This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[osgart]

I think that you have that backwards. If you want to claim that it is guided you need to show that is the case. That life would evolve is clear, even without guidance. Guidance would only be needed if there was a specific goal in mind.

So guidance is open for question? Or just an unnecessary and irrelevant thing.

 

[Earthling]

That is a wise move. If life evolved it does not disprove God. If life did not evolve it does not prove God.

I disagree with that, but it isn't relevant. No need to bring God into it. Lets just move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. First a question is asked. You said that there may need be some education at this point even, meaning, I take it, that in order to ask the proper question or the question in the proper method, an education would be helpful, perhaps crucial. Makes sense to me.

2. The chart doesn't explain doing background research, and the thread, up to this point (where I'm at while I write this) unfortunately veers off into a creationist debate. I assume that it's self explanatory. You research the background having to do with the question you are asking. That's what I would do if I were trying to establish a possible answer to a question.

Any sort of research is a good starting point. I don't want to get ahead of myself yet.

3. Constructing a hypothesis. For the sake of clarification I look up the basic definition of hypothesis and came up with a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Right, but what your explanation lacks is that to be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable. As you have probably realized from life if you have an unknown and you observe it enough, whether it is how your neighbors dog gets into your yard or whether someone is trustworthy or not you begin to get a sense of what may be the answer. To be a scientific hypothesis your hopefully reasonable conclusion will be testable. One cannot simply assume that one's idea is true.

You are presenting, building would be a better term, a sort of model for a possible answer to the question. At this point you are looking at possibilities.

Right, we are examining possibilities early on.

4. You test to see if the possibility is a reasonable one. Will it produce the results you expect or some other results.

Ideally you find a test that it would fail if it was wrong. Even if it passes that test it does not guarantee that an idea is right, but scientists try to disprove concepts more than they try to prove them.

5a. If the procedure you've selected doesn't work, trouble shoot it, check for errors etc.

5b. If it does work record the data. You are recording your results, well, the procedure so far, for future reference and for peer review.

Actually all data should be recorded. Both successes and failures. Cherry picking the data is not proper in the sciences and if one ignores one's failures there will surely be another scientist that comes along and finds them for that person.

6a. If the results align with your hypothesis then you communicate your results, which may imply, to me, that the hypothesis wasn't a random set of possibilities but a specific goal? You wouldn't be looking for answers, as such, but rather building the model for a specific answer and testing that?

Right, a hypothesis is not neutral. We are going to have ideas on how things work and we hopefully would like to find that we are right.

6b. If the results only partially jive or not at all with your hypothesis then you created what you call experimental data which helps explain to me what background search might entail. Your failed hypothesis becomes background material for future hypothesis.

Correct. One learns from one's mistakes. Try to keep in mind the concept of "Not even wrong". That is far worse than being wrong. If one is wrong there is a chance to correct one's errors and still make an important discovery. If one is "Not even wrong" meaning one has an untestable idea, then one cannot advance.

7. Get back on the horse and ride. Uh, start again.

Yeppers, a never ending process. Look at physics. They are constantly finding limits to what the current theories cover. Finding what is not known is the first step in advancing in knowledge.

Not too bad of an approach so far.

 

[osgart]

I give up. How?


Where does your question come from?

.

I see nothing in evolution that demands that creatures develope functionality to survive without some sort of guiding principle that enables it. It seems to me that we are more than garbled output from senseless beginnings. So i would wish there was a way to test for that, because i naturally wonder if there is a guiding principle at work in evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree with that, but it isn't relevant. No need to bring God into it. Lets just move on.

Then you do not quite understand the scientific method yet. We don't know the answer, which would be the case if evolution was wrong, is never an excuse for God. And "We know this" does not refute God. If one wants to prove or disprove God one would have to define God and then the best bet would be in the realm of logic. Not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see nothing in evolution that demands that creatures develope functionality to survive without some sort of guiding principle that enables it. It seems to me that we are more than garbled output from senseless beginnings. So i would wish there was a way to test for that, because i naturally wonder if there is a guiding principle at work in evolution.

Part of the problem is that you are using an undefined term. What is "functionality"? What evolution does say is that a change that improves an organism's odds of becoming an adult and passing on its genes will be more likely to be preserved and passed on than no change at all and far more likely to get passed on than a negative change.

 

[osgart]

Part of the problem is that you are using an undefined term. What is "functionality"? What evolution does say is that a change that improves an organism's odds of becoming an adult and passing on its genes will be more likely to be preserved and passed on than no change at all and far more likely to get passed on than a negative change.

Functionality would be the wings on a bird is for flying, the hand to grab. A function entails that these things are made for an intended purpose, and that the purpose is accomplished. If it were senselessly done, these tools of purpose would not appear, but rather chaos would be the likely result.

 

[oldbadger]

What would it matter if I had not? You see your question is dishonest. You are trying to draw an unjustified conclusion to an answer for it.

I can answer your question, but there is no point in doing so. You tipped your hand by merely asking it. It looks like you are trying to do a reverse appeal to authority fallacy.

Ham fisted questions only demonstrate at best the incompetence of the person asking that question.

I thought so...........

 

[Subduction Zone]

Functionality would be the wings on a bird is for flying, the hand to grab. A function entails that these things are made for an intended purpose, and that the purpose is accomplished. If it were senselessly done, these tools of purpose would not appear, but rather chaos would be the likely result.

Your problem is that you started with a strawman. Wings on birds were not originally for flight. I am sure that you are familiar with Jurassic Park. They really botched the job on velociraptors. They looked much more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

Feathers existed long before wings. They were probably used for warmth and display purposes long before they flew. A feathered arm would also allow a dinosaur to incubate more eggs better.

Evolution is not a random process. You are only focusing on random variation. Natural selection is big part of it too and selection is the opposite of random.

EDIT: I see that images are not posting again. Click on the link or hit reply to see the image.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought so...........

Don't facepalm. You were caught being dishonest in a rather hamfisted manner.

 

[oldbadger]

I think Subduction Zone mentioned somewhere that his field was geology, but I could be wrong or may be thinking of someone else.

It's possible that we're never going to know now.

God loves laughter................................

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's possible that we're never going to know now.

God loves laughter................................

Please, you could not even be honest. How do you expect anyone to respond to you when you fail so poorly?

I told you that if you came clean I would respond. You could not even do that.

 

[oldbadger]

Don't facepalm. You were caught being dishonest in a rather hamfisted manner.

Ah........
Your typical example of hamfisted dishonesty, herewith:-
A question such as 'What science have you done?'

 

[osgart]

Your problem is that you started with a strawman. Wings on birds were not originally for flight. I am sure that you are familiar with Jurassic Park. They really botched the job on velociraptors. They looked much more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

Feathers existed long before wings. They were probably used for warmth and display purposes long before they flew. A feathered arm would also allow a dinosaur to incubate more eggs better.

Evolution is not a random process. You are only focusing on random variation. Natural selection is big part of it too and selection is the opposite of random.

EDIT: I see that images are not posting again. Click on the link or hit reply to see the image.

Selection implies choice.

I do not assert design btw. Just some sort of primitive intellect, haphazardly creating, and by trial and error coming up with interesting creatures. Velociraptors would be a reckless attempt by the evolution programming system. An error in adaptation.

 

[Skwim]

I see nothing in evolution that demands that creatures develope functionality to survive without some sort of guiding principle that enables it. It seems to me that we are more than garbled output from senseless beginnings. So i would wish there was a way to test for that, because i naturally wonder if there is a guiding principle at work in evolution.

Well, evolution is driven by several casual factors, without which it wouldn't take place.

.

 

[InChrist]

Do you think that the user name might be a hint?

I think so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah........
Your typical example of hamfisted dishonesty, herewith:-
A question such as 'What science have you done?'

More dishonesty. Personal questions are not answered without a good reason.

 

[InChrist]

Here is a rather long article on it with the background information that you need first:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And another basic article:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

And one more where not only has speciation occurred,we can still observe it right now:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

I am not sure why you linked those articles. I do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. I see the biodiversity represented in the over 8 million species in the world as a testament to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds that God built into the genomes of the originals. The finches have displayed changes and adaptations, as well as the blackcaps, but they are still birds and the salamanders though evolved into several subspecies with new color patterns and adaptations for living in different environments...are still salamanders.

If this type of observable variation is all evolutionists mean when they speak of "evolution" than there would be no controversy, but evolutionists extrapolate from the adaptations and variation of microevolution to macroevolution.

 

[osgart]

Well, evolution is driven by several casual factors, without which it wouldn't take place.

.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1135

Got it! Thanks

 

[Subduction Zone]

Selection implies choice.

I do not assert design btw. Just some sort of primitive intellect, haphazardly creating, and by trial and error coming up with interesting creatures. Velociraptors would be a reckless attempt by the evolution programming system. An error in adaptation.

Don't go by what you see in movies.