For the alternative theorists:

[leopold]

I think that I'd prefer to call it 'scientistic'. Many laypeople, often atheist but many others as well, treat science as if it was kind of a religion. Its their source of infallible Truth, the rock to which their worldview is anchored.

and it should be.
science should be the last word in regards to the truth. period.
this is the major reason i bitch so much about this.
people hold evolution up on a silver platter like it's some kind of "etched in stone" thing, and it isn't.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

science should be the last word in regards to the truth. period.

No, science makes no claim of infallibility, it is a constant process of correction and extension of what we think we know. There is no such thing as "the last word" in science, nor in any other realm of reality.

Yazata

Adaptation certainly has been observed in the case of fast-reproducing organisms like bacteria.

So you don't even understand the difference between adaptation and evolutionary change. Adaptation is adjustment to current conditions using extant genetic abilities. Evolution is a change in genetic abilities in response to changes in current conditions(basically by killing all those who's genome did not change). They are two different things. EVOLUTIONARY changes have been observed both in the lab and in the wild. Evolution is observed fact. If you don't understand something it is not rational to pontificate about that subject.

The origins of virtually all of the species on earth haven't been directly observed by human beings, let alone by scientists. What contemporary researchers have instead is a huge pile of often seemingly unrelated evidence, such as fossil bones from the Gobi desert or gene sequencing data on tube-worms. Evolutionary theory provides a coherent model that makes sense of all of that data and starts converting the myriad of data points into pixels in the picture of the history of life on earth. That allows researchers to start hypothesizing about what as-yet missing parts of the picture might look like and so far at least, new data coming in has tended (generally-speaking) to verify many of those hypotheses.

That is a ridiculous oversimplification and discounting of the current state of knowledge. Virtually all species that have ever existed are now extinct, known only by the fossil record, yet there is still an incredible array of existing lifeforms. And, as pertains to those existing creatures and organisms, we know quite a bit about their evolutionary history, Nature left it's notes on the genomes. Comparing genomes between organisms reveals their interconnectedness. Your genome shares about 40% of the genome of a banana, sometime in the distant past your ancestor was also the ancestor of monkey food. Your skeleton was inherited directly from a fish with legs(as is true for every other creature with a skeleton). Genetically you only missed being a great ape by 3%. DNA is a book of the history of an organism's genome, we now are getting pretty good at reading that history. Here's a snippet, the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans lived about 8 million years ago.

Also, you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, evidently. Your knowledge of the current state of evolutionary science is decades out of date, it's only "a huge pile of often seemingly unrelated evidence" if you know little about the details or the process. It is unwise to issue pronouncements based on such ignorance of the subject. Your conclusions based on that lack of knowledge are understandably way off regarding the reality of current knowledge and you do no one any favors by promulgating them(nor do you do yourself any favor by continuing to cling to your belief in those conclusions).

Facts are the way the world really is. Observation reports report what people believe the facts are. Facts aren't true or false, facts just are. Reports of observations are expressed in some human language and they typically are either true or false. In other words, facts and observation reports aren't the same kind of things. That's important, since it makes it possible for particular observation reports to be wrong.

That's why the Scientific method is so important, as it has peer review, falsification and repeatability requirements, so it tends to eliminate false reports. Scientists do not base their conclusion on single observations BECAUSE there can be mistakes, ineptitude or outright fraud in some of them. If an observation cannot be repeated by other scientists, or flaws in technique are found those observations are not accepted, it happens every day. I wish religions had such a mechanism to correct their errors.

I never said that evolution isn't a fact, in fact I went to some effort to discuss it.

You continue to conflate the fact that evolution occurred with the theory that explains that fact(to the best of our current understanding), they are two different things. You just showed you don't even acknowledge that evolution is an OBSERVED fact, calling it adaptation instead, denying that it has been observed in real time and within the timespan of a single human being's lifetime. You still do not grok the current state of knowledge and your argument is seriously outdated.

Evolution in the sense of 'change over time is due to purely natural causes' is more of a metaphysical belief.

No, it is a theory, theories(in science)are not beliefs, they are based on evidence and logic, something beliefs do not utilize. The fact is that no unnatural or supernatural process has ever been observed, so science doesn't posit one. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a valid addition to a math equation and has exactly zero explanatory value. Many scientists believe in some deity, they just don't allow that metaphysical belief to interfere with the science they are doing. And they would not be doing any valid scientific work if they did. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory for that very reason. Why do believers think everyone else struggles with that same handicap. Belief is the opposite of knowledge, you know. It only gets a few things correct by accident, science gets most things right by process.

This current battling looks like a collision between two worldviews whose supporters are convinced are both infallible and incompatible.

Science never claims infallibility, religions usually do. And the two world views are incompatible. Funny how science is usually right, and religion are often so wrong.

Grumpy

 

[Yazata]

The origins of virtually all of the species on earth haven't been directly observed by human beings, let alone by scientists. What contemporary researchers have instead is a huge pile of often seemingly unrelated evidence, such as fossil bones from the Gobi desert or gene sequencing data on tube-worms. Evolutionary theory provides a coherent model that makes sense of all of that data and starts converting the myriad of data points into pixels in the picture of the history of life on earth. That allows researchers to start hypothesizing about what as-yet missing parts of the picture might look like and so far at least, new data coming in has tended (generally-speaking) to verify many of those hypotheses.

That is a ridiculous oversimplification and discounting of the current state of knowledge.

Of course it's simplified, we are all laymen and this is Sciforums. The thing is, if we start attending to the technical details of how it's done, then it just makes my point stronger.

Here's the lecture notes for lecture #2 of the graduate level course in Principles of Phylogenetics that the University of California at Berkeley offered this spring semester, 2014.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200/lect/ib200_lect02_Mishler_homology_chars.pdf

The first introductory paragraph reads:

"Genealogical relationships themselves are invisible, so how can we know them? Is there an objective, logically sound method by which we can reconstruct the tree of life? Recent advances in theories and methods for phylogenetic reconstruction, along with copious new data from the molecular level, have made possible a new scientific understanding of the relationships of organisms. This understanding of relationships has led in turn to improved taxonomic classifications, as well as the subject matter of this class: comparative methods for testing biogeographic, ecological, behavioral and other functional hypotheses."

Which isn't a whole lot different than what I wrote.

***************************************

Subsequent editorial addition: here's the link to Berkeley's IB200 Principles of Phylogenetics spring 2014 graduate class.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200/

Click on the 'handouts' link on the left to get the notes for all 35 or so course lectures. This stuff is way too advanced for Sciforums (or for me) but it does give a good idea of what's being discussed in a contemporary evolutionary biology graduate course at a leading university.

 

[paddoboy]

This current battling looks like a collision between two worldviews whose supporters are convinced are both infallible and incompatible.

"The further this "battle" goes on, the more I'm convinced that we have some closet YEC's or God supporters, that simply find it abhorent and against some deep personal belief about life. That's a shame.

I expect that probably happened, but it's just speculation at this point, because nobody really knows how life originated.

I would be willing to accept that it is just speculation, if someone would or could give me any possible alternative.
I do not know of any other possible reasonable alternative, excluding the non scientific hypothesis of a God.

 

[paddoboy]

The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

Interesting.
But that again is one man....Fred Hoyle doubted the BB model in favour of a steady state right up until he kicked the bucket.
A great scientist irrespective, despite that one failing.

 

[leopold]

Interesting.
But that again is one man....Fred Hoyle doubted the BB model in favour of a steady state right up until he kicked the bucket.
A great scientist irrespective, despite that one failing.

no it isn't "just one man" paddoboy and you know it.
regardless of what you would like to think, the scientific community IS NOT unanimous about evolution.
you didn't address my link about HS biology teachers that are reluctant to teach evolution.
the MAJORITY have some kind of problem with it.
why do you suppose that is?
remember, these are people SPECIFICALLY educated on the topic.

 

[Motor Daddy]

regardless of what you would like to think, the scientific community IS NOT unanimous about evolution.

That would be a trick since there are God fearing, believing people amongst the ranks in the science community. Infiltrators!

 

[leopold]

label the following as "creationist" and shitcan it without following up on ANY of it paddoboy:
www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution

 

[Grumpy]

A Storehouse of Knowledge has a biblical worldview as a basis. It is Creationist propaganda, not science.

 

[Grumpy]

Yazata

Of course it's simplified, we are all laymen and this is Sciforums.

I said ridiculously oversimplified and discounting of the current state of knowledge. I meant it exactly like I said it. And, no, we are not all laymen and you cannot honestly avoid facing the fact that you are misrepresenting the state of current knowledge, even as a layman. Skepticism is a good thing, but being overly skeptic is not. You must face the facts as they are, not as you believe them to be.

Grumpy

 

[Write4U]

and it should be.
science should be the last word in regards to the truth. period.
this is the major reason i bitch so much about this.
people hold evolution up on a silver platter like it's some kind of "etched in stone" thing, and it isn't.

But theists seem to believe just that, everything is "etched in stone".
If the alternative is Moses holding up a stone tablet with inscription from god's hand, I'll take science every day.

Offer an alternative to the scientific method and I''ll listen with great interest.If you do not have a logical and verifiable (falsifiable) theory to offer, I'll stick with scientific consensus. They have met the burden of proof, where no one else has!

 

[leopold]

But theists seem to believe just that, everything is "etched in stone".

that's their problem, not mine.

If the alternative is Moses holding up a stone tablet with inscription from god's hand, I'll take science every day.

come on man, who CARES about moses.
the topic is evolution NOT religion.

 

[leopold]

leopold



No, science makes no claim of infallibility, it is a constant process of correction and extension of what we think we know.

i realize that, and i especially like your use of the word think.

There is no such thing as "the last word" in science, nor in any other realm of reality.

yes, but the above mentioned progress should reflect what science knows to be true.
science does not know evolution to be true although it seemingly has a lot going for it.

 

[Write4U]

that's their problem, not mine.

come on man, who CARES about moses.
the topic is evolution NOT religion.

Great, then lets leave creationism out of the conversation, period. No one cares about creation by a supernatural flying spaghetti monster, by any other name.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Great, then lets leave creationism out of the conversation, period. No one cares about creation by a supernatural flying spaghetti monster, by any other name.

There's always that terminal question of where the spaghetti came from, and is there sauce and garlic bread too?

 

[Write4U]

There's always that terminal question of where the spaghetti came from, and is there sauce and garlic bread too?

Precisely, talkin about a supernatural Master Chef cooking up recipes is a waste of time IMO. The last great chef I met was named Francois, and even he needed "ingredients" to make a gourmet dish.

 

[leopold]

Great, then lets leave creationism out of the conversation, period. No one cares about creation by a supernatural flying spaghetti monster, by any other name.

why are you directing this to me?
i don't give a rats ass about creationism in the current discussion, nor am i the one that keeps bringing it up.

 

[leopold]

A Storehouse of Knowledge has a biblical worldview as a basis. It is Creationist propaganda, not science.

heh, i didn't even have to say it.

 

[Write4U]

why are you directing this to me?
i don't give a rats ass about creationism in the current discussion, nor am i the one that keeps bringing it up.

I was merely agreeing with your observation..

 

[Trippy]

I still think that moderators (that's you Trippy) should move threads like this to 'alternative theories'.

This thread didn't start off as a creationism debate, it started off as a generalized discussion of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, and as such I saw no problem with it being in GS&T.

The evolution issue is a recent diversion.

I don't really know what kind of discussions the mainstream science fora should host, but that's another question.

One that I have been working on myself.