"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

minus the "inversely", so just proportional because I was talking about the weakening and not the strength of the fields.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Hidingfromyou mentioned about the case of HIV (page 417 in the thread). It mutated to mutate more :). The current understanding is that genes also control the rate of mutations. And then natural selection selects between different rates of mutation. So nature actually does seem to direct mutations pretty well. A nice automatic process to find that which fits.

Yes the molecular clock and NS but it is all non directional , life's diversity is it's strong suit , but it is always fighting a uphill battle not knowing what is going to work ,it throws everything it has at it.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So do you think there is some limit from which human knowledge can no longer increase?

Trans-humanism literally is redefining the limits , there is no limit now. The human machine will evolve.

Recognition of the possibility of error.

humble brother wrote:

That is no kind of probability.

Except a recognition that it is a probability greater than 0.

humble brother wrote:

I think you already previously admitted that you only have a philosophical probability and not a mathematical one.

Which is still a probability.

humble brother wrote:

That is only doubt, if there is no reason to doubt then even doubt is unreasonable.

The recognition of the possibility of error is a valid reason for doubt.

humble brother wrote:

If you are not absolutely certain that for example the computer in front of you exists, where does this doubt originate?

The recognition of the possibility of error.

humble brother wrote:

Would you call evolving into a new species extinction of the old species?

I would, but it's called "pseudoextinction" when it happens.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So do you think there is some limit from which human knowledge can no longer increase?

Nope. There is a point at which any individual's humans knowledge has some limit, though what that would be I cannot guess.

If a Cambrian rabbit is a logical possibility, so then is scanning the molecules of every single planet in the universe. You've got a tricky situation there :)

Nah. Those are, as I explained thus far, so unlikely as to approach the infinitely unlikely. We can rule them out based on what we know.

I don't think there can be any known limitations to human knowledge. If you believe there can be known limitations to human knowledge, how do you justify that belief?

You're kind of taking the "anything I can imagine could be true" line of reasoning here. We're not able to rule out your statement with 100% certainty, but we can suggest some extremely likely limits.

We cannot measure particles smaller than the wavelength of light we are using to measure them with. And, at that level, we can only reveal certain aspects of them, not the entirety.

We cannot travel faster than light. If that turns out to be false, then perhaps we an learn things from afar that we cannot now.

Hey hey hey! Stop right there! Proof is in the pudding! If there is no pudding then bloody well nobody gets to eat donuts!
For acceptance: the accuracy of an hypothesis must be proven with repeated tests by numerous groups of scientists and they have to agree on the results.

No. Nothing is proven in science. Scientists agree by consensus until disproof is shown.

For falsification: the inaccuracy of an hypothesis must be proven with repeated tests by numerous groups of scientists and they have to agree on the results.
;)

Nothing is proven in science. You're just playing loose and fast with words here.

No matter how much support you have for a theory, one single disproof is enough. Disproof is how science moves forward.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't find the use of the word 'unpredictable' to be a game changer.

It's not, it's simply more exacting. Also, moving from "random" to "unpredictable" means we can discuss how mutation works with specific genes in specific genomes. For example, some species have higher rates of mutation than others - and some species "allow" certain parts of their genome to mutate at faster rates than the rest of it. These are not random, the reasons why such disparate and specific examples exist can be understood while the exact outcome of mutation remains unpredictable.

I'm sure you know this, but I enjoy reminding the Creationists of that since so much of their argument hinges on an incorrect understanding of "random" and where randomness happens in evolution.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, I didn't come up with those terms. I was speaking of completely random mutations until Hindingfromyou indicated otherwise. Mutation and natural selection does produce the best and then they're able to survive and reproduce.
I did put "control" inside quotation marks. Why did you get all worked up? I was merely pointing out that the mutation mechanism is very efficient. Why should any species actually continue as they are, isn't it enough that individuals get their lives. Why should we care about some species if just the balance of nature and food chains is in good shape. So yes, I do consider it very efficient. It is efficient to discard the 99 % or so of all species if they're not doing their job anymore.

See my above comment to MikeF for a further explanation of unpredictable versus random.

Uhm, "should" is the wrong question, a nonsensical question produced by the failure of language.

<throws net at Hiding>

Damn. She's fast.

Will I ever get my private lessons?

Tide with Beach wrote:

<throws net at Hiding>
Damn. She's fast.
Will I ever get my private lessons?

I keep telling you, I only teach assortative mating to advanced students!

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, you're quite correct.
And his dog!

K9 was not a dog.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Trans-humanism literally is redefining the limits , there is no limit now. The human machine will evolve.

That kind of change dehumanizes us even further. "People" would no longer be able to procreate naturally; all babies would be grown in a lab simply to have their consciousness transferred into metal and plastic. "Touch" is necessary for nurturing children. What sane person would want that type of existence for their children? Just because something "can" be done, doesn't mean that it "should" be done.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
I would, but it's called "pseudoextinction" when it happens.

That does not make any sense.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>That kind of change dehumanizes us even further. "People" would no longer be able to procreate naturally; all babies would be grown in a lab simply to have their consciousness transferred into metal and plastic. "Touch" is necessary for nurturing children. What sane person would want that type of existence for their children? Just because something "can" be done, doesn't mean that it "should" be done.

She wrote :-
"The human machine will evolve."
not
"A human machine will evolve."

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Hidingfromyou stated that mutations are not random but "unpredictable".

Its true that non-random events may be unpredictable sometimes, but its ALWAYS true that random events are unpredictable. Therefore her word is fully compatible with mutation being random, and there is no context in her statements to suggest otherwise.

If nature is able to "control" which mutations get selected and even the rate of mutation is under the same control, then the result is quite directed. Mutations aren't actually driven but the system is quite efficient.

There may be regions in the genome more or less prone to mutation than others, but the mutations are still not directed. Nature does not "control" which mutations get selected in any sense we would normally use the word control. Mutations that aid in survival and reproduction are more likely to be selected, that's all.

That is certainly not the same as "directed", and in any case this playing with words will not alter the fundamental facts as pertains to the double evolution of the same hierarchy. Even if selection factors were similar in the two cases, the raw material for selection - the random mutation - will not be the same in both cases.

Once again we return to the point. A random series of millions of mutations, acting on an organism over a highly contingent series of environmental factors that are extremely unlikely to be repeated twice in the earth's history (in fact we know they were not), and starting with base organisms that must be at different stages of development, simply could not produce indistinguishable creatures 500 million years apart.

For this to happen, we would have to assume that the tendency to specifically produce a mammal would have to be built into the genome from the start. That is what I mean by "directed". And there is no evidence of this at all.

Its something I though about many years ago, watching Star Trek as a kid, how all these "aliens" were just humans with minor variations. You soon realise how unlikely that is. But you forgive them, since its hard to put actors into floating zeppelin costumes.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you call evolving into a new species extinction of the old species?

Latin "lives" inside French, Italian, and Spanish. Its just no longer Latin...

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
She wrote :-
"The human machine will evolve."
not
"A human machine will evolve."

I don't think you get what transhumanism entails...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism#In...

...not that it really matters.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
That's Plan M.

M for mmmmmmmmm....?

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
She wrote :-
"The human machine will evolve."
not
"A human machine will evolve."

Yo Richard!

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>K9 was not a dog.

And his robot dog!