"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Comments
4,741 - 4,760 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4884
May 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

So the question to you then is:
If the environment goes back and forth, does the evolution of species follow?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4885
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You deviated to some very strange babbling. Forget creationism, we are not discussing creationism.
The particular subject is:
1. falsification through finding some fossil in some "wrong timeline"
2. evolution being able (or not) to flow in a manner that species evolve, disappear and "re-evolve"
If evolution does run according to the rules of the natural environment and environments can go back and forth (perhaps even in cycles), then you have lost your method of falsification.
It is as simple as that, there is no going round it.
Sorry but you're wrong. While an environment *might* go back and forth, evolution cannot. For evolution to cycle - as you seem to think it can - the exact same DNA and would have to sill exist and the exact same mutations would have to occur to allow for your 'cycle'. Since the DAN has already mutated, it would be impossible to follow exact same evolutionary path.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4886
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
So the question to you then is:
If the environment goes back and forth, does the evolution of species follow?
Asked and answered.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4887
May 16, 2012
 
DAN = DNA

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4888
May 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

humble brother wrote:
So the question to you then is:
If the environment goes back and forth, does the evolution of species follow?
With evidence left behind in the fossil record and in the DNA.

Here's an analogy: Imagine that a couple builds a house. After they begin having children, they add on to the house (a new floor, or a new wing). Once the children have all grown and left the house, the couple decides to downsize the house to approximately its original size by demolishing the extra floor or extra wing.

But there will still be some physical evidence left behind that distinguishes the original small house from a house that started small, got bigger, and then got smaller again.

We see this in cetaceans. They are descended from land-living mammals that are descended from ocean-living fish. While superficially the cetaceans resemble fish, they are easily distinguishable from actual fish by close examination of their anatomy, their DNA, and the fossil record that led to them.

So even if the environment goes back and forth over time, there will be a physical record left behind so that we don't confuse an organism from one cycle with an organism from a later cycle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4889
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You deviated to some very strange babbling. Forget creationism, we are not discussing creationism.
The particular subject is:
1. falsification through finding some fossil in some "wrong timeline"
2. evolution being able (or not) to flow in a manner that species evolve, disappear and "re-evolve"
If evolution does run according to the rules of the natural environment and environments can go back and forth (perhaps even in cycles), then you have lost your method of falsification.
It is as simple as that, there is no going round it.
Ah babbling is taking the conversation past the point that h b can understand it.

So to answer your simple questions then.

1.No fossil has been found in the wrong timeline with the possible very rare exception of when an old fossil bed is eroded and fossils from it are redeposited. Of course when this happens the signs of it are obvious so no one makes the mistake of assigning those fossils to that stratum.

2.Sorry, that does not happen. Your asking this only shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Remember my card deck analogy, you will never get the same hand twice.

And your last paragraph is babbling. You made an incorrect assumption and since your incorrect assumption is not true you think that that debunks evolution. It doesn't. That is also called a straw man argument.

So humble brother, how does a creationist like you deal with index fossils?It is your turn to answer a few questions.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4890
May 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Your friend here thinks it is an hypothesis. So he failed to begin with? Is that your view?
My view is you're retarded.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4891
May 16, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah babbling is taking the conversation past the point that h b can understand it.
So to answer your simple questions then.
1.No fossil has been found in the wrong timeline with the possible very rare exception of when an old fossil bed is eroded and fossils from it are redeposited. Of course when this happens the signs of it are obvious so no one makes the mistake of assigning those fossils to that stratum.
2.Sorry, that does not happen. Your asking this only shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Remember my card deck analogy, you will never get the same hand twice.
And your last paragraph is babbling. You made an incorrect assumption and since your incorrect assumption is not true you think that that debunks evolution. It doesn't. That is also called a straw man argument.
So humble brother, how does a creationist like you deal with index fossils?It is your turn to answer a few questions.
I thought the point was passed after the first post on the subject.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4892
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go, AGAIN.
The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[citation needed] It consists of these steps:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation
In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon#Scien...
There you go. Now wiggle around again and try to twist "In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable".
Go on, TWIST IT!
Trust only goes but so far, that's why every single scientific determination is in fact repeatable, or the evidence supporting it is readily available . Citing evidence hundreds of years old does not improve your position. But your denial of new evidence is duly noted.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4893
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural science deals with occurring natural phenomena that you can observe. That is the whole idea with repeatability and testing in natural science.
When you wander off to something not observable, you only have hypothetical speculation which can not be tested because the occurrences of the phenomena can not be repeated.
Only natural phenomenon that you can observe in real time? What about natural phenomena that happened in the past? Geology, anthropology, palentology, cosmology - all these disciplines have to deal with phenomena that happened in the past. As per your definition these are not science.

You have wrong concept about he scientific method. In sciences that deal with the past, observation is gathering information from evidence left behind by the phenomena that occurred in the past. This is not hypothetical speculation. This is what we do in forensic science.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4894
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that Poland is defined as a country in Europe. I don't personally know HOW Poland exists in nature, as I have not observed. So for me Poland is an unconfirmed hypothesis. Quite likely to be accurate, but still I don't know how accurate.
I feel sorry for you - you continue your philosophical masochism for what? In order that you wont be disappointed in the remote case that Poland is not a country in Europe? You said that it is likely to be accurate.

I believe that it is a country in Europe based on the weight of evidence.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4895
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
This is exactly why it is not natural science but it is something else. By definition natural science requires actual observation of occurrences of natural phenomena.
Evolutionary science is some form of pseudoscience.
That is a definition for you and your fellow creationists. Rest of the world considers evolution as part of biology, which is one of the natural sciences. And natural science doesn't require actual observation by definition. You have been looking at the wrong definitionsor incomplete definitions. If possible it is good to have actual observation. To reject a field of study as pseudo science just because it involves investigating past phenomena is a short sighted and foolish.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4896
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Now we get to the interesting part. I have had this discussion many times.
I will cut straight to the chase for you:
Logically these two scenarios are possible:
1. we exist as some kind of "programs" in some simulation, all observation is simulated
2. what we observe through our senses is the absolute actual reality around us
You have to choose you frame of reference in which you operate and do science.
Would you like to choose 1. as your reference frame? Then any probability you come up for your hypotheses will reduce to 0 %. It is most likely an illusion.
If you choose 2. as your reference frame, then science becomes usable for you. You then accept all observations (thoughts generated from sensory input) as 100 % correct, you hypothesize relative to that.
If you try to enter into the domain of option 1. you will have created a fallacy. Science will not follow you into that frame of reference.
You have only two choices for probabilities of your own observations, 100 % or 0 %. You choose.
About modern medicine, I don't care.
About reaching a destination on a plane, the plane will always reach some destination. Where it is and if the passengers are alive is a whole other matter. There is no guarantee of a safe flight from the airlines. They only try their best, occasionally they fail.
I am glad that you are not choosing option 1 which is solipsism. I asked the question because the way you went about not believing anything I just wanted to make sure that you believe your senses.

And I sense your dodging in not answering the question about medicine and air travel. The questions were
a) Do you think that a pain killer will have more chance at relieving your pain than a piece of candy
b) When you board a plane, do you believe that you are most likely to reach the destination safely?

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4897
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the whole point. Natural science can not deal with the past. Natural science deals with the natural phenomena that can be observed in the present.
You are mistaken. Natural science does deal with natural phenomena that occurred in the past.

What do you think about the disciplines of Anthropology, Geology, Palentology, Cosmology? They are also pseudo sciences?

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4898
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So if the environment changes back to something it was before, mr.evolution would then say "oh no, can't have those, they have already existed"?
Is not evolution dictated entirely by the environment? If there is some kind of cycle in the environment, will not evolution be running in that cycle?
.
If the environment changes back to something it was before, whether the organism will change back to what was before will depend on what kind of mutation was involved.
If it was a simple point mutation, then reverse mutation is certainly possible.
It is also possible that individuals with the previous allele are still present in the population. In that case, selection pressure can result in the old allele repopulating the population.
Is the new allele compatible with the old environment? If it is then there is no particular selection pressures for or against it, so its population will vary according to genetic drift.

But if the change in the organism is substantial, evolution cannot go back to a clean board and start designing again. It can only work with what is available now. That is why you can see many instances of sub-optimal design (Eyes, throat, etc)

Environment includes the location, climate, terrain, natural events like flood, etc; and it also includes other organisms inhabiting the same environment. There is often co-evolution between preys and predators. There is sexual selection which can strongly influence evolution.

Environment is not the only thing that affects evolution. In very small populations, it is possible that genetic drift overrides selection pressures brought by environment. Also when there is no change in environment, genetic drift may drive evolution.

Evolution will not run in cycles. Evolution can go only in one direction forward.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4899
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the theory, evolution HAS NO DIRECTION. You people are now saying that in can only work in some single direction and something that has evolved in the past can not evolve again.
Is not evolution dictated by the environment? If the environment goes back to some condition it was a long time ago will not evolution cause the species to adapt? Are you really trying to say that it is impossible in evolution for some species to evolve then disappear and then evolve again? REALLY????
It has no pre-determined direction
Evolve then disappear and evolve again? If it disappeared, where will it evolve again from?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4900
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So if the environment changes back to something it was before, mr.evolution would then say "oh no, can't have those, they have already existed"?
Its nothing to do with "have they already existed". Its a statistical thing. Mutation is random, operating on a genome of millions or billions of bases. Its incredibly unlikely that exactly the same sequence of mutations would occur, and that is assuming that an early copy of the original was somehow preserved without accumulating other mutations.

You are also confusing two different kinds of directionalism.

Evolution IS directional in that the non-random process of natural selection will tend to select the fittest variations among available stock. The mutation which creates the variation is random (ensuring no repeat of an earlier cycle) but the selection is not.

However, the kind of directionalism that evolution does NOT have, though many wrongly assume it does, is some inbuilt striving to move to "higher" or more complex creatures. Complex creatures do arise when selection favours them, but they can also evolve to simpler forms when selection favours that instead.
Is not evolution dictated entirely by the environment? If there is some kind of cycle in the environment, will not evolution be running in that cycle?
Again, NO. Its a combination of the environment based selection acting on the available gene-pool, from which new variation arises randomly. As above, getting exactly the same results twice is incredibly unlikely.
Are you trying to imply that "evolution" can not produce e.g. chips, then they die off and then they evolve again? Is that your claim? YES or NO?
I did answer it. The answer is NO, for the reasons stated above, and previously, whether you understood it or not. WTF are "chips", anyway?
Are you trying to imply that there can not be different amount of evolutionary advancement in different branches? YES or NO?
Nothing like that is implied in anything I wrote, and the question is meaningless. Creatures will change more if they are in unstable and changing environments, and less if they are in stable ones. Either way they are continually being optimised for their environment, whether they change much or not. "Advancement" is a non-scientific value judgement.
You would test again something that is contaminated? How does that work? You know that it is contaminated, you then make sure that there are no contaminations found on it, then you test it again?-> not contaminated?
DUH! We were talking about testing ubiquitous proteins. If a sample was contaminated, I would not use it again, I would go out and get some fresh material from living creatures. its not exactly rare stuff. Look up the word "ubiquitous".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4901
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And why would you not conclude that separate branches of evolution have been in place? Can evolution not go "backwards" and "forwards" as then environments change?
For two independently operating lines of evolution to each produce an identical rabbit would be exceedingly unlikely, for reasons I already pointed out.

Its like asking why you shouldn't expect to throw the same sequence of 100 dice throws twice in a row.

Even if evolution is operating on a hundred million planets in the universe, I would not expect to see something anatomically identical to a rabbit on any of them. For that matter I would not expect to see exactly the same structures even at the cellular level, with the same organelles, in their organisms, and I would not expect to see the same proteins. The very particular combination that we find on Earth, out of the massive set of possible ones, is the result of the innumerable events interplaying between random mutation and non-random selection here on earth.

Its a chaotic system (in the mathematical sense), not a linear one.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Level 1

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4902
May 16, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
DAN = DNA
DNA ---> National Dyslexia Association.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4903
May 16, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You deviated to some very strange babbling. Forget creationism, we are not discussing creationism.
The particular subject is:
1. falsification through finding some fossil in some "wrong timeline"
2. evolution being able (or not) to flow in a manner that species evolve, disappear and "re-evolve"
If evolution does run according to the rules of the natural environment and environments can go back and forth (perhaps even in cycles), then you have lost your method of falsification.
It is as simple as that, there is no going round it.
As you can see by now, you claim is false. A creature appearing out of any possible evolutionary sequence would falsify evolution. And no, two rabbits appearing at the end of two separate sequences is effectively impossible.

As a practical example that shows up your "cycling" idea, look at a whale. Whales returned to the oceans millions of years ago, but carried their mammalian ancestry with them and could not be mistaken for a fish today. Whats more they will never evolve into a fish...they can never retrace the steps of their inherited past.

The falsification test stands, and its one that evolution has passed without exception for 150 years.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min MikeF 114,899
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min DanFromSmithville 136,193
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 12 min TedHOhio 165
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 41 min ChristineM 288
Science News (Sep '13) 56 min Ricky F 2,847
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr MikeF 172,477
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 22 hr Zog Has-fallen 343
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••