spuriousmonkey said:
OK
But seriously has this 'theist brains are smaller than atheist brains' actually been researched?
Is the theory of evolution true?
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
OK
But seriously has this 'theist brains are smaller than atheist brains' actually been researched?
God told me so. If this is good enough for the threadstarter, then it is good enough for me too. Except of course that my Divine entity is the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
You passed out and are dreaming. Next time stop sooner and you can see our common God is the quite visible pink elephant over there in corner of the room. I will drink a couple more and like you, make him invisible.spuriousmonkey said:
Hi BillyT:
Unlike you and yours with your pink gods, I gave up alcohol decades ago, and see reality with a slightly clearer vision. I actually did post somewhat a few days ago on this thread, but of course there was no response from the thread starter. Valich has posted quite a lot of good information in a dialogue we had two months ago pertaining to that new fossil discovery of a gill-breathing fish with front legs and feet, and movable head, a form intermediate between fish and amphibian ('missing link', which always screws up the ID program!).
I just thought you might enjoy some of my other posts of earlier today. Look under Astronomy under 'The Sun' and under 'Could the Earth Stop Spinning ...' for some interesting tidbits of fact. Also, look under Physics and Math under 'The Stars are Right'.
Regards,
Walter
Unlike you and yours with your pink gods, I gave up alcohol decades ago, and see reality with a slightly clearer vision. I actually did post somewhat a few days ago on this thread, but of course there was no response from the thread starter. Valich has posted quite a lot of good information in a dialogue we had two months ago pertaining to that new fossil discovery of a gill-breathing fish with front legs and feet, and movable head, a form intermediate between fish and amphibian ('missing link', which always screws up the ID program!).
I just thought you might enjoy some of my other posts of earlier today. Look under Astronomy under 'The Sun' and under 'Could the Earth Stop Spinning ...' for some interesting tidbits of fact. Also, look under Physics and Math under 'The Stars are Right'.
Regards,
Walter
Well, I haven't been following this thread at all, but ignorance of the subject never kept me from commenting before
Personally, I am both a creationist and a scientist. That means that I realize that even if ID is 100% right it is still not science. It is fundamentally unfalsifiable and it makes no testable predictions. It does not belong as an "alternative theory" in the science class room since it is not a scientific theory in any sense of the word.
That said, evolution is a pretty weak theory. It is not very falsifiable and its predictive power is pretty minimal. It's the best we have, but that doesn't make it very good. So personally, as a creationist, I don't see the point in getting terribly worked up over evolution.
-Dale
Personally, I am both a creationist and a scientist. That means that I realize that even if ID is 100% right it is still not science. It is fundamentally unfalsifiable and it makes no testable predictions. It does not belong as an "alternative theory" in the science class room since it is not a scientific theory in any sense of the word.
That said, evolution is a pretty weak theory. It is not very falsifiable and its predictive power is pretty minimal. It's the best we have, but that doesn't make it very good. So personally, as a creationist, I don't see the point in getting terribly worked up over evolution.
-Dale
That's a mature point of view, but are you sure evolutionary theory has little predictive value? What is your specialty?
dale:
You claim to be a scientist. What exactly are you qualifications?
Bullshit. Evolution theory has more explainatory and predictive power than gravitational theory.
You claim to be a scientist. What exactly are you qualifications?
One biologist said "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution."
It is eminently falsifiable. Finding human skeletons among fossils from the Cretaceous period, to give one example.
You're a Creationist? I must say I am surprised.
Do you actually believe in the literal truth of Genesis?
I haven't been following this either but...DaleSpam said:Well, I haven't been following this thread at all, but ignorance of the subject never kept me from commenting before
Personally, I am both a creationist and a scientist. That means that I realize that even if ID is 100% right it is still not science. It is fundamentally unfalsifiable and it makes no testable predictions. It does not belong as an "alternative theory" in the science class room since it is not a scientific theory in any sense of the word.
That said, evolution is a pretty weak theory. It is not very falsifiable and its predictive power is pretty minimal. It's the best we have, but that doesn't make it very good. So personally, as a creationist, I don't see the point in getting terribly worked up over evolution.
-Dale
As a scientist, what makes you say that the theory of evolution by natural selection is "weak"? This is a theory that has been shown in the lab, has wide support from geology, biology, and genetics. And it's predictive power is minimal? If you feel like it, could you elaborate on why you say this?
PetriFb: I'm not going to waste my time reading your thesis proclamation. The first few sentences already tell me what you don't know, i.e. nothing. The only reason you posted this thread is so you could post your unscientific ludicrous proclamation. This is a "scientific forum." If you have something scientific to ask and want a rational logical scientific reply, then post a simple question as such. Else get lost and stop wasting our time!
No, anyone who actually studies the Bible (vs. just reading it) should realize that the Genesis account is poetry. The point of the story isn't as a historical documentary, but rather to describe man's relationship to God and the world.James R said:
Regarding the assorted questions about my "weak" comment. Let me first say that I wrote my doctoral dissertation on using evolutionary algorithms to design MRI acquisition techniques. Although such simulations clearly lack the richness of the natural environment they certainly are useful in understanding all of the key components of evolutionary theory (phenotypic and genotypic diversity, natural selection, heredity, etc.) That experience taught me two relevant things, 1) the basic principles of evolution are sound, 2) the fact that my solutions converged and improved did not imply that I did not exist
Basically, I believe in evolution and I believe in a creator and see no incompatibility in the two beliefs.That said, evolution is inarguably fairly weak in terms of predictive power.
This, for example, is patently absurd. Even Newtonian gravitation can accurately predict just about every single gravitational motion in the solar system for many centuries. The theory of evolution cannot even predict the next step in human evolution. Even in best-case-scenarios of carefully controlled laboratory experiments with well defined phenotypes and genotypes and short generations the accuracy and precision of the predictions of evolution is nowhere close to those of gravitational theory. What useful device has been manufactured using evolution as its operating principle? Don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that it is wrong. I understand both the theory and the data. I am just used to using theories in my daily work with much more predictive power.mountainhare said:
-Dale
Dale:
I have many friends working in the area of evolutionary biology who would testify that evolution theory has tremendous predictive power, both in making future predictions, and also in making retrodictions.
I agree that due to mutation and the complicated nature of a biosystem, evolution theory is more easily affect by extrinsic factors, which may affect its predictive power for events occuring in the future (although as we will see, it still has numerous useful applications). Yet evolution theory's main applications is in making retrodictions. Gravitational theory is not even in the same ballcourt when it comes to retrodictions.
Quite simply, attempting to compare gravitational theory and evolution theory is like attempting to compare apples and oranges. Gravitational theory may be superior when it comes to making quantative predictions in the future (although such a claim is debatable), but evolution theory comes out on top when it comes to making useful retrodictions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
No, it's not, I'm afraid to say. Quite simply, you've never worked in a field regarding evolutionary theory, so you can't really claim that evolution theory has very little predictive power. Perhaps if you worked in a life sciences field, you would have a different opinion. After all, physics rarely (if ever) employs evolution theory to explain observations, whereas it quite often employs gravitational theory.
I have many friends working in the area of evolutionary biology who would testify that evolution theory has tremendous predictive power, both in making future predictions, and also in making retrodictions.
I agree that due to mutation and the complicated nature of a biosystem, evolution theory is more easily affect by extrinsic factors, which may affect its predictive power for events occuring in the future (although as we will see, it still has numerous useful applications). Yet evolution theory's main applications is in making retrodictions. Gravitational theory is not even in the same ballcourt when it comes to retrodictions.
Quite simply, attempting to compare gravitational theory and evolution theory is like attempting to compare apples and oranges. Gravitational theory may be superior when it comes to making quantative predictions in the future (although such a claim is debatable), but evolution theory comes out on top when it comes to making useful retrodictions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
Last edited:
Shouldn't this have been moved to the religion forum instead of the biology forum?
I'm seeing remarks that evolutionary theory doesn't make useful predictions, along with the general anti-evolution shit.
Allow me to direct you to [Thread=53938]this thread[/Thread], made by mountainhare, which introduces the chromosome challenge.
For those of you too lazy to clicky the linky, here's a succinct explanation:
Most of the great apes have twenty-four chromosomes in their sex cells — most, that is, except humans. We have twenty-three. Knowing already that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor, we may tentatively form a testable explanation for this observation (in other words, hypothesize) that in recent human evolutionary history, the species that would eventually give rise to modern-day Homo sapiens underwent a genetic mutation — namely, two of their chromosomes fused.
Using this hypothesis, we can figure that one of our chromosomes would look similar to two chromosomes of a great ape fused end-to-end. Comparing the banding patterns and sequence data of the DNA of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans will either support or break our hypothesis. And if you would kindly look at the image provided in [Thread=53938]mountainhare's thread[/Thread], you would see that it indeed strongly supports the hypothesis that two of our chromosomes fused into one in recent human evolutionary history. It is also further evidence which is consistent with the theory of evolution.
Pretty impressive, huh?
The challenge is directed at people who believe the theory of evolution is false and the observed phenomenon whose mechanisms it explains is nonexistent. The challenge, basically, is to refute this evidence in a scientific manner. The person who posted that thread claims that he hasn't seen it happen yet, and neither have I.
Allow me to direct you to [Thread=53938]this thread[/Thread], made by mountainhare, which introduces the chromosome challenge.
For those of you too lazy to clicky the linky, here's a succinct explanation:
Most of the great apes have twenty-four chromosomes in their sex cells — most, that is, except humans. We have twenty-three. Knowing already that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor, we may tentatively form a testable explanation for this observation (in other words, hypothesize) that in recent human evolutionary history, the species that would eventually give rise to modern-day Homo sapiens underwent a genetic mutation — namely, two of their chromosomes fused.
Using this hypothesis, we can figure that one of our chromosomes would look similar to two chromosomes of a great ape fused end-to-end. Comparing the banding patterns and sequence data of the DNA of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans will either support or break our hypothesis. And if you would kindly look at the image provided in [Thread=53938]mountainhare's thread[/Thread], you would see that it indeed strongly supports the hypothesis that two of our chromosomes fused into one in recent human evolutionary history. It is also further evidence which is consistent with the theory of evolution.
Pretty impressive, huh?
The challenge is directed at people who believe the theory of evolution is false and the observed phenomenon whose mechanisms it explains is nonexistent. The challenge, basically, is to refute this evidence in a scientific manner. The person who posted that thread claims that he hasn't seen it happen yet, and neither have I.
Last edited:
Because we walk upright?
"Museum of natural history bombed, evolution disproved"James R said:
Then we basically agree, you just were not carefully reading what I was saying. I very specifically and carefully limited all of my comments to predictive power. Notice that I never once commented about explanatory power (retrodictions as you call them). I think you assumed that I was like the majority of creationists, they may mention their scientific credentials, but they don't actually understand science at all. They are, in general, like the anti-relativity crowd we get in the physics forum. Having glanced in on several creation v. evolution discussions I don't fault you for your reaction.mountainhare said:
My academic background is on the engineering side, so I hope you can understand that I am much more interested in the quantitative predictive power of a theory than the explanatory power. Thus, I understand the theory and the evidence supporting evolution, I accept it as a theory correctly explaining the data, and I simply don't find it very useful in engineering where predictive power is key.
From your site:"Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002)." This actually is exactly the kind of device that I was thinking evolution would be useful for from an engineering standpoint. Does anyone have access to this reference (Conover, D. O. and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96. See also pp. 31-32.)?
The last part: "The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004)" is exactly what I did for my dissertation. I understand the theory quite well, but my understanding of the applications is apparently outdated as I admittedly have not kept up with the literature since about '98.
-Dale
Last edited: