Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Roustabout]

And one can test mathematically how completely unguided sampling can produce ordered results.

Example?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Explain...."guided" by whom or what?

Some supernatural force or direction. A designer.

Completely random gene mutation ordered by natural selection to provide advantageous reproduction explains how the theory could work without being "guided" by anything.

And one can test mathematically how completely unguided sampling can produce ordered results.

So, you equate testing "could have" with proving "actually did"? That's the statement that I read in all of my biology textbooks. "Unguided." Stated as scientific fact. Is this a scientific fact, tested and proven? Or is it an unproven metaphysical proposition smuggled in as scientific, proven, fact?

 

[rjd970]

I agree in general but science often is dogmatic and the general inclination is to dismiss "anomalies" until there are simply too many to ignore.

Scientific research funding and publication reinforces the status quo and tinkering around the edges rather than radical discovery and new theory development.

As an anecdotal case in point, a scientist here made an interesting discovery and subsequent hypothesis about the cause/control of arrhythmia but it goes against the "consensus" and the operating theory of his colleagues in his department. He is an outcast for it (well for that and other things) and grants are difficult because reviewers by into the status quo theory.

I wouldn't dismiss that.

But most of that depends on the strength of the theory and I don't think it applies in this arena. After 155 years and multiple confirmations through other areas of academia, the status quo is pretty strong in this case. For something like evolution, the proponent of an alternate theory would have to do a lot of explaining for mother nature.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Example?

I wonder if it's anything like Dawkins' computer program that proved un-designed, non-guided evolution. Remember that one? The computer program that was designed to guide a sequence of random letters to the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel."?

 

[rjd970]

Notice what I said. I see more "if" than "how".

This was shown pretty clearly by the great debates between neo-Darwinists and the punctuated equilibrium school. The PE folks did a great job of listing all of the reasons that neoDarwinians can't be right. The neo-Darwinians did a great job pointing out why PE can't be right.

No one questioned whether goo-to-you evolution actually happened.

There has been great liberty in discussing the "how" questions.

But it's all good. I'll agree to disagree.

PE was introduced by Niles Elderidge and Stephen Jay Gould to refute gradualism. Both assume the same thing though...evolution happened. If the debate was about how, then why knock it because "if" wasn't discussed? What other natural explanation is there?

And I still say that it is a fundamental misunderstanding to insinuate that nobody is questioning "goo to you" evolution. Nobody is barring anybody from bringing other theories to the table.

 

[Orange_Crush]

PE was introduced by Niles Elderidge and Stephen Jay Gould to refute gradualism. Both assume the same thing though...evolution happened. If the debate was about how, then why knock it because "if" wasn't discussed? What other natural explanation is there?

I believe that you just made my point.

And I still say that it is a fundamental misunderstanding to insinuate that nobody is questioning "goo to you" evolution. Nobody is barring anybody from bringing other theories to the table.

That is factually inaccurate. There is a great "true Scotsman" going on in the scientific community. If one questions Darwinian evolution, they do not get peer reviewed and become scorned by the community. After refusing to publish for peer review, they dismiss the theories because they are not peer reviewed.

So, the community has insulated itself from anyone within questioning the theory. They can claim that "no scientist" is questioning the validity of the theory. The problem is that they are defining who the "real scientists" are.

 

[rjd970]

Some supernatural force or direction. A designer.



So, you equate testing "could have" with proving "actually did"? That's the statement that I read in all of my biology textbooks. "Unguided." Stated as scientific fact. Is this a scientific fact, tested and proven? Or is it an unproven metaphysical proposition smuggled in as scientific, proven, fact?

As far as your first statement, any theory that assumes a supernatural force will be outside the field of science, which is what we are talking about, right? There is a perfectly valid explanation for "goo to you" using only natural forces. It may not be as strong as you like, and you there may be gaps in the process, but there is a story there that makes sense.

As far as your second statement, I don't know. Maybe you didn't understand what you were reading. Everything I have read states that the natural environment combined with random gene mutation "guides" the evolutionary process. I have never seen it stated as "fact" outright. On some other planet with a different environment the random gene mutation may create life completely different than what we see.

 

[rjd970]

I believe that you just made my point.



That is factually inaccurate. There is a great "true Scotsman" going on in the scientific community. If one questions Darwinian evolution, they do not get peer reviewed and become scorned by the community. After refusing to publish for peer review, they dismiss the theories because they are not peer reviewed.

So, the community has insulated itself from anyone within questioning the theory. They can claim that "no scientist" is questioning the validity of the theory. The problem is that they are defining who the "real scientists" are.

Baloney. Give me an example.

 

[lawgator1]

We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved with them. We both share a common ancestor, we're cousins - not brothers.

Agree with this.

Humans genetically are 99.5 % the same.

Chimps and humans are 96 % genetically a match.

Cats are 90% the same. Dogs 82%. Cows 80 %. Rats are 69%. Mice 67 %.

The earlier comment that someone believes there is evolution within species, but not between them, places too great an emphasis on the notion of species, as though there were some genetic wall between us.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[rjd970]

I wonder if it's anything like Dawkins' computer program that proved un-designed, non-guided evolution. Remember that one? The computer program that was designed to guide a sequence of random letters to the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel."?

That exactly what I was referring to.

The only thing that was designed was the simulation. It still uses random chance and natural selection as the ordering force.

In order for the monkey to type the 13 letters opening Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 trials for success. This is sixteen times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of our solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison (1988) wrote a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence "tobeornottobe". It took the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in 4.5 days. - Michael Shermer

Now if evolutionary theory states that the natural environment is selecting advantageous random mutations and the discarding the non-advantageous ones (aka natural selection), please explain how a "designer" needed to "guide" something here.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As far as your first statement, any theory that assumes a supernatural force will be outside the field of science, which is what we are talking about, right? There is a perfectly valid explanation for "goo to you" using only natural forces. It may not be as strong as you like, and you there may be gaps in the process, but there is a story there that makes sense.

Why would it be outside of the field of science? Science is: postulate, test, interpret evidence, redefine if needed, repeat the process. If evidence of a supernatural cause is possible to see, then why is it outside of that process, save a metaphysical, non-scientific mandate to exclude?

Are you actually saying that a supernatural cause and guidance could not be tested for? Then that makes the statement that Darwinian evolution is "un-guided" unscientific as well, no? I mean, if you can't disprove it, it's not scientific, right?

As far as your second statement, I don't know. Maybe you didn't understand what you were reading. Everything I have read states that the natural environment combined with random gene mutation "guides" the evolutionary process. I have never seen it stated as "fact" outright. On some other planet with a different environment the random gene mutation may create life completely different than what we see.

RationalWiki states that the only alternatives to "unguided evolution" are creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution and Terry Pratchett's fictional Discworld. Am I to infer that RationalWiki misinterpreted also?

So, you tell me. Was there a supernatural, guiding influence to Darwinian evolution? Does Darwinian evolution have an end result in mind? I was told point blank in science class that the answer to both is "no".

 

[Orange_Crush]

That exactly what I was referring to.

The only thing that was designed was the simulation. It still uses random chance and natural selection as the ordering force.



Now if evolutionary theory states that the natural environment is selecting advantageous random mutations and the discarding the non-advantageous ones (aka natural selection), please explain how a "designer" needed to "guide" something here.

The "natural" selection written into the computer program selected towards the desired sentence. It had a specific end in mind. Did you not catch the point I was making?

 

[rjd970]

Why would it be outside of the field of science? Science is: postulate, test, interpret evidence, redefine if needed, repeat the process. If evidence of a supernatural cause is possible to see, then why is it outside of that process, save a metaphysical, non-scientific mandate to exclude?

Are you actually saying that a supernatural cause and guidance could not be tested for? Then that makes the statement that Darwinian evolution is "un-guided" unscientific as well, no? I mean, if you can't disprove it, it's not scientific, right?



RationalWiki states that the only alternatives to "unguided evolution" are creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution and Terry Pratchett's fictional Discworld. Am I to infer that RationalWiki misinterpreted also?

So, you tell me. Was there a supernatural, guiding influence to Darwinian evolution? Does Darwinian evolution have an end result in mind? I was told point blank in science class that the answer to both is "no".

This is where it gets frustrating between us. You go in circles. Have you not said that Science deals in the natural explanation of phenomena? By definition any explanation that deals in the supernatural isn't going to be studied in the scientific realm because it is a non-scientific.

Is a supernatural cause possible with anything? Sure. But that discussion is saved for a philosophy class or some other area of academia. I have also said that ID and other theories are worth teaching in school, just not in a science class. Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution and Terry Pratchett's fictional Discworld do not belong in the study of science because they come from a different magistra.

Again, go find me an alternate natural explanation that refutes Darwinian Evolution that was dismissed outright by the scientific community....otherwise your contention that there is some dogmatic hold on Darwinism that prevented peer review and resulted in scorn by the scientific community is unfounded and outright false.

 

[rjd970]

The "natural" selection written into the computer program selected towards the desired sentence. It had a specific end in mind. Did you not catch the point I was making?

No, it didn't. My premise is that your point was wrong to begin with. Were you not highlighting that a "designer" needed to "guide" as it pertains to evolution?

You said this:

I wonder if it's anything like Dawkins' computer program that proved un-designed, non-guided evolution. Remember that one? The computer program that was designed to guide a sequence of random letters to the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel."?

The purpose was to show that random chance ordered by natural selection can create organization. It was in response to the argument that random chance couldn't have accounted for all the species we see today. The specific "end" was a collection of ordered letters (different species today) and the "guide" was random sampling ordered by selection (random gene mutation with natural selection).

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is where it gets frustrating between us. You go in circles. Have you not said that Science deals in the natural explanation of phenomena? By definition any explanation that deals in the supernatural isn't going to be studied in the scientific realm because it is a non-scientific.

I never said that. I've said that's a metaphysical statement made 'about' science. Science deals in explaining evidence. If supernatural causes were to leave a testable mark in physical reality, it would be scientific to test them and build hypothesis accordingly.

For instance, if a disembodied human hand were to appear in a room full of 1000s of observers and write a message on the wall from God, your version of science would claim that it is impossible that it happened. My version of science would postulate on the supernatural origin of the message.

I will repeat myself, and you are yet to counter my point... Naturalism is a philosophical, metaphysical statement. It is not science.

Is a supernatural cause possible with anything? Sure. But that discussion is saved for a philosophy class or some other area of academia. I have also said that ID and other theories are worth teaching in school, just not in a science class. Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution and Terry Pratchett's fictional Discworld do not belong in the study of science because they come from a different magistra.

Tell me why. Convince me. Because of a metaphysical predilection? You are making philosophical statements, so back that claim up.

Again, go find me an alternate natural explanation that refutes Darwinian Evolution that was dismissed outright by the scientific community....otherwise your contention that there is some dogmatic hold on Darwinism that prevented peer review and resulted in scorn by the scientific community is unfounded and outright false.

I am amazed that you can smuggle in the dogmatic hold while being blind to it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, it didn't. My premise is that your point was wrong to begin with. Were you not highlighting that a "designer" needed to "guide" as it pertains to evolution?

You said this:




The purpose was to show that random chance ordered by natural selection can create organization. It was in response to the argument that random chance couldn't have accounted for all the species we see today. The specific "end" was a collection of ordered letters (different species today) and the "guide" was random sampling ordered by selection (random gene mutation with natural selection).

The specific end a specified end. The "code" was random sampling. The guide (ordered by, as you put it above), by a selection criteria with an end in mind-- the predetermined sentence.

So, the purpose was to how that "random chance ordered by natural selection can create organization", as you put it. But it did not show that. It showed that random chance can produce organization as long as it is guided by a designer's desire for an end product.

The simulation was intelligently designed to produce a predetermined result. Do you deny this?

 

[rjd970]

I never said that. I've said that's a metaphysical statement made 'about' science. Science deals in explaining evidence. If supernatural causes were to leave a testable mark in physical reality, it would be scientific to test them and build hypothesis accordingly.

For instance, if a disembodied human hand were to appear in a room full of 1000s of observers and write a message on the wall from God, your version of science would claim that it is impossible that it happened. My version of science would postulate on the supernatural origin of the message.

I will repeat myself, and you are yet to counter my point... Naturalism is a philosophical, metaphysical statement. It is not science.

Geez. I'm not trying to counter it. Naturalism is the philosophical premise upon which science evaluates evidence. Anything that doesn't start with that premise will not be evaluated by the scientific method. What would be the point to start any investigation with supernatural causes? It could apply to literally anything. From lightening to the earth's 5000 different species of beetles.

Tell me why. Convince me. Because of a metaphysical predilection? You are making philosophical statements, so back that claim up.

I told you why. Because by definition it doesn't fall under the purview of science. If you think that is a weakness of science than have at it. The scientific process has advanced our knowledge and worked pretty well without supernatural intervention up to this point.

I am amazed that you can smuggle in the dogmatic hold while being blind to it.

And I am amazed you can't see the delineation between what science claims from the beginning what it can and can't do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Geez. I'm not trying to counter it. Naturalism is the philosophical premise upon which science evaluates evidence. Anything that doesn't start with that premise will not be evaluated by the scientific method. What would be the point to start any investigation with supernatural causes? It could apply to literally anything. From lightening to the earth's 5000 different species of beetles.



I told you why. Because by definition it doesn't fall under the purview of science. If you think that is a weakness of science than have at it. The scientific process has advanced our knowledge and worked pretty well without supernatural intervention up to this point.



And I am amazed you can't see the delineation between what science claims from the beginning what it can and can't do.

So, when asked to prove the metaphysical basis by which you have grasped "science" and defined "scientists", you just repeat the metaphysical definition.

I think we're done here. Thank you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And I am amazed you can't see the delineation between what science claims from the beginning what it can and can't do.

Oh, and that is a lie. The naturalistic metaphysics were added about 150 years ago. Sir Isaac Newton would be surprised by your claim.

Edit: Writing to Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, Sir Newton said:

To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent.

He established four laws of the scientific method:

(1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, (2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes, (3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and (4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.

He did not add: (5) Nothing supernatural.

I propose again, to say that the naturalistic, unproven metaphysical statement about supernatural causes is a very late addition, and not what science has "always" claimed for itself. You, sir, told a falsehood.

Edit 2: Notice that his laws limited natural laws only to what they are sufficient in explaining. He LIMITED natural causes, while making sure that "God did it" wasn't the default.

 

[rjd970]

The specific end a specified end. The "code" was random sampling. The guide (ordered by, as you put it above), by a selection criteria with an end in mind-- the predetermined sentence.

So, the purpose was to how that "random chance ordered by natural selection can create organization", as you put it. But it did not show that. It showed that random chance can produce organization as long as it is guided by a designer's desire for an end product.


The simulation was intelligently designed to produce a predetermined result. Do you deny this?

You are focusing on this experiment and not looking at the broader implications.

First, you are assuming that the end result has to end in one possibility. The beauty of ToE is that it is almost unique as a theory that we can test naturally that shows completely natural processes can create order out of chaos. Given a different set of events (letter ordering to choose from), life could have looked completely different than it does today (a different play). That doesn't change the fact that evolution by natural selection still happened in each case.

Second, I don't deny this as it pertains to this specific experiment. But what does that have to do with insinuating evolution was guided or designed? The same simulation could be done with a repository of a million different books to randomly choose from as an end result instead of a single play. The end result would then be different each time, but the same process was used. Just like if the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct life would look different today, or any other set of circumstances that would have caused life to branch of a different way.

 

[hog88]

We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved with them. We both share a common ancestor, we're cousins - not brothers.

Looks like we're cousins with the pig also.

Human to Pig Genome Comparison Complete | [primary-term] content from National Hog Farmer

Maybe one day science will find that missing link and if they do, I'll reevaluate my beliefs. Until then, it's just an unproven THEORY.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You are focusing on this experiment and not looking at the broader implications.

First, you are assuming that the end result has to end in one possibility. The beauty of ToE is that it is almost unique as a theory that we can test naturally that shows completely natural processes can create order out of chaos. Given a different set of events (letter ordering to choose from), life could have looked completely different than it does today (a different play). That doesn't change the fact that evolution by natural selection still happened in each case.

Second, I don't deny this as it pertains to this specific experiment. But what does that have to do with insinuating evolution was guided or designed? The same simulation could be done with a repository of a million different books to randomly choose from as an end result instead of a single play. The end result would then be different each time, but the same process was used. Just like if the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct life would look different today, or any other set of circumstances that would have caused life to branch of a different way.

I am very much concentrating on this single experiment. In the 1980s, the preeminent evolutionary mind in the world wrote a computer program that intelligently guided toward a predetermined end result, and claimed it was proof that a non-designed, blind, unguided process of random output can create order.

You don't seem to understand the implications. You seem to think that one could write a computer program, choosing a different end result to produce a completely different result-- and thus reinforce Darwinian evolution.

Well, duh. You could write another program. And of course, if you choose a different outcome, you'll get a different outcome.

 

[Roustabout]

No, it didn't. My premise is that your point was wrong to begin with. Were you not highlighting that a "designer" needed to "guide" as it pertains to evolution?


The purpose was to show that random chance ordered by natural selection can create organization. It was in response to the argument that random chance couldn't have accounted for all the species we see today. The specific "end" was a collection of ordered letters (different species today) and the "guide" was random sampling ordered by selection (random gene mutation with natural selection).

Sorry, but you've yet to actually do this.
NS is not some ethereal, amoral consciousness that is picking (selecting) one trait over another. Interesting the NS is not a selection at all. When we talk about the function of the human eye, how does NS account for function? Sure we can see how NS is one trait being beneficial, such as long hair vs. short, but that doesn't account for the genetic information and function of hair in the 1st place. This is nothing but a question begging hyposthesis. And you've not SHOWN anything. YOu are taking on FAITH mind you, that NS and random mutation will do this. And that my friend is religion, not science.

 

[rjd970]

I am very much concentrating on this single experiment. In the 1980s, the preeminent evolutionary mind in the world wrote a computer program that intelligently guided toward a predetermined end result, and claimed it was proof that a non-designed, blind, unguided process of random output can create order.

You don't seem to understand the implications. You seem to think that one could write a computer program, choosing a different end result to produce a completely different result-- and thus reinforce Darwinian evolution.

Well, duh. You could write another program. And of course, if you choose a different outcome, you'll get a different outcome.

Yes. Your end result with a million different books to choose from would have been randomly chosen and resulted in a different end-state, but would have used the same process. The implication is that no particular end-state would have been given preference...ie...we weren't "guided" to be here if Hamlet wasn't chosen, life was "guided" to another end-state by random events (random choosing of another book). The process was the point of the experiment, the end state could have been anything randomly chosen for any reason.

Are you saying that we were guided to this specific end-state by a designer and no other end-states were possible? Just because we are here isn't proof it was designed that way, it easily could have been just random chance set of events after biogenesis that got us here.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And I am amazed you can't see the delineation between what science claims from the beginning what it can and can't do.

Although his methodology was strictly logical, Newton still believed deeply in the necessity of a God. His theological views are characterized by his belief that the beauty and regularity of the natural world could only "proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He felt that "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere." Newton believed that God periodically intervened to keep the universe going on track. He therefore denied the importance of Leibniz's vis viva as nothing more than an interesting quantity which remained constant in elastic collisions and therefore had no physical importance or meaning.

Although earlier philosophers such as Galileo and John Philoponus had used experimental procedures, Newton was the first to explicitly define and systematize their use. His methodology produced a neat balance between theoretical and experimental inquiry and between the mathematical and mechanical approaches. Newton mathematized all of the physical sciences, reducing their study to a rigorous, universal, and rational procedure which marked the ushering in of the Age of Reason. Thus, the basic principles of investigation set down by Newton have persisted virtually without alteration until modern times. In the years since Newton's death, they have borne fruit far exceeding anything even Newton could have imagined. They form the foundation on which the technological civilization of today rests. The principles expounded by Newton were even applied to the social sciences, influencing the economic theories of Adam Smith and the decision to make the United States legislature bicameral. These latter applications, however, pale in contrast to Newton's scientific contributions.

It is therefore no exaggeration to identify Newton as the single most important contributor to the development of modern science. The Latin inscription on Newton's tomb, despite its bombastic language, is thus fully justified in proclaiming, "Mortals! rejoice at so great an ornament to the human race!" Alexander Pope's couplet is also apropos: "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night; God said, Let Newton be! and all was light."

What has science said "from the beginning' about supernatural causes in investigation.

I must say, I get very uncomfortable when I am in discussion with people who use blatant untruths to prove their points.