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:
>>> 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.
Length of fur? Size? How about lengths of bone? How about teeth? How
about food processing? All there?
>> 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.
Actually, that's not far off track. It's called "junk DNA".
>> 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?
It is not a blue print, if you mean that.
It also is the genetic RECIPE for making the phenotype. It differs from
on person to another, from one animal to another, from one plant to
another even IF of the same species.
Take hair color. Simple example.
I will simplify a bit, because it is actually a little more complicated
than that.
(And not worked out completely as yet. But the theory works)
Say, you have one gene locus to define hair color. brown, blond, black
and red.
(I SAID I would simplify)
So, the four possible base pairs at this location code for the color.
So, if you have "blond" on both alleles, you will have blond hair. If
you match up with a black haired woman that has "black" on her alleles,
you will, on average have 50/50 black haired and blond haired kids.
So there is NO information there for red hair, right?
So, mutation occurs. Radiation, misscoding, whatever. ONE base pair is
changed. In your sperm. ONE sperm, probably. So you get a kid with red
hair.
(still chances would be only 50/50, even IF that sperm did make the race.)
Simple change, right?
(I KNOW hair color doesn't work like that. It's just to exemplify the
general idea.)
(I also know that genetics don't work like that.)
Add up simple changes like that. And you get new information.
The flaw here is, of course, that the genome isn't a blue print. You
can't look at the genome and say what the person would look like, any
more than you can look at a recipe and tell what the cake would look like.
It is a recipe, not a blueprint.
>> 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.
Junk DNA works that way. ONE mutation... and "junk" DNA gets expressed.
Can work fast.
>>>> 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.
You don't have an "out" folder? Is the idea that simple that you could
repeat it for me?
>>>>>>> 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".
What DOES it explain?
>
>
>>>> 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.
It ISN'T predictive right now. It can be used to make predictions, but
only in a much more complicated way than the "old" theories.
>>>>>> 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.
But for "goddidit" to be true as a scientific theory, you need to make
assumptions that aren't based on anything.
And for it to be CALLED true, you need to make a conclusive argument.
>>>> 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?
A fifth force.
There are four known so far, you know.
(Strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetic)
>> 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.
.... the same as current theories. Not "observations". The observations,
you can't argue.
But that is not the idea of string theory. The idea is to combine the
four forces in ONE theory. ONE theory that explains them all.
>>>>>>>> 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.
It can't output anything. It HAS to output the SAME results as the older
theories. Preferably with ONE theory, not four.
(Or two, that's the count right now, IIRC. Current theory can explain
and predict THREE out of FOUR. String theory is the attempt to include
the fourth.)
>> 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".
How is "42" a clue?
(Ehm.. you DO know what "42" refers to, don't you?)
(lol.... to the "initiated"... it's DNA again.... hehe)
>>>> 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?
Grml... I keep on saying that string theory makes as yet no predictions
that would render it falsifiable. Why do you ignore that?
>
>>>>>> 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?
You don't get the point what string theory and M-theory are, do you?
>>>> 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?
GRMLGRMLGRML... I repeatedly SAID that string theory is not really
science. Why do you ignore that. It is MATHS.
>>>> 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.
Nope. It attempts to calculate the four forces of the universe in ONE
theory, not in two.
>>>>>> 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.
The "issue" is the question. Are there black swans?
We CAN'T attempt to check all swans. Oh, we can "attempt", but we never
will succeed.
But the opposite, the hypothesis "there are no black swans" is easily
falsified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
(I don't want to push it down your throat, really. But that article
explains a lot.
>
>> 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.
Oh, and with all other things as well.
>> 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 never be sure that one won't be born tomorrow that would not be
black. Or green.
>> 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.
"enough of them" doesn't fit the purpose. ALL of them is the goal. And
that is not really possible.
>> 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.
But that is the idea. You make a claim, you better have the evidence to
back it up. Or your claim is of no merit.
And, to borrow Carl Sagans words, the more extraordinary your claim is,
the more extraordinary evidence you need.
And you can't get any more extraordinary than supernatural.
Tokay
--
"I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work."
Ben Franklin
|
