Evolution and Intelligent Design

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#361

Post by sandy_mcd » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:44 pm

KBCid wrote:Dumping a bucket of sand is not scientific. If such was the case then my 5 yr. old is a scientist.
ScholarAbout 241,000 results (0.08 sec

Experimental study of critical-mass fluctuations in an evolving sandpile
GA Held, DH Solina, H Solina, DT Keane, WJ Haag… - Physical Review Letters, 1990 - APS
... which certainly shows self-organized criticality, found itto exhibit a 1/f power spectrum.
In Fig. 2(d) we plot M(t) for a 3-in.-diam base sand- pile with a distance of 0.25 in.
between the capillary tube and the top of the sandpile.
Cited by 364 - Related articles - All 7 versions

Experimental study of heaping in a two-dimensional ''sand pile''
E Clément, J Duran, J Rajchenbach - Physical review letters, 1992 - APS
In a second series of experiments we deal with oxidized steel (Hk, Hf) and oxidized
aluminum beads (Lk, Hf) beads. We readily observe that the introduction of an im-portant
bead-bead friction parameter leads to a striking change in the macroscopic behavior. In ...
Cited by 186 - Related articles - All 9 versions

1/f noise, distribution of lifetimes, and a pile of sand
HJ Jensen, K Christensen, HC Fogedby - Physical Review B, 1989 - APS
A connection between the distribution of lifetimes and the power spectrum is derived. It is
shown that the flow of sand down the slope in the cellular automaton model, considered
recently by Bak, Tang, and Wiesenfeld [Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 381 (1987)], has a 1/f 2 power ...
Cited by 169 - Related articles - All 4 versions
[HTML] from surrey.ac.uk

[BOOK] How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality
P Bak, P Bak - 1996 - jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
... the wider scientific community, that of Self-Organised Criticality. The image of the
sand pile, retaining its conical shape as more sand is added, became widely known.
Although avalanches on the sides of the pile (maintaining ...
Cited by 2862 - Related articles -
- All 9 versions


Large-scale simulation of avalanche cluster distribution in sand pile model
SS Manna - Journal of Statistical Physics, 1990 - Springer
The avalanche cluster distribution of the sand pile model of self-organized criticality is
studied on the square lattice. A vectorized multispin coding algorithm is developed for this
study with three bits per site. The exponents characterizing the size and the lifetime of the ...
Cited by 134 - Related articles - All 4 versions


Critical exponents of the sand pile models in two dimensions
SS Manna - Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 1991 - Elsevier
Abstract We study three sand pile automaton models namely, the critical height, critical slope
and the critical Laplacian models in two dimensions, in which the stability criterion of the
sand columns depend on the zeroth, first and the second derivatives of the sand height ...
Cited by 117 - Related articles - All 3 versions
[PDF] from swarthmore.edu

[PDF] Self-organized criticality
P Bak, C Tang, K Wiesenfeld - Physical review A, 1988 - chaos.swarthmore.edu
... One of the models studied in this paper can be thought of as a model of a sand pile,
or al- ternatively as modeling an array of coupled pendula. ... We may think of this
arrangement as half of a symmetric sand pile with both ends open. ...
Cited by 4313 - Related articles - All 34 versions

Surface fluidization of a sand pile
P Evesque, E Szmatula, JP Denis - EPL (Europhysics Letters), 1990 - iopscience.iop.org
We investigate the capability exhibited by a vibrated sand pile to creep up into a vessel. Our
measures demonstrate that the fluidization of a heap submitted to vertical vibrations of high
enough amplitude is confined to an upper layer the thickness of which depends on the ...
Cited by 63 - Related articles - All 5 versions

Anomalous diffusion in a running sandpile model
BA Carreras, VE Lynch, DE Newman, GM Zaslavsky - Physical Review E, 1999 - APS
... sandpile boundary. In this way, the number of tracers being followed remains constant.
The slow addition of tracers to the top of the sand- pile was the right way to solve the
confinement problem in the Oslo sandpile 13. However, in ...
Cited by 47 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 8 versions
[PDF] from archives-ouvertes.fr

Contact force distribution beneath a three-dimensional granular pile
R Brockbank, J Huntley, R Ball - Journal de Physique II, 1997 - hal.archives-ouvertes.fr
... which are neither solid-like nor liquid-like. One example is the pressure distribution beneath a
conical sandpile. Intuitively one expects the pressure at the base of a pile to be maximal where
the total height of material above it is maximal, Ie at the centre. However, experimental ...
Cited by 109 - Related articles -

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#362

Post by KBCid » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:32 pm

KBCid wrote:Dumping a bucket of sand is not scientific. If such was the case then my 5 yr. old is a scientist.
sandy_mcd wrote: Experimental study of critical-mass fluctuations in an evolving sandpile.
Studying critical-mass fluctuations is scientific. Studying critical-mass fluctuations is not the act of dumping a bucket of sand. Study defines that you are looking at a specifiable thing. Anyone can dump a bucket of sand and not be scientific because it requires a method of 'study' to define something as scientific. So essentially we can all dump buckets of sand forever and not be scientific about it and then one day someone like Newton could come along and ask why does sand act the way it does? and then he is going to get all scientific about it and make an assertion and define how to test the assertion. This is when the simple unscientific act of dumping can become scientific. Until that moment comes where things are asserted and methods are devised to test the assertions you have a simple unscientific pile of sand and a little kid playing with it and having fun.

So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?

Sand is something in the here and now if we have any conceptual thoughts about it we can devise a concept and test it. We don't have to rely on authority alone as backing. this is why I provided all the references that define what it means to actually be scientific because until you apply the proper methodology in the way you study something then we are all just kids playing at the beach having no reliable way of gaining understanding.

The Scientific Method
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... fic+method

What is “Good Science”?
4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.

6) Replication is also vital to good science — for the scientific community to accept a finding, other investigators must be able to duplicate the original investigator's findings. Thus, you cannot make up your data; other scientists must be able to follow the same methods you used (whether experimentation, mathematical calculations, formulating major concepts, measuring data, or whatever) and come up with the same results.
Even among paleontologists studying dinosaurs, these principles are sometimes violated. A prime example, pervasive throughout evolutionary thought, is the adaptive story. Adaptive stories take a mysterious feature whose origin is not well understood, and propose an unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain it. For example: We do not yet understand why feathers were evolved somewhere along the non-avian theropod to bird transition. An adaptive story to explain it would be that the feathers were evolved to catch insects with, and then were "co-opted" for flight. Sounds convincing (as many such stories do), but still just a story. The sad truth is that many such problems are essentially unsolvable; we will never know exactly how or why feathers evolved. "Why" questions are some of the most difficult questions to answer when referring to evolution; evolution does not ask why. That is the frustrating reality that makes paleontology hard work.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/b ... ience.html
Last edited by KBCid on Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#363

Post by Ivellious » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:34 pm

You never addressed what you thought about geological studies of earth and the scientific consensus on many topics about ancient Earth and how geological features here today came into being, KCB. Are these fields idiotic and unscientific?

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#364

Post by Gman » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:57 pm

Image

Image

Dumping sand?? It's science I tell you... How dare you question the great and powerful Wizard of Oz... Maker of the universe.. :roll:
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#365

Post by KBCid » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:24 pm

Ivellious wrote:You never addressed what you thought about geological studies of earth and the scientific consensus on many topics about ancient Earth and how geological features here today came into being, KCB. Are these fields idiotic and unscientific?
I believe I have been stating my POV on what is considered scientific Ievllious. Take the references I have given and then compare it to anything you consider a science. Really check it against 'anything'. When you see any scientific undertaking that doesn't follow the proper 'method' which has been pointed out repeatedly then you will know how I stand on that particular topic.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#366

Post by KBCid » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:29 pm

Gman wrote:Dumping sand?? It's science I tell you... How dare you question the great and powerful Wizard of Oz... Maker of the universe.. :roll:
Your killing me here G.
Scientifically speaking I hypothesize that you are a cause for why my sides are hurting. lololololol
We simply need to find a method to test my hypothesis so that it can become a theory. lololololol
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#367

Post by sandy_mcd » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:56 pm

KBCid wrote:
Ivellious wrote:You never addressed what you thought about geological studies of earth and the scientific consensus on many topics about ancient Earth and how geological features here today came into being, KCB. Are these fields idiotic and unscientific?
I believe I have been stating my POV on what is considered scientific Ievllious. Take the references I have given and then compare it to anything you consider a science. Really check it against 'anything'. When you see any scientific undertaking that doesn't follow the proper 'method' which has been pointed out repeatedly then you will know how I stand on that particular topic.
Yes, but you refuse to be specific. You write sweeping generalities and quote papers, but never seem to answer straightforward questions. This is a particularly difficult situation when your ideas of 'proper method" disagree with mainstream science.
a) Is geology a science? If only partially, which parts?
b) Is astronomy a science? If only partially, which parts? What about star life cycles?
c) How can studying sandpiles (Studying critical-mass fluctuations is scientific) be scientific when they are not reproducible?
d) What do you get out of being so evasive? (When you see any scientific undertaking that doesn't follow the proper 'method' which has been pointed out repeatedly then you will know how I stand on that particular topic.)
e) Wouldn't it be horribly ironic if you correct about design but failed to convince mainstream scientists because you refused to answer their questions?
d) Do you really think in rigid boxes? String theory is not a theory in the sense of gravity or evolution. It is an inconsistent use of the term by scientists (as I have pointed out before). But "species", "intelligence", "reproducible" are scientific terms with somewhat varying definitions depending on the context. Does this represent a real problem for you in that the meaning varies?

[edit for typo]

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#368

Post by KBCid » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:47 pm

KBCid wrote:I believe I have been stating my POV on what is considered scientific Ievllious. Take the references I have given and then compare it to anything you consider a science. Really check it against 'anything'. When you see any scientific undertaking that doesn't follow the proper 'method' which has been pointed out repeatedly then you will know how I stand on that particular topic.
sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, but you refuse to be specific. You write sweeping generalities and quote papers, but never seem to answer straightforward questions. This is a particularly difficult situation when your ideas of 'proper method" disagree with mainstream science.
I would say I and others here have been very specific. Here are snips from previous post that you will not answer and it is in reference to the scientific method not being followed correctly;

So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?

What is “Good Science”?
4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.
6) Replication is also vital to good science — for the scientific community to accept a finding, other investigators must be able to duplicate the original investigator's findings. Thus, you cannot make up your data; other scientists must be able to follow the same methods you used (whether experimentation, mathematical calculations, formulating major concepts, measuring data, or whatever) and come up with the same results.
Even among paleontologists studying dinosaurs, these principles are sometimes violated. A prime example, pervasive throughout evolutionary thought, is the adaptive story. Adaptive stories take a mysterious feature whose origin is not well understood, and propose an unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain it. For example: We do not yet understand why feathers were evolved somewhere along the non-avian theropod to bird transition. An adaptive story to explain it would be that the feathers were evolved to catch insects with, and then were "co-opted" for flight. Sounds convincing (as many such stories do), but still just a story. The sad truth is that many such problems are essentially unsolvable; we will never know exactly how or why feathers evolved. "Why" questions are some of the most difficult questions to answer when referring to evolution; evolution does not ask why. That is the frustrating reality that makes paleontology hard work.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/b ... ience.html

Describe for me exactly how mutation occurs and becomes inherited and show the empirical tests that back the answer.

In the end you still missed the point. all of reference subjects are empirically testable. Which is my point against evolutionary mechanisms and other evolutionary hypothesis you cannot empirically test them

Describe how your science works again? you propose something is 'a fact' and can't provide the empirical testing to back the proposition.
How likely is it that other intelligent beings are simply going to believe you?

The threat that atheists pose to science
Experimentation and the Scientific method going into disuse
In the past when Theists ran science empirically untestable hypotheses or theories were not considered scientific. But ever since atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s they eliminated empirical testability as the main requirement needed for something to be considered scientific and substituted empirical testability with authority.
What this means is now if someone has authority they can propose any empirically untestable theory or hypothesis and it will be considered scientific. Gravitons, multiple universes, the string theory, etc…can all be considered scientific and allowed into peer-reviewed journals with no problem if they simply have authority figures to back them.
So why can’t atheists understand that something cannot be scientific unless it meets the requirement of empirical testability?
Atheists don’t seem to have any problem with voicing any opposition to things like Intelligent Design, so why don’t they voice any opposition to things like the string theory? It’s because atheists don’t genuinely care about what is science or not, they care about advancing their own political agenda or making fun of religion, not about science. This is the reason that atheists never will voice any opposition to empirically untestable theories but always voice opposition to Intelligent Design, because atheists are insincere and don’t actually care about science.
Back when Theists ran science the scientific method and scientific method alone would determine whether or not a hypothesis or model or theory was valid not authority or personal incredulity. If someone wanted to be taken seriously they absolutely needed to find ways to test their hypotheses, not just authority figures to back them.
It is the scientific method that determines if something is valid or not, not authority or incredulity as atheists believe.
In modern times now that atheists are taking over they instead focus on mathematical speculations rather than experimentation and the scientific method.
If I have the mathematics for something but no way to test out if my mathematics are valid then I essentially have nothing more than speculations. With this reasoning I can claim that virtually anything is true if I have the mathematics for it (even though I have no way to test out if my mathematics are valid). That is not science but instead pseudo-science since it does not adhere to the scientific method.
http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/ ... o-science/
sandy_mcd wrote:Therefore much of evolutionary biology/physical geology is describing what has happened.
Does it really? ---how---do---you---know---their---description---is---correct---
sandy_mcd wrote:...And both the type of lifeforms and the geography of earth extant today are the results of a number of forces which involve a large random component.
unfortunately neither you nor they have the experimental evidence to back that assertion.
sandy_mcd wrote:People guessed there had to be mechanisms for heredity and continental motion many years before the actual mechanisms were elucidated.
Indeed they guessed and they specified what they thought the mechanisms were. The question 'as usual' is ---how---do---you---know---their---guess---is---correct---. IF you cannot test a concept then you have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.

So when we find something 'contrary' to a prediction what are we supposed to do? wring our hands, stomp our feet? or maybe we should test it by 'independent replication'. It would be nice to perform such a action with evolution but guess what? it is untestable.
If you want to further disagree on this then define how to scientifically test a timeline or maybe historic mutational rates or a single common ancestor or how random mutations can generate new species or how natural selection can eliminate bad variation from occuring or or ....

if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational characteristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.

Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25 Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.22 In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated.23
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html
bippy123 wrote:Macroevolution is the on theory that isn't falsifiable because everytime a new fossil that comes along that completely obliterates macroevolution biologists throw their hands up in the air and say "gosh evolution must have speeded" up and viola a theory that you can't falsify. This is the ultimate in pseudo-science, but then again Ivellious will find a way to defend it, it's interesting that he never tackles the basilasauras problem. A whale of a problem that not one pro evolution supporter here has yet to address.Hmmm gee, I wonder why ;)
Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate. How fast do things evolve? if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.
So you are quite right to question this point of the supposed theory. As scientist they should relegate the theory to a hypothesis since they can't define the mechanism correctly. This actually ties in with my last answer about the spatiotemporal system. You see in order to be able to define the hypothetical evolutionary mechanism they would also have to have an understanding about how the entire process functions. The fact is they can't define how a change in the structure of an allele translates into 3 dimensional structure so it is quite obvious why they can't define evolutionary rates and this is also beyond the scientific method to test these rates in real time, thus it's beyond the scientific method of inquiry which provides confirmational testing to back it. aka pseudo-science. you can't eliminate something that you can't test and we all know hat they think of things which can't be tested... "it's unscientific"
All life has a single common ancestor
random mutations causes all the variance we observe
natural selection keeps sucessful forms forming and eliminates unsucessfull forms from forming

mechanism 1 - mutation. Show by scientific method exactly how mutations occured in order to form all life
mechanism 2 - natural selection. Show by scientific method exactly how NS affects the origination of the variety of life.
So far no testable explanation for how species evolve has been defined.

The problem with the cross-breeding test for transitional forms is that transitional forms are found in the fossil record: they are dead. You can not cross-breed animals that are dead. This is why appearance is often used for identifying transitional forms. Appearance is related to genetics, so the idea is that two animals that share many similar characteristics will have much of the same genes, and therefore they may very well be able to cross-breed. However, is it true that two animals that bear many similarities are closely related genetically?
Evolutionists have a term for when two different animals that are not supposed to be related happen to look very much like each other. Such an unrelated similarity is said to be the result of convergent evolution. A classic example of convergent evolution is the similarities between the Tasmanian wolf and a true wolf. Both of these animals have the classic dog-type body. Both are about the same size. However, one is a marsupial, and the other is a placental.
Now based solely on outward appearances, it might be thought that the Tasmanian wolf represents a transitional form between marsupials and dogs. Of course, we are told that it is not. The similarities that exist between Tasmanian wolves and true wolves exist simply because they were subjected to similar selective pressures, and they adapted to those pressures by evolving similar traits. A legitimate question to ask is: why are the similarities between these two animals not representative of a genetic relationship while the similarities between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs show that they are related? http://stevendking.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... ified.html
This understanding leads to the obvious question "how was the cross-breeding determination tested by scientific method"

What has evolution predicted that doesn't owe its existence to the original assertion of small changes.
Has evolution by chance predicted the necessary existence of a spatiotemporal control system in order to form matter into specific shapes?

Evidence for historic occurance can only be derived from what is observable in the present. Only one cause has formed the types of systems that even come close to the systems in life. Have you ever seen natural forces form such a system? Then by what evidence do you presume to infer that such a system is naturally forming?
Zionist wrote:intelligent design offers the best explanation of the origin of life. other scientific theories do not answer adequately or explain the origins of life and the complexity of life the way ID does. i know some of you may disagree with this or may even say ID is not scientific because it is not observable but i beg to differ. if ID is not scientific than neither is a lot of scientific theories out there such as but not limited to evolution because many theories are not observable either therefore if ID is scrutinized on this premise than other scientific theories must also be scrutinized under the same premise.
When you can answer the specific questions pointed out then we can go forward into even deeper areas in a number of 'science' but for now what sence does it make to point every little thing out when you don't even answer the questions already asked dealing exactly with this topic.
In the end you are quite capable of picking any scientific assertions form any field and simply check them against the definitions I have referenced and when you see that the method used does not involve the whole scientific method then you would know where I condemn their method. As I pointed out you are free to choose any branch of study and then pick out their theories or assertions based on theories. When it doesn't follow the scientific method you have pseudo-science at work,
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#369

Post by sandy_mcd » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:49 pm

KBCid wrote:In the past when Theists ran science empirically untestable hypotheses or theories were not considered scientific. But ever since atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s they eliminated empirical testability as the main requirement needed for something to be considered scientific and substituted empirical testability with authority.
[You quoted this so i am assuming you stand behind it.] Please provide some evidence for this takeover. What happened to all the Theist scientists? Were they sent to camps or just shot? What about all the scientists who profess to be Theists today - are they just toadies of the atheist establishment?
KBCid wrote:Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate. How fast do things evolve? if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism.
First provide evidence that any scientists thinks evolution occurs at a constant rate; please define this rate and how to measure it.

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#370

Post by KBCid » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:24 am

sandy_mcd wrote: [You quoted this so i am assuming you stand behind it.] Please provide some evidence for this takeover. What happened to all the Theist scientists? Were they sent to camps or just shot? What about all the scientists who profess to be Theists today - are they just toadies of the atheist establishment?
I have quoted a ton of stuff and you have not answered any of it. debate is give and take, if you can't answer the questions already posed then why should I waste my time answering every misdirection you think will help you avoid answering? shall we review?
KBCid wrote: Take the references I have given and then compare it to anything you consider a science. Really check it against 'anything'. When you see any scientific undertaking that doesn't follow the proper 'method' which has been pointed out repeatedly then you will know how I stand on that particular topic.
sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, but you refuse to be specific. You write sweeping generalities and quote papers, but never seem to answer straightforward questions.
So let's see here you accuse me of not being specific and I clip a number of places where I have pointed out specifics;

So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?

Describe for me exactly how mutation occurs and becomes inherited and show the empirical tests that back the answer.
sandy_mcd wrote:Therefore much of evolutionary biology/physical geology is describing what has happened.
Does it really? ---how---do---you---know---their---description---is---correct---
sandy_mcd wrote:...And both the type of lifeforms and the geography of earth extant today are the results of a number of forces which involve a large random component.
unfortunately neither you nor they have the experimental evidence to back that assertion.

sandy_mcd wrote:People guessed there had to be mechanisms for heredity and continental motion many years before the actual mechanisms were elucidated.
Indeed they guessed and they specified what they thought the mechanisms were. The question 'as usual' is ---how---do---you---know---their---guess---is---correct---. IF you cannot test a concept then you have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.

So when we find something 'contrary' to a prediction what are we supposed to do? wring our hands, stomp our feet? or maybe we should test it by 'independent replication'. It would be nice to perform such a action with evolution but guess what? it is untestable.
If you want to further disagree on this then define how to scientifically test a timeline or maybe historic mutational rates or a single common ancestor or how random mutations can generate new species or how natural selection can eliminate bad variation from occuring or or ....

What has evolution predicted that doesn't owe its existence to the original assertion of small changes.
Has evolution by chance predicted the necessary existence of a spatiotemporal control system in order to form matter into specific shapes?

And so far you have neither retracted the accusation nor have you answered the very specific points being placed in front of you over and over and over. Why do you suppose that is? Is it possible that you don't quite understand english or maybe some of the words used are not descriptive enough?
KBCid wrote:Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate. How fast do things evolve? if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism.
sandy_mcd wrote:First provide evidence that any scientists thinks evolution occurs at a constant rate; please define this rate and how to measure it.
I first provided this earlier in the thread so you are obviously not reading the thread.

Evolution of the mutation rate.
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms of evolution "requires" information on the "rate" of appearance of new mutations and their effects at the molecular and phenotypic levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594608

Did you read that alright? "Understanding the mechanisms of evolution "requires" information on the rate". If you can't define how a system functions then it is useless for scientific consideration.

Mutation and Evolutionary Rates in Adélie Penguins from the Antarctic
Abstract Top
Precise estimations of molecular rates are fundamental to our understanding of the processes of evolution. In principle, mutation and evolutionary rates for neutral regions of the same species are expected to be equal.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1000209

Did you see that? "Precise estimations of molecular rates are fundamental to our understanding of the processes of evolution."

Well so far you have avoided every opportunity to answer the specific points shown and you obviously don't even know the subject you are attempting to argue and you fail to read what has already been posted. If your intent is to make the evolutionary argument look realistic then your approach has failed however, if you are secretly trying to make evolutionary rationale look foolish then you have succeeded nicely.
I predict [based on observable evidence] that you will continue to avoid the specific points that have been stated multiple times directly referencing evolutionary points which means I have brought something to the table you can't deal with and your going to do whatever it takes to avoid it while redirecting to something you think you can defend.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

User avatar
Pierson5
Established Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:42 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: CA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#371

Post by Pierson5 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:42 pm

KBCid,

It seems from your last reply, we keep repeating many of the same arguments. I think it would be nice if we could find some common ground. The system you are referring too is rather broad. I looked over the previous citation you gave at the beginning of this thread:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/
During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.
It appears researchers have identified certain proteins responsible for the positional information needed to construct a limb that has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system (although some have considered it 4 dimensional, to include time). Maybe we could focus on one protein at a time and take a closer look at it?

I'm just trying to narrow down the argument a little, as I'm in the middle of moving and getting ready for the new quarter. I'm getting increasingly short on time.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
-Marcus Aurelius

sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#372

Post by sandy_mcd » Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:39 pm

KBCid wrote:I have quoted a ton of stuff and you have not answered any of it.
Most of references were to scientific papers on spatiotemporal control. I have no problems with those papers; neither does mainstream science. Many of these papers precede your discovery of this phenomenon.
KBCid wrote:if you can't answer the questions already posed then why should I waste my time answering every misdirection you think will help you avoid answering?
Well so far you have avoided every opportunity to answer the specific points shown and you obviously don't even know the subject you are attempting to argue
I have stated before that i don't know much biology. Ivellious, pierson5, et al. have done a fine job addressing your contentions in those fields.
Here is a link where i specifically answer some of your questions http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 55#p128368 So why claim that i haven't?
KBCid wrote:So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
Because your definition of "test it" is to reproduce it. And many things in science (geology, astronomy, biology etc) can't be reproduced. In fact even in chemistry (as pointed out before) it is impossible to exactly reproduce the conditions of an experiment. So according to your definition, nothing is science since nothing can be reproduced exactly; some condition will always be different. Can you provide one example of a reproducible experiment in any field of science?
KBCid wrote: Is it possible that you don't quite understand english or maybe some of the words used are not descriptive enough?
I have said before that i do not often understand your use of English. But instead of trying to explain a different way all i get are requotes and coy answers.


[edit add] I might point out that KBCid's argument isn't so much with me as it is with mainstream science. If he feels that most of what scientists call science isn't, that science is controlled by a cabal of atheists with an agenda, that accepted scientific explanations are incorrect, it is up to him to make his point and not for others to defend the status quo.

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#373

Post by KBCid » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:08 am

Pierson5 wrote:KBCid, It seems from your last reply, we keep repeating many of the same arguments. I think it would be nice if we could find some common ground. The system you are referring too is rather broad. I looked over the previous citation you gave at the beginning of this thread:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9975/
The "system" is indeed broad. It is also irreducibly complex since the number of individual components neccesary to allow it to function are vast and vastly beyond chance to be able to form.
During the past decade, particular proteins have been identified that play a role in the formation of each of these limb axes. The proximal-distal (shoulder-finger; hip-toe) axis appears to be regulated by the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of proteins. The anterior-posterior (thumb-pinky) axis seems to be regulated by the Sonic hedgehog protein, and the dorsal-ventral (knuckle-palm) axis is regulated, at least in part, by Wnt7a. The interactions of these proteins determine the differentiation of the cell types and also mutually support one another.
Pierson5 wrote:It appears researchers have identified certain proteins responsible for the positional information needed to construct a limb that has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system (although some have considered it 4 dimensional, to include time). Maybe we could focus on one protein at a time and take a closer look at it?
To clarify this point here "researchers have identified certain proteins" that take part in "a three-dimensional coordinate system". We cannot look at one protein and discern the system. This is and will continue to be the problem for the researchers as the researchers themselves point out;

"How is it that the embryo is able not only to generate all the different cell types of the body, but also to produce them in a way that forms functional tissues and organs? It is one thing to differentiate the chondrocytes and osteocytes that synthesize the cartilage and bone matrices, respectively; it is another thing to produce those cells in a temporal-spatial orientation that generates a functional bone. It is still another thing to make that bone a humerus and not a pelvis or a femur. The ability of limb cells to sense their relative positions and to differentiate with regard to those positions has been the subject of intense debate and experimentation. How are the cells that differentiate into the embryonic bone specified so as to form an appendage with digits at one end and a shoulder at the other? (It would be quite a useless appendage if the order were reversed.) Here the cell types are the same, but the patterns they form are different."

In your reference that "some considered it 4 dimensional". you should pay attention to the footnotes;
Footnotes
*Actually, it is a four-dimensional system, in which time is the fourth axis. Developmental biologists get used to seeing nature in four dimensions.

and what ultimately did these researchers who have already observed the various individual proteins had to say on the subject, "The positional information needed to construct a limb has to function in a three-dimensional coordinate system". They and I are both saying that the individual actions of the proteins are not autonomous. every step in the formation process is controlled systematically.
Pierson5 wrote:I'm just trying to narrow down the argument a little, as I'm in the middle of moving and getting ready for the new quarter. I'm getting increasingly short on time.
It would be nice to narrow down the 'subject' since the subject we are discussing is dealing with a system. The problem is that we can't narrow down or simplify 'the system' by looking at only one of its components. That would be tatamount to trying to describe how an engine works based on observing a valve opening and closing. The researchers and I are both taking the observable evidences already available and recognizing that they are not acting as individuals, they are acting in a concerted way. This concerted action is what is attempting to be explained. So backing up to review how an individual operates will not garner any more information for understanding how the system works.
The only thing we can conceptually meet on here is what functionality is necessary to replicate 3 dimensional formations of matter. In this area we can define specific system requirements that could generate the observable evidence.
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

User avatar
KBCid
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#374

Post by KBCid » Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:04 am

sandy_mcd wrote:Here is a link where i specifically answer some of your questions http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 55#p128368 So why claim that i haven't?
Because the questions you continue to avoid I have specifically pointed out. Your reference post involved questions about intelligence vs. natural as we can see quite clearly upon review;
KBCid wrote: 1) Can inteligence be detected? 2) how? 3) Is a bird or a bee natural? 4) how do you know?
sandy_mcd wrote: 1) Usually, but first it must be defined. 2) Depends on the definition - problem solving might be one way. 3) depends on definition used of natural; by almost all meanings, yes 4) by one common definition; it occurs from nature without man's intervention
KBCid wrote: The term natural has been applied to many things but, what is the criteria for making such a determination? As noted elsewhere previously there are times when such a distinction is unclear as can be seen in the Yonaguni Monument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument
here is another neat object to peruse, Waffle Rock http://www.geulogy.com/myprecious/waffl ... erica.html Natural or man made?
sandy_mcd wrote: Natural.
KBCid wrote: Researcher claims vast network of prehistoric civilization discovered near Lake Titicaca
http://truthspeaker.wordpress.com/2009/ ... e-titicaca
sandy_mcd wrote:Can't tell.


These subjects are quite different from the current subject dealing with the scientific method and the important component of it that requires testing and repeatability.
KBCid wrote:So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
sandy_mcd wrote:Because your definition of "test it" is to reproduce it. And many things in science (geology, astronomy, biology etc) can't be reproduced. In fact even in chemistry (as pointed out before) it is impossible to exactly reproduce the conditions of an experiment. So according to your definition, nothing is science since nothing can be reproduced exactly; some condition will always be different. Can you provide one example of a reproducible experiment in any field of science?
Again you are wrong here because my definition of the scientific method does not mean that "test it is to reproduce it". Test it stands alone and repeat it stands alone. One must first be able to test something for it to be scientific in the first place and reproducibly testable to get confirmation. This is how the scientific method operates. It is also not simply my definition since I have referenced a number of cites that say the exact same thing in english;

Scientific method
is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

... identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.

A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing.

Test: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the
predictions derived from an hypothesis.


Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take.

This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them, [4] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences

The scientific process also includes other components required even when all the iterations of the steps above have been completed:
Replication: If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results were in error.


Scientific inquiry
The goal of a scientific inquiry is to obtain knowledge in the form of testable explanations that can predict the results of future experiments.

Beliefs and biases
Scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. The scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility diminishes the effects of cognitive biases For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief [naturalism] to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Characteristics of theories
Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.[/i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Let us all do the "Essential criteria" chant... "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions."

Modification and improvement of theories
If experimental results contrary to a theory's predictions are observed, scientists first evaluate whether the experimental design was sound, and if so they confirm the results by independent replication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theor
sandy_mcd wrote: [edit add] I might point out that KBCid's argument isn't so much with me as it is with mainstream science. If he feels that most of what scientists call science isn't, that science is controlled by a cabal of atheists with an agenda, that accepted scientific explanations are incorrect, it is up to him to make his point and not for others to defend the status quo.
lol
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false

Since I have cited the evidences that cause my argument the onus is now on you to show why it is not correct.
The argument so far has been you asserting that the plainly written definitions I agree with and have cited don't agree with your perception of what mainstream science is doing. note further that in the question I have posed a number of times now and which you continue to avoid is the simple point of just being testable in the first place and not on the point of repeatability;

So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?

I wonder how many more ways sandy_mcd can avoid answering these simple questions? stay tuned and see how the exciting drama unfolds...
It is as if some Christians sit there and wait for the smallest thing that they can dispute and then jump onto it...
The Bible says that we were each given an interpretation – this gift of interpretation is not there so we can run each other into the ground. It is there for our MUTUAL edification.
//www.allaboutgod.net/profiles/blogs/chri ... each-other

User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design

#375

Post by Gman » Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:23 am

KBCid wrote:
I wonder how many more ways sandy_mcd can avoid answering these simple questions? stay tuned and see how the exciting drama unfolds...
Good luck with that... ;)
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8

Post Reply