I think ID-ers can make the distinction. the point they're making is more like... where do all tehse laws come from? Did they just evolve accidentally after an accidental big bang or something, or were these laws created by a higher intelligence.
In the end I think the discussion will sorta end when it comes to how life started. That's something no one can explain, other than by pure chance (by big banging matter suddenly form cells that begin to multiply) or cells were 'made'.
queeq-
I do not know your stand on Intelligent Design or Darwinian evolution. I do, however, get the impression, that you are open to both views. In so, I ask that you view the videos provided in this post, and voice your honest opinion(s). As you may (or may not know), the majority of KMC members find me disagreeable, amongst other things (ha ha ha)! I simply cannot bestow such a request from them; I hope I am wrong!
In the videos, the narrator frequently refers to mechanisms--within the organisms--as "creations of God." If needed, ignore the "God" assertion, and pay attention to the points being made; the duration of all videos amounts to (about) 30 minutes. Upon the conclusion, you are free to attribute such organisms (and mechanisms within the organisms) to an Intelligent Agent or Natural Selection. What is your opinion? And take into account the scientific record, not the Bible.
Originally posted by queeqAt the moment maybe. But how matter can come into life will likely be proven some time if Scientific theories nowadays are right.
I think ID-ers can make the distinction. the point they're making is more like... where do all tehse laws come from? Did they just evolve accidentally after an accidental big bang or something, or were these laws created by a higher intelligence.In the end I think the discussion will sorta end when it comes to how life started. That's something no one can explain, other than by pure chance (by big banging matter suddenly form cells that begin to multiply) or cells were 'made'.
Originally posted by Bardock42
At the moment maybe. But how matter can come into life will likely be proven some time if Scientific theories nowadays are right.
There are no theories that explain how matter can come to life. There are only assumptions that it somehow must have happened, simply because it's there. No scientists EVER was able to create life out of matter and no one knows how to do it or has a theory how than can be recreated. In fact, tehre'only beginning to get a teensieweensie grip on the concept of big bang and what happened there on an electron or quarklevel.
My stance is double on the whole debate. Evolution has the best papers for a scientific model. You can work with it properly as a scientists, it gives many possibilities to EXPLAIN finds. Yet, to say that everything is PROVEN is absolutely wrong. But it's the best we have.
ID is just a bit more than an idea so far and only spans a very very little portion of the whole life-development science.
But I do find, and I come in touch with a lot of scientists, that evolution is very often used to explain things we don't know. The facts themselves are not explained by the finds, the theory gives the explanation. But the arranged of facts are not checked with the theory, in what way it could support or contradict. Evolution is used as a given. And that doesn't leave much room for alternative views. And that is a tad sad since evolution still has whole the size of a truck. But, again, it's by far the best we have to work with SCIENTIFICALLY!! And again, it has not directly to do with truth.
Originally posted by queeq
I come in touch with a lot of scientists
oooh 🙂
do they happen to be some variation of evolutionary biologist or molecular geneticist?
Your "warnings" against evolution are applicable ONLY to human evolution or other species where there are few examples.
Much of evolution is proven. "Macroevolution" has been shown in labs. At this point, what isn't know are the specific "Why does species X have trait Y?" questions.
Not to make a presumption, but you seem to be a soft IDer. Basically, it appears that you are trying to make people skeptical of evolution while a) not making any valid comparison to other scientific theories or ID itself and b) using very soft terms in describing ID while the most harsh terms in describing evolution.
Originally posted by inimalist
oooh 🙂do they happen to be some variation of evolutionary biologist or molecular geneticist?
Your "warnings" against evolution are applicable ONLY to human evolution or other species where there are few examples.
Much of evolution is proven. "Macroevolution" has been shown in labs. At this point, what isn't know are the specific "Why does species X have trait Y?" questions.
Not to make a presumption, but you seem to be a soft IDer. Basically, it appears that you are trying to make people skeptical of evolution while a) not making any valid comparison to other scientific theories or ID itself and b) using very soft terms in describing ID while the most harsh terms in describing evolution.
Yes, biologists and molecular geneticists indeed. And it's amazing how baffled they are by how these things work. Every time they find something out a whole new set of questions arise. They may seem oh so secure on teh outisde, but ask on and you'll find out how puzzeld and bewondered they all are. The pretense that everything is proven is nonsense. It's good work, the best we have so far, nothing else comes close, but it's not proven.
And how can macroevolution be proven in a lab???? It takes millions of years, lab work of that level has only been about for twenty years or so. They may have simulations that work in that direction and I believe it. There is plenty of evidence that species evolve. But to what extent exactly, and how, that is another matter. Mind you, we can only see molecules and atoms since 20 years, we're only on the verge of understanding how it all works.
I think ID will soon pass on or evolve. Even if it doesn't grow out to be a model, it's a good thing people contend currently accepted views. That way people have to re-evaluate their POV's, look at their stuff again, re=assess and this come to a deeper understanding. Even scientists that support ID are not complete baffoons, the y often have the same education as their evolutionary counterparts, are just as clever, they just have a different POV. But science is very very conservative, nobody likes someone rocking the boat of 40 years of work.
Originally posted by queeq
Yes, biologists and molecular geneticists indeed. And it's amazing how baffled they are by how these things work.
Not to sound like a dick, but why don't you hit me with some of their names so I can do a literature search on PubMed for their stuff. Maybe if I hear what you are trying to say expressed by them it will make more sense to me.
Originally posted by queeq
And how can macroevolution be proven in a lab????
It surprises me that your scientist friends aren't up to date on the most recent evolution literature, or that they haven't expressed these findings to you...
Anyways, there are nylon eating bacteria. They are another species (macroevolution) from a very similar bacteria that have a slim chance of reproducing a genetic trait that allows them to consume nylon. Now, prior to man producing nylon in the environment, this mutation was disadvantageous and thus not passed on. Once man began producing nylon, they became very useful. The bacteria with the mutation continued reproducing and due to selection and variation became a new species of nylon eating bacteria. That alone should be enough to prove the concept. However, it was replicated in a lab, where the initial bacteria, when introduced to a nylon rich environment, began to "evolve" into a nylon eating species.
A couple more things. This response almost certainly indicates that you do not know any molecular-biologists, because from the gene level, macroevolution doesn't really exist. While at larger scales species and macroevolution may still apply, genetically all life exists on a continuum, each organism being a stage in between two other organisms.
Oh, and the remark about it taking thousands of years and that being a major hurdle to lab work, while irrelevantly true, is a very typical meme of the ID crowd. It is a tactic that, without ever addressing a particular claim of any aspect of any theory pertaining to evolution, uniformly casts doubt on the research. Maybe you just have your memes mixed up, or grabbed some weird ones from somewhere, but why not explain what you mean a little more.
Originally posted by queeq
I think ID will soon pass on or evolve. Even if it doesn't grow out to be a model, it's a good thing people contend currently accepted views. That way people have to re-evaluate their POV's, look at their stuff again, re=assess and this come to a deeper understanding. Even scientists that support ID are not complete baffoons, the y often have the same education as their evolutionary counterparts, are just as clever, they just have a different POV. But science is very very conservative, nobody likes someone rocking the boat of 40 years of work.
This paragraph is what makes me somewhat skeptical of your scientific knowledge. Any real evidence against evolution would garner a Nobel prize. Scientists are highly competitive and very critical of each other's work. The need to reassess is in fact built into the scientific method....
Why not get one of your biologist friends to explain the scientific method to you?
Patronising is a favourite method of yours, eh? Very good.
Mind you, evolution is a MODEL, not a proof. The biologists en geneticists I know usually are not working on PROVING evolution. They work on how it works to see how they can cure people or retsore genetic defects. It's only in ordering their finds, and explaining how this came to be that evolution comes around the corner to serve as a background for the finds.
One particular interesting way of how it is used was when I did a documentary on the concept of brain activity during prayer and/or meditation. Two years ago some scientists (atheist scientists) believed they found through fMRI research that a particular spot in the brain lit up during that activity that was not used for any other activity. It was then explained that it must be some kind of phantom element in the brain, a remnant of the evolutionary development of self awareness. Sounds all fine and dandy.
But then last year a Canadian neurologist did the research again and found out that there was not one particluar spot but that brainactivity, though a unique pattern, was scattered all over the brain and many parts were active during prayer/meditiation/spiritual experience. So now the evolutionary comment makes no sense anymore. I don't mean to sy evolution is nonsense, but it show how it is used to explain things without proper proof. However, it fits within the model, so it is sound judgement. But unproven.
I find these kinds of assesments leading to a circular argument. Evolution is "proven" so we can explain how this works, see evolution is true.
And development of species, well that is old news. Species develop all the time. We are a lot taller than people 500 years ago, even 3000 years ago. We have other diseases, maybe even other abilities. But that doesn't make us a fundametntally different species, nor is that in sight.
Originally posted by queeq
The biologists en geneticists
I guess I am going to be a dick about this one now...
While I would love to address you post, why don't you substantiate this? If you know practicing research scientists, they will have published work. I would like to know who it is you are using as a source, so that I can look up what they are saying for themselves.
Which scientist, that you know, are you talking about?
Originally posted by lord xyz
I asked my science teacher how did cells know to have the stuff they have, like sperm cells have digestives to eat the egg cell wall. Her answer was it's just how evolution took place and that she really didn't know. I would like to know an evolutionist's answer.
"evolutionists" don't really exist, much like there are no "gravityists" or "long-term-potentiationists". Unlike a religion, scientists don't "believe" (ie: no isms) what they research, but rather believe in scientific methodology and what it produces. Evolution is a product of that methodology. Thus, whenever you would use the term "evolutionist", replace it with "scientist".
From an evolutionary perspective, there is the tautological "the qualities we see today were the most beneficial and thus passed on", but that would hardly help.
The evolution of sex is a highly controversial field, meaning there are many theories with few hard facts. Doing a quick literature search on Pub Med came up with so many results from so many species and over the most minute things, that the question of "sperm" in general may have never been answered, or may be only available in textbook style summations of research.
The best answer I can give without any serious research is that you are wording the question incorrectly. The cells had no idea what they would need. Cells can't think in such a way. However, some sperm would have been born with an enzyme that is more digestive than others, and they would have been more likely to impregnate the egg, not because they knew how, but just through natural variation.
Originally posted by inimalist
I guess I am going to be a dick about this one now...While I would love to address you post, why don't you substantiate this? If you know practicing research scientists, they will have published work. I would like to know who it is you are using as a source, so that I can look up what they are saying for themselves.
Which scientist, that you know, are you talking about?
And who are you to judge me on that.
Well, here check it out. prof. Jan Hoeijmakers and his team, Don't know all their names, but he's head of the department of the Erasmus University in Holland.
I also talked to a guy from LA, but he's more in the ID corner. Though not entirely since he rejects it. Have to look it up.
The brain guy was Prof. Dirk the Ridder from Antwer University and Dr. Mario Beauregard from Canada.
So, and who are your sources? Were did you get all your info and so-called knowledge? And why is it that you can not answer my questions about the methodology of scientific research and only counter it with the proof you found? Because when I question methodology, you come up with evidence.
pt 1
Originally posted by queeq
Jan Hoeijmakers
The only person on your list with real bio/genetic work. One of the first things that came up on the pub med was this:
an article where the premise is reliant on evolution. Clearly they don't seem too concerned with how "sketchy" the data is.
Originally posted by queeq
I also talked to a guy from LA, but he's more in the ID corner. Though not entirely since he rejects it. Have to look it up.
interesting....
Originally posted by queeq
Prof. Dirk the Ridder
...
well, aside from the glaring translation error, I looked him up:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Dirk%20de%20Ridder
He has no published work that even mentions evolution that I can find...
Originally posted by queeq
Dr. Mario Beauregard
Interesting...
He has this work:
and some interviews where he seems to indicate that the trend for scientists to attribute all facets of human behaviour to certain evolutionary principals is wrong.
That point says nothing about the credibility of evolution in general, but on the difficulty in doing evolutionary studies on species that there is only one variation of. With horses and pigs these problems evaporate very quickly.
Originally posted by queeq
nanotechnologist Cees Dekker
he is a nanotechnologist and admitted ID supporter. That being said, his work seems of the highest quality. I believe this is only possible because his work has nothing to do with evolution.
pt 2
Originally posted by queeq
And who are you to judge me on that.
Well, to begin with, I'm hardly judging YOU. In fact, both of my posts indicate that I realize I'm being a dick by making you come up with names.
However, and I think this is important, you said you knew biologists and genetiscists. The fact that this has now become "I've spoken to..." is not something I will address further, but does warrant some mention.
Who am I however? Well, as irrelevant as that is, whip it out and lets give a measure.
I work in the Attention research lab in the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario Canada. By definition I am a professional research scientist, though to be honest, I am still an assistant and undergrad.
My work has nothing at all to do with evolution, and I don't personally speak about it as an authority, and while, at this point, I have no published work, I just finished a poster for the Vision Sciences Society annual conference in Naples Florida which my university is going to shell out a bunch of dough to send me to. The poster and subsequent abstract are titled: Using Feature Previews as Probes of Selection in Conjunction Search: An Orientation-Colour Asymmetry in Within-Trial Priming.
Originally posted by queeq
So, and who are your sources? Were did you get all your info and so-called knowledge?
my sources on what?
I think the only claims I have made as of yet are about the Nylon bacteria, which are so famous at this point that there is a Wiki about them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase) with links and citations of the research papers.
Other than that, my knowledge of science comes from first hand experience and through specific "research specialist" training. Don't get me wrong, I'm no super-bad scientist, however, it is my day job.
Originally posted by queeq
And why is it that you can not answer my questions about the methodology of scientific research and only counter it with the proof you found? Because when I question methodology, you come up with evidence.
why don't you repost or quote the question again... The last point I remember you making was about the distribution of certain neural functions being impossible evolutionarily, which is incorrect. Ask again and we can get into it.
Originally posted by queeq
I really wonder who your sources are now, inimalist?
Name one thing that I have said that you would like me to back up and I gladly will.