Author Topic: IPUs, Religion, Science, and all that Jazz  (Read 45674 times)

robertmarkbram

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • The Blog for Rob
Reply #25 on: September 17, 2007, 10:32:42 AM
Here is my short discourse on what religion and science means to me.

I am of the notion that the implicit purpose of our religious texts (Bible, Talmud, Koran) is to provide a rule book and moral compass for a society. They tell us how to live. And because we all have a very basic need to believe in something bigger, more powerful, more meaningful than ourselves, these texts are written in terms of the actions and words of gods, angels, devils, saints, prophets etc.

As our societies change, our rules change; our sense of morals change. Unfortunately our religious texts have not changed as well. We are left with books that reveal we are not all equal and that belief in other gods is wrong. We should not look for literal truths in outdated texts. I would rather that we read these texts as parables to be interpreted and changed as we change.

Science represents our best understanding of the world as we know it at the time. Science and our understanding of the world as revealed through science changes in time. What we consider fact now is nothing more than what we can currently understand and can prove in some way.

I see a natural link between science and religion. Science is all about trying to understand and explain things. Many of our myths are religious stories and try to do that too: explain some natural event in terms of one god or other. Eventually, we reached the point where enough people began to wonder if it was really Thor, Guruwari or Yahweh that caused that light in the sky, shaking ground or pestilence among the people. Our curiosity grew beyond the stories we would tell each other, and soon enough our equipment and growing knowledge showed us that there other explanations.

I see this is as being the dichotomy broached in this thread: do we still need religion to explain things to us when science has an answer too?

I believe the answer is intrinsic: science is about what we know and religion is about how we should live. Both of them should change as we change, and we need to understand that what is right today, can be wrong tomorrow. Without this we will find it hard to adapt.  [ erm.. evolve. :) ]

One last thought. We have a lot of religious hierarchy who do manage to interpret religious texts in different ways, and sometimes those appear to be positive ways. However, I am not convinced they have the good of society in mind. Instead they have a lot to protect: money and power. I have the same sense of cynicism for our political and business structures. None of these large organisations have the good of humanity at heart, because the need for making money and gaining power is too high a priority. We will never have a good balance between religion and science for this same reason: as long as someone has to be wrong for someone else to be right.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #26 on: September 17, 2007, 01:30:42 PM
Evolution simply means that species change and diversify based on reproductive pressures.  That's all.  [...]  Species change based on reproductive pressures.  That's observable.  Any gardener knows this.  [...]  Am I missing something here?

You apparently missed the part where I defined my terms.  ;D

I called the phenomenon you are referring to "adaptation"–which involves the refinement of existing traits–and acknowledged that it occurs every day.  I then distinguished between this and "Evolution"–which involves the genesis of new traits.  I claim that that they are fundamentally different ideas.

My dictionary seems to agree with me.
Adaptation - (biology) A change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment; the process of making such changes.
Evolution - The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth; (a brief explanation of the history of the idea follows).

The first is a vague blanket term while the second is quite specific.

I'm thinking I might have to get a new dictionary, since the definitions provided by the Oxford American Dictionary always seem controversial.  Curse Apple for making a defective widget!

   Blind opposition to evolution be caws my pastor / priest told me its wrong. Is just beyond understanding.

I agree.  You might notice that I haven't–in this thread–mentioned priests, holy books, supreme beings or divine revelations.  I honestly wasn't planning to at any point in this conversation.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 01:36:09 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #27 on: September 17, 2007, 01:46:17 PM
My dictionary agrees with me.
Evolution - The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth; (a brief explanation of the history of the idea follows).

And you deny that this happens?!  You really believe that species don't develop and diversify from earlier forms? 

I have no words to explain how this baffles me.


Quote
I agree.  You might notice that I haven't–in this thread–mentioned priests, holy books, supreme beings or divine revelations.  And I honestly wasn't planning to at any point in this conversation.

Okay, then...  What the hell, I'll put the revolver on the table.

Since you don't believe in diversification of species through reproductive pressure, Mr. Tweedy, and since you're not about supreme beings in this context, how do you explain the birds, the bees and the bromeliads?  What's the mundane mechanism for species origin that makes more sense to you?

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #28 on: September 17, 2007, 02:14:23 PM
Quote
called the phenomenon you are referring to "adaptation"–which involves the refinement of existing traits–and acknowledged that it occurs every day.  I then distinguished between this and "Evolution"–which involves the genesis of new traits.  I claim that that they are fundamentally different ideas.

But they aren't. Your argument doesn't hold up w/ basic biology. It's not that you don't believe in evolution that no one agrees with you -- which you've claimed. It's that your biology is wrong.

If you really think your biology is strong enough that you know what you're doing, then go argue with the biologists. Try this on Pharyngula, or if the atmosphere there is too hostile, go to The Panda's Thumb. Every one of your arguments has been made there and rebutted. They'll either point you to the places where you're disproven, or hash it out again.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #29 on: September 17, 2007, 02:19:02 PM
My dictionary agrees with me.
Evolution - The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth; (a brief explanation of the history of the idea follows).

And you deny that this happens?!  You really believe that species don't develop and diversify from earlier forms?

That's something of a trick question.  Yes, of course they do, but this process involves the refinement of existing features.  Such as your example with dogs: Dogs have legs, ears and hair.  Hence, you can breed a dog with long legs, short legs, thick hair, little hair, pointy ears, floppy ears, etc.  But you can't breed a dog with tentacles (although it would be pretty cool).

Traits already present within organisms can be made more or less prominent by selective breeding, but new traits cannot be created from scratch.  I have no trouble accepting that weasels could diversify into minks, ferrets and martens.  Those are different breeds of the same basic critter: None of them has any traits that the others don't have; they've just got them in a slightly different mix.  But I do have trouble accepting that iguanas could diversify into weasels, canaries and killer whales.  For that to happen, the iguana would have to generate numerous new traits that it does not have.  This requires the generation of complex information that did not previously exist.  (I think the term "info-genesis" sounds good.)

Adaptation does not involve info-genesis.  The genes are already there.  Breeding just reshuffles them so that some are expressed more prominently than others.  Evolution, in contrast, requires that new genes–new information which previously did not exist anywhere in any form–be created.  It requires you to breed a dog with tentacles*.  That is what I don't believe happens.

*I suppose you could filch genes from a squid and stick them in the dog, but even in that case you wouldn't be creating a new gene.

Okay, then...  What the hell, I'll put the revolver on the table.

Since you don't believe in diversification of species through reproductive pressure, Mr. Tweedy, and since you're not about supreme beings in this context, how do you explain the birds, the bees and the bromeliads?  What's the mundane mechanism for species origin that makes more sense to you?

You already know that I think an Inventor made all this stuff.  I just wasn't going to bring Him up here (although, strangely, all the atheists seem very eager to do so).  My disbelief in Evolution is not dependent upon my belief in God, so I don't have any need to bring Him up when explaining it.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 02:47:57 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #30 on: September 17, 2007, 03:13:08 PM
Against my better judgement…

As to your faulty understanding of evolution.  As I pointed out in a previous comment, it is about shared, common ancestors. There was not an ancient lobster that evolved into a dog. There was an ancient bilateral worm which evolved into other worms, some of which eventually evolved into shellfish, some of which eventually evolved into dogs. However that split was well before worms got hairy and developed big puppy eyes.

The next big point: New genes DO evolve. Here´s a paper on one:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=528974

As they say in their introduction “Much is known about the origins of new genes by means of exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, recruitment of transposable elements, horizontal transfer, gene fission/fission, and the generation of coding regions from noncoding regions of the genome, each with many examples.“

I can hear you already saying "but that´s just rearrangement, not a new gene" so I have to ask: Do you actually understand what a gene is? Do you understand what a protein is? Do you understand the idea of protein families and superfamilies, of conserved folds and active sites? Do you understand how proteins function, how they can be modified and how new activities develop when parts of proteins are swapped around or mutated? Do you understand how proteins interact with each other? How cellular processes are controlled, affected, adjusted?

A new gene is one which codes for a protein which performs a new function. If the original gene coded for a dehydrogenase and yet a few minor mutations take place and now it doesn´t act like a dehydrogenase, but instead is capable of cleaving sugars it is now a new protein with a completely different function. And it is coded for by a new gene.

Do you understand that evolution is not talking about dogs vs lobsters, but the change to one cellular pathway which eventually can result in huge morphological differences?

There is not a gene which encodes a fully functional tentacle. There are genes which start a particular cellular process. Further process act, different genes/proteins activated and deactivated and when a lot of this happens in a very specific way you have a tentacle. You seem to expect  “Bang! Mutation! Fully Formed Tentacle Appears” but that is not how biology works.

Now if you´d read and understood the biology of the article I posted earlier on limb/genital formation, this point should have been clear. That demonstrates that an existing pathway, one used for creating protuberances was “hijacked” into creating a new protuberance, one which then evolved further and further until it is the penis we all know and love today.




The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #31 on: September 17, 2007, 03:55:32 PM
Against my better judgement…

As to your faulty understanding of evolution.  As I pointed out in a previous comment, it is about shared, common ancestors. There was not an ancient lobster that evolved into a dog. There was an ancient bilateral worm which evolved into other worms, some of which eventually evolved into shellfish, some of which eventually evolved into dogs. However that split was well before worms got hairy and developed big puppy eyes.

Yes, wherethewild, I understand that.  I'm not quite as stupid as you seem to think.  I used "iguana" because, as I understand the most recent update of the evolutionary tree, birds and mammals are both descended from creatures that would be classified as reptiles.  Birds went one way, mammals went another, and some reptiles stayed pretty much the way they were.  Through many branchings and dead-ends, the ancestor mammal split into many species, one of which stayed on land and eventually went through its own splits to became genus Mustelidae and some of which returned to the water and became the order Cetacea.  My use of four contemporary species was an intentional equivocation for the purpose of creating an illustration.  I am well aware that no one has ever claimed that the weasel is a descendent of the iguana.

And yes, I know what a gene is, and I know what a protein is, I know that there is no single tentacle gene (you might notice that I used the plural "genes," when describing the transference of a tentacle onto a dog), and I can answer "yes" to every last one of your other questions.  I am not a professional biologist: I do not posses a thorough and profound understanding of every chemical process that occurs within a cell, but I know enough to understand with perfect clarity every sentence you have written and every sentence you have linked to.

I will read this new article you've posted just as I read the other three.  I will do this for my own information, but I obviously cannot discuss it with you.  You have preemptively established that disbelief in Evolution is proof of ignorance, stupidity and dogmatic indoctrination.  Unless my reaction to this article is along the lines "I'm convinced!  Now I believe!" you will assume that my irrational dogmatism has prevented me from understanding it.  Surely I can have no intelligent dialog with you if that is your attitude.

I will also note that your attitude–that those who do not believe in Evolution are not qualified to criticize it–effectively insulates your belief from all criticism.  The assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid by definition is hardly conducive to objective thinking.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 04:05:30 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #32 on: September 17, 2007, 04:18:53 PM
That is the second time in this thread that you have claimed I think this. I do not. What I do think is that someone who does not understand biology is incapable of arguing about biology.

You assure me that you understand it all. Okay. Your illustration was then, rather than the simple misunderstanding I perceived it to be, a deliberate misconstruction of evolutionary theory. You are building strawmen.

In all of your tirade against my attitude, you haven´t yet knocked down the theories put forward, except to say “I don´t buy it”. THAT is not conducive to objective thinking.

The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #33 on: September 17, 2007, 04:26:55 PM
That is the second time in this thread that you have claimed I think this. I do not. What I do think is that someone who does not understand biology is incapable of arguing about biology.

You assure me that you understand it all. Okay. Your illustration was then, rather than the simple misunderstanding I perceived it to be, a deliberate misconstruction of evolutionary theory. You are building strawmen.

In all of your tirade against my attitude, you haven´t yet knocked down the theories put forward, except to say “I don´t buy it”. THAT is not conducive to objective thinking.

Actually, I said

All evidence is circumstantial, nothing is actually proved and the researchers start their investigation with the assumption that breasts must have evolved from something, they've just got to guess what.  And, of course, no experiment is possible, so the criteria for proof are entirely arbitrary.

I would also add that this article does not claim that a new organ was generated, simply that a generic gland became specialized.

To which you responded

You want to dismiss the entire body of knowledge which has been created and still growing in science for the mythology of your holy book.  Regardless of anything that science could show you, your mind is so closed and your indoctrination so complete that it´s an absolutely pointless waste of time talking to you.

But whatever.

Are you willing to listen to and consider my attempt to "knock down" a theory or do you think that my ignorance is so evident that my ideas are not worth listening to?  If you're interested in listening, I'll gladly demonstrate the depth of my ignorance and justify your assumptions.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #34 on: September 17, 2007, 05:43:06 PM
i think what everybody has said in this thread comes down to faith is faith and you can't shake me from mine.

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #35 on: September 17, 2007, 05:48:38 PM
i think what everybody has said in this thread comes down to faith is faith and you can't shake me from mine.

Faith is faith, but Science is Truth!



swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #36 on: September 17, 2007, 05:55:13 PM
exactly

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #37 on: September 17, 2007, 06:06:42 PM
Steve pretty much nailed my feelings on the subject in the intro to 123.

I believe in God.  I believe in evolution.  Like most of my faith and science, I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.


FNH

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • F Napoleon H
    • Black Dog Of Doom
Reply #38 on: September 17, 2007, 06:19:51 PM
Now let´s get to the monkey thing. Your Uncle isn´t a monkey (well he might be, one of mine certainly acts like that occasionally).

LOL

Apes and humans share a common ancestor. This common ancestor was neither an ape nor a human as both of those two branched off later.

You seem to have "faith" is that arguement   :)  What I would ask is, where is the proof?  All there is a theory based on some apparent and disjointed facts.

You appear to be trying to argue simply because you think it´s personally offensive that you could in someway be compared to an ape. If that´s the case, then there is no point continuing this discussion with you.

I'm not at all offended.  It's an interesting discussion!  I thought the "uncle" statement was funny, sorry if I've come across as angry.  :D



FNH

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • F Napoleon H
    • Black Dog Of Doom
Reply #39 on: September 17, 2007, 06:28:19 PM
Someone crosses a Labrador and a poodle and calls it a Labradoodle?  They've just practiced limited evolution.

A common misconception, you bred a "dog" from two "dogs" in that example.  It's a definition thing.


FNH

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • F Napoleon H
    • Black Dog Of Doom
Reply #40 on: September 17, 2007, 06:38:04 PM
Faith is faith, but Science is Truth!

... if you have ... faith in it.  :D

But on a more serious note, putting your "belief" in in all  that science claims is a danger in itself.  As a non-scientist you have to take what they say on faith, and hope that they are not claiming "whatever" for thier own benefit.


Swamp

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2230
    • Journey Into... podcast
Reply #41 on: September 17, 2007, 06:55:01 PM
Faith is faith, but Science is Truth!

But where did that Truth come from?

Science is truth as understood by human beings with an extremely limited point of view, yet with equally sized arrogance and self-importance.

I am not against science in any way, other than when scientists look down on me with condescension because I believe in God or brush aside my faith as prattle.

If everyone nurtured both their intellect and their spirituallity (or failth), we would all be so much better off.  The forest (God and spiritual laws) is often not seen because the focus is only on the tree (Science and physical laws).  Science is essential, yet so is Faith.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 08:30:52 PM by kmmrlatham »

Facehuggers don't have heads!

Come with me and Journey Into... another fun podcast


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #42 on: September 17, 2007, 06:56:42 PM
Faith is faith, but Science is Truth!

That is incorrect on two levels.

First, science is not truth.  Science is a method of discovering truth.  Real scientists practicing real science can come to wrong conclusions.  For example, geologists used to think that the continents were fixed in place; they were wrong, but they were not less scientists for their error.  Conversely, one can learn truth without using science.  For example, I know that you live in Germany, but I did not use any particular method to discover this.

Second, as FNH pointed out, one must have faith in a person if one is to believe what that person is saying.  There is no aspect of human interaction that does not require some level of faith, and believing the word of scientists is a kind of faith.  For example, I believe the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium is what makes the sun shine.  I cannot prove that this the case, but–since I see no evidence to the contrary–I believe what I have been told about it.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Alasdair5000

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
    • My blog
Reply #43 on: September 17, 2007, 08:21:09 PM
Steve pretty much nailed my feelings on the subject in the intro to 123.

I believe in God.  I believe in evolution.  Like most of my faith and science, I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.

What he said.



wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #44 on: September 18, 2007, 06:43:50 AM
Are you willing to listen to and consider my attempt to "knock down" a theory ...

Yep.

Science is a method of discovering truth. 

Agreed.

Second, as FNH pointed out, one must have faith in a person if one is to believe what that person is saying.  There is no aspect of human interaction that does not require some level of faith, and believing the word of scientists is a kind of faith.  For example, I believe the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium is what makes the sun shine.  I cannot prove that this the case, but–since I see no evidence to the contrary–I believe what I have been told about it.

Disagreed. The point about Science, as opposed to faith, is that is based upon the establishment of theories which may then be investigated by anyone and be supported or disproven. Unlike faith, where it is not possible that I recreate your experiences with your God, you may certainly recreate and investigate any experiment. Science is not based on faith. Your acceptance of an experiment or theory may (or may not be) "just believing what those science geeks say", but that is only because you´ve chosen not to learn enough about it to be able to understand, support or refute it. That does not mean that it cannot be observed by anyone, regardless of language, culture or religon.

The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #45 on: September 18, 2007, 03:45:43 PM
Second, as FNH pointed out, one must have faith in a person if one is to believe what that person is saying.  There is no aspect of human interaction that does not require some level of faith, and believing the word of scientists is a kind of faith.  For example, I believe the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium is what makes the sun shine.  I cannot prove that this the case, but–since I see no evidence to the contrary–I believe what I have been told about it.

Disagreed. The point about Science, as opposed to faith, is that is based upon the establishment of theories which may then be investigated by anyone and be supported or disproven. Unlike faith, where it is not possible that I recreate your experiences with your God, you may certainly recreate and investigate any experiment. Science is not based on faith. Your acceptance of an experiment or theory may (or may not be) "just believing what those science geeks say", but that is only because you´ve chosen not to learn enough about it to be able to understand, support or refute it. That does not mean that it cannot be observed by anyone, regardless of language, culture or religon.

I agree and disagree.  Yes, any science can, in principle, be independently verified.  That's an important part of what makes it science.  But it practice it is not possible for every person to learn everything and perform every experiment.  It is not really possible for me to gain access to ever tool used in every discipline and learn every theory and recreate every experiment for myself.  That would take 12,517 years.

In theory, we could verify everything for ourselves, but in practice we have to trust each other.  That's essentially why there are different disciplines in science: There isn't time for everyone to study everything.

I'll write more about "knocking down" later, possibly not 'till tomorrow.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #46 on: September 18, 2007, 03:55:35 PM
I'll write more about "knocking down" later, possibly not 'till tomorrow.

I´m leaving town sometime in the next 48 hours and not back for 2 1/2 weeks. So you may have to wait for a response, or others here will have to do so.

The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #47 on: September 18, 2007, 05:29:28 PM
if you refuse to talk to your god you will never understand yourself.
if you refuse to study since you will never understand your world.
bouth would be a pitty

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #48 on: September 18, 2007, 07:47:43 PM
I’m going to go with this article that werethewild linked to because it contains the phrase “sonic hedgehog,” which surely incites fond nostalgia in at least a few of you.

The article explains how specific genes and hormones (such as sonic hedgehog) cause limbs and genitalia and sprout from the torsos of mammalian embryos.  The specific genes that incite the formation of limbs and genitalia are very similar, similar to the point that a leg and a penis are almost identical when they first start forming.

Evidence for this similarity is presented.  Chemical tests show that the same genes are active in both cases.  A defect in a given gene may may result in deformities in both limbs and genitals.

Synopsis: Even though limbs and genitals are very different organs, the same process is responsible for causing them both to sprout from an embryo.

--------------

Up to this point I have absolutely no argument or disagreement with anything.  This is pretty much my reaction to every article about biology and Evolution I read: I accept the facts.  I accept the experimental data.  I believe that the processes are described accurately and that no one is incompetent or lying.

I accept the facts, but what do these facts prove?

The author of the article claims that it proves Evolution.  A common process is used to perform multiple functions, and this is taken as evidence that the process must have started out having one function and later been co-opted to perform the other.  To quote the article, “Evolution reuses what it can; it's far easier to develop a novel protuberance by switching on an existing 'protuberance pathway' in a new place than to generate entirely new molecular mechanisms to do the same thing.”

I say this is a non sequitur.  A common function does not prove a common origin.

What does it prove?  I say it proves nothing at all about origins.  For a given function, there is a given tool that does it well.  Sonic hedgehog makes protuberances sprout from embryos, and so sonic hedgehog is used whenever a protuberance is needed.  What else would you expect?  This says nothing at all about where sonic hedgehog came from.  It proves only that SH is a useful machine.

Now, if one starts with the preconception that Evolution is the origin of all functions, then naturally interpretation of the evidence will follow this preconception.  This is the case with all evidence about all things.  But if we start with no preconceptions, we see that this evidence really says nothing about Evolution one way or the other.

I do not dispute the facts.  I dispute the interpretation.

(Wherethewild, I am in no way trying to distort or misrepresent anything.  If I made some mistake or do not understand something, please take it as an honest mistake and correct me.  Don’t assume I’m trying to mislead.)

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #49 on: September 19, 2007, 03:16:11 AM
The author of the article claims that it proves Evolution.  A common process is used to perform multiple functions, and this is taken as evidence that the process must have started out having one function and later been co-opted to perform the other.

Where in the text does the author claim that it "proves evolution?"  Please point me at that, because I missed it.  At most this is simply a mechanism that is consistent with predictions an evolutionary biologist might make.  No rigorous scientist would call that "proof."  This writer didn't, and he didn't use your words "must have," either.  In the context of the blog, this post is clearly intended as correlative evidence of evolution, but no one's calling it definitive.  Your argument here is a strawman argument.

(And why are you capitalizing 'evolution' every time you use the word?  It's not a proper noun.) 


Quote
Now, if one starts with the preconception that Evolution is the origin of all functions, then naturally interpretation of the evidence will follow this preconception.  This is the case with all evidence about all things.  But if we start with no preconceptions, we see that this evidence really says nothing about Evolution one way or the other.

If you're walking in a field and see an acorn on the ground, and an oak tree a few yards away, then only your preconceptions might lead you to connect the acorn with the tree.  If you have no preconceptions, the evidence of the acorn really says nothing about the tree one way or the other.

If you're walking in a forest, however, and see hundreds of trees and thousands of acorns upon the ground, and some of the trees have budding acorns upon them, then you really should feel justified in inferring a connection, even if you never see an acorn fall during the short time you're walking.


Quote
I do not dispute the facts.  I dispute the interpretation.

Now let's say you're walking with a forestry expert, and the expert says "Acorns come from trees."  You are not a forestry expert.  You say, "Don't be ridiculous!  Look, here's an acorn, and it's on the ground.  It's not on a tree."  The expert coughs politely and points out some acorns hanging on trees.  You say, "What does that have to do with anything?  I'm talking about this acorn!  Right here!  This one is on the ground!  You can't prove it has anything to do with a tree!"


Each of these bits of evidence, sonic hedgehog and everything else, is an acorn.  Are you going to inspect each one individually and say that it, alone, doesn't prove evolution?  If you lift your eyes from ground level and observe that there are thousands of them, they're highly consistent with each other, and there are trees all around you, does that signify nothing?

More to the point, do you really think you're smarter and better informed than the sum of the world's biologists, practically all of whom believe that evolution is a fundamental and well-founded mechanism of their science, with a huge mass of observational evidence supporting it? 

How sure are you that you're the clear and critical thinker in this game, and that the people who spend their lives studying this science are all banally misguided?  What's your insight that they don't have?  Given your self-confessed lack of scientific knowledge beyond the lay level, how confident are you in your superiority?  And what's the rational basis for that confidence?

 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 03:18:11 AM by SFEley »

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine