QI Facts
-
MehGerbil wrote:
it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable
Oh really? ;P http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm[^] Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
As I stated before, I've no problem calling repeatable, observable, and falsifiable phenomena as science. So to the extent that evolution is observable, I believe it. The idea that Creationists believe that species are static is a straw man. For example: I'm not aware of a single Creationist that holds that modern dogs didn't 'evolve' form wolves. That is significant deviation. However, to make the claim that some change in genetic frequency (wolf -> poodle) says anything at all about the larger long time picture is nothing but unfounded conjecture. Here is a little illustration: Let's say I claimed that I'm an investment wizard that can double any amount of money you give me in 24hrs. To test my claim you give me $5 and I give you $10 back the next day. To test my claim you give me $20 and I give you $40 back the next day. Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet? If you'd apply that same skepticism to the merchants of the religion of evolution you'd have a crystal clear understanding of my perspective.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times.
I know Richard Dawkins isn't the most popular person with either side, but I do think he summed it up quite well:
Richard Dawkins:
Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by "truth". But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Yes, Richard is a fundamentalist. He's also a very poor scientist if he doesn't understand the difference between the truth claim about New Zealand (observable, repeatable, falsifiable) and the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
-
Yes, Richard is a fundamentalist. He's also a very poor scientist if he doesn't understand the difference between the truth claim about New Zealand (observable, repeatable, falsifiable) and the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
MehGerbil wrote:
the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
And again, not claimed. Nobody has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes, with the possible exception of drunken students with a very poor grasp of evolution. The fact is that we have observed evolution in other animals, albeit over a short time-frame. To assume that humans are somehow special and not subject to this same process is rather arrogant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
As I stated before, I've no problem calling repeatable, observable, and falsifiable phenomena as science. So to the extent that evolution is observable, I believe it. The idea that Creationists believe that species are static is a straw man. For example: I'm not aware of a single Creationist that holds that modern dogs didn't 'evolve' form wolves. That is significant deviation. However, to make the claim that some change in genetic frequency (wolf -> poodle) says anything at all about the larger long time picture is nothing but unfounded conjecture. Here is a little illustration: Let's say I claimed that I'm an investment wizard that can double any amount of money you give me in 24hrs. To test my claim you give me $5 and I give you $10 back the next day. To test my claim you give me $20 and I give you $40 back the next day. Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet? If you'd apply that same skepticism to the merchants of the religion of evolution you'd have a crystal clear understanding of my perspective.
MehGerbil wrote:
Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet?
Yeah, sure. Just send me your bank details and I'll transfer the money. ;P The main difference is that you are a concious actor; the initial results could be a deception designed to take my money. Evolution is a natural process, with no conciousness behind it; it's not going to suddenly decide to change the rules part way through.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
MehGerbil wrote:
Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet?
Yeah, sure. Just send me your bank details and I'll transfer the money. ;P The main difference is that you are a concious actor; the initial results could be a deception designed to take my money. Evolution is a natural process, with no conciousness behind it; it's not going to suddenly decide to change the rules part way through.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Don't get tangled up in the analogy. There are many physical processes that work the same way. Example #1: Day 1: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 2: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 3: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 4: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and it doesn't dissolve anymore because of saturation. Now a fruit fly might live to be 2 days old and if he were a good scientist he'd claim that two table spoons may be dissolved in a cup of water over a two day period. He'd be correct. Other fruit flies could test his claim, they could observe it repeatedly. If he were a frothing at the mouth evolutionist bot he'd claim that you could dissolve table spoons of salt into a single glass of water every day for 16 billion years. He'd pick on the other fruit flies for not believing that this process could go on the same way forever. He'd be wrong. Example #2: When it came to sending a man to the moon we had the best scientists in the world working on the problem. They did lots of maths, lots of physics, and lots of hard thinking but they didn't send a man to the moon until they did what? The didn't send a man to the moon until a monkey went up first. The reason they didn't send a man up first because despite the best minds in the world working on it they were unwilling to risk a human life until all the theory had been observed - repeatedly. Because when it comes right on down to it there is no replacement for actually observing something. Conclusion If you've got some observable, repeatable, falsifiable stuff you'd like to sell me as science I'm buying; however, I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, cannot be repeated, and is not falsifiable - I mean he can talk about it, but when he calls it 'science' I just laugh.
-
RyanDev wrote:
Nope. That would be silly.
Then we agree - we should continue to build on our scientific understanding of the world, adopting an evidence-based scientific approach. We also have to accept that the caucus of human knowledge is too great for any one person to know everything. Sometimes it is necessary to accept that evidence - and perhaps proof - exists and can be examined by anyone, even though we might not possess the tools to understand it ourselves. The only time we need to be concerned is when someone claims that evidence or proof exists but cannot be examined, or when those who are qualified to examine the evidence cannot agree on the cause.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
MehGerbil wrote:
the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
And again, not claimed. Nobody has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes, with the possible exception of drunken students with a very poor grasp of evolution. The fact is that we have observed evolution in other animals, albeit over a short time-frame. To assume that humans are somehow special and not subject to this same process is rather arrogant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
The fact is that we have observed evolution in other animals, albeit over a short time-frame. To assume that humans are somehow special and not subject to this same process is rather arrogant.
I'd agree. I don't know anyone who believes humans don't change over time. If I meet someone like that, I'll give you a call and we can mock them together.
-
RyanDev wrote:
Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive.
- No offence was intended. I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
- The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis. They believe that every word written in the bible is literally true, and cannot accept anything which casts doubt on that.
- OK, now you're offending the HarryPotterists, whose religion clearly states that magic is real! ;P
- But it's OK to mock fools, right? ;)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
No offence was intended.
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
Quote:
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
Well, since faith is believing in something you can't see, which is true, then yes, I can see how you can say this. However, keeping religion out of this, what is irrational about believing in a creator? Follow me here. I believe I can safely assume that you would agree that it is not plausible that humans are the most advanced species in all of space and time. And when you consider the vastness of space and time then most plausibly there are species more advanced than humans. So, what is irrational about believing in a creator, or in believing that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
Quote:
The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis.
Like I said, if they believe that then they don't even understand the Bible. It seems odd that they would believe it the way the story was written. I still say there has to be more to it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
People who do real science know the importance of the repeatability of an experiment. When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry if we'd of done science the way the average evolutionist does science I would have literally been thrown in jail. Funny, but when you get a pharmaceutical company on the line for a billion dollar line of drugs science becomes the 'observable', 'repeatable', 'falsifiable' kind of science. However, when some geek is blowing smoke about something that supposedly happened 500 million years ago nobody cares that it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable - because truth be told, it doesn't matter.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable
Oh really? ;P http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm[^] Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
Sure. Why not? We also have DNA in common with tomatoes. So? Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything. That is one theory. Another "theory" is that we were created by the same creator. Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support. So, why does science favor one over the other?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Exactly. Because one has consequences now, the other does not.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Exactly. You can get a bunch of 'scientists' in the room declaring that the earth's atmosphere was X,Y, & Z 100 million years ago - calling anyone who disagrees an ignorant moron - until you bring a time machine into the room and offer to send someone back without a gas mask. Suddenly everyone is interested in running a few 'tests' first.
-
Don't get tangled up in the analogy. There are many physical processes that work the same way. Example #1: Day 1: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 2: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 3: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 4: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and it doesn't dissolve anymore because of saturation. Now a fruit fly might live to be 2 days old and if he were a good scientist he'd claim that two table spoons may be dissolved in a cup of water over a two day period. He'd be correct. Other fruit flies could test his claim, they could observe it repeatedly. If he were a frothing at the mouth evolutionist bot he'd claim that you could dissolve table spoons of salt into a single glass of water every day for 16 billion years. He'd pick on the other fruit flies for not believing that this process could go on the same way forever. He'd be wrong. Example #2: When it came to sending a man to the moon we had the best scientists in the world working on the problem. They did lots of maths, lots of physics, and lots of hard thinking but they didn't send a man to the moon until they did what? The didn't send a man to the moon until a monkey went up first. The reason they didn't send a man up first because despite the best minds in the world working on it they were unwilling to risk a human life until all the theory had been observed - repeatedly. Because when it comes right on down to it there is no replacement for actually observing something. Conclusion If you've got some observable, repeatable, falsifiable stuff you'd like to sell me as science I'm buying; however, I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, cannot be repeated, and is not falsifiable - I mean he can talk about it, but when he calls it 'science' I just laugh.
MehGerbil wrote:
I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, ...
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
MehGerbil wrote:
... cannot be repeated, ...
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
MehGerbil wrote:
... is not falsifiable
A common misconception.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php[^]
There are numerous ways in which evolutionary theory can be tested and, if found wanting, would have to be rejected. Here are just a few:
- Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
- Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
- Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
-
Quote:
Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
Sure. Why not? We also have DNA in common with tomatoes. So? Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything. That is one theory. Another "theory" is that we were created by the same creator. Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support. So, why does science favor one over the other?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything.
Go back far enough, and we did.
RyanDev wrote:
Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support.
Really? Where's the scientific evidence to support a creator?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Exactly. You can get a bunch of 'scientists' in the room declaring that the earth's atmosphere was X,Y, & Z 100 million years ago - calling anyone who disagrees an ignorant moron - until you bring a time machine into the room and offer to send someone back without a gas mask. Suddenly everyone is interested in running a few 'tests' first.
-
RyanDev wrote:
Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything.
Go back far enough, and we did.
RyanDev wrote:
Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support.
Really? Where's the scientific evidence to support a creator?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
Go back far enough, and we did.
OK. But again, it's just a theory. There is also a theory that we were all created by the same creator which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that aliens baked us in an oven which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that we are all software programs which is why our DNA is similar. The point is there are lots of theories that are supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
No offence was intended.
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
Quote:
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
Well, since faith is believing in something you can't see, which is true, then yes, I can see how you can say this. However, keeping religion out of this, what is irrational about believing in a creator? Follow me here. I believe I can safely assume that you would agree that it is not plausible that humans are the most advanced species in all of space and time. And when you consider the vastness of space and time then most plausibly there are species more advanced than humans. So, what is irrational about believing in a creator, or in believing that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
Quote:
The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis.
Like I said, if they believe that then they don't even understand the Bible. It seems odd that they would believe it the way the story was written. I still say there has to be more to it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
It was intended to be a humorous reference to the fact that some people believe in the literal truth of every word of a book written thousands of years ago. Judging by your response, it obviously didn't work.
RyanDev wrote:
what is irrational about believing ... that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
So, keeping religion out of it, your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off? But then how did life develop for the creators? Was there evolution on their planet, or were they in turn created by another advanced race? How far back do you go? Is it turtles all the way down[^]? Or are you proposing some actor external to the universe to start it all off? In which case, we're back to religion again.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Quote:
Go back far enough, and we did.
OK. But again, it's just a theory. There is also a theory that we were all created by the same creator which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that aliens baked us in an oven which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that we are all software programs which is why our DNA is similar. The point is there are lots of theories that are supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
It was intended to be a humorous reference to the fact that some people believe in the literal truth of every word of a book written thousands of years ago. Judging by your response, it obviously didn't work.
RyanDev wrote:
what is irrational about believing ... that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
So, keeping religion out of it, your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off? But then how did life develop for the creators? Was there evolution on their planet, or were they in turn created by another advanced race? How far back do you go? Is it turtles all the way down[^]? Or are you proposing some actor external to the universe to start it all off? In which case, we're back to religion again.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
It was intended to be a humorous reference
Fair enough.
Quote:
your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
No, but that is an option. So, is that irrational?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, ...
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
MehGerbil wrote:
... cannot be repeated, ...
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
MehGerbil wrote:
... is not falsifiable
A common misconception.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php[^]
There are numerous ways in which evolutionary theory can be tested and, if found wanting, would have to be rejected. Here are just a few:
- Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
- Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
- Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
We might not be able to 'see' the bonds but we can see the result in a repeatable, observable, and falsifiable manner. The salient point (giggle) is that we can observe it in real time.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
True, but then if we had a time machine I could take you back to ancient Palestine and we could witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ together. I'd say both of our claims there are equivalent since neither will ever happen. As for the list of quotes you Googled, they are all easily answered; however, I don't care to get into a Google quote war. (For example, the first quote by Darwin would be countered by the development of punctuated equilibrium. See: Do it quick.[^] Instead of a quote war I'd like to cut to the chase and point out that you're no longer arguing based upon something you actually understand. You are now appealing to your priests to answer for you even though you have a paper thin understanding of the claims they are making. None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it. In short, there is next to no difference between your approach to the truth and that of a 5 year old sitting in Sunday School. Both the 5 year old and yourself are pointing to the truth givers (Sunday School Teacher, Richard Dawkins) and having that authority figure answer for you. It ain't a good way to live.
-
RyanDev wrote:
supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
True. My point is there is not enough evidence to rule out all other theories leaving evolution as the lone standing theory. Therefore, it remains just a theory. In an alternate universe, perhaps the common "rationality" there has science believing we were all baked by aliens. Just as a baker makes donuts, cakes, pies, etc, a large variety of items but with commonalities, perhaps their logic says that is the theory that makes most sense. Evolution makes the most sense to the most number of scientists and that is the only reason it is "accepted" as being true, even though it can't be proven. Then again Obama was voted in by the majority and look how well that went. :) Great, now you really got me violating Lounge rules and I was behaving so well.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
