And nobody considers that something that needs to be looked into? Because I think that is very interesting, it could change perspective on evolution. At least at the extend of how far species evolve. I mean, hereditary characteristics are stored in the DNA molecule. If that cannot have generations.... how can a species evolve? Because in the end, DNA HAS to evolve to make all the species possible.
Originally posted by queeq
And nobody considers that something that needs to be looked into? Because I think that is very interesting, it could change perspective on evolution. At least at the extend of how far species evolve. I mean, hereditary characteristics are stored in the DNA molecule. If that cannot have generations.... how can a species evolve? Because in the end, DNA HAS to evolve to make all the species possible.
DNA changes every time an egg is fertilized.
Originally posted by queeq
No, new DNA is formed.
What do you mean when you say DNA? Do you men chromosomes? Do you means genes?
If you rearrange the building blocks that make DNA, you will get a completely different animal. It is like taking a news paper and cutting all the words out. You can then rearrange the words to make new stories that were not in the paper before.
Originally posted by queeq
I don't need anything cleared up. People keep saying the two have nothing to do with it because it's a different field of science.
blah, ok, this is probably going to need more explanation.
Lets make an analogy, we will say that the methodology of science is the same as the methodology of building a house. In both, there is a desired outcome (building a house v. explaining natural phenomenon). Now, when you build a house, or describe a phenomena, you need tools. Tools, in science, can also be called theories. It may be tempting to say that specific research methods are tools, and not theories themselves, I would disagree as any method is based on theoretical frameworks.
Ok, further, when you build a house, you have many many many tools to serve a wide variety of function, and aside from just throwing a bunch of these tools in one case, there is no omni-tool. There is no single tool that can both put in finishing touches on trim or paint AND dig the foundation. Nor is there any reason to think (or even attempt) that these tools will ever be "just one tool" given how diverse the tasks in building a house are.
We can make a general "timeline" of tool use to create a house, and we can see that various stages of house completion are completed best with different tools. Sure, maybe you do use a hammer occasionally when digging foundation, but the digging is of much more relevance.
Now, lets say instead of building a house we are trying to explain life. This explanation will have many stages, much like the house. And also much like the house, these different stages will require different tools to accomplish our goal. Evolution is probably like a nail gun. Once that initial foundation (origins) is in place, the nail gun is hugely effective and involved in many other steps (and could even be helpful in the building of a foundation), but there is no reason to say, a priori, that the nail gun must be used to build the foundation. It seems silly to think such a thing, and I can't imagine someone having a long contracting career if they acted in such a manner.
So, likewise with evolution, only we are working backwards instead of forwards. When you build a house, you have a blueprint and it is very easy to see what tool will accomplish what task. When studying life, the blueprint is the holy grail of research. Without having access to the blueprint of change over time, we cannot assess what tool (scientific theory) will best describe the origins of life.
This is not a case of science being segmented. In fact, evolution has brought together more fields of science than any other theory that I can think of off the top of my head. It has unified ideas from bio-physics to anthropology.
Literally, what your goal has to be, is to describe why scientists HAVE to assume a priori that evolution explains something it was not designed to explain. Essentially, you MUST describe why the nail gun HAS to be used to build the foundation. Since you are also saying that evolution is THE way that life came from non-living organisms, you must explain why the nail gun is the ONLY acceptable tool to use when building the foundations.
Originally posted by queeq
All I am saying is that people HAVE limited their views to their own field.
lets break down the abstraction. What is a specific example of this? What field of science needs to borrow what from any other field.
Originally posted by queeq
Looking over the borders of their own backyard would help in them not holding so fast on ideas and calling them undisputed fact, like some do in here.
Even if this were true, by itself it does not prove that any theory is incomplete. You would have to show unequivocally that a theory cannot be accurate if it is not holistic. Since that requires you to prove a negative, it is impossible.
While the idea is nice, there is no reason to assume that segregated fields of science need to unify for better results.
Originally posted by queeq
Once you have a look at someone else's garden (you don't have to investigate it, but once in a while eavesdrop would suffice) you may begin to understand the relativity of what you find so darn important that you feel justified to corner people, call names and what have you.
this isn't even an argument, its a veiled "If you only knew what I knew" attack, thinly at that.
Well, put up or shut up. No more abstractions, no more "science needs X". Were I studying evolution, what "field of science" should I be looking to, for what purpose, and to get better results in which experiment?
Originally posted by queeq
One thing I don't understand though... evolutionists don't belive in creation or God... why do they get so bloody upset once someone brings up they don't even believe?
It would be something similar to why you got offended when I asked you about the "scientists" you knew. It is something entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.
It is true that there are more non-believers than believers in evolutionary research (by ratio even more pronounced than in other science in general). It is also true that a major bias of this type could produce skewed results.
However, this is entirely untrue, as many religious individuals study and research evolution, and have no difficulty rectifying their beliefs with evolution.
That doesn't explain your question though. Well, if all you are interested in is the fact of whether or not an individual believes then I don't think anyone here would mind that. The fact is, that isn't what you are interested in when you ask it.
Now, I'm not saying this is YOUR tactic, but it certainly is A tactic. We are discussing evolution. Asking about a person's belief in this regard is, or has been in the past, a very quick way for people who believe in God to dismiss whatever a non-believer says, without the need of rational thought. If you want me to hit some deeper cognitive theories on this, I will, but suffice to say, not being religious is seen as a reason for some religious people to not even pay attention to what is said. Look at ushomefree. The fact that he has certain knowledge about God, allows him to dismiss any form of knowledge that is incompatible with that idea, and prevents him from experiencing cognitive dissonance when very logical arguments are presented.
As any one of us who defend evolution will tell you, this is probably the most annoying thing ever. There is nothing more deflating than typing a well thought out post, only to have it quoted with a link at the bottom to some web page making the same argument you just refuted.
The fact of the matter is, religious belief and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive, and there is no reason to assume they should be. While most people are open with their spirituality, it depends a lot on the context. I, as have many others, have had extremely negative experiences with this type of questioning in the context of evolution, to the point where many in the field of evolutionary research outright refuse to debate creationist ideas. I wouldn't do it in person, and only engage in it on the internet because I can legitimately just walk away and stop posting when it gets retarded.
I am not religious. Socially, I would be labeled an atheist, but I don't self identify. Give me one good reason, and if you can show some evidence to back it up, that my religion or lack there of is important to this debate.
THat post is way too long, I''m not gonna answer this. I you don't recognise that scientists in general look very little to other but related fields, then you don't. Science in theoretical methodolgy is something else than its practise.
And I didn't get upset by your question. I thought calling me an idiot went a tad far. But that seems common practise here and there so I don't mind.
Originally posted by queeq
THat post is way too long, I''m not gonna answer this.
🙁
Originally posted by queeq
I you don't recognise that scientists in general look very little to other but related fields, then you don't. Science in theoretical methodolgy is something else than its practise.
from my last post:
Originally posted by inimalist
This is not a case of science being segmented. In fact, evolution has brought together more fields of science than any other theory that I can think of off the top of my head. It has unified ideas from bio-physics to anthropology.
Originally posted by inimalist
lets break down the abstraction. What is a specific example of this? What field of science needs to borrow what from any other field.
Originally posted by inimalist
Even if this were true, by itself it does not prove that any theory is incomplete. You would have to show unequivocally that a theory cannot be accurate if it is not holistic. Since that requires you to prove a negative, it is impossible.While the idea is nice, there is no reason to assume that segregated fields of science need to unify for better results.
Originally posted by inimalist
Well, put up or shut up. No more abstractions, no more "science needs X". Were I studying evolution, what "field of science" should I be looking to, for what purpose, and to get better results in which experiment?
So we agree entirely that we shouldn't talk about theoretical science any more. So, lets stop talking about it.
***Note, at this point your argument has essentially boiled down to, "If you don't agree with me there is something wrong with you, so I don't care".
EDIT: I will even give you an example. Kinesiology uses much of the psychology of action in the theories it proposes. However, Kin is frequently using theories about action schema which, while VERY important, are not necessarily the best theories offered in neuroscience for similar phenomena. Were neuroscience and kinesiology to amalgamate, the theories and research that neuroscience has done in the past 30 years on preparation and planning of action would have a major, and imho beneficial, impact on the way human movement is understood (and clearly vice versa, I just am not as knowledgeable on kin, which is the point obviously). Can you give me something like this for evolution?
Molecular research and nanotechnology. yes it is uin its infancy but it can have major ramifications.
We don't agree. Because these separations show exactly the limitation of science, which I am happy to accept. We have to make artificial segments in reality, so we can subdue them to empirical and scientific research. And we should talk about theoretical science because that's what allows us to weigh conclusions. The "shut up I am right because it's all been proven , so leave me alone to do my job" approach is fairly common, but far from pure science. Science should focus on collecting facts, empriral research and experimental work for insights on causal relations. Naturally a model comes forth so science can predict future outcomes as well.
An example of such arrogance is that once I was doing a programme for a christian broadcaster on old age. And we felt it might be funny to do an interview with someone not looking forward to becoming a pensioner in a fossil with some lovely big fossils... Dinosaurs and stuff like that. But because we were doing it for a christian broadcaster they wanted to be sure that if we talked about species and stuff we were only allowed to do it from an evolutionary POV. This kind a thing also happened to me when we did something on molecular research. Now I found this outrageous. And for two reasons:
1. the assumption that you do something for a christian braodcaster and therefore you're out to talk about creation
2. That you restrict filming a collection paid by public funds to tell only the story you want to tell. The museum should display items with as much info as possible but tot censor what's being said about the items... ? I dunno.... good example of why we SHOULD talk about theoretical science. because I doubt such arrogance and censorship display an open mind.
Originally posted by inimalist
what from molecular research and nanotechnology needs to be incorporated into the theory of evolution and why?
I've said that several time now. Read before you post.
But I'll give yuou another example of te arrogance of evolutionists. In Germany a Christian foundation called Word and Science are being crucified publicly by scientists for their view on how life evolves. Now, for Christian standards they hold a very liberal view. They do not support the young Earth theory. THey go quite a long way with evolutionists but they also advocate that in CHRISTIAN schools, NEXT to evolutionism, some kind of creationist approach is being taught so kids will now what views are out there. Sound pretty open minded to me, but not according to evolutionists. They find that archaic and are accusing this foundation, that is just doing scientific research on a large number of fields, of bad practise and almost of indoctrination.
And then there is a European law that kinda tends to forbid any other view on life evolvement to be taught. So far for open mindedness.
Originally posted by queeq
I've said that several time now. Read before you post.But I'll give yuou another example of te arrogance of evolutionists. In Germany a Christian foundation called Word and Science are being crucified publicly by scientists for their view on how life evolves. Now, for Christian standards they hold a very liberal view. They do not support the young Earth theory. THey go quite a long way with evolutionists but they also advocate that in CHRISTIAN schools, NEXT to evolutionism, some kind of creationist approach is being taught so kids will now what views are out there. Sound pretty open minded to me, but not according to evolutionists. They find that archaic and are accusing this foundation, that is just doing scientific research on a large number of fields, of bad practise and almost of indoctrination.
And then there is a European law that kinda tends to forbid any other view on life evolvement to be taught. So far for open mindedness.
I that that word crucify. For a second I actually thought you were serious. 😮
Wort und Wissen, (which actually translates to "Word and Knowledge" I think) is a creationist/cdesign proponentsist organization not particularly different to their ironically named U.S. counterparts Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute. It similarly doesn't perform any research or discovering that I'm aware of, and is more interested in promoting a Genesis-based "theory" that allows for "variation in kind" but not beyond "Basic Types" without any particular mechanism preventing it, and playing argumentum ad ignorantiam not unlike certain members of this forum. Essentially they want to teach ID.
Fine for a philosophy or religious instruction class, but not for a science class.
But I'm open to whatever publications (actually in support of their "theory" and not about something unrelated) you have available that actually come from this organization (and not from people who happen to be associated with it) that's been peer-reviewed and accepted into a respectable scientific journal (and not just some unrefereed book or religious periodical.) E.g. I don't particularly care about Siegfried Scherer's findings on FTIR published in 2008, while he's apparently being persecuted.
Additionally I'd be interested in reading whatever statute forbids an alternative science than evolution from being taught in a science class as opposed to precluding an alternative to science being taught in a science class. As well as looking at the scientific literature supporting any alternative scientific theory than evolution for the explanation of the empirical data we have available, that does so as well as or better than evolution, and holds merit sufficient to warrant its inclusion in science curricula alongside evolution that would even necessitate such a law - as I'm sure such a thing would likely garner a Nobel Prize.
It's rare I see anyone but a creationist or intelligent design supporter use the term "evolutionism." I'm also curious in what way "molecular research" (whatever that's supposed to mean, besides the molecular biology and biochemistry that's already used) and nanotechnology should contribute to evolution and why - as far as I'm aware this is the first time you've mentioned nanotechnology in this thread to do as you suggest and go back and read would seem rather fruitless.
Isn't quoting yourself rather anathema to not wanting to repeat yourself.
Originally posted by queeqSo you've talked about what nanotechnology can contribute to evolution in this thread somewhere already and why it should? Not according to the KMC search function, which admittedly does suck.
I'm noty gonna repeat what I posted several times before. RBYP.
Originally posted by queeqI didn't necessarily say they advocated teaching Creationism in science class.
And Wort und Wissen does do research. And it's not about teaching creationism in science class but at a Christian school. Again: RBYP.
But out of curiosity under which curriculum does W&W advocate teaching creationism where it would be alongside evolution? And on a side point do these schools receive government funding?
Also feel free to link some of Wort und Wissen's research. I'm open to whatever publications (actually in support of their "theory" and not about something unrelated) you have available that actually come from this organization (and not from people who happen to be associated with it) that's been peer-reviewed and accepted into a respectable scientific journal (and not just some unrefereed book or religious periodical.) E.g. I don't particularly care about Siegfried Scherer's findings on FTIR published in 2008, while he's apparently being persecuted.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But out of curiosity under which curriculum does W&W advocate teaching creationism where it would be alongside evolution? And on a side point do these schools receive government funding?
You seem like a clever person. What possibilities WOULD there be on a Christian school apart from science?
Originally posted by queeqThey could advocate its teaching in religious classes or philosophy classes. If they advocate its teaching in science classes of government funded schools, well sucks to be them, 'cause the government decides curricula and accreditation. If they advocate its teaching in completely privately funded schools, I don't much care, if parents want to send their kids to a place to learn non-science in a science class then that's up to them, but the government still decides accreditation I would assume.
You seem like a clever person. What possibilities WOULD there be on a Christian school apart from science?
Also you ignored the rest of my post.