1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science: True vs Pseudo - nPeace vs sayak83

Discussion in 'One-on-One Debates' started by nPeace, Jun 24, 2019.

  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    @sayak83 how does the title sound? :)

    I hope to cover a broad field, so I think the theme is appropriate for where I want to go.
    I want to start with this.

    This seems to be presenting an idea as though it is actually true science, when it seems to be pseudo science.
    Do you disagree? Can you please explain.

    If you need me to be clearer at any time, please don't hesitate to ask me to be more specific. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I'm sorry.
    I should have mentioned that this is the One-on-One Debate forum - which means that the only ones allowed to post in the thread, are the ones whose names are in the title.
    However, you probably posted innocently.
    Have a nice day. :)

    I might ask a mod to remove your post, or let it remain as a red flag.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Quagmire

    Quagmire Imaginary talking monkey
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    47,620
    Ratings:
    +8,420
    Religion:
    I am not an athiest.
    ***Mod Post***

    Please note that this thread is in the One on One debates forum, and this is intended as a one on one debate between

    nPeace and sayak83.
    Posts by any other members will be deleted and may be subject to further moderation action.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    I don't see how it is pseudoscience. Science regularly, and across all disciplines, seeks to explain the large scale and long term phenomena in terms of observable processes that occur at small scales and over short durations. Once the rate at which the process is occurring is known, and the time that is available is known...it is a simple matter to infer how much change the process can accomplish over the available time span. If the observed change falls within what the given process can accomplish, then it becomes a valid explanation of that phenomena.

    I don't see what is complicated about this.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Humans try to explain...
    Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.

    What do humans know about the pace of evolution?
    Does evolution occur in rapid bursts or gradually? This question is difficult to answer because we can't replay the past with a stopwatch in hand. However, we can try to figure out what patterns we'd expect to observe in the fossil record if evolution did happen in bursts, or if evolution happened gradually. Then we can check these predictions against what we observe.
    ......
    We observe examples of both slow, steady change and rapid, periodic change in the fossil record. Both happen. But scientists are trying to determine which pace is more typical of evolution and how each sort of evolutionary change happens.


    What does the fossil record really reveal?
    What the fossil record reveals is subject to faulty interpretation.

    The traditional view that most evolutionary change is gradual and cumulative within lineages (phyletic gradualism) has recently been challenged by the proposition that the majority of evolutionary change is concentrated within speciation events (rectangular evolution).

    The reason the hypothetical are often debated, evidently is because there is no verifiable evidence. There are only assumptions, largely in favor of ideas presumed to be correct.

    Over 150 years, this apparently was true...
    “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”⁠
    ...This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."

    - W. R. Thompson

    Less than four decades ago, that has not changed.
    Today, it is the same.

    What would it take for one to say they know the rate at which evolution occurs, and the available time needed for it to occur? Not only would they have to speculate, but they also have to believe that their assumptions are right.
    No test can be carried out to show what they... infer is not the word to use here - claim.
    This does not meet the criteria of true science, does it?
    Could you please explain how it does.

    Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    All these recent observations show that DNA can change at a faster rate than initially thought. So, if there was sufficient time for evolutionary changes to occur with slower rates, the currently observed faster rates would make the explanation even more plausible would it not?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
    This is what I am seeing in your statements. How is that not the case?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Can you explain how it is the case? The only thing that you pointed out to me is the claim that there is enough time for evolution to create the large changes seen in the biological world. The currently observed rates have an average and a range of variation (max and min), but the rate-range is fast enough, in fact more than fast enough to explain the large changes between major groups of living things given the long times that are available over which this change can occur.
    So the claim "evolution is fast enough to have the potential to create the large changes seen among various groups of life over the long times of earth history" is perfectly true and factually based.

    By the way, here is an informative article on how the rates of evolutionary mutations are calculated.
    How to Calculate Mutation Rate for Evolutionary Biology
     
    #8 sayak83, Jun 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
  9. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Do pigs have the potential to grow wings and fly? If given enough time. No? Why not? How do you know?
    What scientific method demonstrates not?

    Don't forget. calculating mutation rates is not the same as demonstrating that mutations add up to produce different organisms, and remember the other mechanism involved are not even known to be responsible for the process.
    What scientific method demonstrates your claim?

    Currently the process required to produce new features is not known.
    How is claiming the potential for such compatible with the scientific method?
     
  10. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Yes they. Future descendants of pigs may indeed evolve wings.


    The initial question was whether mutation rates are sufficient to cause the large divergences between animal groups. They are. Are we agreed on this?

    If so we can move on to the question of how mutations give rise to the different physical features of the organism.

    Why are you saying. I believe that the processes are quite well known.
    Because we know of the processes (in developmental biology) that shows how genetic changes (through mutation) cause different physical features to rise in various animal groups.
     
  11. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You are not answering the questions. Why?
    Making statements, and claims without any explanation or supportive evidence, mean nothing to me.


    Hand waving means nothing to me.
    The original question has not been answered, except by making statements that one is suppose to accept, just because a scientist says it.
    Why are you not answering my questions?

    Again you have not answered the question.
    Nor have you actually addressed the statements that no one has demonstrating that mutations add up to produce different organisms, and the other mechanism involved are not even known to be responsible for the process.

    I'll not ask any more questions. I'll instead follow your lead.
    There are no known processes for producing new features in organisms.
     
  12. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    I don't understand. Mutations alter DNA (by definition). DNA is responsible for the shape, form and functions of all body parts and organs in a body as it develops in the womb (or in an egg). So, why won't mutations that change DNA will not also inevitably change the organs and the body parts that this DNA is making in the body?

    If you alter the recipe, the food will obviously be different from what was being cooked before.
     
  13. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    I hope you understand that the ONLY thing that makes an elephant different from a mouse is that they have different letter combinations in their DNA strands? Thus demonstrating that mutations alter these DNA letters at a high enough rate is the ONLY thing needed to explain how these differences between an elephant and a mouse emerged naturally with time?

    What is confusing about this.
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Pseudoscience.
    I don't think I have to quote the definition again.
    No scientific method was applied to this speculation.
    My original post has to do specifically with making claims about something that you can in no way verify by the scientific method.

    You never answered my questions. You haven't answered them, nor have you explained why you are not .
    No test can be done to tell you that pigs can grow wings and fly.
    This is worst than the idea of evolution from one common ancestor, although not by far.
    Perhaps man himself will start making web, in his forearms. He'll be better than Spiderman. Right...


    No. The differences between an elephant and a mouse, are very great. No need to go into them.

    Mutations and hormones are in ways similar.
    Both cause changes in the body.
    Growth hormones do what the word suggest. I have never seen a 600 foot man. Have you?

    The argument you are presenting sounds just as ridiculous as saying that given enough time growth hormones will allow us to clean the top floor windows of the Empire State building just standing on the pavement below.

    Don't answer my questions, if you don't want to.
    You can just admit that you cannot deny that those ideas are not true science, but pseudo science.
    They are incompatible with the scientific method.
     
    #14 nPeace, Jul 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  15. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    What question am I leaving unanswered? Mutations don't stack up. That phrase makes no sense to me.They affect DNA and change the various letters, causing corresponding changes to the animal body and functions. Mutations are observed, that these mutations change body structure and organ function has also been observed. What else remains?

    Regarding hormones:-
    What you said is not correct. Both the timing and concentration of hormone secretion is dictated by DNA letter code sequence. There is NOTHING in the body of an animal (or any other organism) that is not the result of some DNA sequence or the other. That is quite well understood in biological sciences. Saying that a hormone is a cause independent from the DNA letter codes that directly produce them is hence wrong.

    I am well able to defend the claim that every biological feature is caused by DNA sequences and all differences between any two animals or organisms can be directly traced to changes in DNA sequence and their expressions.

    Given this established scientific fact of biology, the observation of mutation rates of these DNA strands are logically sufficient to establish the plausibility of the claim that mutations alone are quite capable of explaining the changes seen between disparate groups of animals.

    Do you want me to explain how DNA sequence is responsible for all the features and functions of any animal's body? If so, name any feature you wish to know about and I will provide that information to you.
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    What questions.
    In response to one of my questions, you said...
    Yes they. Future descendants of pigs may indeed evolve wings.

    I asked...
    1. How do you know?
    2. What scientific method demonstrates not? now this?

    I said that no one has demonstrating that mutations add up to produce different organisms, and the other mechanism involved are not even known to be responsible for the process.
    You say that mutations don add up, so what are you claiming about mutations and evolution happening over millions of year to produce different organisms... and by different organisms, I mean like a mouse and elephant?

    You say mutations affect DNA, causing corresponding changes to the animal body and functions.. So?

    Do you mean like making an organism blind, or changing its eye color, or building a resistance, or....
    Please give an example of what you mean.
    Give one that shows for example, one organism becoming a completely different organism... like a fly becoming a bat... if you have.

    What do you mean, what else remains?
    You just returned to the OP.
    You are making a claim that is not compatible with the scientific method. Anything is possible. The sky is the limit. Dung can become cabbage, and cabbage can become French fries.
    This is not how the scientific method works. It is not true science, but is pseudo.

    What I said is correct. You have not said anything to correct what I said.
    Hormones do affect the body, regardless of what is responsible for directing the process. It's not mutations that cause hormone to their job. The only thing mutation can do for hormones is interrupt their normal function.

    What changes are you specifically referring to?
    Do you mean like a change such as a lizard growing a beak?

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.
     
    #16 nPeace, Jul 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  17. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    You continue saying that mutations can't do this or that. You fail to explain to me why?
    Beaks are made by DNA sequences. Mutations create new DNA sequence combinations. So why on earth can mutations not create beaks in animals by altering their DNA?

    My claims are quite simple.
    1) The only difference between one organism and another, no matter how different, is the different in their DNA. All other differences (in body structure and function) is directly caused by the differences in DNA and their expressions.
    2) Mutations alter any DNA sequence to any other DNA sequence.
    3) Therefore mutations are sufficient to explain the emergence of different types of animals over time.

    1) and 2) are established by scientific methods. 3) is the conclusion derived from 1) and 2) through logical induction.

    Simple
     
    #17 sayak83, Jul 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Beaks are made by DNA? So why does every creature with DNA, not have a beak?
    Is it because the genes of those creatures don't code for a beak?
    So let me guess. A mutation is going to arrange the code just right to get a beak, then more mutations will do the same for two perfectly useful wings, right?

    You can't give me an example, can you? I asked. Where are they?
    How many generations of mutations in bacteria do we observe? Where are their beaks? Actually since they are soft bodied, where are their wings?
    The fruit fly experiments produced what? A useless pair of wings... Why not a tail?
    Is it because the existing DNA in the fly codes for wings, so that's all they can pass on, and nothing new is introduced into the egg? Certainly they don't mate with lizards, do they?

    It's not just the DNA. It's the code, isn't it? We need the codons in the genes, right? ...and where do the genes come from? They are passed on, aren't they?
    Mutations can only work on what's there. They don't create anything new, do they?

    I explained to you that you are the one saying that A does X, therefore what prevents A from doing Z, yet you are not explaining how that is compatible with the scientific method.
    Actually you are not explaining anything pertaining to methods of science, just stating a known fact, and then claiming that that fact dictates that an untested claim is true.
    That's pseudoscience.

    I keep asking you, but not once are you touching the question - not once do you mention the scientific method, and how it is used in your claim. Claims i am taking careful note of.

    Why won't pigs ever grow wings outside or inside the womb.
    Do you know where the last statements I used come from?
    Mutations
    There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.

    Source - Mutations (2 of 2)

    Is this a good and accurate source for one to consult on the theory of evolution?
    This is the same source I quoted in the OP presenting information as though it is true science, yet using the same pseudoscience claims.

    Should I scrap this site, or do you think it is good?

    Then you agree with me that the statements you are making fit the definition of pseudoscience.
    - statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.

    Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation...


    No scientific method can be applied to determine that pigs can grow wings and fly. Certainly claiming that mutations will do the job is wishful thinking - a mere speculation.
    On the source's page, we have a picture of what a single mutation can do.

    What's the biggest effect mutations can cause, where major change is concerned?
    Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.

    Mutation are ultimately damaging when you are talking about major body plans.
    If you have examples that show otherwise, you can share them.
     
  19. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,504
    Ratings:
    +7,942
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Beak is nothing but a covering of keratin (the substance that make up your nails) over the jaws of birds (and some mammals and fish). Scientific observations have clearly revealed how genes that stimulated keratin formation in the jaws and retarded teeth formation evolved in dinosaurs as they evolved into modern birds through a series of mutations in the jaw formation genes of these organisms. In fact scientists have created toothed birds by reversing these mutations to confirm this. Further details here,

    How did dinosaurs evolve beaks and become birds? Scientists think they have the answer
    As usual the process of transformation of reptilian jaws to avian beaks was a gradual one that took many millions of years of evolution of dinosaurs into birds. But the mechanism and the path is known.

    Does that answer your question?

    The actual paper can be found here (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
    Heterochronic truncation of odontogenesis in theropod dinosaurs provides insight into the macroevolution of avian beaks
    We identified truncation of tooth development during postnatal ontogeny (i.e. development) in two theropod dinosaurs, a caenagnathid oviraptorosaur and the Early Cretaceous bird Sapeornis. Developmental and paleontological evidence each suggests dental reduction and beak evolution are coupled, and a sequence of common morphologies is identified that characterizes the multiple transitions to toothless beaks in theropod dinosaurs and birds. Shifts toward earlier cessation of postnatal tooth development can be identified in fish, amphibians, and mammals that are edentulous (beaked) as adults; therefore the identification of similar transitions in multiple Mesozoic theropod dinosaur lineages strongly implies that heterochronic truncation of odontogenesis played an important role in the macroevolution of beaks in modern birds.


    Also,
    Chicken Embryos With Dinosaur Snouts Created in Lab

    [​IMG]

    Chicks with dino-snouts? With a little molecular tinkering, for the first time scientists have created chicken embryos with broad, Velociraptor-like muzzles in the place of their beaks.
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Oh okay.
    I'll remember that the next time I see a Woodpecker banging its beak against the hard bark of a tree. I'll tell the girls with their long fingernails, "There's nothing to it. You can do it."
    Then I'll try to keep a straight face.

    The way you are speaking is no different it seems, than when it was suggested that the cell was such a simple thing, that evolution to multicellular organism, was just a snap of the finger.
    However, over a century and a half later, what do the know of evolution from unicellular to multicellular?
    Many hypotheses exists.

    Scientific observations have clearly revealed how genes that stimulated keratin formation in the jaws and retarded teeth formation evolved in dinosaurs as they evolved into modern birds through a series of mutations in the jaw formation genes of these organisms. In fact scientists have created toothed birds by reversing these mutations to confirm this. Further details here,

    The words in red do sound quite nice, don't they.
    What was observed? How does one reverse a mutation that has not been seen to occur... far more, a series of them?
    Did they create mutations that produced the result... say like a mouse to elephant, and then reverse it?
    Why reverse a process that you observed in realtime?

    Regarding your article How did dinosaurs evolve beaks and become birds? Scientists think they have the answer
    I think the entire article says it all.

    Once you know that many dinosaurs had feathers, it seems much more obvious that they probably evolved into birds.

    ...and that's just the beginning of the article.
    Suggestions and proposition are made... I understand.
    What scientists think, or believe, and what has actually been demonstrated through the scientific method, are two completely different things.
    Pseudoscience -
    statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.

    Did you answer my question? Which one? They were several.
    However, apparently no, you have not answered the questions. You added something other than what you were saying. So you can perhaps explain what question you were attempting to answer.

    Heterochronic truncation of odontogenesis in theropod dinosaurs provides insight into the macroevolution of avian beaks
    At least seven transitions to edentulism occurred independently in theropod dinosaurs (13), all presumably accompanied by the appearance of a horny beak (1). Although the structure and morphogenetic events of beak formation have been well studied in extant birds (46), evolutionary developmental mechanisms linking beak formation and tooth loss have proven difficult to test, given extant models. Previous authors hypothesized that avian tooth loss was due to inactivation of odontogenic signaling pathways (7), but acknowledged that regional tooth loss initially accompanied various acquisition of beaks in Cretaceous birds (8, 9). Therefore, degradation of the odontogenic program alone cannot provide a developmental explanation for the coupling of tooth loss and beak formation (9). Macroevolutionary hypotheses for these phenomena have included weight-saving in response to the evolution of flight (1, 10) and efficient processing of herbivorous diets (3). Weight-saving hypotheses have been rejected by recent studies (11, 12) and fail to explain the tradeoff between tooth loss and beak development in nonvolant theropod lineages, while hypotheses related to dietary specialization appear salient for at least initial rostral beak formation in theropods.

    Here we provide fossil evidence consistent with postnatal truncation of odontogenesis in several lineages of theropod dinosaurs that eventually reach complete edentulism.


    Heterochrony - Wikipedia
    Heterochrony can be identified by comparing phylogenetically close species, for example a group of different bird species whose legs differ in their average length. These comparisons are complex because there are no universal ontogenetic timemarkers.

    That extract is the bare minimum, of what the article reveals.
    How is any of this different to what was said earlier here?
    Assumptions are made, and there is no way to verify that those assumptions are true.

    For example...
    [​IMG]
    Despite greatly differing neck lengths, giraffes (right) have no more cervical vertebrae, just 7, than their fellow giraffids, okapi (left). With the number constrained, the development of the vertebrae is extended, allowing them to grow longer.

    How long did it take the giraffe's neck to grow? 10 years? 100? 1,000,000? 100,000,000?
    How long did it take the character on the right to grow?
    [​IMG]

    What does similarities reveal, other than that things are similar?
    What does similarities between a Transam and Mustang reveal?
    Also, just because scientists can clone sheep, doesn't mean that cloning naturally occur, does it.
     
Loading...