Whoaaaaa! take a dekko at this

[hecd2]

itsjustdave1988:

Crick was indeed a Physicist. Yet he went back to school (good for him) and studied biology. His nobel prize was not for physics, but because of his research on DNA. Pretty smart guy.

Hmmm… is that a rebuttal? Are physicist not real scientists?

My point was that philosophical necessity, faith, and reason all play into what many scientists have concluded, either positively or negatively with regard to evidence for God, not just in biology, but throughout the spectrum of science.

For example,

Allen Rex Sandage is a cosmologist. I know, I know…not a biologist but just a lowly astronomer. However, he studied under Edwin Hubble, and is probably one of the most respected in his scientific field, receiving many prestigious awards, and is credited with the discovery of quasars. Before your rebuttal that he is just a astonomer, and not a demi-god biologist, I conceded that fact.

Nonetheless, this dolt of an scientist affirms that it was the evidence of science that led him to conclude in the positive for a creator.

Warning…more “quote mining” follows:

Now, you can certainly disagree with Sandage, but the point was not to disparage your precious evolutionary theories, but to rebut the silly pretense that scientific conclusions are based on evidence freed from “faith” or “philosophical necessity.” Humans simply don’t set their philosophical spectacles aside when making their conclusions, scientific or otherwise. What one thinks regarding ontology and epistemology have a bearing on one’s conclusions, whether they realize it or not.

If you think that I believe that biologists are real scientists and physicists are dolts you really don’t know me. The problem is that you are trying to show one thing, conflating it with something else and trying to show this second thing through the fallacy of argument by authority.

You want to show that individual scientists’ conclusions are biased by their world view. Indeed they are, and that is not a very controversial statement that needs much debate. (Nevertheless the scientific method results, over time, in conclusions which *are *free from religious and philosophical bias, and in important consensuses amongst scientists of every creed. To that extent scientific conclusions are free of the bias of individual worldviews. That, of course, is fundamentally unlike religious beliefs, where different people can claim conflicting ‘truths’ indefinitely because there is no objective way to arbitrate between them. To that extent, I agree with Dawkins. I disagree with him in many other things).

Now then, in order to make your point, you produced an argument that relied entirely on quotes by scientists, stating their position but otherwise largely devoid of content (the classic argument from authority). The quotes you produced actually didn’t support the point you wanted to make (that scientific conclusions are biased by individual scientists’ worldviews) but spoke to an entirely different point, that those individuals in observing the world either casually or through their research concluded that the complexity of the natural world is such that a miracle is needed to explain the existence of life (or ideed, the universe).In other words they are arguing from observations of nature to a theological conclusion rather than, as you wanted to show, from a philosophical bias to a scientific conclusion. I trust you can see the difference.

If you must use the fallacy of the argument from authority, then it is advisable to make sure that the people you quote are indeed authorities in the relevant field, hence my comment about physicists who were commenting on biology. But a fallacious argument remains fallacious, even if it is aimed at a different target from the one you had in mind - for every authority you quote contending that the evidence leads one to conclude the existence of a creator, I can produce an authority who concludes the opposite. This shows nothing useful other than that clever people can look at the same world and come to different theological conclusions about it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

itsjustdave1988:

As for Dr. Patterson’s later comment about his prior “anti-evolutionary view,” we have a word for that in the military… “**quibbling: **to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words.” I think they call it “spin doctoring” in politics.

Oh the troubles that the argument from authority can get you into.

When your authority quotes something that (you think) supports your case, that’s robust and soldierly.

When he states plainly, three times, two of those in his book on evolution, entitled Evolution, that his views do not support yours, he’s ‘quibbling’.

I should abandon the quotable quotes if I were you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reen12]

quote: hecd2

This shows nothing useful other than that clever people can look at the same world and come to different theological conclusions about it.

What is useful is making…distinctions.

I find that I can no longer trust that a given scientist is offering
the conclusions of “hard science” - untainted by…an agenda.

What is useful - is recognizing that a theory is being
treated as “fact.” Then the question becomes:
Why is there this eagerness to do same? Again, agenda?

That this theory was being treated as fact - and being
ferociously defended - caused me to raise an eyebrow,
to begin with.

As to quoting ‘authority’…what ‘authority’ is to be trusted,
in this debate? While I have taken a few courses in
science…40 years ago…this does not equip me to
assess competing claims with surety.

By* instinct*, when I see a theory:

-treated as fact
-ferociously defended

I look to scientists who do *not *assent to this theory,
to see what they have to say. Again, from what I’ve
read, I hold that the theory of evolution -will join those
of Freud - in being seen as quaint…call this a “sense”
of the outcome - lacking, as I do, the credentials to
adequately assess all ‘evidence’ presented.

I have, to my knowledge, no vested interest - in terms
of whether or no this will truely *be *the outcome.
[in terms of “vested interest,” I have no theological problem
with evolution.]
I wonder if some - who embrace this theory, with a
“passion,” equal to that of Dawkins -can make the same claim?
What is riding on this theory, for them?

How to adjudge issues like global warming, or a “new” ice age,
the advisibility of nuclear power plants [waste disposal
problem] etc., when I have this eerie feeling that I’m listening
to “social” posturing - rather than to the conclusions of hard science?

While different assessments of a given theory are not new
to science, why do I sense that a new element has been
added - that renders it even more difficult, for a non-specialist,
to weigh what is being claimed? [an agenda that is free-
standing and is not *essentially related to the sciences…
other than seeing science as another arena - in which to
carry the battle for a given agenda?]

It may be said - with some justice: :tiphat:

How can you make an assessment - in terms of evolution
joining the theories of Freud - if you acknowledge that
you are not -by far! - sufficiently ‘credentialed’?

And my response is: psychoanalysis was all the rage,
earlier in the last century. As research went forward,
the chemical and psysiological basis -of some of the
most serious illnesses - shed a harsh light on Freud’s
‘fancies.’ And other models of “psychological” illness,
swamped the model of Sigmund Freud.

While I recognize that the parallels - with the theory of
evolution - are far from exact, there’s something about
this ‘ferocious defense’ that turns on a caution light,
with regard to this theory.

And introducing terms like: intuitive, sense, eerie sense, etc.
into a debate -over a scientific issue - may well raise cries of:
Out of bounds! Not ‘credentialed.’

But, you see, the ‘material’ -that this intuitive sense is
assessing - is not primarily the theory *itself *- as much as the
“passionate” attitudes toward the theory…which leads to the
caution light.

Since the vast majority of people are not credentialed,
in science, I choose to weigh in, on this topic - scientism -
bringing to same those areas in which I am more prepared
to offer thought.
reen12*

 

[Bishopite]

Un peu.
Je me plaisir a vous connaitre. :tiphat:

Your mother is French and you were born, in France?
How fortunate for you to be fluent in two languages!

Je suis né en France sur une base militaire. Je ne suis réellement pas à l’aise en français mais je comprends beaucoup et serais à l’aise si je le parlais plus souvent. Mes parents parlent anglais et français de même que un de mes frères puisqu’il habite à Paris.
C’est la vie!

I was born in France on a military base. I’m not fluent in French but I understand a lot and would be fluent if I spoke it more often. My parents speak both languages as does a brother since he lives in Paris. That’s the way it goes or that’s life!

 

[reen12]

quote: Bishopite

Je suis né en France sur une base militaire. Je ne suis réellement pas à l’aise en français mais je comprends beaucoup et serais à l’aise si je le parlais plus souvent. Mes parents parlent anglais et français de même que un de mes frères puisqu’il habite à Paris.
C’est la vie!

Understood all, with the exception of:
quote: Bishopite

Je ne suis réellement pas à l’aise en français…

Still, I couldn’t have constructed that paragraph if my
life depended on it!

That’s the thing. If one lived in a nation -or in an area of a
nation- where French is spoken - in 6 months, we’d all be
doing grand, in terms of speaking the French language with
some facility.

[We’re only 5 hours from Montreal. What a beautiful city
that is! and the home of the basilica - and the shrine - of St. Joseph.]

[Please scroll down the the web page - in the link below -
to view a picture of St. Joseph’s Oratory.] :tiphat:

montreal.com/tourism/churches.html
reen12*

 

[itsjustdave1988]

hecd2:

Oh the troubles that the argument from authority can get you into.

When your authority quotes something that (you think) supports your case, that’s robust and soldierly.

When he states plainly, three times, two of those in his book on evolution, entitled Evolution, that his views do not support yours, he’s ‘quibbling’.

I should abandon the quotable quotes if I were you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Yes, I’m sure there’s a magical context in which “anti-evolutionary view” and “misled so long” can mean just the opposite. Or perhaps he just waffled. I’m thinking the latter is more likely, yet he doesn’t want to admit how flaky he was.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

hecd2,

Perhaps you can help me to understand something about evolutionary theory …

I studied computer engineering and artificial intelligence in post-graduate school and have designed genetic algorithms (GAs). GAs are modeled after the biological principle of “descent with modification.” They are designed with the ability to generate “offspring” operators that are similar to the parents, but with slight modifications. These offspring pair-up and generate offspring of their own, and so on.

If I were to design 5 pairs of similar but distinct GAs, for example, each with the capability of generating “offspring” operators, would it be possible for a scientist to determine which GA offspring had common ancestry and which were only similar in appearance due to a common design? If so, how? Do you know if there has been any controlled experiments using GAs similar to what I’ve described above to test the postulate that similarity in offspring is due to common descent for the entire population?

Or, is the inference of common descent versus common design a postulate only, which cannot really be validated scientifically?

An evolutionist told me that genetic algorithms proved their claims. Little did he know that I studied artificial intelligence in college. I think perhaps he may have merely overstated the argument a bit. But since he brought it up, it got me thinking that we ought to be able to design a computer model using GAs to generate many many generations of offspring, and then test to see that if science–given nothing but the “living” offspring and bits and pieces of “ancestor” operators as our data set-- could prove which operators were from common descent and which are not.

As one who has designed GAs, I believe it would be impossible to discern which offspring operators came from which first parents. Wouldn’t you agree? I think if I designed 5 pairs of very dissimilar GAs, that the chances would be better. However, even then over many GA generations, I doubt we could run the same experiment over and over and get predictable results.

Sounds like a great thesis idea!

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

I think perhaps he may have merely overstated the argument a bit.

A generous assessment, on your part.

reen

 

[hecd2]

hecd2,

Perhaps you can help me to understand something about evolutionary theory …

As one who has designed GAs, I believe it would be impossible to discern which offspring operators came from which first parents. Wouldn’t you agree? I think if I designed 5 pairs of very dissimilar GAs, that the chances would be better. However, even then over many GA generations, I doubt we could run the same experiment over and over and get predictable results.

No, I don’t agree. I think that if your GAs had characteristics similar to those of biological systems we could tell with a high degree of confidence which individual descendants arose from which parents.

For example, if from time to time, bits of non-functional heritable code inserted themselves into random places in the program, we would use the presence of the same insertion in the same place in the code to conclude common ancestry of those operators that shared it. (This models endogenous retroviruses).

Or if from time to time bits of the code were duplicated but with two characteristics: a) all the non-coding material such as comments were stripped out of the duplicate copy and b) the duplicate was rendered inoperative, those operators that shared that inoperative copy in the same place would be likely to share common ancestry (This models processed pseudogenes).

Or if the program contained short or longer tracts of inoperative code that frequently and randomly made further copies of themselves, then we would further use the inheritance of these to assess ancestry (this models retrotransposons)

To be accurate your GA would have to model other biological markers, such as single nucleotide deletions, insertions and substitutions, microsatellites, non-processed pseudogenes, chromosomal rearrangements etc. Using all these markers we would be able to construct an accurate phylogeny of current operators and determine not just which had the same common original parents, ie which sets were monophyletic, but also, within a monophyletic group, their relationship to one another.

It’s naive to think that biologists assess phylogeny on the basis of similarity of superficial appearance.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

reen12:

quote: hecd2

How can you make an assessment - in terms of evolution
joining the theories of Freud - if you acknowledge that
you are not -by far! - sufficiently ‘credentialed’?

And my response is: psychoanalysis was all the rage,
earlier in the last century. As research went forward,
the chemical and psysiological basis -of some of the
most serious illnesses - shed a harsh light on Freud’s
‘fancies.’ And other models of “psychological” illness,
swamped the model of Sigmund Freud.

While I recognize that the parallels - with the theory of
evolution - are far from exact, there’s something about
this ‘ferocious defense’ that turns on a caution light,
with regard to this theory.

reen12

The problem with this analysis is not that the parallels between evolutionary theory and Freudian psychoanalysis are inexact, but that the two cases are not parallel at all; they are orthogonal.

In the case of Freud, more data, and advances in neuroscience and in diagnostic techniques such as functional imaging have, over the last 40 years, undermined his ideas about the causes of psychological illness.

In the case of evolution, new science constantly adds confirmatory data to the theory. For example, since the development of techniques for genomic sequencing in the last decade, we have been able to construct phylogenies of species based on a wide range of genetic markers which agrees with the phylogenies derived from current and palaeontological anatomy, biochemistry, biogeography etc. See previous post. The discoveries of the last two decades reinforce the theory, not challenge it. The case for evolution is getting stronger not weaker by the day.

As for passion, well, I understand the passion of those who defend the rational basis of science against its invasion by magical explanations. It is not scientists, but those who most vehemently oppose the theory of evolution, the IDers and YECers, whose agenda is blatantly religio-political (as Judge Jones so forcefully recognised).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itsjustdave1988]

hecd2:

No, I don’t agree. I think that if your GAs had characteristics similar to those of biological systems we could tell with a high degree of confidence which individual descendants arose from which parents.

For example, if from time to time, bits of non-functional heritable code inserted themselves into random places in the program, we would use the presence of the same insertion in the same place in the code to conclude common ancestry of those operators that shared it. (This models endogenous retroviruses).

Or if from time to time bits of the code were duplicated but with two characteristics: a) all the non-coding material such as comments were stripped out of the duplicate copy and b) the duplicate was rendered inoperative, those operators that shared that inoperative copy in the same place would be likely to share common ancestry (This models processed pseudogenes).

Or if the program contained short or longer tracts of inoperative code that frequently and randomly made further copies of themselves, then we would further use the inheritance of these to assess ancestry (this models retrotransposons)

To be accurate your GA would have to model other biological markers, such as single nucleotide deletions, insertions and substitutions, microsatellites, non-processed pseudogenes, chromosomal rearrangements etc. Using all these markers we would be able to construct an accurate phylogeny of current operators and determine not just which had the same common original parents, ie which sets were monophyletic, but also, within a monophyletic group, their relationship to one another.

It’s naive to think that biologists assess phylogeny on the basis of similarity of superficial appearance.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Has it been done, or is this still a postulate as of yet untested?

I’ve designed GAs and as the designer, I cannot determine which offspring belonged to which set of parents. Yet, I didn’t design my GA operators model biological entities. But I don’t have confidence that you hypothesis is correct, given what I do know about GAs and their offspring. In science, such a hyposthesis remains merely a postulate unless some controlled experiment can be done to give us more than just “I think” confidence, right?

What experiments are you aware of that have been conducted that lend themselves to increasing confidence in the above postulate?

For example, has either human monogenism or polygenism been scientifically proven? Is it provable? I thinking of the “mitochonrial eve” discussion. If I remember correctly, the evidence we have thus far cannot rule out either one or the other.

 

[reen12]

quote: hecd2

The problem with this analysis is not that the parallels between evolutionary theory and Freudian psychoanalysis are inexact, but that the two cases are not parallel at all; they are orthogonal.

‘Wishful thinking’ is not a feature of the ‘scientific method.’ :tiphat:

[For those who may not be familiar with the adjective “orthogonal,”
note the definition that begins - “Not pertinent…”]:

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orthogonal

quote: hecd2

In the case of evolution, new science constantly adds confirmatory data to the theory.

You employ what isyet to be “proved”------> to disprove the parallel between Freud’s theories [and the ‘respect’ they are now ‘accorded’] - and that of the theory of evolution.

And:

quote: reen12

I find that I can no longer trust that a given scientist is offering the conclusions of “hard science” - untainted by…an agenda.

…As to quoting ‘authority’…what ‘authority’ is to be trusted, in this debate?

In brief, it is unwise, I think, to accept any statement to the effect that “more evidence” has been unearthed to support this ‘cherished’ theory*…*without giving those -who do not accept this theory - an opportunity to address any given claim of -“growing evidence.”

Agendas are in the air…so to speak. The day of :
“science says” ----->and we all keel over, swooning with ‘trust’ ] is…over.

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hello, hecd2,

In post # 8, I wrote:

quote: reen12

As brain imaging and brain chemistry have taken center stage,
the “theories” of Freud are viewed -by many, in the scientific
community, as…quaint.

You noted, in post #46:

quote: hecd2

In the case of Freud, more data, and advances in neuroscience and in diagnostic techniques such as functional imaging have, over the last 40 years, undermined his ideas about the causes of psychological illness.

It appears that we both acknowledge [in our own way ] that:
Freud’s theories were “undermined”…

Apparently, in Freud’s case, the Age of the Agenda had yet to work up a head of steam…?

Mine is an assessment…[theories of Freud/theory of[/color]
evolution - being viewed as risible] -and I’m willing to wait out
the next 25 years - for the evidence -or lack of
same [in terms of this theory] - to see if my assessment holds.

Would that some of those - who embrace this theory
with a “passion”! [as did Dawkins]…would be willing to do the same.

thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Best,

reen12

 

[hecd2]

itsjustdave1988:

I’ve designed GAs and as the designer, I cannot determine which offspring belonged to which set of parents. Yet, I didn’t design my GA operators model biological entities.

Just so. Which was the point I was making

But I don’t have confidence that you hypothesis is correct, given what I do know about GAs and their offspring.

Why, precisely? What exactly is it in the process I described that would prevent us from building high confidence phylogenies?

What experiments are you aware of that have been conducted that lend themselves to increasing confidence in the above postulate?

The grand experiment of molecular biology. Phylogenies derived from endogenous retroviruses, retrotransposons and pseudogenes are completely consistent with phylogenies derived from anatomy, biochemistry, biogeography etc.

For example, has either human monogenism or polygenism been scientifically proven? Is it provable? I thinking of the “mitochonrial eve” discussion. If I remember correctly, the evidence we have thus far cannot rule out either one or the other.

Well I’m not sure what the relevance of this is to the point under discussion, but the science shows that the population of the human lineage has not dropped below several thousand individuals in the last six million years; humans living today are polygenic in the sense of being biologically descended from a population of related humans rather than two first parents. See these posts for more detail:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1189068#post1189068
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1189367#post1189367
(This is not inconsistent with the concept of Mitochondrial Eve dated at about 175,000 years BP)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

reen12:

hecd2:

In the case of evolution, new science constantly adds confirmatory data to the theory.

You employ what isyet to be “proved”------> to disprove the parallel between Freud’s theories [and the ‘respect’ they are now ‘accorded’] - and that of the theory of evolution.
Not at all. I gave you specific examples of a major source of new data that supports the theory of evolution, which you chose to ignore. You can think what you like, of course, but you are indulging in head-in-sand-burying if, when presented with a substantive argument for recent scientific data reinforcing the theory (see post above), you simply ignore it and repeat your erroneous claim that the theory of evolution is being undermined by new evidence (without ever being specific about what that new evidence is, of course.) If anyone is indulging in wishful thinking, it’s not me.

In brief, it is unwise, I think, to accept any statement to the effect that “more evidence” has been unearthed to support this ‘cherished’ theory*…*

without giving those -who do not accept this theory - an opportunity to address any given claim of -“growing evidence.”

Anyone is perfectly welcome to put forward evidence that shows either that the theory of evolution is inadequate or an argument that the new evidence that I claim supports it, does not in fact do so. However, you, at least, are being completely silent on the matter. Are you planning to say something of substance or just repeat that you have a ‘gut’ feeling?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reen12]

quote: hecd2

Are you planning to say something of substance or just repeat that you have a ‘gut’ feeling?

I believe that I’ll leave it to readers of the thread to assess
whether or no I’ve offered concepts of some value.
[aka “non-bupkiss”]

quote: hecd2

Not at all. I gave you specific examples of a major source of new data that supports the theory of evolution, which you chose to ignore

.

Having acknowledged, further up the thread, that I am not
sufficiently credentialed to challenge claims of “growing evidence”
-my endeavor has been to alert those who may be even less equipped to “assess” this material - that the Age of the Agenda is
upon us. That “science” can no longer necessarily be
extended the trust it had once earned. [agenda-driven “science”?]

I urge readers of the thread to take such claims of
“growing evidence” with a large…grain of salt, until same are
sufficiently challenged by those equipped with adequate credentials.

As in:

quote: reen12

In brief, it is unwise, I think, to accept any statement to the effect that “more evidence” has been unearthed to support this ‘cherished’ theory…without giving those -who do not accept this theory - an opportunity to address any given claim of -“growing evidence.”

…The day of :
“science says” ----->[and we all keel over, swooning with ‘trust’ ] is…over.

quote: reen12

I have, to my knowledge, no vested interest - in terms
of whether or no this will truely be the outcome.
[in terms of “vested interest,” I have no theological problem
with evolution.]
I wonder if some - who embrace this theory, with a
“passion,” equal to that of Dawkins -can make the same claim?
What is riding on this theory, for them?

As to “gut” feeling…

quote: reen12

By instinct, when I see a theory:

-treated as fact
-ferociously defended

I look to scientists who do not assent to this theory,
to see what they have to say.

“Be as innocent as a dove…yet wise as a serpent.”

I encourage individuals to consider that “wisdom”
occassionally requires that “instinct” [gut-feeling] be
heeded.

Whether or no that is a point of substance, only others
can assess.

And - now that I think of it - when a child was baptized
in the CC, before the Second Vatican Council, a bit of salt was
placed on the lips, signifying wisdom. [Perhaps this should
be restored to the ritual, given our times…]

Sing ho!..for the grain of salt.

Best wishes,

reen12

 

[itsjustdave1988]

hec2d,

I asked: “is this still a postulate as of yet untested?” I’ll assume your lack subterfual reply to mean that it is still a postulate as of yet unproven by controlled experimentation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m pretty confident after hearing the various “postulates” from evolutionists and from those critical of their theories, I agree with Physicist and Nobel-Prize winning Biochemist, Francis Crick, when he commented upon the origins of life, “there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” (*Life Itself, Its Orign and Nature, *1981)

 

[EnterTheBowser]

What is really interesting is not how little we know about the origin of life on Earth, but how much we know. If the width of your spread arms represents the span of time from the beginning of life on Earth until now, then the shavings from a single stroke of a nail file across your forefinger would encompass all of human history, a dozen times over. It is absolutely incredible that we know as much as we do regarding something that happened billions of years ago. In other words, it seems a little premature to reject a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

… “there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” (*Life Itself, Its Orign and Nature, *1981)

“Speculation” is le mot juste.

quote: reen12

That this theory was being treated as fact…
]… - caused me to raise an eyebrow, to begin with.
[emphasis mine]

Additionally:

To adopt the view that this theory is “questioned” - on the
sole basis of “religious motives” - misses the following:
The theory of evolution may be challenged - out of a respect
for the scientific method.

Best,

reen12