[_ Old Earth _] Can atheistic evolution explain this?

[Late_Cretaceous]

What the heck is athiestic evolution?

Do you honestly believe that one must be an athiest to accept the reality of evolutionary thoery?

(I hope this doesn't turn into a "well they aint real christians diatribe")

 

[Khristeeanos]

What the heck is athiestic evolution?

Do you honestly believe that one must be an athiest to accept the reality of evolutionary thoery?

Spontanous Generation is only held to by athiests, right? I am just wondering.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Actually you are wrong. The concept of Spontaneous Generation was debunked by Louis Pasteur quite a while ago. Spontaneous Generation was the idea that fully formed organisms like maggots, cockroaches and mice would appear in places like people's pantires.

I don't think that very many people with more then a grade 4 eductaion believe in spontaneous generation anymore.

The idea of spontaneous generation bears little relationship to evolution. In fact, if spontaneous generation were real, it would actually work as quite a wrench in the wheels of evolutionary thoery.

Any other questions.

 

[Simple Mind]

Found a few minutes to get on ... just couldn't stay away. :D

I thought we did. One is the type that follows the original scientific method including the experimentation step where the repeatable experiment "substantially verifies" (I so much want to say prove) the theory. Anything else should be classified differently since the validity of its claims have not and often cannot be verified the same way.

And in the scientific method verifying predictions of a theory is exactly that. There is no need to repeat the event in question in a laboratory (that even happened in case of evolution, as speciation has been directly observed, just not the speciation events that happened in the distant past of course).

You illustrate my point perfectly. When you look carefully, you described a very different method of verification. In this jump from looking at the present evidence to drawing a conclusion about a past sequence of events (doesn't have to be a distant past), there is a whole lot of assumptions and logical work where error can be introduced. This issue isn't there if we follow strictly the original definition of the scientific method.

If speciation is observed again and again then it actually does meet the criteria for scientific method, but evolution isn't just speciation so it only supports a part of evolution, the part most people don't dispute, as long as we use the later definition of speciation (as you know the definition changed through the course of ToE).

"If it happened, then what evidence should it have left", followed by checking if that evidence is present already is sufficient.

Right ... this is a legal process, not a strictly scientific one. This is taking circumstancial evidence available today and trying to make a case for a sequence of events in the past without any experimentation or observation of that sequence. We may even use scientific tools and measurements to help establish the case, but we must recognize this is a different type of science from one that can verify the actual claim.

Note that the ERV test is repeatable. New sequences keep being discovered, so each time that this happens the test is essentially repeated. And that's just the ERVs of humans...just about any species has ERVs waiting to be checked.

Mmmm ... if I understand correctly, the evidence is that various genomes show what looks like retrovirus insertions today and one sees a pattern of similarities. But the hypothesis claims a process (evolution) - yet the evidence is not repeating the actual process the hypothesis claims. We are observing a set of current/boundary conditions and claiming it unequivocally shows the process. There is a big difference IMHO, compared to observing that the process really happens that way repeatedly under the same conditions.

[quote:72942]As I said, the difference is not between direct and indirect measurements (and I even indicated I cannot really differentiate between the two). The issue is there is a huge difference between theories that has been "substantially verified" through repeated experiments and theories that never had this done even once. They are two totally different classes of sciences.

No. Once successfully tested it is a "theory", before that happened it is called a "hypothesis", not a "theory". Both are part of the same "science".[/quote:72942]
Thanks for correcting my choice of words.

[quote:72942]
It has nothing to do with the probabilities of the prediction. It has to do with the nature of the prediction and how the prediction relates to the conclusion.

Could you elaborate on that? The precise probability of the prediction being a false positive appears very important to me.[/quote:72942]
Lets try to tackle this another way - what exactly was the prediction made by evolution that you mention? Perhaps if I know more of the specific claim I can respond with more clarity.

Indeed, we can never be absolutely sure that we got it right. And while there is an elimination process due to falsification, an elinination of a rival does not support other theories in any way - their weight is exclusively gained by own positive evidence. If some physicists falsify string theory, then M-theory gains nothing from that. It has to stand on its own legs.

Thanks for the clarification - I don't disagree.

Much blessings in Christ,
Lou

 

[Simple Mind]

... I can only guess that you may have misread my post which had "a theistic evolutionist" (note the space after "a").

Just hoping to clear up the confusion.

Blessings,
Lou

EDIT:
Ooops! : Just realized the term is on the title of the thread.

 

[sheseala]

You can tell an ERV from the reverse transcriptase code, right?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

What the heck is athiestic evolution?

Do you honestly believe that one must be an athiest to accept the reality of evolutionary thoery?

Spontanous Generation is only held to by athiests, right? I am just wondering.

Spontaneous Generation is held by no one, least of all atheists.

 

[jwu]

In this jump from looking at the present evidence to drawing a conclusion about a past sequence of events (doesn't have to be a distant past), there is a whole lot of assumptions and logical work where error can be introduced. This issue isn't there if we follow strictly the original definition of the scientific method.

What are these assumptions and sources of errors, and what exactly is this "original" definition of the scientific method that you refer to?
No offence, but since you seemed unfamiliar with the difference between basic terms like theory and hypothesis (there is no such thing as an untested theory by definition, as a theory is defined as a well tested hypothesis), i am somewhat sceptical if you got this right.

If speciation is observed again and again then it actually does meet the criteria for scientific method, but evolution isn't just speciation so it only supports a part of evolution, the part most people don't dispute, as long as we use the later definition of speciation (as you know the definition changed through the course of ToE).

I am not aware of any change of the definition of "speciation". What happened to it?

Right ... this is a legal process, not a strictly scientific one. This is taking circumstancial evidence available today and trying to make a case for a sequence of events in the past without any experimentation or observation of that sequence. We may even use scientific tools and measurements to help establish the case, but we must recognize this is a different type of science from one that can verify the actual claim.

Again, please back up the claim that there are different "types of science". I never heard anyone talking about that before.

Mmmm ... if I understand correctly, the evidence is that various genomes show what looks like retrovirus insertions today and one sees a pattern of similarities. But the hypothesis claims a process (evolution) - yet the evidence is not repeating the actual process the hypothesis claims. We are observing a set of current/boundary conditions and claiming it unequivocally shows the process. There is a big difference IMHO, compared to observing that the process really happens that way repeatedly under the same conditions.

Not just a pattern of similarity but identity - and a pattern which was precisely predicted by the theory of evolution. And ERV insertions qjuite certainly do have been observed happening today.

Lets try to tackle this another way - what exactly was the prediction made by evolution that you mention? Perhaps if I know more of the specific claim I can respond with more clarity.

In this case it was which particular species should have which particular ERV sequence and which species should not have them - and the locations of these sequences in the genome were predicted as well.
If you have a different explaination for them than common descent, please tell me.
You can read some more about ERVs there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

[ArtGuy]

Right ... this is a legal process, not a strictly scientific one. This is taking circumstancial evidence available today and trying to make a case for a sequence of events in the past without any experimentation or observation of that sequence. We may even use scientific tools and measurements to help establish the case, but we must recognize this is a different type of science from one that can verify the actual claim.

If I may step in for a moment, I'd like you to consider the following two sceanarios:

In the first, I develop a hypothesis to describe some phenomenon. After the hypothesis is developed, I perform an experiment. I then observe the data, and find that the data supports my hypothesis. Yay, me.

In the second, I perform an experiment. Perhaps I'm just playing around in my lab, or I just have a hunch, or whatever, but I perform this experiment for no real reason, and not in the pursuit of any given hypothesis. Now, after the experiment is done, but before I've had a chance to observe even one datum, I suddenly have a brainstorm, and I develop a new hypothesis. Coincidentally, it's a hypothesis that could be confirmed by the experiment I just did. So I look at the data, and... woot, it supports my hypothesis! Again - yay, me.

What, then, is the fundamental difference between those two scenarios? In each one, I've developed a hypothesis, then observed data that ends up supporting my hypothesis. The only difference is when, precisely, the experiment was performed. In the case of evolution, the experiment was performed millions of years ago, but why does this matter? The important bits are that there first existed a hypothesis, and that data was observed later on that supported it. Can you explain, with regards to the above cases, why the precise timing of the experiment is relevant?

 

[Simple Mind]

In this jump from looking at the present evidence to drawing a conclusion about a past sequence of events (doesn't have to be a distant past), there is a whole lot of assumptions and logical work where error can be introduced. This issue isn't there if we follow strictly the original definition of the scientific method.

What are these assumptions and sources of errors, and what exactly is this "original" definition of the scientific method that you refer to?

Lets not repeat the basics and get down to the real issue - we both agree that experimentation/observation against the hypothesis is required.

Lets say my hyposthesis is an equation for the acceleration of a 1kg object freefalling under earth gravity at sea level. The experimentation/observation should be to repeatedly drop a 1kg object at sea level and measure what happens, to see if it matches with what the equation predicts. If it does we have a good theory, and even then we have to ensure there's been no problems with the experiment set up, observations or their interpretation.

However, if I never actually measure any objects falling, and use all kinds of other means to try to show that the equation is correct, we have to recognize that this is different from the above.

Of course I know we can come up with a written definition that allows for both to be called "science" or "scientific method". But that doesn't change the issue that these are two different methods with a real qualitative difference.

I hope that's clear - but that's the best my simple mind can come up with.

I am not aware of any change of the definition of "speciation". What happened to it?

Species used to be defined using morphology, now biology is used as the dividing lines.

[quote:ce3aa]Right ... this is a legal process, not a strictly scientific one. This is taking circumstancial evidence available today and trying to make a case for a sequence of events in the past without any experimentation or observation of that sequence. We may even use scientific tools and measurements to help establish the case, but we must recognize this is a different type of science from one that can verify the actual claim.

Again, please back up the claim that there are different "types of science". I never heard anyone talking about that before.[/quote:ce3aa]
I thought I explained it in that previous post - the method you outlined for "science" is a legal process of "proof" (or use whatever word you want). That's the same as the second method above, of showing the proposed equation for acceleration without ever measuring the actual behavior in the hypothesis.

Don't get me wrong, I believe it can be valid, but requires a lot more care and work because I'm nesting another hypothesis inside the original one - that my other observations really tells me something about the speed and acceleration of the object, and that it didn't introduce variables or errors. That other hypothesis should first go through the scientific method to be verified into a theory before the original hypothesis can be examined. As you say, nothing can be proven, and the nesting of additonal hypotheses can introducce qualitative (erros in logic, wrong conditions, wrong interpretations, etc.) and quantitative errors. It's a different type of science and its conclusions are not nearly as definite as if I can repeatedly measure the actual behavior stated in the hypothesis.

When it comes to determining what happened in history, it's even worse, because not only are we prevented from verifying by repeated experiment of the actual issue in the hypothesis, we cannot know what all the conditions were and we have to make a huge assumption that the conditions in the past are the same as the conditions we have today. In the example of freefalling object above, my hypothesis isn't a formula about the accelerating of a freefalling object, but my hypothesis is how fast did a particular object fall on a particular day last year. Only trouble is, I don't know for sure whether we were at sea level or up in a mountain, nor the temperature nor wind speed, nor many other variables that may affect that particular instance. We must recognize that the legal process is what we actually use in this case and it is very different from the confidence we can have in the first scientific method outlined above.


Thanks for the link for ERVs. I took a look and seems consistent with what little I knew of it before. I've run out of time, and will respond to the rest of your post later.

Much blessings,
Lou

 

[jwu]

You have provided no sources for your differentiation of "types" of science. Right now it's just "because i say so".

The scientific method as explained by the University of Rochester:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixE.html


What part of that does the theory of evolution not fulfill?

Species used to be defined using morphology, now biology is used as the dividing lines.

...and it's the only non-arbitrary definition.

e cannot know what all the conditions were and we have to make a huge assumption that the conditions in the past are the same as the conditions we have today.

What exactly are the assumptions involved in ERV's? If you think there are unreasonable assumptions involved, then please specify them. What conditions had to be different in the past to produce such a false positive?

 

[Simple Mind]

You have provided no sources for your differentiation of "types" of science. Right now it's just "because i say so".

The scientific method as explained by the University of Rochester:

I could have easily cut and pasted that from one of many websites. If you read my post, I explained that this definition allows for 2 distinctly different types of "science" within it. I have differentiated between the two and have illustrated with an example why they are significantly different. I'd like to see your response to that rather than just saying I have to quote someone else in order for the argument to be legitimate.

Quoting sources is nice, but we're just quoting other flawed beings like us. Surely you're not suggesting we should blindly accept our current definitions as being all flawless, or accept someone else's quotes without critical evaluation. If something is wrong, we should reject it no matter who said it or how many people say it. If something is right, we shouldn't care if we're the minority or even if some simple mind like me said it.

What part of that does the theory of evolution not fulfill?

The theory of evolution fulfills that definition, but within that definition are two very different classes of science involving two very different kinds of theories. The two classes of theories should have very different levels of confidence attached to them due to the very different types of verification they have been subjected to. Theory of evolution falls into the class with lower confidence defined in the previous post because of the method of verification used.

What exactly are the assumptions involved in ERV's? If you think there are unreasonable assumptions involved, then please specify them. What conditions had to be different in the past to produce such a false positive?

That is a very legitimate issue. I would like to study the whole area of ERVs a bit more before discussing it. If the whole chain of arguments (and it is a chain of logic that must be followed before drawing the conclusion) is strong, it has potential to change my mind, but if weak assumptions or other flaws can be found, I hope you are also open to changing your mind.

Blessings,
Lou

 

[jwu]

I could have easily cut and pasted that from one of many websites. If you read my post, I explained that this definition allows for 2 distinctly different types of "science" within it. I have differentiated between the two and have illustrated with an example why they are significantly different. I'd like to see your response to that rather than just saying I have to quote someone else in order for the argument to be legitimate.

Is this distinction as two different types of science commonly accepted in the scientific community? Are e.g. astronomers considered to be a "lower class" of scientisits? I don't think so.

From my point of view you it seems that you completely made that up yourself, and that you don't want to back it up with respectable entities such as universities strengthens that impression.

 

[Simple Mind]

I could have easily cut and pasted that from one of many websites. If you read my post, I explained that this definition allows for 2 distinctly different types of "science" within it. I have differentiated between the two and have illustrated with an example why they are significantly different. I'd like to see your response to that rather than just saying I have to quote someone else in order for the argument to be legitimate.

Is this distinction as two different types of science commonly accepted in the scientific community? Are e.g. astronomers considered to be a "lower class" of scientisits? I don't think so.

From my point of view you it seems that you completely made that up yourself, and that you don't want to back it up with respectable entities such as universities strengthens that impression.

Mmmm ... I'm sorry you want to use a "majority rules" argument. I believe in supporting what is good and right and you haven't shown me what's wrong with my arguments other than "majority doesn't support your position". I hope you will come around, otherwise we simply have to agree to disagree on our approach to seeking the truth.

I didn't make up the current situation with the two types of "science" - it's an observation that you can verify - there really are these two different ways of doing "science" depending on what field you are in. I would be extremely surprised if I'm the only one who has noticed that.

And I didn't say anything about two classes of scientists - just two types of science. In fact, the second type of science is harder to do. It just needs to be recognized that we must treat the two differently.

I'm also saddened that you seem to be attacking my credentials in recent posts rather than discussing the issue. I thought we had a good discussion going that focused on the issues. Throwing credentials around actually sidetracks the discussion and biases people who read it unnecessarily (you don't know, it might even bias it in my favor, but maybe not.)

Blessings sincerely,
Lou

 

[jwu]

It looks like we're getting to the crux of the point:

I didn't make up the current situation with the two types of "science" - it's an observation that you can verify - there really are these two different ways of doing "science" depending on what field you are in. I would be extremely surprised if I'm the only one who has noticed that.

And I didn't say anything about two classes of scientists - just two types of science. In fact, the second type of science is harder to do. It just needs to be recognized that we must treat the two differently.

There are different ways of doing science - but there is just one thing called "science", which includes these various ways. They are not inherently ranked against each other. Any of them can be used to fulfil the "scientific method".

I'm also saddened that you seem to be attacking my credentials in recent posts rather than discussing the issue. I thought we had a good discussion going that focused on the issues. Throwing credentials around actually sidetracks the discussion and biases people who read it unnecessarily (you don't know, it might even bias it in my favor, but maybe not.)

What else should i attack? You were trying to redefine the meaning of the terms "science" and "scientific method". These are well defined terms, i provided a more or less official definition of the latter earlier in this thread. You do not hold the authority to redefine these to suit your purposes, so i point out exactly that.

 

[Simple Mind]

It looks like we're getting to the crux of the point:

[quote:c27e1]I didn't make up the current situation with the two types of "science" - it's an observation that you can verify - there really are these two different ways of doing "science" depending on what field you are in. I would be extremely surprised if I'm the only one who has noticed that.

[quote:c27e1]And I didn't say anything about two classes of scientists - just two types of science. In fact, the second type of science is harder to do. It just needs to be recognized that we must treat the two differently.

There are different ways of doing science - but there is just one thing called "science", which includes these various ways. They are not inherently ranked against each other. Any of them can be used to fulfil the "scientific method".[/quote:c27e1]

I don't really care what the label is and I never said we should change the current label of "science". I've shown that there are currently two distinct ways of doing science, which remains undisputed. These two very different ways has implications on the confidence we should place in their results, and I think we should make the distinction. You've stated your position very clearly, that you insist on rolling them together, for reasons unstated.

What else should i attack? You were trying to redefine the meaning of the terms "science" and "scientific method". These are well defined terms, i provided a more or less official definition of the latter earlier in this thread. You do not hold the authority to redefine these to suit your purposes, so i point out exactly that.

[/quote:c27e1]

All this talk about attacking is bad for my health. :

I'm not redefining science, nor have I redefined scientific method. I'm observing that there are two ways of doing science and showed it with supported arguments that have yet to be disputed. The authority should not be in me or any person or group, it's in the logical argument and the observations that support it.

EDIT: And that authority is not higher than the authority of God or God's Word, lest we think too highly of our flawed human rational abilities - "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight." - didn't want to be misunderstood on this

I think we've taken this one as far as we can. But I do want to get back on the ERV thing later, where I think you may have a good case.

Peace,
Lou

 

[jwu]

I don't really care what the label is and I never said we should change the current label of "science". I've shown that there are currently two distinct ways of doing science, which remains undisputed. These two very different ways has implications on the confidence we should place in their results, and I think we should make the distinction. You've stated your position very clearly, that you insist on rolling them together, for reasons unstated.

The terminology/label however is extremely important here. I have no objections against the existence of different ways of doing the single thing that is called science, but in the past posts you were talking about different types of science itself.

Two ways of doing science =/= two sciences

These are entirely different subjects.

I'm observing that there are two ways of doing science and showed it with supported arguments that have yet to be disputed.

Earlier in this thread you have made statements like this, which denies that there is any other way of doing science than recreating the event in question in a lab:

The scientific method tests by repeating the very thing we are trying to prove again and again to verify that what the theory says is really true.

First only science which recreates stuff in the lab, then two different types of science, and now different ways of doing science. The last is something that i agree with, the former are incorrect.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Actually you are wrong. The concept of Spontaneous Generation was debunked by Louis Pasteur quite a while ago. Spontaneous Generation was the idea that fully formed organisms like maggots, cockroaches and mice would appear in places like people's pantires.

I don't think that very many people with more then a grade 4 eductaion believe in spontaneous generation anymore.

The idea of spontaneous generation bears little relationship to evolution. In fact, if spontaneous generation were real, it would actually work as quite a wrench in the wheels of evolutionary thoery.

Any other questions.

How do athiests believe that life came from non-living materials and what do they call it?

Please give an answer in layman's terms as you did in this post.

I am a high school dropout.

 

[reznwerks]

know

[quote="Khristeeanos.[/quote]

How do athiests believe that life came from non-living materials and what do they call it?
We don't have to know. The answer is still eluding us and scientists as well. Not having an answer does not mean that God did it.

Please give an answer in layman's terms as you did in this post.

I am a high school dropout.[/quote]

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

How do athiests believe that life came from non-living materials and what do they call it?

Please give an answer in layman's terms as you did in this post.

I am a high school dropout.

Hi Khristeeanos

I like your nickname BTW

First of all, I am not an athiest. Worse, I am a Catholic. Just kidding.

I am going to take the liberty of addressing the question as long as it is clear that I am answering "how do scientists believe that life came from non-living materials". I cannot speak for athiests, but I am assuming that athiests accept the latest scientific research.

Before I get right to your question lets talk about the concept of "life".

First of all, what we call life violates none of the fundamental principles of chemistry or physics. While complex and amazing there is nothing metaphysical about life. Physical life if a process of the physical world.

As far as defining life from non-life the distinction is not as easy as it may appear. Certainly, you and I are alive but the molecules and chemicals that make up or body are not. It is the complex interactions (biochemistry) of these chemicals that make us alive.


Even at the biochemical level - the level of chemical interactions - I would not call it life. Many biochemical reactions, like replication of DNA, respiration, and other metaboilc process can be done in the test tube. They are following the same chemical pathways as theydo in our bodies, but I don't think anybody would consider that DNA replication on the lab to be alive.

So what is life?
The standard definition of life goes has the following requirements:

* metabolism (bacially that means ongoing chemical reactions)
* growth
* reproduction
* response to stimuli or adaptation (sometimes called irritibility)


Think about this. FIRE has many of the requriements for life. It has a simple metabolism (ongoing chemical reaction between the fuel and oxygen), it grows (like a forest fire that started from a cigarette ), and it responds to it's environment (cut off the oxygen and it dies,)

Now of course nobody says that fire is alive, but you see how a simple chemical process can have some of the requirements.

Take the humble virus. THey cause colds and AIDS and the flu and are very common and well known. VIrus actually fall right on the boundry between non-life and life! Thats right, it is actually debatable among scientists as to whether a virus is alive or not.

That goes to show that life vs non life is not so clear cut.


NOW TO FINALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

THe most current scientific theory about how life arose is called Abiogenesis.
There are a number of different competing theories about the specific detalils, but there is a general consensus.

Abiogensis thoery proposes that in the early Earth chemical reactions and interactions were going on on a global basis (around the world). These chemical reactions were fuelled by geothermal vents like those found at the bottom of the ocean in certain areas today. Some of these chemicals included molecules that were capable of self replication. Not that unusual, self replicating molecules do exist.

Self replicating molecules are not enough, however. Now we get to "protocells". Protocells are basically half way between living cells and self replicating molecules. Protocells have been made in the lab, but they are not quite "alive". Close, but not quite.

It is at the level of these protocells that the evolutionary process kicks in. Protocells consume each other. Those that were more efficient consumed those that were less efficient and replicated themselves. Somewhere down the line you cross that fuzzy boundry between nonliving protocells to living cells.

The transition from nonlife to life was more like a sunrise then flicking on a light switch.

There was no "first living cell" anymore then there was a "first Englishman" or a "first person to speak French".

Also, this was an ongoing process around much of the earth. Not just an isolated little pool.

So why don't protocells occur today in nature? Well basically, the chemical condidions necessary for them to exist would essencially be fertilizer for existing life forms. They just don't stand a chance of existance in nature anymore.





So I hope that answers your question.

The difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation (SG) is that SG is the idea that FULLY FORMED ORGANISMS spring into existance. Abiogenesis is more like a prolonged, large scale transition with several stages.

I know that won't be enough to convince you. Hopefully you will be more informed about your debate opponenst real opinions.

Peace.