Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Somehow somethings such as physical size and amount of fur can be
changed very rapidly. I think they are potentially included in the
DNA of the species.
> 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.
>
I think that there's something going on that is more complicated
than just the bare DNA. If you change the environment, I think that
can cause the rapid expression of various capabilities that were
already there.
> Some leaps are present, where actual structural changes occur in the
> genome. Like the change from 48 chromosomes to 46.
>
Is "genome" the genetic make up of the individual or the collective
genetic make up of the species?
> 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.
>
We are talking about the rapid expression of attributes that don't
have time to "evolve" from not being a capability to being a
capability.
> >> 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.
>
I haven't discussed it in this thread.
> >>>>> 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.
>
It doesn't explain "how".
> >> 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.
>
I don't believe that the mathematics is called "string theory". I
think that "string theory" uses some maths to build up possible
physical realities. But since there are many, if not an infinite
number, of string theories, it's not predictive.
> >>>> 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.
>
If "God did it" is true, that's a big damn deal. It doesn't give
you the physical mechanisms, but it's still huge.
> >> 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.
>
A fifth what?
> 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.
>
Except that it gives the right results, supposedly, but they just
picked a string theory that gives results the same as current
observation.
> >>>>>> 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..."
>
String theory has no predictive power if it can output anything.
> 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.
>
"42" was a clue that there is something wrong with the Earth. That
clue lead to the actual origins of the Earth. So your reference is
interesting in relation to "God did it".
> >> 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.
>
What predictions does your string theory make? Are they testable?
> >>>> 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.
>
Do these extra dimensions fit with observed reality?
> >> 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.
>
The underlying issue is why is string theory "science" and
"Creationism" et al. can't be?
> >> 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.
>
But it only calculates to whatever you could get other ways because
they have defined it that way.
> >>>> 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.
>
It has to do with *how* you are stating it, not the issue itself.
> 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.
>
Which can be done with black swans.
> 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.
>
I could look at all the swans in principle.
> 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.
>
If you limit the swans to swans on planet earth, you can look at
enough of them to make a statement about 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....
>
Exhaustive searching isn't possible in some cir***stances.
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
|
