light did the best they could given their observing equipment and their lack of knowledge -- we shouldn't scoff at them for their conclusions.  We would have made similar conclusions if we had been as ill-equipped.  We are standing on the shoulders of giants, and imagine we can see further because of our own enlightened sophistication.  A fatal conceit.

[Stargazer]

 

There's nothing anti-scientific in saying that one can't demonstrate what they claim. 

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

 

The thing is, Darwinists see the results of evolution and claim that the cause is random mutation and natural selection.  Intelligent Designists claim that the results are directed by a Designer.  The Darwinists scoff at this because it cannot be proven.  But their own claim is equally unprovable.

 

I don't have a problem with the Darwinist claim that all is random and without purpose.  They're entitled to their opinion.  But when they try to use it as a cudgel to "prove" that there is no God, then they are off-base.  Because God cannot be proven or disproven until He reveals Himself, and this hasn't happened.

 

The Darwinist vs Intelligent Design argument is much the same as the "pinhole in the sky" dispute: some said the lights in the night sky were holes in the firmament that let in the Ever-Present Light of Eternity; others said that the lights in the night sky were distant lanterns which were only visible when the Sun had gone to bed.  The latter claimants were more correct than the former, but neither had the wherewithal to prove their hypotheses.  And so it is the case with ID vs Darwinism.

[Uncle Dale]

 

 

...Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

 

That goes without saying -- so should the "evidence" for many things should

be carefully examined, over and over.

 

If one fellow says he has demonstrated a cure for a certain type of cancer,

his claims, methods, and results should not only be "examined," but also

tested. If conducting very similar experiments and applications do not produce

the originally claimed results, then critical analysis should be compiled,

reviewed, and published.

 

This sort of "examination" has been going on amongst scientists for many

decades -- and few of them today would articulate the precise "theories"

set forth in Darwin's day. Some of the basic discoveries from that period

remain in place, however. Whole groups of lifeforms can change over time.

Whole groups of them can become extinct. "New" species can be found in

situations (mostly preserved in rock, amber, ice, etc.) known to post-date

such extinctions. Some of these "new" lifeforms arise eons after others

have gone extinct -- others overlap (in time and distribution) the periods

when the previous creatures went extinct.

 

On the other hand, I've had it argued to me that no new species have

arisen on planet earth since the creation of Adam and Eve, some 8,000

years ago.

 

And, if we are only talking about the past 8,000 years, then those who

argued that point with me may well be correct.

 

How might we apply the scientific method, to determine if any new species

have developed over the past 8,000 years? -- or the past 8,000 centuries?

 

UD

[Grudunza]

 

There's nothing anti-scientific in saying that one can't demonstrate what they claim. 

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

 

That's assuming that random mutation is more random than it is...  There are guiding elements within evolution (i.e., natural selection) that can definitely account for the complexity of life and the eyeball and all that.  A GA at my last stake conference demonized evolution and used the monkeys typing Shakespeare example.  But with natural selection, it's not expecting monkeys to randomly type "to be or not to be," it's expecting monkeys to type "to be or not to be" with a sense that when the right letter is in place, it stays there.  Big difference.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course science is based on observation.  Without observation there is nothing.  Imagine a deaf and blind person who feels warmth on his skin.  He "observes" this, and from his observation deduces that something outside himself is providing warmth.  He turns his body and "observes" that the heat has direction.  He moves in the direction of the heat until it becomes uncomfortable (another "observation") and then he stops.  Using his hands, he probes the source of the heat to "see" what he can about the nature of it.  He finally concludes that this is what we call "fire", although he has experienced it before but never seen it.

 

Those who looked up at the sky and saw pinholes of light did the best they could given their observing equipment and their lack of knowledge -- we shouldn't scoff at them for their conclusions.  We would have made similar conclusions if we had been as ill-equipped.  We are standing on the shoulders of giants, and imagine we can see further because of our own enlightened sophistication.  A fatal conceit.

 

With just observation we are no better than Chimps with overly large brains.

 

I'm not scoffing at them. But they were clearly wrong. No doubt we are standing on the shoulders of giants, and even lesser men. I'm no Luddite. To claim we know nothing is as fatal a conceit as to claim we know everything.

[thesometimesaint]

The thing is, Darwinists see the results of evolution and claim that the cause is random mutation and natural selection.  Intelligent Designists claim that the results are directed by a Designer.  The Darwinists scoff at this because it cannot be proven.  But their own claim is equally unprovable.

 

I don't have a problem with the Darwinist claim that all is random and without purpose.  They're entitled to their opinion.  But when they try to use it as a cudgel to "prove" that there is no God, then they are off-base.  Because God cannot be proven or disproven until He reveals Himself, and this hasn't happened.

 

The Darwinist vs Intelligent Design argument is much the same as the "pinhole in the sky" dispute: some said the lights in the night sky were holes in the firmament that let in the Ever-Present Light of Eternity; others said that the lights in the night sky were distant lanterns which were only visible when the Sun had gone to bed.  The latter claimants were more correct than the former, but neither had the wherewithal to prove their hypotheses.  And so it is the case with ID vs Darwinism.

 

Wrong. The claims of evolution have been proven. You are no exactly like either one of your parents. You have traits of both. That is by definition evolution.

 

Evolution is not random

SEE http://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.

 

It is deterministic.

SEE http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm

 

Science is Agnostic. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

SEE

 

ID has been falsified.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

 

ID has been falsified.

...

 

An interesting statement from the latter video, is that teaching

"both sides" of a controversial topic in Science classes would

involve much more than simply placing the Holy Bible on the

required reading list.

 

For example, an Astronomy 101 class exposes young students

to a non-geocentric "theory" of cosmology and relegates the

influence of extraterrestrial objects upon the earth and its 

lifeforms to topics such as gravity, radiation, collision, etc.

This "theory" does not allow for the explanations offered by

astrologers (some of which might even cite or echo biblical

passages).

 

Surely, then, the Astronomy 101 courses ought to offer equal

time and attention to the explanations of Astrology -- and, it

seems, some "creation scientists" would agree with this basic

idea (though not with all of the claims of astrology as "truth").

 

Astronomy, Astrology and biblical religion overlap at certain

points -- and (by some) were once considered to be in basic

agreement, one with another. The origin of the "holiness" of

the number 7, for example, may be traced back to very early

human beings contemplating a certain arrangement of stars

visible throughout the northern hemisphere.

 

So -- why not give Astrology 1/2 of the time and resources

put into teaching Astronomy courses?

 

So -- why not give the Nephite Record 1/2 of the time and

resources put into teaching preColumbian American history?

 

If I'm correctly informed, the latter method was in use at

Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa, as recently as the 1920s.

 

UD

Edited February 21, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[bcuzbcuz]

The thing is, Darwinists see the results of evolution and claim that the cause is random mutation and natural selection.  Intelligent Designists claim that the results are directed by a Designer.  The Darwinists scoff at this because it cannot be proven.  But their own claim is equally unprovable.

 

I don't have a problem with the Darwinist claim that all is random and without purpose.  They're entitled to their opinion.  But when they try to use it as a cudgel to "prove" that there is no God, then they are off-base.  Because God cannot be proven or disproven until He reveals Himself, and this hasn't happened.

 

The Darwinist vs Intelligent Design argument is much the same as the "pinhole in the sky" dispute: some said the lights in the night sky were holes in the firmament that let in the Ever-Present Light of Eternity; others said that the lights in the night sky were distant lanterns which were only visible when the Sun had gone to bed.  The latter claimants were more correct than the former, but neither had the wherewithal to prove their hypotheses.  And so it is the case with ID vs Darwinism.

No, the moon is a giant cookie that the gods eat. Stars are just crumbs from the cookie.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The Darwinist vs Intelligent Design argument is much the same as the "pinhole in the sky" dispute: some said the lights in the night sky were holes in the firmament that let in the Ever-Present Light of Eternity; others said that the lights in the night sky were distant lanterns which were only visible when the Sun had gone to bed.  The latter claimants were more correct than the former, but neither had the wherewithal to prove their hypotheses.  And so it is the case with ID vs Darwinism.

 

What kind of ID theory are you talking about? There are many, for example 

1. Young Earth ID

2. Progressive Creationism ID 

3. Theistic Evolution ID

4. Deist ID 

 

Mike Behe is a very famous ID theorist, but he believes that humans and chimp share a common ancestor. 

[ERayR]

Wrong. The claims of evolution have been proven. You are no exactly like either one of your parents. You have traits of both. That is by definition evolution.

 

 

Wrong, It is nothing more than biased extrapolation which is neither observable nor falsifiable. 

[bcuzbcuz]

Wrong, It is nothing more than biased extrapolation which is neither observable nor falsifiable.

On a 6000 year old planet, with an interruption in development caused by Noah's flood, it should be easily observable that all species now present on the earth branch and spread out from the touch down point of Noah's ark. The levels of salt in the ocean waters are used by some as evience of minerals being flushed from the soil to deposit in the oceans.

But try developing that thesis when looking at the Baikal lake in the south east of Russia, just north of Mongolia. The Baikal lake is the deepest freshwater lake in the world, isolated and with a minimum of influences from human population around its shores. The lake water is very cold and very clear due to poor nutrient levels in-flow. The plants and sea life of the lake have over a thousand endemic species, not found anywhere else. It has black sea sponges and a huge variety of shrimp with strange and weird armour plated shells, sprouting horns, tags and spiny ridges. The fish are almost all endemic.

The deepest lake in the world, but the water is sweet, not salt. There has been no connection to salt water sources in human history. The inflow keeps the water levels high, but these same inflows do not leave stores of salt in the water. If Noah's flood covered the earth, with an assumable mixture of salt and fresh water, how come this great lake only has fresh water? If Noah's flood killed off thousands and thousands of creatures both from land and sea, how come the plants and creatures in the Baikal not only survived but are only found there? How did they get, either from the ark or managed to survive the salt water and flush all the salt water out of the lake?

[bcuzbcuz]

Wrong, It is nothing more than biased extrapolation which is neither observable nor falsifiable.

oops Edited February 22, 2015 by bcuzbcuz

[danielwoods]

How might we apply the scientific method, to determine if any new species

have developed over the past 8,000 years? -- or the past 8,000 centuries?

UD

This is a good question. One that gets to the heart of the issue of what are actual facts and what is not.

There are many methods employed and one of the most recent discoverys that could pop the whole bubble is soft tissue found in fossils. It isn't predicted and in fact it shouldn't exist based on Darwinian models. But it does. Which is really exciting from a scientific point of view. We might now learn things we never thought possible before.

http://www.icr.org/article/fossil-pigment-paints-long-ages-into

[thesometimesaint]

Wrong, It is nothing more than biased extrapolation which is neither observable nor falsifiable. 

 

SEE

[thesometimesaint]

This is a good question. One that gets to the heart of the issue of what are actual facts and what is not.

There are many methods employed and one of the most recent discoverys that could pop the whole bubble is soft tissue found in fossils. It isn't predicted and in fact it shouldn't exist based on Darwinian models. But it does. Which is really exciting from a scientific point of view. We might now learn things we never thought possible before.

http://www.icr.org/article/fossil-pigment-paints-long-ages-into

 

There is no there there.

SEE http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

Ps; The ICR is not a scientific organization.

Edited February 22, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

On a 6000 year old planet, with an interruption in development caused by Noah's flood, it should be easily observable that all species now present on the earth branch and spread out from the touch down point of Noah's ark. The levels of salt in the ocean waters are used by some as evience of minerals being flushed from the soil to deposit in the oceans.

But try developing that thesis when looking at the Baikal lake in the south east of Russia, just north of Mongolia. The Baikal lake is the deepest freshwater lake in the world, isolated and with a minimum of influences from human population around its shores. The lake water is very cold and very clear due to poor nutrient levels in-flow. The plants and sea life of the lake have over a thousand endemic species, not found anywhere else. It has black sea sponges and a huge variety of shrimp with strange and weird armour plated shells, sprouting horns, tags and spiny ridges. The fish are almost all endemic.

The deepest lake in the world, but the water is sweet, not salt. There has been no connection to salt water sources in human history. The inflow keeps the water levels high, but these same inflows do not leave stores of salt in the water. If Noah's flood covered the earth, with an assumable mixture of salt and fresh water, how come this great lake only has fresh water? If Noah's flood killed off thousands and thousands of creatures both from land and sea, how come the plants and creatures in the Baikal not only survived but are only found there? How did they get, either from the ark or managed to survive the salt water and flush all the salt water out of the lake?

 

I certainly never said anything about a 6000 year old planet.  What does a 6000 year old planet and or a global flood have to do with the validity of macro-evolution?  Macro-evolution is neither observable nor falsifiable.  Please at least hold it to the scientific rigor you profess and demand for other theories.

Edited February 22, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

SEE

SEE

[Uncle Dale]

I certainly never said anything about a 6000 year old planet. ...

Nor did the 1835 Lectures on Faith, nor Bishop Usher himself.

Counting the timespans of the generations back from Jesus to

David, and David to Judah, and Judah to Abraham's reputed

ancestors, provides a rough figure of 6,000 years. Add 2015

more to that and we arrive at the estimate my old neighbors

in the Baptist church swore by (well, at least bet the farm on).

If the English Bible is inerrant, then Adam trod the earth some

8,000 years ago, and the Great Flood came after that,

followed by the confusion of humanity's languages, the

parting of the continents, and the migration of raccoons and

other ark passenger species back to Noah's homeland.

I've heard Mormons all my life long articulate the above scenario,

But I've also heard a few brave souls in these latter days say

they did not believe it, and did not teach it to their children.

That was comforting.

Had

[ERayR]

Nor did the 1835 Lectures on Faith, nor Bishop Usher himself.

Counting the timespans of the generations back from Jesus to

David, and David to Judah, and Judah to Abraham's reputed

ancestors, provides a rough figure of 6,000 years. Add 2015

more to that and we arrive at the estimate my old neighbors

in the Baptist church swore by (well, at least bet the farm on).

If the English Bible is inerrant, then Adam trod the earth some

8,000 years ago, and the Great Flood came after that,

followed by the confusion of humanity's languages, the

parting of the continents, and the migration of raccoons and

other ark passenger species back to Noah's homeland.

I've heard Mormons all my life long articulate the above scenario,

But I've also heard a few brave souls in these latter days say

they did not believe it, and did not teach it to their children.

That was comforting.

Had

 

Brother WW Phelps seemed to think the time for this system was 2,555,000 years.