Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by beavis

the "how" part yes, but ultimately there is a dearth of answers to the "why" questions.

I do not think "why" can or will be answered by philosophers, intellectuals, scientist or anyone else. I feel it is the ultimate question; that know matter the dearth of answers that mankind determines will always be completly
undertermined.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

No, they don't. That's the point of scientific discovery - best theory till another one comes along, no faith needed, just study of the evidence. I'm yet to see a hole in evolution as it stands, only missing parts.

Jag, I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I would like you make sure we're talking about the same thing.

When I say "Theory of Evolution", I mean the idea that millions of years ago and by phenomenal randomness, suddenly, from no life whatsoever came life, and from that life all the species of the planet, including humans "evolved". This is sometimes shortened to "Molecules to Man".

In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.

Science, to me, means you can PROVE and DUPLICATE your results. If Scientist A has a theory, they advance their theory, and scientists B C and D take that theory and can DUPLICATE the tests and obtain the very same results, then yes, that is a valid theory. That is science.

The big bang can't be duplicated. A primordial soup with no life in it suddenly having life in it can't be duplicated. There are no transitionary forms in nature. There is no duplicatable evidence for origins, Jag, and therefore origins is not science.

Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.

[Kitsune]

Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.

Oh, wow. I've been missing out on some serious fun in this thread. Attention, paleontologists and historians specializing in works before 500AD -- your work is no longer needed.

In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.

So you're saying that scientists cannot examine the fossil record and draw conclusions based upon their findings? You're saying that we cannot use particle accelerators to understand how energy and matter are interchanged and then use our findings to describe the dark matter and cosmic background radiation that we observe in space? And that we cannot take those generated theories and to generate a computer simulated model of how the universe began, how it will expand, and then how it could possibly contract?

Some things in science cannot be contained or duplicated in a laboratory and are, instead, held to tests in simulations and mathematical descriptions of the event. Nuclear testing is now done this way, high energy experiments are now conducted in this manner, and just because we cannot recreate a blackhole in a chemistry lab or observe one in space does not mean that we cannot postulate what creates them, how they will progress, and how they will end. Its a way of working with things greater than can be handled or reproduced and its been done long before computers ever made complex simulations possible. Oppenheimer may have successfully exploded an atomic bomb, but it wasn't possible without using observations to formulate a theory to do something that no one had ever done before.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

So you're saying that scientists cannot examine the fossil record and draw conclusions based upon their findings?

They can examine the fossil record all they want. It's the "draw conclusions based upon thier findings" part I have a problem with. All you know based upon the fossil record is that something died. You can't prove that thing reproduced or in most cases, even died at that location. The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.

You're saying that we cannot use particle accelerators to understand how energy and matter are interchanged and then use our findings to describe the dark matter and cosmic background radiation that we observe in space?

Sure we can. That's reproducable, observable science. I have no problem with science.

And that we cannot take those generated theories and to generate a computer simulated model of how the universe began, how it will expand, and then how it could possibly contract?

No. Well, people CAN, and they have, but to me, that is not reproduable, observable science. You can have all the guesses you want, it's not science, regardless of the terms you use. I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science. You can guess your great grandparents were apes, but that's not science either.

Some things in science cannot be contained or duplicated in a laboratory and are, instead, held to tests in simulations and mathematical descriptions of the event. Nuclear testing is now done this way, high energy experiments are now conducted in this manner, and just because we cannot recreate a blackhole in a chemistry lab or observe one in space does not mean that we cannot postulate what creates them, how they will progress, and how they will end.

Postulate all you want. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.

Its a way of working with things greater than can be handled or reproduced and its been done long before computers ever made complex simulations possible. Oppenheimer may have successfully exploded an atomic bomb, but it wasn't possible without using observations to formulate a theory to do something that no one had ever done before.

But an atomic bomb is reproducable and observable, isn't it?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

But an atomic bomb is reproducable and observable, isn't it?

The effect of our most powerful nuclear weapons is theoreticlally reproducible and observable, but not practically. They are based purely on theory, prediction, and simulation. Hopefully, there will never be any observable proof of their power.

[Undertoad]

You can't prove that thing reproduced or in most cases, even died at that location. The rest is pure speculation.

Actually you CAN prove they reproduced, using fossil DNA.

The plot of Jurassic Park was that scientists were able to clone dinosaurs from the DNA of the blood of ancient mosquitos trapped in amber. That was science fiction... but based on science fact. In fact scientists have extracted DNA from fossils trapped in amber. (Just not in the living condition they'd have to be in, in order to clone.)

The presence of DNA absolutely proves that the same mechanisms for reproduction, and the passing along of genetic material, was happening in these beasts from long ago.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The effect of our most powerful nuclear weapons is theoreticlally reproducible and observable, but not practically. They are based purely on theory, prediction, and simulation. Hopefully, there will never be any observable proof of their power.

All of the parts, fission/fusion, physics and chemistry, etc ARE reproducable and observable. And at a most basic level, the bomb itself is reproducable and observable. And I 100% agree, it's not something I WANT to reproduce or to observe. But it is science.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Actually you CAN prove they reproduced, using fossil DNA.

[snip]

The presence of DNA absolutely proves that the same mechanisms for reproduction, and the passing along of genetic material, was happening in these beasts from long ago.

You can prove they were capable of reproduction. That does not prove the animal in question reproduced before it died.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

In fact scientists have extracted DNA from fossils trapped in amber. (Just not in the living condition they'd have to be in, in order to clone.)

Amber, and salt.

[Undertoad]

Wha -- why would you need to prove that?? You know that its parents did!!

[OnyxCougar]

*I* don't need to prove it, but LOTS of scientists speculate lots of things from the fossil record that they shouldn't. Read any article critically, just like you do a political article, and you'll see what I mean.

Interestingly, scientists date the strata by what fossils are contained in that layer, and they date the fossils by which layer they are in. That is a fact.

Also, there has never been a whole "geologic column" found anywhere but a textbook. That is a fact.

Yet they continue to base whole theories upon speculation regarding fossils and geologic strata being millions of years old.

[Undertoad]

So... you think they haven't considered that? Do they overlook it every single time, or just every other time? Did they overlook it the first time? Are there other principles at work that you can't see because you're not, you know, intimately involved in the process and are just trying to poke holes in it as an outsider with a desperate desire for a certain outcome?

[Kitsune]

The rest is pure speculation. And speculation isn't science.

Just because an atomic device had not been detonated in 1939 did not make the theories and hard work any less "science" than the research in the field was after 1945. Relativity was not properly tested until just several years ago with the LAGEOS 1 and 2 satellites, but that does not mean the theory should not have been included in texts before 2002. We'll probably never be able to create or touch a black hole, but that doesn't mean we cannot have the math behind it that can describe them to the best of our abilities. You seem to fully expect that something can not be considered "science" until it is duplicated in a laboratory and that is simply not how the field works. Many fields in the sciences deal with energy, matter, and systems well outside of our physical grasp because of size, time, and dangers. That does not make them any less "science".

Generate a sun in a laboratory. Touch the sun with your own hands. You can't. All we know of the sun and the burning hydrogen mass are its after effects, a full eight minutes after they have been occured. We can measure the heat once it strikes our planet, we can measure the residual radio waves, and we can view the spectrum coming off of it. Until relatively recently we had never seen a star die out or one be born, but that never did, nor should it have ever, prevented mankind from predicting and modeling what they thought had happened and would happen. Our universe is much like this -- we didn't see it begin, we won't see it end, but we can measure the energy, content, and how it interacts. Based on what we know from measurements done in a lab with these particles, we can form a theory of how it all came to be and how it might all end. There is nothing wrong with that, there is nothing "un-science" about that. It is just as I can observe changes in the fossil record and hypothesize about how life changes. Just because I will never see it change before my eyes because of my short life span does not make my theory any less "science".

I can guess that the sun won't come up tomorrow, and it's not science.

Pulling a guess out of a, uh, black hole isn't science -- you are correct. But formulating a theory based on research, measurements, and observations is exactly how the entire field works. You seem to imply that you think evolution and the "big bang" theory are founded on nothing more than wild imagination.

People that have issues with theories seem to be unhappy that they cannot get hard, physical evidence that they can see with their own eyes. In truth, science doesn't have a lot of truths, but it does have a lot of theories. We've never seen the electron clouds of an atom and we cannot measure the speed and location of many particles to get an exact model. Currently science seems certain we never will, but we can develop good theories that fit our needs. Theories are not facts, theories can be changed, theories can be modified, theories can be challenged. They are all works in progress, most of them destined to never be completed or accepted as "fact". Yet, none of these aspects remove these studies from the sciences or make them any less important.

If you want an easy answer that you aren't permitted to question, change, or update, please look to your bible. But do not suggest that just because you can't see it with your own eyes it isn't science. If you remove the theories that cannot be directly observed, you're removing a massive amount of important information that is crucial to our current understanding of how our world and how the universe works.

[OnyxCougar]

First, I'm not desperate for a different outcome. I am 100% certain that people are not decended from animals. As to other people's level of desperateness, well, I can't speak for them. I'm sure that thousands of people ARE desperate to advance one agenda or another. Like people who advance a theory that has tons of holes in it.

Secondly, why do "scientists" continually advance a theory they SEE has holes in it? I thought that if a hypothesis has big glaring mistakes that scientists were supposed to trash it and start over?

There are LOTS of holes in their theory but they continue to advance it LIKE ITS A FACT. It's NOT a fact. When ANY science programme starts talking about millions of years I cringe. They don't KNOW that. They just assume it is so, and present it like it's so, and people are buying into it like it is truth. It's NOT truth, it's PURE speculation.

I guess I'm more upset that people don't look as critically at the subject of evolution as they do George Bush's policies in the middle east.

[Clodfobble]

OC, what about carbon-dating? The decay rate of carbon is scientifically known and observable, and all tests ever performed on things with known ages have matched up exactly. So if carbon-dating says something is millions of years old, why is that not scientific fact?