Science, or Scientists?

[Hollie]

Ohhhh....did I cause you to perseverate....or is it the schizophrenia?

The same word salad.....?



Is that because you're afraid to answer the oh-so-simple question?

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus




I know why you are afraid to answer...but I am surprised that you don't simply retreat to your default: lying.


Go ahead.....go for it.

Your sweaty, fist-clenching tirades are an indication of just how desperate you are to avoid addressing the conspiracy theories that are required to maintain you in your alternate reality.


Come on. Cut and paste a few more phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus


Want me to answer for you?

Just post the link to Harun Yahya.


There's a good girl.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your sweaty, fist-clenching tirades are an indication of just how desperate you are to avoid addressing the conspiracy theories that are required to maintain you in your alternate reality.


Come on. Cut and paste a few more phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus


Want me to answer for you?

Just post the link to Harun Yahya.


There's a good girl.

I'd really like to post an answer for you....heaven knows it would be more articulate, more clever, more honest than anything you'd be able to write....

...but then I'd deprive myself of the guilty pleasure of watching you squirm and search for ways not to answer!


What to do, what to do......

 

[Hollie]

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus


Want me to answer for you?

Just post the link to Harun Yahya.


There's a good girl.

I'd really like to post an answer for you....heaven knows it would be more articulate, more clever, more honest than anything you'd be able to write....

...but then I'd deprive myself of the guilty pleasure of watching you squirm and search for ways not to answer!


What to do, what to do......

I have never found your cutting and pasting of phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya to be articulate, clever or honest.

Your obvious frustration results from being shown to be the village ID'iot with your dumping of the same falsified and edited "quotes" into multiple threads.

It's a sleazy tactic but one that is not uncommon for religious extremists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just post the link to Harun Yahya.


There's a good girl.

I'd really like to post an answer for you....heaven knows it would be more articulate, more clever, more honest than anything you'd be able to write....

...but then I'd deprive myself of the guilty pleasure of watching you squirm and search for ways not to answer!


What to do, what to do......

I have never found your cutting and pasting of phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya to be articulate, clever or honest.

Your obvious frustration results from being shown to be the village ID'iot with your dumping of the same falsified and edited "quotes" into multiple threads.

It's a sleazy tactic but one that is not uncommon for religious extremists.

My, oh, my......still no answer to such a simple query......I suppose that's because you're even simpler, eh?


The question must make you shake with fear.....I guess it destroys your worldview.

But....count your blessings....just think how lucky you are, living under a rock: saves you the cost of sunblock.


Write soon, Halloween.

 

[Matrixx8]

Politicalchic-

There is NO proof that modern theories of evolution are true. So, on that point you are correct. So, if someone says to you that those theories are true, then that person holds an unscientific perspective of how science works: science does not make claims on "T"ruth. Evolution is a fact - it happens and that is lower case "true". Even you agree that it is, though only to some degree: that species do not evolve into other species.

The modern theories of evolution are simply the current most robust explanations of observed evidence. There are gaps in the fossil record. I believe those gaps will never be completely closed. The evidence from those gaps will never be used to support nor detract from the current theories of evolution. On the other hand, all the rest of the fossil record does support those theories. There ARE fossils of organisms in transition, perhaps not to a degree you would find convincing maybe because of a religious bias. There are many, many other pieces of evidence which do support the current theories of evolution as well such as mitochondrial DNA, shared DNA, areas of proliferation of species and fossils of species, etc., etc., etc.....

Now, that scientists are regular people, I would agree, and so would the man who came up with the systems that modern science still uses to find truth: Rene Descartes. His system is the best so far in weeding out bias and falsity. New theories and discoveries are put through a strict rigorous process of peer review. Is it a perfect system? No, but there can never be a perfect system because human beings are involved. However, it works pretty good: we have tvs, microwaves, planes, nuclear reactors, space shuttles, cancer treatments, the eradication of small pox and polio, particle accelerators, etc. Science, for the most part, has proven itself trustworthy.

Scientific theories can change to encompass new discoveries or be scrapped if the evidence disproves any or all of them. All theories SHOULD NOT be believed based entirely or even partly on faith. They are only the current best explanations of the evidence. They should never be believed, only accepted as valid, and hopefully on the right track.

Now, if your argument is that the current theories of evolution are invalid because of a required faith then all scientists and those who have a good understanding of science would disagree because theories are not Truth. If your argument is that you can't credit those theories because there isn't proof, then I must turn that argument around and rebut: then why do you believe in God when there isn't proof?

1." There is NO proof that modern theories of evolution are true."
Agreed.

There is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow; only a scientific hypothesis.

2. " Even you agree that it is, though only to some degree: that species do not evolve into other species."
Actually, I haven't said that. I have said that no one has seen one species change into another.

Does that surprise you -- given the fact that such changes occur gradually over many millions of years?

3. " The evidence from those gaps will never be used to support nor detract from the current theories of evolution. "

And this is the crux of the OP. Based on that sentence, you are firmly in the camp of the rationalists. So says the phrase next to your avi.

What does rationalism or empiricism have to do with the scientific method? As far as I know, the idea that knowledge is innate or that humans are blank slates has been placed on a back burner in evolutionary psychology. Most scientists today probably operate from the starting point of naturalism.

a. The lack of such evidence certainly does detract from the theory.

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
That was the statement of Charles Darwin.

I note with some interest that you constantly refer to statements by Charles Darwin (who posited the theory of evolution) without reference to the changes and refinements in that theory that have taken place since 1900 -- particularly the addition of Mendelian genetics to replace Darwin's pan-genesis hypothesis.

4. "On the other hand, all the rest of the fossil record does support those theories."
Not quite.
"There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

It might be of interest to note that the authors of the above article are evolutionary scientists. They are looking for answers, not trying to justify a foregone conclusion.

5. " There ARE fossils of organisms in transition, perhaps not to a degree you would find convincing maybe because of a religious bias."

If I have any bias...it is one based on science.
Referring to the OP, did you find any reference to any religion outside of the rationalist view of science?

Not necessary. Your entire approach to this debate has religious -- or at least, non-scientific -- underpinnings. Your approach is that of the fundamentalist who first reaches a conclusion and then sets out to find data to confirm that conclusion. It is fair to say, I think, that this is the epistemology of religious thinking.

As to transitional fossils:
". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing."
David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

And your point is? Are you suggesting that lack of evidence is proof of something?

6. "New theories and discoveries are put through a strict rigorous process of peer review. "
Correct!
And that is the perspective of the OP.
Consensus i not an empirical basis for the older, more rigorous form of science.
If you say you are willing to accept one based on opinions....that certainly is your prerogative.

Consensus reflects the empirical findings and conclusions of thousands of scientists working independently of each other. They are not opinions in the Dirty Harry sense, but rather informed opinions based on their own training, research and experiments.

a. "However, it works pretty good: we have tvs, microwaves, planes, nuclear reactors, space shuttles, cancer treatments, the eradication of small pox and polio, particle accelerators, etc. Science, for the most part, has proven itself trustworthy."
And that is the reason why so very many accept the theory....a kind of homage to the success of science.

I would suggest that it is simply an acknowledgement of something that (dare I say) most people in the world do not understand: science and the scientific method are the only truly reliable means to knowledge. Given your interest in the subject, PoliticalChic, I assume that you would not put much trust in magic, human sacrifice or faith healing as an alternative to science. Although, given some of your less rational outbursts, I could be wrong about this.

7. "if your argument is that the current theories of evolution are invalid because of a required faith..."
If there is not evidence, it must be based on faith.
And the theory is certainly valid on that basis.

Contradiction in terms. Faith means believing something without evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. You just keep forgetting to mention it. Every criticism you have put forth so far has been discussed and critiqued by evolutionary scientists. But that's the part of the story you leave out.

So if you say, "based on what seems to me to be true, I believe in the theory..." I would
have no argument with you.

It's not a question of "belief". Belief is a religious term. The proper scientific term is "justified belief" -- a distinction similar to having an opinion about something or having an "informed" opinion about something.

That was great fun!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politicalchic-

There is NO proof that modern theories of evolution are true. So, on that point you are correct. So, if someone says to you that those theories are true, then that person holds an unscientific perspective of how science works: science does not make claims on "T"ruth. Evolution is a fact - it happens and that is lower case "true". Even you agree that it is, though only to some degree: that species do not evolve into other species.

The modern theories of evolution are simply the current most robust explanations of observed evidence. There are gaps in the fossil record. I believe those gaps will never be completely closed. The evidence from those gaps will never be used to support nor detract from the current theories of evolution. On the other hand, all the rest of the fossil record does support those theories. There ARE fossils of organisms in transition, perhaps not to a degree you would find convincing maybe because of a religious bias. There are many, many other pieces of evidence which do support the current theories of evolution as well such as mitochondrial DNA, shared DNA, areas of proliferation of species and fossils of species, etc., etc., etc.....

Now, that scientists are regular people, I would agree, and so would the man who came up with the systems that modern science still uses to find truth: Rene Descartes. His system is the best so far in weeding out bias and falsity. New theories and discoveries are put through a strict rigorous process of peer review. Is it a perfect system? No, but there can never be a perfect system because human beings are involved. However, it works pretty good: we have tvs, microwaves, planes, nuclear reactors, space shuttles, cancer treatments, the eradication of small pox and polio, particle accelerators, etc. Science, for the most part, has proven itself trustworthy.

Scientific theories can change to encompass new discoveries or be scrapped if the evidence disproves any or all of them. All theories SHOULD NOT be believed based entirely or even partly on faith. They are only the current best explanations of the evidence. They should never be believed, only accepted as valid, and hopefully on the right track.

Now, if your argument is that the current theories of evolution are invalid because of a required faith then all scientists and those who have a good understanding of science would disagree because theories are not Truth. If your argument is that you can't credit those theories because there isn't proof, then I must turn that argument around and rebut: then why do you believe in God when there isn't proof?

1." There is NO proof that modern theories of evolution are true."
Agreed.

There is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow; only a scientific hypothesis.


Does that surprise you -- given the fact that such changes occur gradually over many millions of years?


What does rationalism or empiricism have to do with the scientific method? As far as I know, the idea that knowledge is innate or that humans are blank slates has been placed on a back burner in evolutionary psychology. Most scientists today probably operate from the starting point of naturalism.


I note with some interest that you constantly refer to statements by Charles Darwin (who posited the theory of evolution) without reference to the changes and refinements in that theory that have taken place since 1900 -- particularly the addition of Mendelian genetics to replace Darwin's pan-genesis hypothesis.


It might be of interest to note that the authors of the above article are evolutionary scientists. They are looking for answers, not trying to justify a foregone conclusion.


Not necessary. Your entire approach to this debate has religious -- or at least, non-scientific -- underpinnings. Your approach is that of the fundamentalist who first reaches a conclusion and then sets out to find data to confirm that conclusion. It is fair to say, I think, that this is the epistemology of religious thinking.


And your point is? Are you suggesting that lack of evidence is proof of something?


Consensus reflects the empirical findings and conclusions of thousands of scientists working independently of each other. They are not opinions in the Dirty Harry sense, but rather informed opinions based on their own training, research and experiments.


I would suggest that it is simply an acknowledgement of something that (dare I say) most people in the world do not understand: science and the scientific method are the only truly reliable means to knowledge. Given your interest in the subject, PoliticalChic, I assume that you would not put much trust in magic, human sacrifice or faith healing as an alternative to science. Although, given some of your less rational outbursts, I could be wrong about this.

7. "if your argument is that the current theories of evolution are invalid because of a required faith..."
If there is not evidence, it must be based on faith.
And the theory is certainly valid on that basis.

Contradiction in terms. Faith means believing something without evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. You just keep forgetting to mention it. Every criticism you have put forth so far has been discussed and critiqued by evolutionary scientists. But that's the part of the story you leave out.

So if you say, "based on what seems to me to be true, I believe in the theory..." I would
have no argument with you.

It's not a question of "belief". Belief is a religious term. The proper scientific term is "justified belief" -- a distinction similar to having an opinion about something or having an "informed" opinion about something.

That was great fun!

"What does rationalism or empiricism have to do with the scientific method?"


As you appear to be an infant, the explanation in this vid may be more your speed.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0y-xPG5n5g]Giant Koosh Ball in Liquid Nitrogen! - YouTube[/ame]



As the nice man in the vid says...."Theories are nice, but the proof is in the experiment."


Now....see if you can figure out the difference between "rationalism and empiricism."

Hint....only one represents science.

 

[Hollie]

I'd really like to post an answer for you....heaven knows it would be more articulate, more clever, more honest than anything you'd be able to write....

...but then I'd deprive myself of the guilty pleasure of watching you squirm and search for ways not to answer!


What to do, what to do......

I have never found your cutting and pasting of phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya to be articulate, clever or honest.

Your obvious frustration results from being shown to be the village ID'iot with your dumping of the same falsified and edited "quotes" into multiple threads.

It's a sleazy tactic but one that is not uncommon for religious extremists.

My, oh, my......still no answer to such a simple query......I suppose that's because you're even simpler, eh?


The question must make you shake with fear.....I guess it destroys your worldview.

But....count your blessings....just think how lucky you are, living under a rock: saves you the cost of sunblock.


Write soon, Halloween.

You suffer from perpetual confusion regarding the utter lack of interest anyone has in your cutting and pasting of material from Harun Yahya.

 

[rdean]

Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it

This is so silly.


You abandoned the other thread when your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya was shown to be a hapless attempt to vilify science.


Your fraudulent "quotes" were exposed as lies.


What would Jimmy Swaggert do?

LOL. A better question is who would Jimmy Swaggert do?

Nobody. He just sits there and watches. All googleldy eyed.

 

[rdean]

PC managed to figure out what all those stupid scientists couldn't with all their study and equipment and years of collecting data and years of research.

And she figured it out while taking a dump.

 

[flacaltenn]

Science often relies on crutches to hobble on until someone tires of hobbling..
And Darwinisn is neither right or wrong.. It's simply an insufficient crutch.

It is void of 150 years of revelations about mutations, gene activation, and environmental pressures as an environmental accelerator. The fact that mankind developed in a "peaceful and calm" time portal in the historical record explains why we tend to believe that "gradual adaptation" is the PRIME explanation for every form of life on the planet.

A few continental drifts, meteor impacts as big as Manhattan and a couple hundred years of Cosmic Ray superstorms would set our asses straight about "Darwinian survival and adaptation"..

Nature has ways of genetic engineering that Darwin couldn't even imagine..
Nobody should be wasting their time expecting to find "missing links"..

Oh for God's sake. Don't you and PC ever get tired of displaying your massive ignorance? Ever hear of Punctated Evolution? Ever read any of Ernst Myer's books?

Of course our knowledge of genetics has advanced since Darwin's time. And that knowledge has confirmed most of the ideas Darwin had concerning evolution.

"punctated evolution" eh? Is that a Seattle throw-back band? Requires cutting??

Neither Darwin or your Ernst Myer goes far enough to posit evolutionary jumps that have little to do with gradual "natural selection".. Punctuated evolutionary theory merely recognizes that the RATE of adaptation is not neccessarily small. It does not explore the potential statistics or mechanisms of instantaneous genome alterations due to chemical or radiative exposure..

We STILL have posters on this very page asserting that evolutionary forces act "slowly over millions of years".. That's the kind of misinformation that only the public school system and leftist media could instill... YET -- they vigorously defend Darwian concepts of evolution as THO --- that's all we know about speciation.. Even after we have lab experiments creating 30 new species of fruit flies in 4 days..

Darwin knew nothing about gene activation -- we know little about "junk DNA".. Like I said above, we're hobbling on crutches looking for evidence that probably never existed..

 

[Old Rocks]

Do try to keep up with the science if you are going to comment on it.

Transposable Elements (TEs): Not Junk DNA? | Learn Science at Scitable

These findings suggest that V-SINEs are approximately 540 million years old.


V-SINEs acquired their name from the SINEs, or short interspersed nuclear elements. SINEs are a type of non-long terminal repeat retrotransposon (non-LTR TE). Like all non-LTR TEs, SINEs (including V-SINEs) are retrotransposons; this means that their movement around the genome is dependent on the presence of an RNA intermediary. In this system, the TEs produce RNA transcripts, which are then converted back into DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. The new DNA copies then insert themselves into other spots in the genome.


While the researchers who discovered V-SINEs speculate on their function—specifically, whether they have something to do with protein production during times of stress, based on the fact that other researchers have observed greater SINE transcription under stressful conditions—they emphasize that the true functions of V-SINEs remain a scientific mystery (Ogiwara et al., 2002). The fact that the V-SINEs are so highly conserved suggests that, even though their true function is still unknown, these TEs must have some specific role. If not, then why do so many different species share the same, or similar, V-SINEs? Over 500 million years is a long time for "junk" to survive if it has no purpose.


Other groups of researchers have similarly reported conserved TE sequences among different taxa. For example, Gill Bejerano and his colleagues (2006) discovered another highly conserved SINE family when studying the ancient Indonesian coelacanth Latimeria menadoensis. They estimate this SINE family has been around for at least 410 million years, or since the time when L. menadoensis first appeared. Bejerano et al. found this conserved TE family, which they named LF-SINE (for lobe-finned fish or living fossil) not only in modern coelacanths (a type of lobe-finned fish), but also in frogs, chickens, opossums, dogs, rats, mice, chimps, and humans. Again, these results raise the question of why, if TEs are indeed "junk," they remained relatively unchanged and still mobile in so many different taxa over several hundred million years of evolution.

 

[Old Rocks]

Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium

Punctuated Equilibrium:

Charles Darwin understood that evolution was a slow and gradual process. By gradual, Darwin did not mean "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time until a new species was born. He did not assume that the pace of change was constant, however, and recognized that many species retained the same form for long periods.

Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete.

That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small. But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind.

According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do try to keep up with the science if you are going to comment on it.

Transposable Elements (TEs): Not Junk DNA? | Learn Science at Scitable

These findings suggest that V-SINEs are approximately 540 million years old.


V-SINEs acquired their name from the SINEs, or short interspersed nuclear elements. SINEs are a type of non-long terminal repeat retrotransposon (non-LTR TE). Like all non-LTR TEs, SINEs (including V-SINEs) are retrotransposons; this means that their movement around the genome is dependent on the presence of an RNA intermediary. In this system, the TEs produce RNA transcripts, which are then converted back into DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. The new DNA copies then insert themselves into other spots in the genome.


While the researchers who discovered V-SINEs speculate on their function—specifically, whether they have something to do with protein production during times of stress, based on the fact that other researchers have observed greater SINE transcription under stressful conditions—they emphasize that the true functions of V-SINEs remain a scientific mystery (Ogiwara et al., 2002). The fact that the V-SINEs are so highly conserved suggests that, even though their true function is still unknown, these TEs must have some specific role. If not, then why do so many different species share the same, or similar, V-SINEs? Over 500 million years is a long time for "junk" to survive if it has no purpose.


Other groups of researchers have similarly reported conserved TE sequences among different taxa. For example, Gill Bejerano and his colleagues (2006) discovered another highly conserved SINE family when studying the ancient Indonesian coelacanth Latimeria menadoensis. They estimate this SINE family has been around for at least 410 million years, or since the time when L. menadoensis first appeared. Bejerano et al. found this conserved TE family, which they named LF-SINE (for lobe-finned fish or living fossil) not only in modern coelacanths (a type of lobe-finned fish), but also in frogs, chickens, opossums, dogs, rats, mice, chimps, and humans. Again, these results raise the question of why, if TEs are indeed "junk," they remained relatively unchanged and still mobile in so many different taxa over several hundred million years of evolution.

REALLY? ME keep up?? I already told you we know little about junk DNA.. What I didn't say but implied was that there is ample SPECULATION that it plays a role in evolutionary processes..

What was I supposed to learn from your tutoring??