Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' ) wrote:
>
> Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
wrote:
>>> "Brian E. Clark" wrote:
>>>> In article <481B1670.C91458AD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill Bonde
>>>> ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal
>>>> attack' ) said...
>>>>
>>>>> Creationism "jibes" with known facts.
>>>> Alas for you, no. The creationist notion of a kind, to
>>>> mention just one problem, is at odds with biological
>>>> reality. Likewise the contention made by creationists
>>>> that microevolution and macroevolution describe two
>>>> very different phenomena is incorrect on both
>>>> evidentiary and conceptual grounds.
>>>>
>>> Really? If it can be shown that polar bears and grizzly bears are
>>> types of brown bear, does that proof that bears are related to
>>> fish? No, it doesn't. The idea that all the creatures that exist
>>> today must be "kinds" is absurd. If "microevolution" were to exist,
>>> the various "kinds" could ****ft to accommodate their environs, but
>>> still be "kinds".
>> Now "micro" evolution is doubted? Besides the thing that "micro" and
>> "macro" only differ in timescale.
>>
> Let's say that within a creature is the ability to rapidly make
> various changes, for example in size, the amount of fur, other
> things. Would that be qualitatively different than changing into
> another species by some mechanism of actual genetic change?
The genetic change is present, one way or the other. For an animal
species (or population) to get longer fur, you need to change the actual
"cooking recipe" for the phenotype. It then only depends how much you
change it.
Some leaps are present, where actual structural changes occur in the
genome. Like the change from 48 chromosomes to 46.
But this doesn't say much about phenotype. You can code the phenotype on
48 or on 46 chromosomes. And thats where morphology comes in. If you
come down to it, the difference between a fox and a rat is size, size of
bones (not even number of bones, or how they are ordered... that roughly
is the same), fur, ecological niche....
These are outside changes, changes in phenotype. There are, of course,
other differences.
So, no. That is not qualitatively different. Of course, fish and mammals
are much more distant relatives than rats and foxes, but the same method
works there.
>> And still.... STILL.... no explanation what a "kind" is.
>>
> I think I've discussed the concept of "proto-species" enough to
> have reasonably established at least one possibility.
Could you please give me a message-ID? It was probably not in a response
to me or a post I did read. And if I where to search for it, I'd
probably still be looking for it next week.
>>> The fact that life generally uses DNA doesn't prove a common
>>> evolutionary ancestry any more than the fact that IBM and Apple
>>> both use solder proves that their computers are made by the same
>>> company. If space aliens (or God) put Life on earth based on
>>> "kinds", why not use the same underlying technology?
>> WTF is a kind?
>> Can you or can you not answer that question?
>>
> I think that it's what I've been calling a proto-species.
>
>
>
>
>> If you can, why don't you do it?
>> If you can't, why use that word?
>>
> I'm pretty sure that you brought up the terminology "kinds". I've
> not read much (or anything) in the creationist literature so I
> don't know their terminology.
Probably I mixed things up. But you used "kind" in your previous post,
Granted, you used it in brackets. Never mind, probably I mistook you for
someone else.
>>>>> In fact, Creationism has no problem explaining
>>>>> everything that we see today.
>>>> Creationism explains nothing. "God did it" is not a
>>>> scientific explanation.
>>>>
>>> This is because it isn't falsifiable. But there is no doubt that it
>>> is an explanation and it can be ****fted to conform with any
>>> observation or experiment.
>> Yep. Which - if you come down to it - doesn't explain anything.
>>
> Creationism isn't a scientific theory.
Yep. And it isn't an explanation either, because it doesn't explain
anything.
>> You might find the ****fts unbelievable,
>>> but that doesn't stop string theorists either.
>> Because string theory is MATHS.
>>
> I think that string theory is an attempt to use some maths to
> develop ideas about the physical universe, unifying everything, as
> it were..
Yes. But so far, it is only maths.
>>>> More elaborate descriptions
>>>> amount to the same thing. "God gave squirrels the fur,
>>>> fluffy tails and large incisors they need to fill
>>>> the niche he created for them" is meaningless from a
>>>> scientific point of view.
>>>>
>>> Keep in mind, you are replying to the following: " Creationism has
>>> no problem explaining everything that we see today." Creationism,
>>> as you describe it, isn't a scientific theory. But it is an
>>> explanation.
>> Yes. And an equally satisfactory explanation would be "the great
>> buggaboo did it".
>>
> I guess it depends on how you define "satisfactory".
In this context? Since it doesn't explain anything, neither the "great
buggaboo" nor "god", as UNsatisfactory as it gets.
>> It IS an explanation. But it is USELESS.
>>
> A good theory should have predictive power and should be useful.
> Creationism has been about as useful as string theory, actually.
String theory is in the making. So far it is a mathematical attempt to
combine the forces of the universe in ONE theory. When finished, it
should be able to have one theory that explains all the known forces of
the universe.
If we then find a fifth one.... Out the theory goes.
So far, string theory doesn't attempt to be useful. So far, it is a way
to calculate the known forces in a fancy and complicated way that gives
the same results as the "old" theories. If it would give different
results, you wouldn't even hear about it.
>>>>>> String theory differs from Creationism in another way:
>>>>>> When technology has advanced such that the predictions
>>>>>> of string theory can be tested, string theory will
>>>>>> stand or fall by the results of the tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or they'll just change to a new string theory.
>>>> So what? That's how science progresses. The new
>>>> theory will, like the others, be vulnerable to the
>>>> blade of disproof.
>>>>
>>> If the theory is infinitely malleable, the theory will not submit
>>> to falsification.
>> String theory is falsifiable in theory. We just don't have the means
yet
>> to actually test it.
>>
> But the problem is, string theory is infinitely malleable,
> therefore if you falsify it, it just changes.
Yes. That is the idea. If you CAN falsify it, it is false. And so, out
it goes. Whenever I read about it, the most prominent phrase is
"...still working on it..."
So of course we have theories that don't fit what we actually can
measure. That does not mean the concept is false, it just means the
specific equation is wrong. And back to the drawing board.
This is like how "God
> did it" can change to include anything that happens. Of course "God
> did it" is faith and string theory is supposed to be science.
Again, string theory is an attempt to combine the other forces. In
itself, it is not finished. It can't be useful as yet, because it is
still "...worked out..."
It is a hot field for the math-cracks.
Hotly discussed. Always changed, in the hope to find one that actually
works as intended.
"goddidit" on the other hand is supposed to be the answer. But it is an
answer along the same lines as "42" is an answer. Great, you have an
answer, but the answer is useless.
>> Scientific theories (and btw, string theory is not a scientific theory.
>> It is a mathematical concept) are ALWAYS vulnerable to evidence.
Forever
>> and ever, RAMEN.
>>
> What we are getting to when we discuss string theory in this
> context is what is a scientific theory.
Falsifiable, based on observation, testable, fits ALL the evidence and
contradicts none.
>>>> All the while, though, creationists will be insisting
>>>> that their own long-disproved ideas be treated as
>>>> viable alternative theories.
>>>>
>>> What makes "God did it" worse than "Let's add in a few more
>>> dimensions to fix up this observation or experiment"?
>> It's not "to fix up" observation. The observation is there. And if it
>> doesn't add up with the theory, the theory needs modification. That's
>> the way it is. Observations, you can't change. So, if the observation
is
>> not in accordance with the theory, the theory is false. Simple as that.
>>
> So you "fix it up" by adding a few more dimensions or something.
If that is what is needed to make it work? It is not an end in itself,
you know. It has to produce (or is intended to produce) results. If the
way to make these calculations, you need another dimension, then that is
what is needed.
>> M-theory didn't work with ten dimensions. Keep in mind that it is
maths.
>> So, they added another dimension to the concept. Mathematically it
works.
>>
> I actually find this interesting. I think that there are probably
> many ways to represent reality that point to another underlying
> theory. Later we'll find out they are just ways to express the same
> thing. This has happened many times before.
Yep. That is EXACTLY the idea of string theory. To find the underlying
theory. If it IS M-Theory in the end.... I don't know. Still worked at.
>> That IS the way science works. Also, M-theory is not a scientific
>> theroy. It is a mathematical concept.
>>
> I don't think that's fair. I think that M-theory and string
> theories in general are not just maths. They use tools of maths but
> they attempt to be more. Within themselves, they only require
> consistency, to be within the realm of mathematics.
Yes. But right now, all they are is a fancy way to calculate stuff you
could calculate before a lot easier.
The ATTEMPT is, of course, to have a working theory. So for? No, not yet.
>>>> This is where you get very confused about the
>>>> difference between scientific inquiry and creationism,
>>>> Bill. Making wrong guesses is not unscientific.
>>>> Clinging to wrong guesses is.
>>>>
>>> There is no scientific evidence against the existence of "God".
>> Because it is not falsifiable. Not even in theory.
>>
> The problem is that you are defining "God" in a special way, that
> is not bounded by any rules of science.
Nope, I am not. "There is a god" is not falsifiable in the same way as
"there are aliens" or even - still simpler - "there are black swans" is
not falsifiable. I don't NEED a definition of god to know that this
hypothesis is not falsifiable.
So within that limited
> meaning of "God", there's always some way for "God" to outsmart us.
>
>
>
>> We've covered that
>> ENDLESSLY. There can be no "evidence against the existence of god"
>> because the question doesn't ALLOW for it.
>>
> I don't think that the question is very well defined. I agree that
> this has been discussed before, and a lot.
>
>
>
>> Falsify "There are black swans". It is the same sort of question. It
>> CAN'T be falsified.
>>
>> (That's the reason science doesn't USE such questions)
>>
> It has to be expressed in a way that you can falsify.
Absolutely correct.
If you look
> at all the swans and none are black, that's evidence that there
> aren't any black ones.
Nope. It just is evidence that the swans you found aren't black. That's
because you can't look at all the swans.
But then we get into the question of what
> "all" means.
Oh, I think we need not argue about that. "All" is "all". Problem is,
how do you get ALL the swans.
So the question "There are black swans" should be
> rephrased, not the whole thing just tossed out as not part of
> science.
Oh, not tossed out. It isn't tossed out.
It just is that the hypothesis "there are black swans" isn't usable and
therefor can't be adopted.
So you "rephrase" it, and usually you do that by saying the hypothesis
is "there are NO black swans" and try to falsify it.
In case of swans, this is pretty simple. Find one (Australia has them,
btw.).
Same as SETI, btw. Hypothesis is "there are no aliens". And they try
like hell to falsify that....
Tokay
--
The harder you fall,
the higher you bounce.
Anonymous
|
