Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I'm no expert, but I guess that yes, they just happened.

When you have a whole planetary surface (and oceans and atmosphere) and who know how many years for molecules to randomly interact between themselves and a variety of temperatures (and variations of same), radiation, electricity, pressure, etc, a lot can happen.

At some point some molecule accidentally develops the ability to crudely mount copies of itself from similar molecules nearby. From that, the variants with better duplication ability end up simply overlasting others.

I don't know that to be how DNA and RNA developed, but I have very little doubt that it was so.

I believe there are lots of things we don't know and very likely never will know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I found the article interesting but -- it showed me that doctors will approve stents even though they are aware statistics show they do not increase the lifespan of the patient.

Where in that article did it say that or imply it? I saw nothing in it that would lead me to that conclusion.

My guess is that they do it for money.

Money can motivate people to do such things, but so can personal belief.

So this is not necessarily in regard to evolution, but to how humans perceive things, in this case called facts. And how the "unwary" believe the experts.

But there were no facts in that article that support your conclusion. What you perceive is based on a bias to see a desired conclusion and not the natural conclusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are attempting to learn knowledge it has taken me 40 years of study and research to learn and squeeze it all down to a few days, weeks, perhaps months with the sole intent of demonstrating it all wrong. And I recognize that 40 years of knowledge is incomplete. More than some, but less than others.

I fail to see what significance there is in considering the number of times a cell can divide in all of this. I think your focus on things you find interesting can be as much misleading as it can be enlightening.

Because I believe God can solve these problems of aging. I'm still learning though. And yes, you have more education than I do on these things.

But people will often fixate on whatever they think will get them what they want. Even when it is more likely to take them no where due to misunderstanding their own time, abilities and ignorance.

It isn't as if you couldn't learn the basics and continue building on that. But the way you are going about it piecemeal and disjointed and starting above the base is going to lead to rather dubious results limited in extent and practical use.

I applaud your attempts, but I think you should focus on understanding the basics and then moving up.

I am trying to work on the basics. Shall we say "from the ground up"? As a disclaimer, can I or anyone say they understand everything in the Bible? I daresay no, they cannot.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where in that article did it say that or imply it? I saw nothing in it that would lead me to that conclusion.

Money can motivate people to do such things, but so can personal belief.

But there were no facts in that article that support your conclusion. What you perceive is based on a bias to see a desired conclusion and not the natural conclusion.

I believe the facts were that statistics show no difference of lifespan between those who took stents and those who did not. Yet doctors knowing this will still recommend stents to their patients. If I'm wrong about that, you can tell me. But until then I'm sticking to the suspicion I have that they do it for money. What other reason can there be if they know the patient statistically speaking, of course, will not live longer than those who did not take stents. OK, I'm changing that -- I am not referring to the article right now to see if I'm right, but why do you think doctors who know the patient that receives a stent will not necessarily live longer than one who does would recommend they get a stent? For what reason? And frankly, I doubt a doctor being asked would say outright that they do it for money...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because I believe God can solve these problems of aging.

That would be a topic for a different thread.

I'm still learning though.

We always should. There are always things to learn regardless of what you already know.

And yes, you have more education than I do on these things.

The point is that dismissing those with greater knowledge of a subject merely on personal belief is a bad idea.

I am trying to work on the basics.

I think that is a good idea..

Shall we say "from the ground up"? As a disclaimer, can I or anyone say they understand everything in the Bible? I daresay no, they cannot.

That has been a significant point I have continually made while on this forum.

 

[Altfish]

It must be nice to have Priests (called "Peers") to answer every question or to at least explain why they are irrelevant to our omniscience.

It would be good if the answers were correct and based on proven evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the facts were that statistics show no difference of lifespan between those who took stents and those who did not. Yet doctors knowing this will still recommend stents to their patients.

That is a personal prediction and not a conclusion of the article. It doesn't elevate that article to evidence of the failure of science. Even if doctors do as you predict, the science is still there and still sound.

If I'm wrong about that, you can tell me.

I don't make the same prediction. Doctors might do that. But the conclusions of the experiment are still there to show that they were wrong for doing so. The science remains sound.

But until then I'm sticking to the suspicion I have that they do it for money.

The could. But human motivations, good or bad won't change those conclusions or make the science flawed.

What other reason can there be if they know the patient statistically speaking, of course, will not live longer than those who did not take stents.

You are talking as if your prediction has been fulfilled and using that to make a determination that science failed. Were your prediction to be seen, it wouldn't have anything to do with the validity of the science. It would be about the failure of ethics and greed. Trying to tie that all back to science and declare that an unrelated outcome leads to rejection of science is failed before it launches.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe there are lots of things we don't know and very likely never will know.

Indeed.

It just happens that the formation of early DNA and RNA molecules hardly qualifies as much of an unlikelihood.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not against conversation with you in general, but specifically, I'm interested that it be meaningful and on point. That claims are followed with evidence and explanation supporting the claims.

I'm not sure I understand that. That seems like an argumentum ad populum to me. What other's may think could be correct, but it could be wrong. Using only what is popular and what others merely claim to know isn't a sound basis for concluding in favor of those popular claims in my opinion. Popular opinion could be based on misconceptions, misinformation, ignorance or bias among other things. Even if it is not, it would be better to know why these others accept it and to examine their reasons and reasoning to get where they got. Those I have seen that accept the theory base that acceptance on the evidence and the demonstration of that evidence supporting the theory.

I agree.

That is an issue that I do not understand. It has been demonstrated that population gene frequencies change over time. So the basics of the theory are established. There is experimental evidence for selection, both in natural and artificially in agriculture.

@It Aint Necessarily So has a much more informed voice on this subject than I do and perhaps may choose to respond as well if we are lucky.

I read the article and do have some thoughts. I didn't come to the conclusion you have based on what the article states. It was an intensive study with a large sample group specifically looking at the outcome of invasive surgical procedures compared to drug therapy and lifestyle change on those with stable heart conditions. The finding is that drug therapy and life style change were as effective as surgery. Especially good news to those that are uncomfortable with surgery.

I see this a scientific success. There was a question regarding the efficacy of two different treatments. One surgical and one medical therapy alone. This is right from the article. “This has been one of the central questions of cardiovascular medicine for a long time: Is medical therapy alone or medical therapy combined with routine invasive procedures the best treatment for this group of stable heart patients?”

The evidence indicates that medical treatment and lifestyle change had equivalent outcomes to surgery, so the surgery (which has risks all of its own) could be foregone in favor of non-invasive treatment in those with stable heart conditions. Stents and invasive surgery were seen to remain more efficacious in those with coronary artery disease who also had symptoms of angina.

I didn't see that there was a conclusion that doctors were ignoring this and performing surgery anyway. It seems clear to me that this would give doctors more evidence to come to treatment decisions and would likely reduce the number of surgical procedures as a treatment.

I think you misinterpreted the conclusions of this study. It isn't a case where scientists are ignoring the science and doesn't act as evidence that scientists could have gotten the theory of evolution wrong. For one, you are trying to make an association between a specific set of medical circumstances and an experiment that isn't designed to challenge any theory and comparing that to a body of evidence, rather than a single study supporting a theory. It wouldn't make much sense to turn the theory of evolution over just because of one questionable study and the study you reference isn't questionable as near as I can see.



I'm still at a loss to see that it challenges science or the findings and how that applies to the theory of evolution. The article indicates the groups that the findings apply to and those where it does not. I clearly shows that within the specific study group, treatments had equivalent outcomes, thus giving evidence to favor medical therapy over surgery for the specific group of patients.

I appreciate that you actually brought evidence to the discussion. That is the sort of thing I'm in favor of in these discussions.

Ok. I've been looking at this website and thinking about the question of truth. Here in part is what it says:
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education.
I wonder if you agree.

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed.

It just happens that the formation of early DNA and RNA molecules hardly qualifies as much of an unlikelihood.

Right. But nothing that I know of shows how they came about.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a personal prediction and not a conclusion of the article. It doesn't elevate that article to evidence of the failure of science. Even if doctors do as you predict, the science is still there and still sound.

I don't make the same prediction. Doctors might do that. But the conclusions of the experiment are still there to show that they were wrong for doing so. The science remains sound.

The could. But human motivations, good or bad won't change those conclusions or make the science flawed.

You are talking as if your prediction has been fulfilled and using that to make a determination that science failed. Were your prediction to be seen, it wouldn't have anything to do with the validity of the science. It would be about the failure of ethics and greed. Trying to tie that all back to science and declare that an unrelated outcome leads to rejection of science is failed before it launches.

No. I am speaking of how people think and make decisions and whether they are willing to reveal the reasons if it makes them uncomfortable. Since I don't know, I guess we can consider this discussion over.

 

[cladking]

It would be good if the answers were correct and based on proven evidence.

Exactly.

The entire "theory of evolution" rests on assumptions and interpretations rather than experiment.

To say it another way no experiment rules out vastly different interpretations than Darwin and "survival of the fittest". No experiment shows species change gradually a little at a time. Logic merely says healthy individuals have healthy offspring that are just like they are. No change in species.

This leaves us with the knowledge species change but no experiment to show gradual change or the cause of change. We assume many things.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a personal prediction and not a conclusion of the article. It doesn't elevate that article to evidence of the failure of science. Even if doctors do as you predict, the science is still there and still sound.
But
I don't make the same prediction. Doctors might do that. But the conclusions of the experiment are still there to show that they were wrong for doing so. The science remains sound.

The could. But human motivations, good or bad won't change those conclusions or make the science flawed.

You are talking as if your prediction has been fulfilled and using that to make a determination that science failed. Were your prediction to be seen, it wouldn't have anything to do with the validity of the science. It would be about the failure of ethics and greed. Trying to tie that all back to science and declare that an unrelated outcome leads to rejection of science is failed before it launches.

No. I am speaking of how people think and make decisions and whether they are willing to reveal the reasons if it makes them uncomfortable. Since I don't know, I guess we can consider this discussion over.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok. I've been looking at this website and thinking about the question of truth. Here in part is what it says:
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education.
I wonder if you agree.

I've already said that I agree in trying to explain this very thing to you.

That it understanding can change doesn't mean that it will or is incorrect either. Which I believe is the direction you are trying to take this.

If a theory is tentative and subject to falsification, that everything surrounding that knowledge is automatically falsified on the mere possibility is an erroneous contingency.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would be good if the answers were correct and based on proven evidence.

I would consider that a miracle.

The theory of evolution has assumptions, I've listed them several times while others seem afraid to even try, but it rests on the evidence of observation and experiment.

There are no experiments or observations that falsify natural selection. The say so of the clearly uninformed offers no reason to consider that it has been falsified.

The evidence supports that species change gradually over time. Speciation is not defined as a change in an individual over it's lifetime or a change in the F1 generation or immediately subsequent generations. But somewhere over a variable span of extensive time the F^nth generation represents a new species from gradual change driven by natural selection. There is experimental evidence supporting this. I have seen it posted on this forum and have posted some of it myself. It is ignored by believers for lack of understanding as much as the desire to reject it without review.

Rejection and the substitution of fantastical, personal belief as fact by the clearly uninformed is no challenge to science either. The merely make many unsupported and equally uninformed claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I am speaking of how people think and make decisions and whether they are willing to reveal the reasons if it makes them uncomfortable.

I'm not sure that you have established the relevance of this line of inquiry or that it applies to science found to be sound in the face of desire by so many different observers for such a considerable length of time.

Since I don't know, I guess we can consider this discussion over.

That is up to you. I am ok however you decide.

 

[Pogo]

Ok. I've been looking at this website and thinking about the question of truth. Here in part is what it says:
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education.
I wonder if you agree.

I just walked up my basement stairs with my three stents and many drugs, without them I could nor walk around the grocery store to do my shopping. That the experiment is being done whether Stents are more effective than drugs is a really stupid question as you are proposing it. Stents were demonstrated to improve blood flow and very useful, they were approved for improvements for heart care. I met a coworker who was happy to see me at the cardiologist because he had a quadruple bypass plus stents.
That you are worry about an article that indicates that they may have been used excessively in hindsight as an argument against the scientific method is actually just an indictment of your religion that keeps you from thinking about these things rationally.

Medicine and science work.

 

[John53]

I've already said that I agree in trying to explain this very thing to you.

I've written down a prediction of how this will end....

 

[Altfish]

Exactly.

The entire "theory of evolution" rests on assumptions and interpretations rather than experiment.

To say it another way no experiment rules out vastly different interpretations than Darwin and "survival of the fittest". No experiment shows species change gradually a little at a time. Logic merely says healthy individuals have healthy offspring that are just like they are. No change in species.

This leaves us with the knowledge species change but no experiment to show gradual change or the cause of change. We assume many things.

You need to do more research, look up the correct articles, this is a great site ...

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[YoursTrue]

I just walked up my basement stairs with my three stents and many drugs, without them I could nor walk around the grocery store to do my shopping. That the experiment is being done whether Stents are more effective than drugs is a really stupid question as you are proposing it. Stents were demonstrated to improve blood flow and very useful, they were approved for improvements for heart care. I met a coworker who was happy to see me at the cardiologist because he had a quadruple bypass plus stents.
That you are worry about an article that indicates that they may have been used excessively in hindsight as an argument against the scientific method is actually just an indictment of your religion that keeps you from thinking about these things rationally.

Medicine and science work.

Not a matter of used excessively, and I'm not worried about it. The fact of the article is that given the statistics of longevity for heart patients that were given a stent and those who weren't, the longevity is the same, with or without a stent.