Evolution: Just A Reminder sigh

Subduction Zone · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
what do you mean?

That phrase means that those are not necessarily the only factors involved. Shapiro 's article would have fit right in.

Wandering Monk · Nov 26, 2019

WalterTrull said:
I think so.

“Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

First comes the theory, then the evidence. Doesn’t that seem like begging the question?

There is no begging the question here.

Theory and hypothesis are different things. Theory comes long after hypothesis.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

Skwim · Nov 26, 2019

sealchan said:
Yes, but if you want to talk to people who think that the Theory of Evolution is too complex or that it lacks common sense as far as addressing the deep human need to understand origins...you should be prepared to discuss origins when you talk "across the aisle" about evolution.

But evolution doesn't have anything to say about origins, Period! Just as automobile manufacturing has nothing to say about highway infrastructure.

HERE:

Now if people want to talk about origins then perhaps they should make a thread in the Science and Technology or General Religious Debates forums. :shrug:

If species are like dominoes that fall as each prior generation gives birth (knocks over the next domino) then who started the dominos falling in the first place and who set them up?

*sigh* Evolution neither knows or cares.

If you can't address questions like this then you may not truly reach into the minds of those who might have this or some other limited metaphorical basis for their understanding of the problem of origins.

Not that we can't, but that it's simply irrelevant to evolution. However, if this is what someone wants to do then make a thread in the Science and Technology or General Religious Debates forums.

I believe that aside from cosmology we have the science of complex adaptive systems that gives us some context for addressing this question.

Well, we have the science to deal with issues of a physical/material nature. The divine or spiritual or metaphysical? No.

.

leroy · Nov 26, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
That phrase means that those are not necessarily the only factors involved. Shapiro 's article would have fit right in.

The mechanism is natural genetic engineering, and he describes what he means in various papers including the one that I quoted

osgart · Nov 26, 2019

How I define intelligence.

Goal Oriented.
Creates purposes.
Adapts to survive.
Fulfills purposes.
Accommodates necessity.
Invents.
Creates any measure of efficient function.
Organizes for any measure of convenience.
Does not have to meet engineering standards.
Fulfills necessity.
Is creating for objective reasons and purposes.
Shows foresight in meeting problems with solutions.
Functions with any measure of convenience.

Anything that meets one or many of these criteria may be a form of intelligence.

WalterTrull · Nov 26, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
For example hardly anyone denies gravity. It is both a "fact" and a theory. The theory explains the fact.

Wouldn't that be fun to disprove? I'm certainly not going to do it, but someone will/might.

WalterTrull · Nov 26, 2019

Wandering Monk said:
There is no begging the question here.

Theory and hypothesis are different things. Theory comes long after hypothesis.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

OK. We're walking up different staircases, I understand your reasoning, Although, I disagree the base/primal concept. I believe our father is in heaven.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

ImmortalFlame said:
Paperweights are specific, sophisticated and efficient.

Paperweights are general -- any small object will do. Sophisticated? Seriously?

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
The fact that none of you can show a single PR article that shows/conclude that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt, shows that evolution is still a controvertial idea

Go to a library or bookstore. Look in any biology journal, or any biology article in a popular, general science magazine like Scientific American. Thousands of these articles are published monthly, which is why your question left us flummoxed. There are whole libraries of such studies -- like grains of sand on the beach.

To say that there is no evidence supporting other beliefs is simply wrong...... Alternative models are discussed all the time in PR literature

NO! Show me these "alternative" models. There are no alternatives. Anti-ToE articles are based on false science and illogical reasoning. They generally attack some aspect of biology, assuming that if they can topple it, God is the only alternative.
The ToE is no more controversial than the flat-Earth "theory." The controversy is claimed by a tiny group of reason-challenged religious fanatics.

leroy said:
OK so what is the evidence that shows that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt?

How did you not learn this in school? Clearly you don't understand the simple, observable, tested mechanisms of evolution. The whole of biology is based on evolution. What conceivable alternative exists?

Subduction Zone · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
The mechanism is natural genetic engineering, and he describes what he means in various papers including the one that I quoted

Please, that is a meaningless phrase if not defined.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
Evolution as defined in the first post of this thread is controversial, while it is true that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for some of the diversity of life, scientist debate on whether if there are other relevant mechanisms, and some even suggest that other mechanisms are more relevant. _(for example James Shapiro would argue that natural genetic engineering is the main driving force) and his work has been published in PR articles

all I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community,

Perhaps Neo-Darwinists are correct, perhaps shapiro is correct, perhaps some other model is correct. To suggests that there is no controversy is just “ Propaganda from atheists youtubers ” that is not supported by scientists, (not even Richard Dawkins would deny that such controversy excists.)

There is no controversy. The ToE is the only reasonable theory.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

WalterTrull said:
I think so.

“Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

First comes the theory, then the evidence. Doesn’t that seem like begging the question?

First comes the evidence, then comes the hypothesis, then comes the testing and peer review.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
Granted there is no controversy on the fact that changes in allele frequency over time, occurs, and universal common descend is not controversial ether.

The controversy is on whether if the process of random genetic change + natural selection account for all (or most) of the diversity that we observe today….agree? yes or no?...........I am sorry if I ignored the rest of your comments, but I feel that you are not understanding my argument. I don’t deny “change over time” nor that we share a common ancestor with other species, my only argument is that weather if the process of random genetic change + natural selection can account for the diversity of life is controversial.

What alternative do you propose?

Subduction Zone · Nov 26, 2019

Valjean said:
First comes the evidence, then comes the hypothesis, then comes the testing and peer review.

I would say first comes the observations. Technically since scientific evidence supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory one needs a testable model first. That is based upon observations. Once a reasonable test is formed then those observations can be retermed as evidence.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
sure, we have this article Written by Shapiro, who proposes that organisms evolve mainly by a process of natural genetic engineering rather than by a process of random change + natural selection. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.1992.Gentica.NatGenEngInEvo.pdf

And just to be clear, I am not asserting that Shapiro is correct, (perhaps he is, perhaps he is wrong) I am simply showing an example of an alternative process that is being discussed in the scientific community.

I am just showing that the claim “the diversity that we observe is caused mainly by a process of random change + natural selection is controversial,

Schapiro is proposing a designer; an engineer. There is no evidence for this, nor is there any need for such an intercessor. There are no missing steps requiring an alternative "explanation." I could just as well propose faeries did it. He's just trying to jam his square peg into a round hole; a hole already filled, for that matter.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

sealchan said:
Yes, but if you want to talk to people who think that the Theory of Evolution is too complex or that it lacks common sense as far as addressing the deep human need to understand origins...you should be prepared to discuss origins when you talk "across the aisle" about evolution.

If species are like dominoes that fall as each prior generation gives birth (knocks over the next domino) then who started the dominos falling in the first place and who set them up?

If you can't address questions like this then you may not truly reach into the minds of those who might have this or some other limited metaphorical basis for their understanding of the problem of origins.

I believe that aside from cosmology we have the science of complex adaptive systems that gives us some context for addressing this question.

Now you're retreating to a first cause argument -- which doesn't address the mechanisms of evolution at all.

leroy · Nov 26, 2019

Valjean said:
Schapiro is proposing a designer; an engineer. There is no evidence for this, nor is there any need for such an intercessor. There are no missing steps requiring an alternative "explanation." I could just as well propose faeries did it. He's just trying to jam his square peg into a round hole; a hole already filled, for that matter.

No shapiro is not proposing a designer..... And no the Hole has not been filled this is why scientist are constantly proposing and discussing alternatives.

leroy · Nov 26, 2019

Valjean said:
What alternative do you propose?

I personally propose ID

Subduction Zone · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
I personally propose ID

Why? There is no scientific evidence for it that I am aware of. Behe and Dembski are both rather extreme failures when it comes to the science.

Valjean · Nov 26, 2019

leroy said:
The mechanism is natural genetic engineering, and he describes what he means in various papers including the one that I quoted

But the ToE describes 'natural genetic engineering'. Where's the disagreement?

If he's proposing an intentional 'engineer' he's making an extraordinary, unevidenced claim, for which there is no need.
There are no holes in the theory that need plugging.

Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Godfella

Godfella

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Evolution: Just A Reminder sigh