Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Aw, we're talking about science here and the validity of it as if there is nothing possibly untruthful within the ranks of science research and publications, as well as truthfulness of reports. Not sure what you mean by true cross anyway.
Maybe that scientist won't make up data any more when he gets out of jail.
The fossil record shows much of it.
The fossil record certainly can show progression of organisms. Humans, for instance, were not around when fish were first formed. Genetics certainly do relate organisms to an extent. These things, however, do not prove in the sense of demonstrate for a certainty such things happened as said by scientists by random chance mutation.
And not till then
No, you are not talking about science, you are talking about human frailty via a polemic opinion piece. In fact, the observation that these frauds were caught is a positive considering that removing humans from research is rather impossible until AI actually becomes intelligent. It is the peer review and replication of scientists that makes it a useful source of knowledge, something that does not happen in your conjecturing on the basis of an old book of stories and myths.
The process of change, associated with evolution, is a reasonable assumption and can be inferred by fossil data. Where I differ is how/why this change occurs. The random and statistical models, common to the Life Science, are pseudo-science. Tell me what drives any black box random process? Is it a drunk goddess called lady luck? Random is an assumption with no tangible or rational source. It is a math assumption and not a statement of fact based on laws of science. Tell me the facts!
Next: ask Harris when she realized Joe was losing it.
It isn't an assumption. It is a demonstrable fact that can be observed and quantified in extant populations of living things.
Statistical models aren't the mechanism of change, they model it. Not a pseudo-science. A method of analysis and description.
Genetic variation being acted upon by the non-random selection of the environment.
The random nature of the variation is the random component. Mutations cannot be predicted other than knowing they will happen. We don't know and can't know what mutations will happen.
The environment that lead to prior evolutionary paths has changed. The world in which dinosaurs evolved doesn't exist anymore in the sense that the environment over the course of that evolution isn't repeatable under current conditions.
We don't really know that it hasn't happened, but there is no evidence to show it is happening now. And also, not evolution.
Not yet, but who knows what tomorrow might bring.
Different dice, different table, different casino, different place altogether. The expectation that dinosaurs would arise now, under conditions is non-zero, but not very good.
The current model does fine and takes the nature of the environment into account. Good enough to accurately predict Tiktaalik, generate hypotheses and valid explanations for obersvations.
Life repeats. Mutations happen regularly enough to build a clock from them. The environment continues to persist. Gravity seems the same. Atmospheric oxygen has changed over time. Continents have arisen, collapsed and shifted over time. The environment changes over different scales of time. Change may not be as obvious over a single lifespan, but there change happens.
There is no linear progression, even as things change over time, which is the most basic definition of the theory.
Using statistics to draw conclusions and make predictions is very scientific. In fact, Fisher, Haldane and Wright dramatically changed how science is carried out and interpreted leading to a much more stable and rapid advance in our acquisition of knowledge.
Single events going from 0 to 1,000,000,000 in a single step have astronomically infinitesimal odds of success, but a series of small steps over time that accumulate with increasing benefit to fitness do not have the odds so stacked against them.
Infinite dice would still be rolling infinitely with no end or outcome. It's craps before they start rolling.
A stepwise, gradual branching process selected by the environment is a much better, more parsimonious explanation that is supported by the evidence.
Agreed, a totally random process is not observed.
Unfortunately, for your modeling, a linear increase is not what is observed from the evidence and experimentation. Complexity is a result of evolution, but not a demand of evolution. Simplicity has also evolved where traits are reduced and/or lost.
It isn't, so nothing should be done. The statistic are employed in experimental design and to help determine if observations are significant and to provide confidence that the results are not merely random chance.
No idea what you mean here.
Yes. The non-random component of the phenomenon of evolution.
Yes. Agreed.
Complexity can advance. It does not have to. Stable environments conserve complexity or even lead to the reduction of it. The Earth is not a closed system and has a continual source of external energy.
It is the seemingly irreversible change in the environment that results in what is observed. The environment being all the internal, external, biotic and abiotic factors that impinge on the populations. It includes competition, cooperation, symbiosis and all the array of interactions that impact living things and change.
I'm not sure what you mean here either.
I encourage you to look up Franz M. Wuketits - Wikipedia, a scientist who had similar views to you about assumption regarding the acceptance of the theory of evolution. While many scientists do not believe it is based on assumptions, but rather facts,or what is perceived as evidence, the truth of the matter is that it must be assumed that organisms evolved rather than factually recorded as mutations that caused a class of organisms to continue living, as posited by many scientists.
Be careful, many people that deny science based on their ideology will post a lot of nonsense in defiance of sound theory and supporting evidence. I think it is all they can muster as weak sauce when their goose is cooked.
No, you used a very very poor argument against science. By your standards your religious beliefs are false. You need to be consistent in your reasoning.
When you have nothing sound to offer in support of anti-scientific claims, the best that can be done is logical fallacies like false equivalence. If one or two bad apples exist, then the entire orchard of science is poisoned and can be rejected without review. I see this as expanded to mean, "I have no explanations to support my own claims, but this gives me tenuous, questionable and doubtful reasons to wish science away to the cornfield". Sound reasoning. Not.
Very good article, Thank you.So you agree with evolution but put limits on it?
That's not correct and it actually poses a problem for evolution because it happened so quickly.
A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
For the first time, scientists have been able to observe something amazing: the evolution of a completely new species, in the wild, in real-time.www.sciencealert.com
Thank you, I can see here in the article, that only the smallest number of scientists believe in intelligent design, 148,800 scientists agree with evolution.Yes we know all about the Disco Tutes silly list of people who answered a question that was so misleading that even darwin could have said yes, For an example of actual scientists in the field (not dentists etc as in your example) See Project Steve,
Project Steve - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Thank you for all your words, I am currently looking at the information from both sides, still gathering information Thanks.
Thanks for the article, I will keep all the words in mind, I read the whole thing.
I agree with you 148,800 scientists believe in evolution, and only a little over 1,000 scientist believe in intelligent design. I am still gathering information from both sides, it is not that easy for me because I never really liked science when I was younger, now I seem to be a lot more interested.
Keeping an open mind is all well and good, but in this case there is no "both sides". If you learned the basics of science you would see this. In the sciences to even have evidence one needs a proper scientific hypothesis at first. And a scientific hypothesis must not only explain an aspect of nature, it also has to make predictions and the hypothesis can be tested based upon the predictions that it makes. If one cannot think of a proper test that could refute one's idea then one does not have a hypothesis and the idea is not scientific. It is just pseudoscience at that point.Thank you, I can see here in the article, that only the smallest number of scientists believe in intelligent design, 148,800 scientists agree with evolution.
I am trying to keep an open mind and listen to the information on both sides of the argument, thanks so much, every bit of information helps.
I read everything you said, I will keep your words in mind, but I disagree on this one point - As the long as there is two scientists, there is "both sides"
