|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2005 : 14:36:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks There is indeed no guarantee of correctness. There is, however, a guarantee that it might NOT be correct. I.e. it's the old issue of falsifiability. How would you falsify your proposition that everything has been preprogrammed?
Well if it were somehow established beyond doubt that the first living cells had hardly any genetic material, that would pretty much falsify my proposition. But as we know finding conclusive evidence of that nature is unlikely. There are no doubt other ways of investigation which might show that my proposal is unlikely, but that would be more involved and require much more thought.
Is science to establish this beyond a doubt or merely show that it is unlikely? They are not necessarily the same thing. How would you define "beyond a doubt" here? Having access to that first cell? If you want to show this "beyond doubt" I'd be very keen to see your proposal for how this is to be performed scientifically.
Showing scientifically that your proposal is unlikely will not require much thought. Just refer to that old creationist argument "what is the probability of the first cell having enough genes to be able to perform all its functions" (+ in your case all the functions that all future life forms are going to perform). To evolution this is irrelevant. To abiogenesis it is a strawman. To your theory it is death (unless you invoke god of course, in which case it's hardly falsifiable anymore). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 21:01:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, rather I'm just another dummy who thinks he happens to be right. Not that I need to be, however. ;)
Actually you're obviously real smart, and you're right about a lot... you're probably "at least partly" right about BlackLight Power, for example. But this one seems to be your personally-preferential "little twist" on evolution, as DaveW suggested with that big equation. I think DaveW forgot to include the Sales Tax in it, but aside from that, at least the equation's testable. The problem is that your theory appears neither remotely verifiable nor falsifiable to this point in the thread, even though it might be right... but if you mention a werewolf, I need a little of those things before I buy holy water and silver bullets.
I don't believe in werewolfs, but can I interest you in bigfoot? :)
Really though, to be fair, finding a "devonian bunny" as Dave puts it would falsify my theory as well. So it's not that my theory is less falsifiable or verifiable that traditional ToE or something. The problem with my theory from science's point of view is the proposition that life's origin on our planet was not naturalistic, and hence cannot be probed like it can in the mainstream view with abiogenesis research. But if one can get 'over that' and simply investigate the natural repercussions of the proposition, it may be found to more nicely correspond to observation than traditional ToE.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 21:10:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The problem with my theory from science's point of view is the proposition that life's origin on our planet was not naturalistic, and hence cannot be probed like it can in the mainstream view with abiogenesis research. But if one can get 'over that' and simply investigate the natural repercussions of the proposition, it may be found to more nicely correspond to observation than traditional ToE.
So "Evolution + magic = markie's 'theory,'" which is currently indistinguishable from regular old evolution because there is no test for magic.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/26/2005 21:12:26 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 21:12:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, rather I'm just another dummy who thinks he happens to be right. Not that I need to be, however.
What I don't get, markie, is why you trust yourself so completely. You seem unable to hold a shred of doubt concerning the truth of your own convictions despite being unable to support them again and again. The question isn't so much why should we believe you, but why do you even believe you?
Is that a trick question? :) Do you believe you? Really though, much of what I hold to be true I hold quite tentatively. For me, to have 'faith' which contradicts evidence is a betrayal of truth. So if I percieve a contradiction my faith will adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 21:20:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The problem with my theory from science's point of view is the proposition that life's origin on our planet was not naturalistic, and hence cannot be probed like it can in the mainstream view with abiogenesis research. But if one can get 'over that' and simply investigate the natural repercussions of the proposition, it may be found to more nicely correspond to observation than traditional ToE.
So "Evolution + magic = markie's 'theory,'" which is currently indistinguishable from regular old evolution because there is no test for magic.
Hey, if you want to put it that way you should have put the 'magic' before evolution, not after. I don't think the development from, say, embyro to newborn is 'magic', although it is nature at one of it's highest moments. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 21:41:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I don't believe in werewolfs, but can I interest you in bigfoot? :)
Really though, to be fair, finding a "devonian bunny" as Dave puts it would falsify my theory as well. So it's not that my theory is less falsifiable or verifiable that traditional ToE or something.
The problem is that a "devonian bunny" as a falsification will not distinguish between evolution and markie-theory, so it's really not a good measure about the validity of the markie-theory.
quote:
The problem with my theory from science's point of view is the proposition that life's origin on our planet was not naturalistic, and hence cannot be probed like it can in the mainstream view with abiogenesis research.
So markie-abiogenesis is falsifiable by mainstream abiogenesis?
Do you believe so because you think it's too improbable that life happened on its own?
quote:
But if one can get 'over that' and simply investigate the natural repercussions of the proposition, it may be found to more nicely correspond to observation than traditional ToE.
Can you elaborate on this please, because I don't get this paragraph. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 22:54:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse So markie-abiogenesis is falsifiable by mainstream abiogenesis?
Not necessarily falsifiable per se, but personally I would strongly doubt the correctness of my belief if abiogenesis research produced life, especially life which showed evolution potential.
quote:
Do you believe so because you think it's too improbable that life happened on its own?
Yes certainly that, as well as for reasons concerning religious revelation.
quote:
But if one can get 'over that' and simply investigate the natural repercussions of the proposition, it may be found to more nicely correspond to observation than traditional ToE. quote:
Can you elaborate on this please, because I don't get this paragraph.
Well if one works from the assumption that the original cell was indeed preprogrammed for longterm evolutionary success, perhaps some interesting working or testable theories could spring from that to explain better the origins of the genetic endowments of the various classes and phyla of life today.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2005 : 23:38:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Is that a trick question? :) Do you believe you?
When I allow my mind to wander on unprovable flights of fancy? No.
quote:
For me, to have 'faith' which contradicts evidence is a betrayal of truth.
Why have any faith beyond what the evidence suggests at all? Speculate, sure. But why think of it as a truth?
quote:
Hey, if you want to put it that way you should have put the 'magic' before evolution, not after.
As evolution is by far the more robust theory, it gets precedence.
quote:
I don't think the development from, say, embyro to newborn is 'magic', although it is nature at one of it's highest moments.
Right. You just think there's something "supermaterial" (magic) going on there when it develops a consciousness.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/26/2005 23:39:39 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 00:18:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well if one works from the assumption that the original cell was indeed preprogrammed for longterm evolutionary success, perhaps some interesting working or testable theories could spring from that to explain better the origins of the genetic endowments of the various classes and phyla of life today.
It seems to me it would make things less-clear and more confusing... processes involving random variables can become predictable through statistical study, having to "guess what a diety was up to" would be considerably harder.
In a nutshell, you can integrate a function using standard techniques, or you can graph it, paste it to a dartboard, throw darts for a while, and count how many land under the curve. Either way will get you the answer, with as much accuracy as desired. The darts and board are "Our Universe," the function is "Evolution," and at a given point in time, "Humans"... call us X(t)... are the integrated result. All of the forces acting within "Our Universe" are represented by the random throwing of darts... they ARE such randomness, since Man cannot possibly quantify (or probably even know) all of them. Thus, only a Creator could know the nature of, and integrate the function discretely to know an ecosystem's future with deductive certainty. We can only analyze the "dart throwing" phenomenon as we perceive it.
"Garden Variety" Evolution says that X(t) (that's us) got here through a lot of dart-throwing... "Markie" Evolution says the Universe was "at-least-partially" designed with the particular number X(t) in mind, since something out there formulated dX(t)/dt ahead of time, and put "Markie" Evolution in motion. "Markie Evolution" says this happened at some point in time, call it t0.
All we know "for sure" is that we're here. What could possibly be deduced of scientific significance under an assumption a diety was involved in this?
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/27/2005 02:37:15 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 05:55:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well if one works from the assumption that the original cell was indeed preprogrammed for longterm evolutionary success, perhaps some interesting working or testable theories could spring from that to explain better the origins of the genetic endowments of the various classes and phyla of life today.
If the 'original cell' was programed [with mankind as the result], I think the programer should get fired.
The path to man was bumbling, stumbling, drunken, stagger. 3.5 billion years of extinctions and evolutionary dead ends culminating in man? If we were designed - it was by a raving lunatic.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 13:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Is that a trick question? :) Do you believe you?
When I allow my mind to wander on unprovable flights of fancy? No.
The idea that life assembled itself out of the mud may indeed be a flight of fancy.
quote:
For me, to have 'faith' which contradicts evidence is a betrayal of truth.quote:
Why have any faith beyond what the evidence suggests at all? Speculate, sure. But why think of it as a truth?
It begs the question, what does the evidence really suggest, and what is extrapolation 'beyond' the evidence? I certainly agree that the evidence suggests evolution, but it is just speculation that it is all fortuitous and not planned for. You take your 'speculation' as near fact, and so why shouldn't I? The leap I take is invoking a super intelligence, the leap you take is invoking the ability of strict material mechanism to deliver.
quote:
I don't think the development from, say, embyro to newborn is 'magic', although it is nature at one of it's highest moments.quote:
Right. You just think there's something "supermaterial" (magic) going on there when it develops a consciousness.
Not quite. While I think there was specific intervention at life's biological beginning, both life and later consciousness are possible in the first place because they are immersed in local Deity's pervasive spirit/mind. Background magic.
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 13:39:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Really though, to be fair, finding a "devonian bunny" as Dave puts it would falsify my theory as well. So it's not that my theory is less falsifiable or verifiable that traditional ToE or something. The problem with my theory from science's point of view is the proposition that life's origin on our planet was not naturalistic, and hence cannot be probed like it can in the mainstream view with abiogenesis research. But if one can get 'over that' and simply investigate the natural repercussions of the proposition, it may be found to more nicely correspond to observation than traditional ToE.
It's funny how you in the same paragraph can claim that something is both non-naturalistic and falsifiable. Your theory IS less falsifiable than ToE because it has elements that can't be falsified. Using your logic I could propose a new theory of what happened to the corn flakes I had for breakfast this morning. First I chewed, swallowed and they passed through my stomach, after which they further broken down into glucose and fructose. These simple sugars were then passed into the Krebs cycle where god converted citrate to isocitrate. Using your logic, my theory is falsifiable because if glucose does not enter the Krebs cycle, then it is wrong. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 13:57:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhiteAll we know "for sure" is that we're here. What could possibly be deduced of scientific significance under an assumption a diety was involved in this?
Granted, the assumption that spirit deity was/is involved has little to do with a material science. But the assumption that material life started out as a full blown preprogrammed cell may well have to do with science, in the way life evolves from there. If *that* has nothing to do with science, then neither does the premise that life started out the opposite, as merely a fortunate arrangement of molecules which went from there.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 14:07:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Well if one works from the assumption that the original cell was indeed preprogrammed for longterm evolutionary success, perhaps some interesting working or testable theories could spring from that to explain better the origins of the genetic endowments of the various classes and phyla of life today.
If the 'original cell' was programed [with mankind as the result], I think the programer should get fired.
The path to man was bumbling, stumbling, drunken, stagger. 3.5 billion years of extinctions and evolutionary dead ends culminating in man? If we were designed - it was by a raving lunatic.
Granted, it does appear as if almost anything goes with evolution. I hear ya. Yet if I made a computer program which was capable of such creative lattitude while subject to mishap after mishap, yet still retaining capacity for delivering the 'end product', I might get me a raise.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2005 : 19:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Really though, to be fair, finding a "devonian bunny" as Dave puts it would falsify my theory as well.
How so? Your theory would incorporate such oddities by suggesting that some previous critter's unknown "programming" kicked in, created an advanced mammal long before any others show up, and then the programming switched itself off again.
Once you posit that "hidden" coding, which you posit gets turned on by unknown means, you cannot rule out a Devonian Bunny, nor could you even rule out the possibility of finding a human skull that's four billion years old. Why? Because there's no good reason to think that your "hidden programs" would get executed with perfect fidelity, since we know that doesn't happen with any other section of DNA. The hidden "make a human" code could easily have been accidentally triggered billions of years too soon.
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, predicts that we'll never find the Devonian Bunny, no matter how hard we go looking for its bones.quote:
It begs the question, what does the evidence really suggest, and what is extrapolation 'beyond' the evidence? I certainly agree that the evidence suggests evolution, but it is just speculation that it is all fortuitous and not planned for. You take your 'speculation' as near fact, and so why shouldn't I? The leap I take is invoking a super intelligence, the leap you take is invoking the ability of strict material mechanism to deliver.
You've got it all wrong, markie. Our 'speculation' is that what occurs in petri dishes and in the fossil record looks exactly like it was unplanned, and that from that we can safely generalize. Evolutionary theory doesn't even being to posit that everything we see is due to "strict material mechanisms," and the only safe bet we can make is that we cannot distinguish evolutionary mechanisms from the Hand of God. Nothing about evolutionary theory denies a "super intelligence," even one which guided every single speciation event (even via your and Behe's style of "front loading").
Your ideas, on the other hand, tell us that there's no such thing as happenstance in the biological world. Your ideas mean that it's impossible for us to draw any inference about anything, since Goddidit. Your ideas signify the death of science, markie. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
