|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:46:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The mistake virtually all creationists, and the IDemented as well, make is that they think of evolution as some sort of driving force. This is not the case. A driving force by definition needs a destination, and evolution has none such; neither direction nor goal. |
Those thoughts inspired this cartoon, Filthy. Thanks!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:49:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
No... you need to read my post again. I didn't say vestigial meant "having no function" at all. I only said that they were considered proof of evolution by many once until functions were found.
I read an article on talk-origins (good website, if you don't know of it) explaining exactly how vestigial doesn't mean functionless.
Please don't assume I mean things that I don't say. People do that to me often it can get quite monotonous. |
But if vestigial doesn't mean "functionless," why would discovering a function for a vestigial organ cease to make them evidence for common descent?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:56:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
No... you need to read my post again. I didn't say vestigial meant "having no function" at all. I only said that they were considered proof of evolution by many once until functions were found. |
After a re-read of your posts, it seems clear that with these lines,...it's just that some people deem the genetic evidences as clear proof of evolutions happenings and work...
...Vestigial organs were also considered proof of evolution by many once, but then all these supposed vestigial organs were found to actually have functions... you are saying that because some people got the science wrong (individual pieces of evidence have never been "clear proof" of evolution), it's good to be skeptical about the science itself, and not just the claims made by some anonymous "many."
Whoever these "many" are, they got the science wrong from the start. That's not damning for the science, only for them (whoever they are). Vestigal organs (with or without functions) and ERVs (ditto) are still evidence in favor of evolution, because no other theory explains their mere existence, and in fact the pattern they describe is necessary for evolutionary theory to be correct. If ERVs occured in random fashion or described a different evolutionary history than morphology, then evolutionary theory would be wrong. If no vestigal organs or genes existed, evolutionary theory would be seriously strained to explain their absence.
You also said:| Gene comparison is very useful for displaying precision on how much alike we are to another creature and if you believe evolution happened, then it will show to you how much we are related to that creature, whereas if you're a theist it will just be a demonstration of how god doesn't differentiate between creation on a physical level and a molecular one. |
This suggests that you don't understand the necessity factor. "God doesn't differentiate" isn't a necessary consequence of any "God theory." No matter what is found in nature, "God did it" explains it equally well (and thus it explains nothing). The same nested hierarchy being created by ERVs as morphological studies is a necessary consequence of evolutionary theory, which is why ERVs and the pattern they create are evidence in its favor.| In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
As a response to my points, this sentence suggests that you consider all epistemologies more-or-less equal. "Most reasonable" is vague, and your indication that facts are simply beliefs undermines the basic premise of science.
And also:| I was just playing a tune for the other violinists to hear and give me their thoughts. |
Right now, it appears that you're playing a tuba, to strain the analogy in terms of epistemological foundation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:57:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Did you know that snakes too, are tetrapods? 
|
Actually... no... I didn't.
I remember studying something about that, but I completely forgot.
But I see your point about evolution and the mistakes creationists make about it. Yeah I see that all the time, it's one of the reasons I don't trust creationist websites, they seem to have a lot of thing fundamentally flawed about the idea.
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're correct. I apologize.
|
Thanks, it takes a mere man to make a mistake, but a good heart to apologise. I appreciate it.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Oh? And why do you say that? Quite frankly, there is a lot of disinformation and anti-evolution propaganda pushed in religious circles. And an evolution denier who doesn't base his disbelief on religious considerations is practically unheard of. One would have to be daft to ignore the connection. So, yes, it has everything to do with the fact that you are a theist. Not all theists are evolution deniers, but practically all evolution deniers are theists. And I say "practically" all because I suppose it is theoretically possible for an evolution denier to be nonreligious and simply insane, although I've never met such a hypothetical person. Every evolution denier I've ever talked to has been religious, and their reservations in accepting biological science was based on misguided religious considerations. Every one.
Besides, you were the one who voluntarily admitted as much: "I will admit that some of this skepticism does stem from my theistic upbringing." |
There's a lot of racist ideas pushed around in southern US, that doesn't mean I should assume everyone there is racist. Even if I am skeptical of someone, there is NO justification in saying that. It's plain offensive.
Someone can very easily disbelieve in evolution, be non-religious and not be insane very easily. The reason why that specific type lacks is because people assume a stance in these matters. Someone not assuming a stance in this is quite unheard of and it is very unlikely that someone will be atheist and then believe in one of the theistic ideas now is it? Yet if he took the stance that we don't yet know how the earth came to be... because of his disbelief in evolution. Then that would be perfectly sane.
Your statements up there are pretty haughty, just because you believe evolution happened without a shred of a doubt, it doesn't mean it did or that you should treat others with disdain because they disagree with you.
| No, I know. I'm just informing you, since you're on a skeptic site and all, that we use a different definition than the dictionary. Skeptic has a very specific meaning in skeptic circles, one perhaps not obvious to outsiders. I thought perhaps you might actually be interested in what it is that goes on here. Apparently not. |
Oh alright... what's the definition of a subject?
| Please explain/defend this statement. How are people "indoctrinated" by science? |
It's quite simple, you seem to display the symptoms of the indoctrinated people I speak of.
Indoctrinate
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.
In all the definitions.
You've been instructed in an ideology from a specific point of view.
You've been inculated with the idea and accept it whole heartedly (and somewhat fanatically
And you've been imbued by learning the theory.
You're indoctrinated dude, no matter what way you look at it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:58:40 [Permalink]
|
| Please explain/defend this statement. How are people "indoctrinated" by science? |
I think I can field that one. The fact of the matter is that we've gotten soft. We take all of what science gives us for granted, only sticking on the philosophical points. And those are meaningless.
"Why can't they give us a carburetor/fuel injection system that gets 300 mpg?" And we actually expect 'them' to develop such and they're not really scientists if they can't do it. We fail to realize that the fuels we use won't support that sort of efficiency.
The same applies in the biological sciences. We can cure some cancers but not all. Perhaps it is not possible cure them all, but we expect science to do it none the less. That's indoctrination and the same holds for evolutionary studies. On the one side of the debate (for lack of a better word) we sit here absolutely certain that, in time, all questions will be answered, which is nonsense. On the YEC side, they are certain that the rest of us will pay dearly in some afterlife or other for even considering evolution as a theory tested to the point of indisputable fact. That's a sort of reverse indoctrination against science and it is reinforce by the fact that as new evidence comes forth, a part of the theory might change just a bit. And they just can't stand that!
Indoctrination. We are surrounded by those who would indoctrinate us into what ever bog-spavined riff it is that they have going, scientific or otherwise. Some of it is good, some not so good, and the rest is pure booshwah. The wise skeptic keeps this in mind when evaluating a claim, again, scientific or otherwise.
I am reminded of the recent claim that the vermiform appendix is something of a storage bin for intestinal flora in case of some sort of a die-off due to bad food or cheap whiskey, or something. The YECs and their ID counterparts went all agog over it, yet the study hasn't reached any sort of definitive conclusion as far as I know. And they all fail to take into account that the wretched thing remains a potential time bomb for anyone who still has one.
Yeah we're all indoctrinated; you are, I am, and so is our friend Coelacanth. We are all human and it goes with the territory.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 07:59:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
You've been instructed in an ideology from a specific point of view. |
What ideology would that be? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 08:01:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
No... you need to read my post again. I didn't say vestigial meant "having no function" at all. I only said that they were considered proof of evolution by many once until functions were found. |
(bolding mine)
This seems to me to be quite dishonest. I've been around quite some time now, and I never, ever, heard or read any scientist (or science journalist for that matter) say that vestigal organs were PROOF of evolution. "Easily explained", yes. "An extremely good example of evolution", yes. But proof? Never. Can you give some examples where VO's were used by scientists as proof of evolution?
I don't know much about the rest of whats being discussed here, but this part sounds so much like typical creationist nonsense that I kinda wonder about the rest of it. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 08:47:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
But if vestigial doesn't mean "functionless," why would discovering a function for a vestigial organ cease to make them evidence for common descent? |
Well look at it this way, if they were functionless, what would be the reason for a large organ swimming around in your body doing nothing? That's what I was originally told about the appendix when questioning the idea. That was enough for me... until I found out that it did have a function after all.
Originally posted by Dave W.
After a re-read of your posts, it seems clear that with these lines,...it's just that some people deem the genetic evidences as clear proof of evolutions happenings and work...
...Vestigial organs were also considered proof of evolution by many once, but then all these supposed vestigial organs were found to actually have functions... you are saying that because some people got the science wrong (individual pieces of evidence have never been "clear proof" of evolution), it's good to be skeptical about the science itself, and not just the claims made by some anonymous "many." |
No actually I was just questioning the functionlessness of the ERVs. Those people didn't get the science wrong at all. Some vestigial structures are actually functionless. I was originally told some of those that did have functions didn't and there I was candily believing in that my nictitating membrane and appendix were there for nothing and only remnants of what my predecessors had left, until I actually done some research and found the opposite.
| Whoever these "many" are, they got the science wrong from the start. That's not damning for the science, only for them (whoever they are). Vestigal organs (with or without functions) and ERVs (ditto) are still evidence in favor of evolution, because no other theory explains their mere existence, and in fact the pattern they describe is necessary for evolutionary theory to be correct. If ERVs occured in random fashion or described a different evolutionary history than morphology, then evolutionary theory would be wrong. If no vestigal organs or genes existed, evolutionary theory would be seriously strained to explain their absence. |
They didn't get the science wrong... some vestigial structures ARE said to be functionless. I think you may have the science wrong.
Also, there were originally some contradictions in morphology and Gene study and research. They originally thought the Elephant Shrew (a small herbivore) was an insectivore and what do you have, it actually happened to be more closely related to the actual elephant than any insectivore. Now those are some results...
So yes there were some contradictions, but nothing fatal to evolution itself you know. This is science, unlike religious doctrines. Science is constantly expanding and changing to fit the facts. The fact that they do display some things contrary to original morphology, does no harm at ll.
You also said:| Gene comparison is very useful for displaying precision on how much alike we are to another creature and if you believe evolution happened, then it will show to you how much we are related to that creature, whereas if you're a theist it will just be a demonstration of how god doesn't differentiate between creation on a physical level and a molecular one. |
This suggests that you don't understand the necessity factor. "God doesn't differentiate" isn't a necessary consequence of any "God theory." No matter what is found in nature, "God did it" explains it equally well (and thus it explains nothing). The same nested hierarchy being created by ERVs as morphological studies is a necessary consequence of evolutionary theory, which is why ERVs and the pattern they create are evidence in its favor.| In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
As a response to my points, this sentence suggests that you consider all epistemologies more-or-less equal. "Most reasonable" is vague, and your indication that facts are simply beliefs undermines the basic premise of science. |
I am very well aware that God's existence can not be disproved, however if you question a specific religion you can simply look at their doctrine. Does it grossly conflict with science? Do the adherents ignore this? Who were the original people? Can they truly be trustworthy... etc... etc...unfortunately you can't check the trustworthiness of the orginal evolutionists, because no matter how trustworthy they may be the problem stems from the belief in whether the idea is true or not, not the claim itself.
There are many factors one can consider for both possibilities, making them both falsifiable and therefore both reasonable to believe.
Yes, "most reasonable" is vague, but it's all we have in today's world. Rationality... let us not break it here.
"God doesn't differentiate" is a conclusion made from the facts as is "they evolved from a common ancestor". Both of us are looking at the facts and coming to different conclusions based on what we already believe. For you it is evolution and for me it is God. To find out the better conclusion, we would have to weigh up the fundamentals behind each of our opinions.
And also:| I was just playing a tune for the other violinists to hear and give me their thoughts. |
Right now, it appears that you're playing a tuba, to strain the analogy in terms of epistemological foundation.
|
Well if you would get out of the construction yard, take those ear muffs off and actually listen to what I'm playing, you might notice that the Tuba is infact a flute, the precision is acute, an unheard melody astute, enough to tame or expose the brute and I now end patiently awaiting your most respected refute. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 08:58:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Yeah we're all indoctrinated; you are, I am, and so is our friend Coelacanth. We are all human and it goes with the territory.
|
I was trying to avoid saying that, because I knew it would be misunderstood, but yes. I am indeed indoctrinated too...
It's actually hard to avoid if you want to remain sane. You have to have some idea you trust.
Though I will admit, the furthest you can get from indoctrination is by utilising the scientific method, because science is constantly expanding and one must remain open to new possibilities. Though it does tend to make one really close-minded to the supernatural side of things.
Originally posted by leoofno
(bolding mine)
This seems to me to be quite dishonest. I've been around quite some time now, and I never, ever, heard or read any scientist (or science journalist for that matter) say that vestigal organs were PROOF of evolution. "Easily explained", yes. "An extremely good example of evolution", yes. But proof? Never. Can you give some examples where VO's were used by scientists as proof of evolution?
I don't know much about the rest of whats being discussed here, but this part sounds so much like typical creationist nonsense that I kinda wonder about the rest of it.
|
Well wikipedia isn't really a scientist or a science journalist, but the following page states.
"Vestigiality is one of several lines of evidence for biological evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 09:08:27 [Permalink]
|
I've only got a few minutes at this time...Originally posted by Coelacanth
No actually I was just questioning the functionlessness of the ERVs. Those people didn't get the science wrong at all. Some vestigial structures are actually functionless. I was originally told some of those that did have functions didn't and there I was candily believing in that my nictitating membrane and appendix were there for nothing and only remnants of what my predecessors had left, until I actually done some research and found the opposite. |
But none of that is at all relevant to why ERVs and vestigal organs are evidence for evolution. None of that matters at all. If you think it does, then you've got the science wrong, because the science does not depend on either ERVs or vestiges having function (or not!).
Unless you'd like to explain how either one having function (or not) actually makes a difference to evolutionary theory. I've already explained how they don't, and you haven't responded directly to that. You've simply repeated the irrelevant fact that vestigal organs and ERV can have function. I don't disagree with that, it simply doesn't matter to the point I was making (in response to one of your first posts here).
And it also doesn't matter whether you're playing a tuba or a flute, nor does it matter how beautiful your music is, when what you're claiming to be is a violinist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 09:18:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But none of that is at all relevant to why ERVs and vestigal organs are evidence for evolution. None of that matters at all. If you think it does, then you've got the science wrong, because the science does not depend on either ERVs or vestiges having function (or not!).
Unless you'd like to explain how either one having function (or not) actually makes a difference to evolutionary theory. I've already explained how they don't, and you haven't responded directly to that. You've simply repeated the irrelevant fact that vestigal organs and ERV can have function. I don't disagree with that, it simply doesn't matter to the point I was making (in response to one of your first posts here).
And it also doesn't matter whether you're playing a tuba or a flute, nor does it matter how beautiful your music is, when what you're claiming to be is a violinist.
|
I considered it evidence of evolution happening when I thought it was functionless, because there would be no need for a creator or designer to include such aspects if it was functionless, but then I found out that they aren't functionless and most probably have their own purpose.
And also, I am a violinist, but I don't restrict myself to just one instrument. I played the violin earlier, so now I play the flute, no problem with that right? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 10:21:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I considered it evidence of evolution happening when I thought it was functionless, because there would be no need for a creator or designer to include such aspects if it was functionless, but then I found out that they aren't functionless and most probably have their own purpose.
|
Vestigial organs still are evidence for common descent, as Dave explained. I think what you're saying is that you used to consider them a strike against creationism when you thought they had no purpose, and are confusing this as being evidence for evolution by default. That's wrong. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism or vice versa (although, as you say, evidence "against" creationism depends totally on what sort of specific creation is being posited.)
However, I'm confused as to why you no longer consider functionless vestigial organs to be evidence against your version of creationism. You admit that while some are now thought to have functions, not all do. Is it simply that you choose to believe functions will be found for these vestigials one day, and thereby preserve your believe in a non-wasteful creator? If so, how could one ever disprove such an assumption?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 10:31:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Though I will admit, the furthest you can get from indoctrination is by utilising the scientific method, because science is constantly expanding and one must remain open to new possibilities. |
Yes.
| Though it does tend to make one really close-minded to the supernatural side of things. |
Totally untrue. It simply shifts the burden on proof onto those making fantastical claims. The problem with the supernatural isn't that scientists are close-minded about it, but because claims concerning the supernatural are indistinguishable from a fiction. That problem is hardly the fault of science.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 10:46:24 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, HH! I´ve seen the lochness monster, made friends with it and rode on its back... PROVE ME WRONG! |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 12:22:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Vestigial organs still are evidence for common descent, as Dave explained. I think what you're saying is that you used to consider them a strike against creationism when you thought they had no purpose, and are confusing this as being evidence for evolution by default. That's wrong. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism or vice versa (although, as you say, evidence "against" creationism depends totally on what sort of specific creation is being posited.)
However, I'm confused as to why you no longer consider functionless vestigial organs to be evidence against your version of creationism. You admit that while some are now thought to have functions, not all do. Is it simply that you choose to believe functions will be found for these vestigials one day, and thereby preserve your believe in a non-wasteful creator? If so, how could one ever disprove such an assumption?
|
No no no... I'm not saying they aren't evidence in support of evolution. They are... very much so. I'm just saying it's not as good as it used to be for me and I was showing how speculation based on limited information doesn't help much either.
As for the useless ones, it really depends. I've yet to be shown one completely useless structure, yet there are supposed to be some. I've read on a few, but they seemed like baseless speculation on something which was entirely questionable in the first place.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Totally untrue. It simply shifts the burden on proof onto those making fantastical claims. The problem with the supernatural isn't that scientists are close-minded about it, but because claims concerning the supernatural are indistinguishable from a fiction. That problem is hardly the fault of science. |
It doesn't absolutely make you close minded to the issue, but it can tend to. And from what I've seen, it usually does. You see the problem with the supernatural is that it isn't testable, so the only way we can know of it's existence is by testimony and one needn't go far to be able to find out how man lies have been told about the supernatural. Heck... the many religions are just examples of them. Which is why when it comes to testimony one must be very cautious.
Originally posted by perrodetokio
Yeah, HH! I´ve seen the lochness monster, made friends with it and rode on its back... PROVE ME WRONG!
|
There are so many inconsistencies in that.
1. Your testimony not valid (being a random person on the internet and all)
2. The Loch Ness monster is not supernatural, it could very well be some kind of giant Oarfish like creature.
3. If it does exist, no one cares anyway.
4. I have no obligation to either prove you correct or wrong. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
