The ID "debate" - Dover, US - Just curious, but... (Sep/28/2005 )
Damn it, not human - rabbit 
-perlmunky-
QUOTE (cellcounter @ May 9 2008, 03:49 PM)
QUOTE (swanny @ May 8 2008, 08:40 PM)
...The paper led me to think of a few other question: Does employing the scientific method, as Popper defines it (i.e., the ability to falsify the theory), make an investigation scientific? I don't think so, otherwise economics, psychology and a few other fields of study would be in the science faculties, rather than where they rightly belong. Does that therefore mean that the use of the term "science" has become too common, and consequently diluted? Are there realistic borders, as it were, around what can be called science, and other questions that can only be investigated following the scientific (empirical, experimental, testable) method without being "science"? Do we say that if it isn't chemistry, biology or physics, it can't be called science?
Just playing devil's advocate...
Just playing devil's advocate...
Sure. Any investigation can be scientific. Science- as we commonly understand (biology,chem,phy..) routinely employs 'scientific' method, but it can be employed everywhere, for example in religious issues. 'There is a God' is a hypothesis. And it can be investigated as the tools become available in future, but as of now, we do not have a way to falsify it, and so it remains a hypothesis, and can not be a scientific theory. We have tools to falsify Gravity (observing a single apple defying it on its own), yet we can not do so, and so Gravity enjoys the status of a scientific theory. Same is with the Evolution theory: With a single human skeleton from the Dinosaur era, the current Evolution theory can be falsified, and so Evolution remains a scientific theory.
So, by that definition, ID should also be classified as a scientific theory
. Find all of the homologs of the flagellum, thereby showing the complete organelle could have come from the adaptation of pre-existing components into a new structure (rather than being something that was designed), and the theory falls down. You have to find all of the homologs, too. It's no good to say that, because we have a few homologs of a few components, the theory is disproven. The whole point of the theory is that components have been designed, not simply adapted. And in any case, phylogenetic analysis has shown that the homologs of the flagellar components came later; their use in other structures is no disproof of ID. Remember that the crux of the ID argument is not to show that evolution doesn't occur, nor is it to deny Darwin. The point is that of origins. The scientists who follow ID do not (to my knowledge) deny Darwin or evolution by the natural selection cause by the survival of the fittest; they are interested in how life started in the first place.
-swanny-
QUOTE (swanny @ May 12 2008, 07:48 PM)
So, by that definition, ID should also be classified as a scientific theory . Find all of the homologs of the flagellum, thereby showing the complete organelle could have come from the adaptation of pre-existing components into a new structure (rather than being something that was designed), and the theory falls down.
You have to find all of the homologs, too. It's no good to say that, because we have a few homologs of a few components, the theory is disproven. The whole point of the theory is that components have been designed, not simply adapted. And in any case, phylogenetic analysis has shown that the homologs of the flagellar components came later; their use in other structures is no disproof of ID. Remember that the crux of the ID argument is not to show that evolution doesn't occur, nor is it to deny Darwin. The point is that of origins. The scientists who follow ID do not (to my knowledge) deny Darwin or evolution by the natural selection cause by the survival of the fittest; they are interested in how life started in the first place.
. Find all of the homologs of the flagellum, thereby showing the complete organelle could have come from the adaptation of pre-existing components into a new structure (rather than being something that was designed), and the theory falls down. You have to find all of the homologs, too. It's no good to say that, because we have a few homologs of a few components, the theory is disproven. The whole point of the theory is that components have been designed, not simply adapted. And in any case, phylogenetic analysis has shown that the homologs of the flagellar components came later; their use in other structures is no disproof of ID. Remember that the crux of the ID argument is not to show that evolution doesn't occur, nor is it to deny Darwin. The point is that of origins. The scientists who follow ID do not (to my knowledge) deny Darwin or evolution by the natural selection cause by the survival of the fittest; they are interested in how life started in the first place.
Swanny, how the life started in the first place-- nobody has seen, nor witnessed; is not currently testable, and is not reproducible. So by claiming that ID hypothesis is a scientific theory, you are now missing the fundamental difference between theory and hypothesis!
-cellcounter-
So if I was to find a modern-day rabbit skeleton dating to the Jurassic period, by your logic, I would not disproved evolution! I would have to find a fossil of everything living today?
-perlmunky-
QUOTE (cellcounter @ May 13 2008, 03:17 PM)
QUOTE (swanny @ May 12 2008, 07:48 PM)
So, by that definition, ID should also be classified as a scientific theory . Find all of the homologs of the flagellum, thereby showing the complete organelle could have come from the adaptation of pre-existing components into a new structure (rather than being something that was designed), and the theory falls down.
You have to find all of the homologs, too. It's no good to say that, because we have a few homologs of a few components, the theory is disproven. The whole point of the theory is that components have been designed, not simply adapted. And in any case, phylogenetic analysis has shown that the homologs of the flagellar components came later; their use in other structures is no disproof of ID. Remember that the crux of the ID argument is not to show that evolution doesn't occur, nor is it to deny Darwin. The point is that of origins. The scientists who follow ID do not (to my knowledge) deny Darwin or evolution by the natural selection cause by the survival of the fittest; they are interested in how life started in the first place.
. Find all of the homologs of the flagellum, thereby showing the complete organelle could have come from the adaptation of pre-existing components into a new structure (rather than being something that was designed), and the theory falls down. You have to find all of the homologs, too. It's no good to say that, because we have a few homologs of a few components, the theory is disproven. The whole point of the theory is that components have been designed, not simply adapted. And in any case, phylogenetic analysis has shown that the homologs of the flagellar components came later; their use in other structures is no disproof of ID. Remember that the crux of the ID argument is not to show that evolution doesn't occur, nor is it to deny Darwin. The point is that of origins. The scientists who follow ID do not (to my knowledge) deny Darwin or evolution by the natural selection cause by the survival of the fittest; they are interested in how life started in the first place.
Swanny, how the life started in the first place-- nobody has seen, nor witnessed; is not currently testable, and is not reproducible. So by claiming that ID hypothesis is a scientific theory, you are now missing the fundamental difference between theory and hypothesis!
NB: I have no problem with evolution by mutations to germline DNA giving rise to a selective advantage. Just thought I'd get that out of the way...
So, tell me how the origin of life by totally random events is a theory (rather than an hypothesis), as it was not seen, and is not currently testable? Or are you going to fall back on the old "we haven't tested for long enough yet" line? It might sound like good scientific caution, but is it more just a case of being unprepared to concede that the hypothesis is wrong? How long do we have to zap the organic molecular soup before we say that amino acids and a few smallish polymers is as far as we get? Or how much clay do we look at before we say that life didn't actually start in clay, or as RNA or whatever the current faddish, speculative hypothesis declares? And you say Christians live on blind faith!
NB: Did I tell you I have no problem with evolution by mutations to germline DNA giving rise to a selective advantage?
-swanny-
QUOTE (swanny @ May 21 2008, 09:57 PM)
So, tell me how the origin of life by totally random events is a theory (rather than an hypothesis), as it was not seen, and is not currently testable? Or are you going to fall back on the old "we haven't tested for long enough yet" line? It might sound like good scientific caution, but is it more just a case of being unprepared to concede that the hypothesis is wrong? How long do we have to zap the organic molecular soup before we say that amino acids and a few smallish polymers is as far as we get? Or how much clay do we look at before we say that life didn't actually start in clay, or as RNA or whatever the current faddish, speculative hypothesis declares? And you say Christians live on blind faith!
Who said that is a theory? That is a hypothesis. People may loosley toss around word 'theory", but if you ask any serious researchers in the field, they will tell you it is one of the plausible hypotheses. Not a "scientific theory".
Just so that I am clear: "My left shoe is God" is also a hypothesis, but from our daily experiences and observations, a less plausible one.
-cellcounter-
QUOTE (cellcounter @ May 22 2008, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE (swanny @ May 21 2008, 09:57 PM)
So, tell me how the origin of life by totally random events is a theory (rather than an hypothesis), as it was not seen, and is not currently testable? Or are you going to fall back on the old "we haven't tested for long enough yet" line? It might sound like good scientific caution, but is it more just a case of being unprepared to concede that the hypothesis is wrong? How long do we have to zap the organic molecular soup before we say that amino acids and a few smallish polymers is as far as we get? Or how much clay do we look at before we say that life didn't actually start in clay, or as RNA or whatever the current faddish, speculative hypothesis declares? And you say Christians live on blind faith!
Who said that is a theory? That is a hypothesis. People may loosley toss around word 'theory", but if you ask any serious researchers in the field, they will tell you it is one of the plausible hypotheses. Not a "scientific theory".
Just so that I am clear: "My left shoe is God" is also a hypothesis, but from our daily experiences and observations, a less plausible one.
And with some short term experiments you cannot expect that they immediately have success. The age of earth and its rocks, and the fossil's age are quite sure. Age determinations are well proven experiments (if not a 'designer' has changed basic physical values and nature laws to misguide us). Chemical evolution started about 3.800 mya, first chemofossils are dated about 3.500 mya (though it is not sure they are really life forms). So chemical evolution and after this biological evolution needed millions of years to "invent" and to develop something that finally was life. Or easier: If earth is 24h hours old, first protozoal life existed at hour 15, and we 2 seconds before today.
We don't know much (or very few) about conditions at this time, several hypotheses exist (primordial soup, small pools, black smokers, several catalysts (minerals), ozone, radiation etc. etc.) Nobody knows.
But can you expect after some short experiments with unknown necessary conditions. that it works at once, wherefore nature needed millions of years? Think about.
(changes for spelling and grammatical errors)
-hobglobin-