Actually, it’s abundantly clear to me how the “Frankencell” project will be used for creationist propaganda. The point of the project is to make a “minimal genome organism.” Right now, it looks like the minimal number of present-day genes needed to run all the “housekeeping” functions of a cell and just keep it alive is about 300.
So, if you have 299 genes, it won’t live, right? So clearly the simplest possible living thing is irreducibly complex, and in order for it to evolve you’d need the right 300 genes to just come together at random all at once.
Never mind that if you read the scientific literature, the point is made time and again that the Frankencell will bear no relation to any ancestral organism, because it’s patched together of modern genes which fit together differently than the genes of ancient organisms would have.
Unfortunately, creationists can take just about anything and make it into propaganda for themselves. Hell, they took quotes from Dawkins and Gould and used them for propaganda, and you couldn’t find two stronger opponents of creationism!
Logical deduction by its self is proof of nothing. Logic in its self is only assumption. As for speciation, suppose one has seen it take place in one or two instances. That does not mean it happened in all instances. While that may be logical, it is not proof. That is why it is called the theory of evolution.
Science, along with everyone else, posits some solution, then goes about finding evidence to support that posit.
Of course, they will find evidence to support any posit.
Ultimately anything can by said to be proven by circumstantial evidence, which is all science has in the theory of evolution.
Yes, observed phenomenon is closer to truth, but then scientists don’t trust feelings, and observations can be wrong.
No, we don’t know the origins of the universe or anything else, but we can amuse ourselves with the arguments.
Leroy-Are you actaully going to argue that because it’s the “theory” of evolution, that it’s just a guess? Because if you are, you REALLY don’t understand science at all.
Theories are more then just guesses. Nothing can be 100 percent proved, theories are the closet thing we have to being 100 percent proved.
I suggest some basic reading on the subject of science, Leroy.
You are wrong about this too. Are you actually trying to say that a scientist can say anything, and then “prove it” by circumstantial evidence, without some sort of peer review process?
Look up Cold Fusion, you will see that “any posit” can not be put forward and proven with “circumstantial evidence”.
I have to ask you a question: Do you think that we’ve just been getting lucky, in regards to technology and progress?
"Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth. "
"In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. "
"All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain. "
Actually, shouldn’t the following statement be a law?
“Randomness plus selection generates novel information.”
It’s just that R+S=I goes on in so many facets of the natural world beyond just the formation of new species, that I think it could arguably be called a law. It’s a statistical phenomenon, like the second law of thermodynamics.
I mean, let’s face it- even the most die-hard young-earth creationist believes that a single-celled organism can develop into a human being! And that can’t happen without randomness plus selection.
As for lekatt, let me point out once again how prominent doublespeak is in fundamentalist circles. Supposedly atheists are the ones who argue for relative truth (and its handmaiden, relative morality,) but in a CvE debate have you ever seen an evolutionist declare that arguments prove nothing and that everybody is just presenting equally good evidence for their view?
First: Logical deduction is not used “by its self”.
Second: Observed instances of speciation were observed because we knew what to look for. And we knew what to look for because of the theories about how it occurs. When one finds support for a theory, it is strengthened. When one finds a contradictory case, the theory is weakened. And unless you are positing that the laws of nature are completely random, we have every reason to believe that if it occurs, as predicted, in some observable instances, then it has occurred in all non-observable instances, as well.
Third: Science is not about “proof”, it’s about understanding, based on the evidence available.
Fourth: Suppose it is just an assumption. Assumptions can still be shown to be false. Please show that the “assumption” of evolution is false, or show evidence from others who have done so.
Given that you stated, “When a creationist says we have never known any species to be anything other than than species, they are correct,” and where shown to be incorrect, don’t you suppose that you might not know what is, or is not known about evolution? You failed to answer the rest of the questions in my last response to you: are you aware of Darwin’s logical foundation for natural selection? If so, which fact or conclusion can be demonstrated as false? If you are not aware, then how can you presume to argue against that which you do not understand?
Pythagras, don’t feel too bad – I too responded without noting the fact that it was [cue eerie music] The Thread That Came Back From the Dead. But since it furnished a clear opportunity to put forth the divine-creation-through-natural-forces viewpoint, I’m not too embarrased about it.
I would say no, simply because R+S=I is the creative force of evolution by virtue of statistical preponderance, not exclusivity. It is possible, though necessarily, according to theory, very rare, for “randomness” alone to generate novel information.
I think you’ve misunderstood what I said. I’m not saying, “It’s a law that evolution always works by natural selection.” I’m saying, “it’s a law that randomness plus selection will lead to novel information.” For example, it works in SELEX, it works for ant foraging, for generation of immune diversity, in evolutionary algorithms, etc.
Actually, upon re-reading Ben’s post, he mentioned the statistical aspect. I would then change my objection to the statement being a law to the fact that randomness + selection can only genuinely generate novel information after repeated iterrations, which (to my thinking) removes it from the “universal applicability” that laws usually require.
And I see you’ve slipped in another post when I wasn’t looking.
To be honest, the the point at which a theory becomes law seems to me to be a bit fuzzy. Newton’s Laws, for example, have shown to not be universally applicable, yet maintain the status of “law” for historical reasons. Meanwhile, Einstein’s highly-coraborrated theories remain as theories. So, it may well be that someday, what you posit may be seen as a law.
Listen, we know that genes change over time in a manner that is for all intents and purposes, random.
We also know that genes play a central role (though perhaps not the only role) in deciding what traits that organism will exhibit. This is an area of science where the effects of the theory have been confirmed in practice.
For a great number of iterations of a specific gene set (gene sets similiar enough for us to for us to consider them to determine a certain species of organism) that a degree of variation from specific organism to specific organism will occur.
Those sets of traits which confer some survival advantage will be the ones that get passed on to further generations. This explains why the multitude of life on this planet seems so perfectly adapted to it’s own particular niche - if an organism isn’t good at what it does and can’t find another way to get by by doing something different then it doesn’t live very long.
Of course this implies that a long held belief, that the world wouldn’t have gotten to be the way it is if some God hadn’t planned it all a couple thousand years ago, has a perfectly rational alternative explanation. An explanation that provides an understood mechanism, the transfer of genetic material from generation to generation and a demonstrable dynamic process, the selection for survival advantages over a large (extremely large) number of iterations of this mechanism. Evolution takes place around us all the time, some of it very slowly (as in the case of organisms you can see with the unaided eye), and some of it relatively quickly (as in the case of some microbes). Our use of antibiotics has resulted in a greater selection pressure on many of the organisms which make us sick, causing quite a few of them to evolve resistant strains. The theory of evolution never caused any of this to happen, it just came about when we began to understand what was going on right under our noses.
Not long ago the Pope himself recently declared that there is no contradiction between this theory and Christian beliefs, this is the accepted interpretation of a great deal of biblical scholars. It is not our place to say how God chose to create this world or humanity, if scientific evidence shows that evolution must have been involved then perhaps that is how God chose to do things. Protestants, however, who hold steadfastly to the “young earth” interpretation are forced to accept ever more improbable explanations of why the evidence out there contradicts their belief. Irrational beliefs are no stranger to religion but they certainly shouldn’t be used to evaluate descriptions of real world processes, they have a funny way of denying the obvious.
Interesting how this person picks apart one approach while only offering an unecessarily nebulous alternative. Actually it’s fairly typical of the sort of attitude which disparages reductionism.
If he wanted to say that evolution is more complicated than just the gene level of analysis then he could have just come out and said it.
“The only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.” – Socrates
When you reach the point of true knowledge there will be room for alternate theories and ideas. They will not necessarily be believed, but then neither will the original ones.
“The only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.” – Socrates
When you reach the point of true knowledge there will be room for alternate theories and ideas. They will not necessarily be believed, but then neither will the original ones.