Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS,



ya, I got it... I just didn't know what part of the post you want to say something about or if you want me to comment at all.

I believe she was saying that since A'raptor was a hoax then there's no evidence for dino-bird relatedness (I wonder if she'll send me the $50).

It was about a peer review on a four-winged dinosaur, not the A'raptor. The peer review seems to disagree about that one being a missing link also. They seem to think that it probably glided and didn't fly.

As for Doolittle's work, it isn't surprising and I would even say expected. If bacteria can trade around genes today I don't see why it wouldn't have been different in the past. In fact, I suspect that organisms were much more into genetic "free trade" in the past.

A professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Dalhousie University (Canada), W. Ford Doolittle, one of the world’s leading molecular evolutionists, seems to disagree with you.

Does it really pose a problem for evolution? Not really. If you want to reconstruct a nice neat picture of history then sure but is it troubling for evolution as a whole? Surely not. No evidence of poofing and magic yet.

From Dr. Doolittle:
“Thus, there is no more reason to imagine only a single first kind of cell as the progenitor of all contemporary life,” he argues , “than there is to imagine only Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human species.”

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Even in the scientific community it [evolution, I presume you mean here?] is still only a scientific theory.

AS,

I don't know what your interests are, so I'll try a couple different analogies here. Saying that evolution is "only a scientific theory" is like saying:

"The New England Patriots are only the Super Bowl champions."

"George W. Bush is only the President of the United States."

Perhaps you should read some of those Google links more carefully. Few ideas in science have the evidential and theoretical support to be elevated to the status of "scientific theory." For a scientific idea, there is no higher category. "Justa scientific theory" is an oxymoron, like "square circle."

 

[Stratnerd]

It was about a peer review on a four-winged dinosaur, not the A'raptor. The peer review seems to disagree about that one being a missing link also. They seem to think that it probably glided and didn't fly.

OK... is there anything else?

A professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Dalhousie University (Canada), W. Ford Doolittle, one of the world’s leading molecular evolutionists, seems to disagree with you.

don't think so... since what I say is based on his data and also supported by the quote you posted below:

“Thus, there is no more reason to imagine only a single first kind of cell as the progenitor of all contemporary life,” he argues , “than there is to imagine only Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human species.”

This is exactly what my point was!

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

AS,

I don't know what your interests are, so I'll try a couple different analogies here. Saying that evolution is "only a scientific theory" is like saying:

"The New England Patriots are only the Super Bowl champions."

"George W. Bush is only the President of the United States."

Perhaps you should read some of those Google links more carefully. Few ideas in science have the evidential and theoretical support to be elevated to the status of "scientific theory." For a scientific idea, there is no higher category. "Justa scientific theory" is an oxymoron, like "square circle."

Maybe it's time that the different fields of science get to together and figure out what they want people see or know when using certain terms or maybe it's just the ones who believe in evolution. I think you are just heckling me about the terminology.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

OK... is there anything else?

don't think so... since what I say is based on his data and also supported by the quote you posted below:

“Thus, there is no more reason to imagine only a single first kind of cell as the progenitor of all contemporary life,” he argues , “than there is to imagine only Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human species.”

This is exactly what my point was!

So then should I assume that you believe that a biogenesis had to occur a minimum of dozens of times, if not thousands, to create all of the different types of proteins? If so, then where did all of the information come from that enabled the DNA and RNA to put all these together in the correct ways to create "life"?

 

[Stratnerd]

So then should I assume that you believe that a biogenesis had to occur a minimum of dozens of times, if not thousands, to create all of the different types of proteins?

Biogenesis may have only occurred once successfully (thus the common metabolic pathways) however it wouldn't surprise me if there were many "almost theres" whose genetic information became incorporated into the successful lineages. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the first living things diverges but shared info.

If so, then where did all of the information come from that enabled the DNA and RNA to put all these together in the correct ways to create "life"?

this is why sharing is likely

 

[Stratnerd]

> I think you are just heckling me about the terminology.

No, he's not. "theory in the sense that we are using it is the same context that I read in physics, evolution, and my field ecology. It's also the context used in most philosophy of science and general science textbooks. It's also how we teach it in all the university settings I've been in.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

> I think you are just heckling me about the terminology.

No, he's not. "theory in the sense that we are using it is the same context that I read in physics, evolution, and my field ecology. It's also the context used in most philosophy of science and general science textbooks. It's also how we teach it in all the university settings I've been in.

I thought physics had to be very exact in everything, sort of like chemistry. I also thought that physics had to understood in fundamental ways in terms of elementary priciples and laws. I am getting the idea that evolution doesn't do that.
Here's the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. What laws of evolution are there? If it is provable surely there are laws of evolution.

First law of thermodynamics
The change in internal energy of a system is the sum of the heat transferred to or from the system and the work done on or by the system.
Second law of thermodynamics
The entropy -- a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do useful work -- of a closed system tends to increase with time.




What area of ecology do you work in?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Maybe it's time that the different fields of science get to together and figure out what they want people see or know when using certain terms or maybe it's just the ones who believe in evolution. I think you are just heckling me about the terminology.

I'm not heckling you. I'm trying to get you to see that there is a profound difference between scientific theories and what you think of as a theory. This is very well established throughout all the sciences. It mostly comes up in regards to evolutionary theory because this one draws conclusions about certain things (e.g., human origins) that make some people uncomfortable. But, you know, if that's where the evidence leads, sorry.

By the way, I can't help but notice that you provided six different definitions of the word "theory," only one of which was applicable to "scientific theory." So why restrict your complaints to scientists? I'd say we do better than the average Joe in being precise in our definitions. Most commonly used words have more than one definition, don't they? You already have lots of experience with correctly selecting among multiple definitions based on the context. Why are you resisting it in this particular instance?

Well, I've got to run (now there's a word with a potful of definitions, none of which that I can recall are science-specific!).

 

[Stratnerd]

I am getting the idea that evolution doesn't do that.

This things are difficult but not impossible to apply to questions of biological history. We do use fundemental issues, such as mutations, to approach these questions and make predictions. This is the hallmark of good scientific investigation. Something creationists cannot do - ever.

Here's the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. What laws of evolution are there? If it is provable surely there are laws of evolution.

You should include Newtonian laws of motion and gravity - are they really laws applicable in all cases? Anyways, the fundemental aspects of evolution are mutation and natural selection and divergence.

What area of ecology do you work in?

quantitative methods of population estimation (I figure out how many things there are), landscape ecology (I figure out what happens to populations as the landscape changes in time and space), conservation biology (I apply that knowledge to make recommendations for land use, etc).

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

I'm not heckling you. I'm trying to get you to see that there is a profound difference between scientific theories and what you think of as a theory. This is very well established throughout all the sciences. It mostly comes up in regards to evolutionary theory because this one draws conclusions about certain things (e.g., human origins) that make some people uncomfortable. But, you know, if that's where the evidence leads, sorry.

By the way, I can't help but notice that you provided six different definitions of the word "theory," only one of which was applicable to "scientific theory." So why restrict your complaints to scientists? I'd say we do better than the average Joe in being precise in our definitions. Most commonly used words have more than one definition, don't they? You already have lots of experience with correctly selecting among multiple definitions based on the context. Why are you resisting it in this particular instance?

Well, I've got to run (now there's a word with a potful of definitions, none of which that I can recall are science-specific!).

Maybe you should refer to the Nature and National Geographic articles I mentioned on my other thread in the "Origins" forum. The genetics are seemingly telling another story about ape to man evolution.

 

[Stratnerd]

> ape to man evolution

What that it didn't happen? You mean we're that different? How much is different enough to be too different?

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

And even aharvey said it is a scientific theory which to me means it is still only a theory. So just for ease on my part I will go back to calling evolution a theory because even evolutionary scientists haven't been able to take it beyond the theory stage.

Nothing in science can "go beyond the theory stage". As theories go, those the occupy the top of the food chain are often called "standard models". Darwinian evolution is the standard model of the origin of species.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

I thought physics had to be very exact in everything, sort of like chemistry. I also thought that physics had to understood in fundamental ways in terms of elementary priciples and laws.

"Principles" and "laws" are also theories. These are generalizations of a great many observations, or simplifying assumptions that do not conflict with a great many observations.

I am getting the idea that evolution doesn't do that.

Basically biology is a special case of chemistry, which, in turn, is a special case of physics.

Here's the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. What laws of evolution are there? If it is provable surely there are laws of evolution.

First law of thermodynamics
The change in internal energy of a system is the sum of the heat transferred to or from the system and the work done on or by the system.


Second law of thermodynamics
The entropy -- a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do useful work -- of a closed system tends to increase with time.

Here are the fundamental laws of biology.


1) Law of taxonomy: All organisms can be organized into a unique nested heirarchy.
2) Law of faunal succession: All organisms within the fossil record can be organized into a unique pattern of succession with time.
3) allele frequencies change with time.



[/QUOTE]

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

This things are difficult but not impossible to apply to questions of biological history. We do use fundemental issues, such as mutations, to approach these questions and make predictions. This is the hallmark of good scientific investigation. Something creationists cannot do - ever.

Does that include the creationists that are studying DNA and genomes?

You should include Newtonian laws of motion and gravity - are they really laws applicable in all cases? Anyways, the fundemental aspects of evolution are mutation and natural selection and divergence.

Mutation, natural selection and divergence are what you consider the laws of evolution? Where did you get this from? Were you refering to "divergent adaptation"? I'm not sure where fundamental aspects of evolution rank with things like the laws of thermodynamics could you please explain how you came to this conclusion?

quantitative methods of population estimation (I figure out how many things there are), landscape ecology (I figure out what happens to populations as the landscape changes in time and space), conservation biology (I apply that knowledge to make recommendations for land use, etc).

Sounds like you work for the government.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Maybe it's time that the different fields of science get to together and figure out what they want people see or know when using certain terms or maybe it's just the ones who believe in evolution. I think you are just heckling me about the terminology.

I don't believe that anybody is heckling you. I believe that we are all attempting to answer your questions in the most honest way possible.

 

[Stratnerd]

John

Law of taxonomy: All organisms can be organized into a unique nested heirarchy.

I don't think this to be the case although broadly it is. A few posts ago, AS pointed out the work of Doolittle which suggests quite a bit of lateral transfer amongst the most ancestral lineages. For example, all eukaryotes are composed of several different lineages via symbiosis. If true, and I don't see why it shouldn't be, then nestedness of life only occurs later. But at the beginning it looked more like a twisted rope. I'm just being nit-picky...

Either way, I fail to see how any of these problems pose a problem for evolution itself and somehow show the world is 6000 years old with a poofed biota.

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Does that include the creationists that are studying DNA and genomes?

Such as?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

I thought physics had to be very exact in everything, sort of like chemistry. I also thought that physics had to understood in fundamental ways in terms of elementary priciples and laws. I am getting the idea that evolution doesn't do that.

Second law of thermodynamics
The entropy -- a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do useful work -- of a closed system tends to increase with time.

AS,

I'm sure you're going to love hearing this, but if you're going to allow the phrase "tends to" in the second law of thermodynamics, then I'd say, yes, evolutionary theory has guiding laws and principles that are as precise as those in physics: "Natural selection tends to favor those individuals that are best adapted their environment." "Descendants tend to resemble their ancestors." "Lineages that share a distant common ancestor tend to be less similar than lineages that shared a recent common ancestor."

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Maybe you should refer to the Nature and National Geographic articles I mentioned on my other thread in the "Origins" forum. The genetics are seemingly telling another story about ape to man evolution.

... and that's relevant to our discussion about the preeminent position of scientific theories in scientific thinking because ...?

Look, if you're offended by the notion that humans and apes share a common ancestor, then perhaps you should stop yelling at the scientists who generate evidence (that turns out to support this notion), and start yelling at the creationist "scientists" who aren't generating any evidence at all (sorry, yelling at evolutionary biologists doesn't count as scientific evidence even when it comes from people who call themselves scientists). When I became serious about this creationist-evolution controversy, I set out to find positive evidence for YEC, but the most substantial, and surprising, things I've learned are that 1) despite the rhetoric, YECs agree with the basic mechanisms of evolution, to the extent that they have no idea how to distinguish evolution from special creation "in the field," and 2) YECs haven't the faintest idea how to date a fossil in a way that yields dates consistent with a young earth.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?