This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Guest]

"Devolution" Is surely happening in situations with out selective pressure(present humans for example - the wonder of modern medicine.)

Anyway.

The difference between the 2 approaches is the Evolution is a an attempt to explain the observed while ID is an attempt to justify the unobserved.

As I said logically neither is right or wrong on that basis, but it does make one science and the other not.

[Guest]

Unless you give a sighting they are yours and they are gibberish.

[Doc]

Unless you give a sighting they are yours and they are gibberish.
[right][snapback]97898[/snapback][/right]

Sighting?

Very well.

I spy with my little eye...

[Occhidiangela]

"Devolution" Is surely happening in situations with out selective pressure(present humans for example - the wonder of modern medicine.)

Anyway.

The difference between the 2 approaches is the Evolution is a an attempt to explain the observed while ID is an attempt to justify the unobserved.

As I said logically neither is right or wrong on that basis, but it does make one science and the other not.
[right][snapback]97897[/snapback][/right]

Got it. I think we are in general agreement.

Unless the ID gang apply the rigor of the scientific method and get comparable results, which they haven't to date as far as I know, their best outcome in the debate is an apples to bicycle pedals comparison.

Occhi

[Guest]

Eat (moderated) - youre trash for calling me a troll when in a serious discussion you are shown to be talking out of your butt.

[Doc]

Eat (moderated) - youre trash for calling me a troll when in a serious discussion you are shown to be talking out of your butt.
[right][snapback]97901[/snapback][/right]

Ghost, this may be a mistake, as I was never entirely keen on biology, but... Since it is the holidays, I will give it a shot.

The study, which I still can't remember what it was called, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that mutations were the downfall of a species.

Mutations happen when part of the DNA blueprint is lost and a crapshoot happens to fill in the blanks. The mutation iit self is an alteration in the sequence of nucleotides that comprise DNA. The instructions on how to make a protein that is encoded in the mutated DNA are changed. In short, what this study showed, is that you can not make something from nothing. Mutations are a LOSS of DNA. De-evolution. With a loss of building block material, you can only go backwards. To create new adaptations, you need to add material, not take it away.

Most mutations are harmless in the first few generations, but as the DNA strands start breaking down, sooner of later the instructions to make certain proteins start running in to vital functions in the body like enzymes or hormones. (In fact there are some folk out there that believe that each species may have something in it's instructions to self destruct somewhere along the line)

In the study they pointed out that once a DNA strand is broken, they can be repaired, restored, I am not sure of the right word I want here is. But it is important to note that when these repairs are made, and something good fills in the blanks, it is not considered a mutation. A mutation is a defect, while something good happening is something else entirely. When you gain something, it evolves, but it is not a mutation.

I hope I did a somewhat reasosnable job of trying to explain this.

[Occhidiangela]

"Devolution" Is surely happening in situations with out selective pressure (present humans for example - the wonder of modern medicine.)
[right][snapback]97897[/snapback][/right]

Ghost, your replies do not clearly indicate to whom you are speaking/replying. It is standard netiquette to indicate such.

Not everyone uses outline view, nor are they required to.

Please take the moment or two to indicate to whom you are replying, if for no other reason than to avoid crossed wires in the various strands of conversation.

Thanks, and Merry Christmas. :whistling:

Occhi

[jahcs]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ - the story

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections...zmiller_342.pdf - the ruling in itself (Section H is just lovely)
With clear heads pervailing here, I'd say that its a bleeding good thing that America's decided to pull "Reverse" on the roller-coaster to hell. I mean, if the trend continues, I'd say that you guys should come out OK, in spite of the current administration's (common tactical blunder - land war in Asi... Well. You know what I mean).
[right][snapback]97858[/snapback][/right]

Much as I don't want to jump into one of our famous Doc/Ghostiger debates I wanted to say something on the original subject, therefore my reply will be to the original poster. Some of my points have been alluded to by previous posters though.



When I heard of this decision on the news I was in agreement with it (section H puts it very nicely ;) ).

When I was tought Evolution and the Big Bang theory in science class they reinforced that it was theory. IMHO this is the proper approach. A significant portion of the scientific community has focused on these scientific theories, but they are still theories.
ID does not need to be presented as a counterpoint to evolution either. :angry:

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not refined enough, IMO, to even be considered science and do not belong in a science classroom. There are other subjects in school that this can be taught in, such as bible as literature, mythology, etc., if they need to be taught in a school at all.

ID and the TofE are not mutually exclusive either. Perhaps a higher power gave a small puddle of ectoplasmic goo a "push" in the right direction, gave it's creations the means to adapt to changing environments, or decided the best way to create something was to take a pinprick of matter and go "KaPow!" It's all hope and guesswork better saved for theistic and metaphysic discussions.

[Guest]

So you are just arguing the semations of the word "mutation"?


It sounds like your point has nothing to do with what was studied and is just about the definitions the authors chose. Why bother even mentioning that?

Most scientists I have known use "mutation" to describe any gentic change that isnt engineered(such as gene therapy)

Here are some dictionary definitions.

A- A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
B- The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.



The use of the word "devolve" in these contexts is misleading. Evolution is change over time - not improvements over time. Selective pressure is is required for what we see as improvements. Over time in a natural setting only the rare helpful changes are selected for, the more common deliterious changes are selected against the the most common neutral changes are selected for or against only to the degree they are "linked" to a helpful or deliterious change.


Anyway your blanket statment that all mutations are bad(in the context of a lab experiment) just shows that you dont understand neither bio-chemical genitics nor population gentics.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The whole question of whether we should base our understanding of the universe on rational observation or authoritarian superstition is something that I don't care to get into at the moment. So, let me instead address the smaller but still important question of just what a damn THEORY is when the word is used by scientists.

First, it is not a wild-assed guess, like when Linda says, "I've got a theory why Jane dumped Dick and is seeing Paul." This common usage is the interpretation that the anti-science community wants you to believe and apply. Since the spewing of any random neural firings can be called a 'theory' in this interpretation, it cheapens the whole concept of 'theory' and allows the fanatical and ignorant to claim the first round before the bell even rings.

Second, it is not enough even to be the well considered opinion of an expert in a field. While this is a valid usage of the word, unlike the bastardization above, it can cover things other than scientific. For instance, we can have musical theories, theories of artistic perspective (the projection, not the attitude -- artists have enough attitude without a theory to support them ;) ), theories of combat, and so on forever. But none capture what a scientist means when he uses the word 'theory'.

The first thing one needs to know is that the word 'theory' as used by a scientist is an acknowledgment that "the map is not the terrain". Until around the mid to late nineteenth century, scientific principles were often called laws. The "laws" where thought to apply exactly. They could be solved exactly for simple systems (say two bodies interacting gravitationally) but the solution had to be approximated for more complex systems (a flask full of gas). All nature was assumed to be described by a small number of exact, knowable interactions and the apparent complexity was just due to the great number of these interactions. But as it slowly became clear that in nature there was complexity in quality as well as quantity, the quiet arrogance of the early scientists was replaced by a more tentative approach, and the pronouncements became known as 'equations', or 'principles', and so on. I leave out 'theorem' because that is *not* a scientific concept, it is a mathematical one. It might be that under a set of axioms a theorem is true but that truth has no bearing on the theorem's applicability to the external (sorry, Kant) universe. But, to return to the main topic, the word 'theory' is now used as an acknowledgment of the fact that the statement so described may have to be modified or abandoned as our knowledge increases. That the only map that is perfectly accurate in describing nature is nature herself. Everything else is an abstraction and a simplification.

That tells us why 'theory' but that still does not define it. To a scientist, ideally a theory must be complete, compact, falsifiable, and predictive. 'Complete' simply means that the theory must describe everything about its subject. If there are any bits left sticking out, then the theory needs to be expanded somehow, even if it is in an ad hoc fashion (which, of course, has a negative impact on 'compact' -- a laundry list is not a theory). To some extent, the theory of evolution is in the state of expansion and development. Just how to extend and modify the theory as new information comes in is a matter that generates much argument among the researchers in a field. But note that the arguments are about details, and typically newly discovered or observed details, not about the underlying structure of the theory.

A 'compact' theory is one that contains no extraneous material. Of course, a theory of falling bodies that includes a recipe for poached eggs is clearly laughable to all ;) But further, to be 'compact' means to assume the least; to have the fewest number of 'fundamental' postulates, each as simple as it can be made; to be intellectually simple. And, of course, arguments go on constantly as to which formulation of a theory is preferable, since ultimately, if the formulations are isomorphic, it is a question of aesthetics. But, again, note that the people in these arguments are not questioning the underlying validity of the theory, but simply questioning the best way of expressing it.

It is commonly heard that a scientific theory should be 'testable'. To say that a theory should be 'falsifiable' is a more precise statement. Every experiment, every observation, every field discovery is a test of a theory. The result might be further confirmation, or an indication that the theory is incomplete, or that it is incorrect. Of the three, the first is the most satisfying to the technician and engineer and the least to the scientist -- just one of the ways in which not all 'technical' people are equal ;) The other two indicate that a modification of the theory is necessary, perhaps even an overthrow. The last case is extremely rare since modern theories have typically been well tested. Any new theory will have to reduce to (something isomorphic to) the old theory under the conditions the old theory was sufficient to explain. Again, both the necessity for change, and the type and extent of change necessary are matters of furious debate by the practitioners in a field. As Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Many emerging theories start as observational summaries and classification schema. But as a theory develops, it should develop some 'predictive' powers. The predictions the theory makes then become both part of the theory and part of the means to test the theory. Lack of predictive powers in a theory is often nothing more than an indication of an immature field. However, there is some question if such a field can yet call itself a science. But then, as with all language, the definition of 'science' itself is somewhat in flux.

Now, not all theories are equally developed. Some had more of a head start; some treat of simpler subjects. All theories are 'works in progress' (a standing joke in physics is that progress is replacing a wrong theory with one more subtly wrong).

Now, with this better understanding (I hope) of just why evolutionary theory isn't just something a couple of stoned valley gals came up with one afternoon, perhaps the rest of the discussion can remain sensible. Or perhaps not. And if someone can tell me where the 'intelligence' for Intelligent Design originated other than from some form of god, then I'll allow the possibility it isn't superstition and ignorance trying, again, to get in the window after it was tossed out the door. And 'aliens' doesn't cut it unless they are eternal.

"E pur si move." -- G.G.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

When taken from the Hebrew, . . .
[right][snapback]97884[/snapback][/right]

You mean that the Bible wasn't written in Victorian English??!! Oh, the horror, oh the humanity!

:whistling:

--Pete

[Guest]

Great post.

[Occhidiangela]

So you are just arguing the semations of the word "mutation"?

Most scientists I have known use "mutation" to describe any gentic change that isnt engineered(such as gene therapy)

The use of the word "devolve" in these contexts is misleading.  Evolution is change over  time - not improvements over time.  Selective pressure is is required for what we see as improvements.  Over time in a natural setting only the rare helpful changes are selected for, the more common deliterious changes are selected against the the most common neutral changes are selected for or against only to the degree they are "linked" to a helpful or deliterious change.
Anyway your blanket statment that all mutations are bad(in the context of a lab experiment) just shows that you dont understand neither bio-chemical genitics nor population gentics.

Your posting style, over time, shows that you understand neither spelling nor grammar. It is time to call in the Grammar Inquisition --

Nobody expects the Grammar Inquisition! Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, caffeine, and an almost fanatical devotion to the OED or Webster or Merriam or some other mold covered tome!

Cardinal Biggles, read the charges.

1. Using a word that either does not exist, or is wholly obscure. Semation.

Sematic, biology, adj meaning 'serving as a sign or warning of danger, as in colors or markings.'

No entry for semation, RH and M Webster. dictionary.com agrees. I have no subscription to M-W unabridged. Is there such a word? If so, what is the reference and the definition, and how does it fit into that sentence? Jury still out, charge held in abeyance.( I was so hoping you had introduced us to a $64 word.)

2. Using a sloppy double negative

Anyway your blanket statment that all mutations are bad(in the context of a lab experiment) just shows that you dont understand neither bio-chemical genitics nor population gentics.

Correct phrase: "shows that you understand neither biochemical genetics nor population genetics."
While I am addressing the double negative, in the same sentence there are five errors:

1. Missed space before the first paren in multiple places. (a common error)
2. Missing apostrophe in the word "don't" (Wankerage)
3. The word "dont" created a double negative. Its inclusion is completely useless in that sentence, given your intended meaning. (Wankerage again)
4 & 5. The word "genetics" spelled incorrectly in two different ways in the same sentence. (Bloody Wankerage)

More fun from further up . . .

5. Double use of the word "is:" "selective pressure is is" (Clintonian Wankerage)
6. Double use of the word "the:" selected against the the most common neutral changes (Wankerage)
7. "isnt" lacks apostrophe ("isn't engineered" is correct) (Wankerage)
8. Run on sentences (common error)

In a technically informative post you put on an abysmal display of Wankerage.

Use the "Preview" button. Read your post backwards before you post it. That is an old proofreading trick. It works.

The bottom line on my sig is a call to action.

In the interest of being taken seriously, please quit posting like a Wanker. Your ideas, positions, and opinions are worthy of consideration on their own merit. The disrespect you show your reading audience by habitual misuse of the written word is appalling.

Doc, quit sniggering over there, your posts aren't much more polished. :blink:

Occhi

[Doc]

Hi,
You mean that the Bible wasn't written in Victorian English??!!  Oh, the horror, oh the humanity!

:whistling:

--Pete
[right][snapback]97911[/snapback][/right]

Pete... You would be suprised how many people DO believe that the Bible was writ in English... And are horribly suprised to find out that Yeshua Ben Yoesef was one of dem dere Jews.

Infact, they get down right upset and start flinging words like "BLASPHEMER!" and such. It is enough to have you physically picked up and thrown out of a church here in some parts of the South, where Jesus is believed to be a blond haired blue eyed white male.

And as a personal aside, the one part of the Bible that always gets to me in English is Yeshua asking Peter three times if he loves him. In English, all you see is the word "love."

The actual verse is so much more beautiful... So much more meaningful.

Peter, are you my friend?

Peter, are you my brother?

Peter, do you love me enough to die for me?

But the translators just translated the words in to words rather than their meanings. Bother.

And with that, I should go back in to my own closet before somebody becomes annoyed with me.

Faith is a broad subject to often trapped in narrow minds.

[GenericKen]

*snip*[right][snapback]97910[/snapback][/right]

I don't think you're talking to a bunch of schoolchildren here, Pete. We know what a "Theory" is, and I suspect that most of us respect your desire to slant any bias, but the theory of evolution remains a theory.

For just as many people who believe that the "theory" of evolution is a crockpot of some stoned biologist, there are just as many egotist pseudo-intelectuals who proport that evolution is only a "theory" in name.


As for me, as a computer scientist, I rank evolution (i.e. natural selection+time = total speciation) maybe 2 notches below relativity, which I believe to be incomplete. You can't solve just any problem by throwing time at it, and natural selection isn't really a powerful tool, or even neccessarily a net-gain tool, and there are very large gaps in the evolutionary trees of evidence. So a theory it remains. I.D. is seriously sketchy, and I'm not certain what precicely is taught, so I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being taught in classrooms as more than a sidenote.


In truth, I don't care too much, as the whole thing is really a nonesense issue. Neither science nor religion are mutually exclusive, and though the question of which rules the other is mutually exclusive (whether God sets the laws, or is dictated by the laws in which case he is not properly God), it is an entirely personal issue that does not exclude the teaching of either.

The entire flare-up on both sides of the issue is entirely a matter of respect, in that neither side feels that they are properly respected by the other. Possibly with good reason.


Ghostiger> The word you were looking for is "cite", which makes me wonder about your proported Bio degree. Not too seriously, but it did strike me as odd and warrenting explination.

[Guest]

What are you talking about?

All my posts are directed at the post the are attached to(except in cases where I specifically say Im addressing a more general concept found through out the thread..)

You mentioned "devolution" so I addressed it. I really cant for the life of me see how you became confused.

[Occhidiangela]

Ghostiger> The word you were looking for is "cite", which makes me wonder about your proported Bio degree. Not too seriously, but it did strike me as odd and warrenting explination.
[right][snapback]97916[/snapback][/right]

A Grammarian's work is never done. :angry:

Did you mean "warranting explanation?" :blink:

Occhi

[Guest]

Iif you read some of the above posts you will see that a few people tried to play sematics with the word "theory". You would think a post like Petes would not be needed, but sadly -no.


As for my phonetic spelling inversion disasters - you have read my posts before right?

[Doc]

Correct phrase: "shows that you understand neither biochemical genetics nor population genetics."
While I am addressing the double negative, in the same sentence there are five errors: 

1. Missed space before the first paren in multiple places. (a common error)
2. Missing apostrophe in the word "don't" (Wankerage)
3. The word "dont" created a double negative.  Its inclusion is completely useless in that sentence, given your intended meaning. (Wankerage again)
4 & 5. The word "genetics" spelled incorrectly in two different ways in the same sentence. (Bloody Wankerage)

More fun from further up . . .

5.  Double use of the word "is:" "selective pressure is is" (Clintonian Wankerage)
6.  Double use of the word "the:" selected against the the most common neutral changes (Wankerage)
7.  "isnt" lacks apostrophe ("isn't engineered" is correct) (Wankerage)
8.  Run on sentences (common error)

In a technically informative post you put on an abysmal display of Wankerage.

Use the "Preview" button.  Read your post backwards before you post it.  That is an old proofreading trick.  It works.

The bottom line on my sig is a call to action. 

In the interest of being taken seriously, please quit posting like a Wanker.  Your ideas, positions, and opinions are worthy of consideration on their own merit.  The disrespect you show your reading audience by habitual misuse of the written word is appalling. 

Doc, quite sniggering over there, your posts aren't much more polished.  :blink:

Occhi
[right][snapback]97914[/snapback][/right]

Damnit man, I am Southern. I grew up handicapped in all areas of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

And besides. I write in an easy to read-as-it-is-spoken conversational style that is easy on the eyes.

**Blows raspberries**

I am not afraid of your inquisition and your silly kniggits!

And I was NOT sniggering... I was chortling, I will have you know.

[GenericKen]

A Grammarian's work is never done.  :angry:

Did you mean "warranting explanation?"  :blink:

Occhi
[right][snapback]97918[/snapback][/right]

The LL forums don't have a spellchecker. Sue me.

...

Wait, wait, don't sue me! NO!!!!

*cries*