Evolution is Unscientific

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by SufiPhilosophy, Apr 17, 2021.

  1. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Genome Fusion

    "Scientists believe the ultimate event in HGT (horizontal gene transfer) occurs through genome fusion between different species when two symbiotic organisms become endosymbiotic. This occurs when one species is taken inside the cytoplasm of another species, which ultimately results in a genome consisting of genes from both the endosymbiont and the host. This mechanism is an aspect of the Endosymbiont Theory, which is accepted by a majority of biologists as the mechanism whereby eukaryotic cells obtained their mitochondria and chloroplasts [from endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea] …

    Within the past decade, the process of genome fusion by endosymbiosis has been proposed to be responsible for the evolution of the first eukaryotic cells. Using DNA analysis and a new mathematical algorithm called conditioned reconstruction (CR), it has been proposed that eukaryotic cells developed from an endosymbiotic gene fusion between two species: one an Archaea and the other a Bacteria. As mentioned, some eukaryotic genes resemble those of Archaea, whereas others resemble those from Bacteria. An endosymbiotic fusion event would clearly explain this observation ...

    The theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts are endosymbiotic in origin is now widely accepted. More controversial is the proposal that (a) the eukaryotic nucleus resulted from the fusion of archaeal and bacterial genomes; and that (b) Gram-negative bacteria, which have two membranes, resulted from the fusion of Archaea and Gram-positive bacteria, each of which has a single membrane ..."


    But which (across species) endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea has never been observed or reproduced
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
    juantoo3 likes this.
  2. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    It is about PERCEPTION.
    None of us were there in these "billions of years" it took for the universe to form.
    Nobody actually experienced them. But we are led to believe that scientists are able to tell us exactly what happened
    over these "billions of years" ?
    We can't even agree what happened over the last 2000 years :)

    It is as if "somebody" put playing of the video "the universe" on ultra fast-forward,
    and it all happened in the blink of an eye. There are too many assumptions.
    The whole science of physics is based on assumptions.

    i.e. definitions of "time" and "distance", for example

    That's all they are .. man-made definitions. :)
    Time and again, I hear, "that is all we've got. Until you can prove that time is not linear, then we assume it is"

    People can assume what they like. People can assume that "time rules, OK" .. but I say that "God rules, OK" :)
     
  3. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Am I permitted to defend myself?
    On point one:
    What actually happened:
    On point two:
    * Quite false. I never said it or intended it in the causative way implied above.
    What I actually said (and still await response):
    On point three:
    What actually happened:
    (Comment was removed along with another insulting ad hominem towards another member, and warning issued)
    So ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    The requirement of evidence is not as narrowly defined as you would like it to be.

    Certainly, the ability to replicate an effect in the lab, or observed evidence of a theory, is the gold standard, but it is not the sole standard, and that's where your argument fails to carry sufficient clout. I'm sorry, but there is is ...

    From Scientific American:
    "The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

    All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain."
    (emphasis mine)

    In fields where direct observation or laboratory experiments are difficult or impossible, the scientific method relies on observation and logical inference. In such fields, the test of falsifiability is satisfied when a theory is used to predict the results of new observations. When such observations contradict a theory's predictions, it may be revised or discarded if an alternative better explains the observed facts.

    Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, suggested an unseen planet was the cause of unexpected variations in Mercury's orbit. This theory was superseded by Einstein's theory of General Relativity when the latter was observed to more precisely predict the orbit.

    +++

    If you mean its unevidenced in lab or field demonstrations, that's not the only evidence science relies on.

    That is unscientific.

    No, that's an example of 'appeal to authority'.

    Quite, but the beast is, nevertheless, scientific. Einstein displacing Newton is the nature of the beast. Is that unscientific?

    Actually, that's an interesting theory.

    Well, two wrongs don't make a right.

    You seem to have a very high opinion of your own worth, to be honest. The rebuttal in itself was flawed.

    My course tutor once said to me:
    "You write very long sentences. The only other person I know who writes sentences as long as yours is St Augustine. His are worth reading. I'm not sure yours are."

    I thought the comment quite amusing. The course director was horrified. I suppose its a skin-thickness thing.

    I think you're demonstrating petulance and a lack of objectivity. It seems you think we're all abusive moderators ... again I find this surprising, as you're not shy of dishing out the abuse yourself, in fact if you're unhappy with the tone of conversation, I'd look to its genesis – 'you reap what you sow'.

    In your dreams – or is it honi soit qui mal y pense?

    God bless, and go in peace.
     
  5. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    I'm not sure that it is.
    I suppose we need to define science and its axioms.

    I suppose something can be called science, but be complete nonsense :)
    If we put the notion of science on a pedestal, we put mankind's opinions / perceptions on a pedestal, imo.

    It's this "science is fact" and religion is only belief argument that continually purrs in the background.
    It is none but satan who orchestrates it.. We are heading for a climatic catastrophe due to our thinking science
    to be of more worth than other disciplines, and we think we can solve the conundrum with MORE science.

    We can't !
    ..not unless people begin to see what is actually happening due to their turning their backs on truth,
    and putting more faith in mankind than Almighty God.
     
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Those axioms are defined. If not, then any old nonsense could pose as science, and it can't.

    Having said that, you can fool some of the people, etc., etc.

    In 1957, the BBC serious documentary programme Panorama broadcast a programme about the spaghetti tree in Switzerland. It showed a family harvesting pasta that hung from the branches of the tree. Hundreds of people phoned in asking how they could grow their own tree.

    It was broadcast on April Fools' Day.

    The problem here is the want to redefine the axioms in support of a pet theory.

    Simply, to insist on the rules of scientific proof, established in the 17th century, requires the ability to reproduce the effect or event on a laboratory, or observe its occurrence in the wild, will set us back 400 years.

    Yep.

    Always will among those who don't understand or accept they are two distinct fields with their own axioms. Most sensible people know this.

    Richard Dawkins made a fool of himself when he tried to prove, scientifically, that God doesn't exist. He wrote very thick books. A Catholic philosopher wrote a very slim pamphlet which highlighted the flaw in his thinking. Dawkins was the more popular because he played up to contemporary secular thinking – that is, he told people what they wanted to hear. Like the other 'New Atheists' he bred prejudice and ignorance.

    Then again, I have seen devout Muslims misled in the claim that the Qur'an is scientific because it confirms the speed of light. This is unfortunate because:
    A) scientifically, the thesis fudges three different sets of parameters to arrive at the correct answer, and
    B) theologically, angels are not 'light' in the sense of creatures of the electromagnetic spectrum.
    C) it leaves them Islam open to unfair and ill-directed criticism.
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  7. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    I know what you mean, but are they?
    Isn't reality the whole, and all academic disciplines somewhat overlapping each other to CONSTRUCT the whole?

    It is convenient to put each academic discipline in neat little boxes in order to study for further education,
    but that is not the reality that I perceive. I see reality as one reality :)

    This is one reason why atheists are likely to come to different conclusions when studying scientific data than theists.

    The data is the same, but the conclusion is not.
    What constitutes the science .. the data, or the conclusion?
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    For the most part I have no philosophical disagreement with the rest of this post, but physics is basically advanced mathematics. It is way over my head, but it boils down to developing and interpreting the complex math equations, which are (as much as possible) based in observation and testing. Even broader concepts such as red shift between galaxies can be measured mathematically.
     
  9. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    As I mentioned earlier, following after Gould, Science addresses "how?" and Religion addresses "why?" With that in mind, I think the two disciplines are mostly divergent, and only in very rare, specific instances do they overlap. The only that leaps to mind is "Love," in my opinion.

    This is called "bias." If a researcher is thoughtful and well intended, they do their level best to set aside their personal bias. Another way to look at it; so many folks in my experience enter a discussion with a foregone conclusion in mind, and their goal is to lead you to that place at any cost.

    A thoughtful, well intended researcher begins at the beginning and follows the trail of clues, no matter where they lead, just like a detective. They might end up where he or she thought, then again they might end up a world away from where they thought...but that is a good researcher to set aside their beliefs and follow where the evidence leads to.

    This actually goes back to a previous discussion you and I had, and I won't go into details, but you asked how I could argue for one thing in one place and argue what seemed basically the opposite in another place. I can answer plainly, here, now in this discussion because it highlights what I am trying to point out. In the one place I was defending my belief, in the other place I was following the evidence. In the one place my audience were and are believers, and out of respect and courtesy I argued my belief. In the other place it was an exploration of the history and background, and believers are not all able or capable of digesting such information, but the audience that was open to the history could understand the evidences presented. In my experience this isn't limited to Christianity. One argument was my faith, the other my science.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    I vaguely recall something like this in an introductory biology class years ago, but the details are long lost in a mental fog. Something about two not quite alive simple celled creatures combining to live symbiotically giving rise to what we now call "cells."
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  11. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    398
    Yes, that's what it is. :D
    We are only human after all. We are not vulcans or what have you ;)

    Of course, we can be biased as an atheist or biased as a theist.
    I know which one I choose and why :)

    I agree, but I'm not sure how detached most people can become.
    Perhaps all scientists should be hypnotized before they come to any conclusions? ;)

    Yes .. I do understand.
    Personally, I try to connect all the dots together between the two. Nothing is perfect, of course,
    and nobody knows all.

    It's this established science, established history thing. I've always been a rebel,
    and I hope always will. Not just for the sake of it.
    If I "smell a rat", I don't want to be herded into what I'm supposed to believe.
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  12. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Bacteria and Archaea are both very much alive. But they are single celled organisms. It was their combination that allowed the development of multicellular life forms. However that conjectured combination event between the two different species happened only once in the whole history of life on earth.

    It took 1.5 billion years to happen, and has never been observed again in the 2.7 billion years that have followed since.

    It is why although there are expectations of finding prokaryotic life (bacteria and archaea) on other worlds, it is considered unlikely to discover advanced life forms. I don't think they'll find even that ... but there's another story
     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    :cool: We may never know.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  14. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,551
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Didn't the king call his thumb an inch, and his foot a foot?

    We always reference things to what we know.

    You know like making gods in our image.

    Even going so far as referring to all stars in relation to our miniscule sun, the basis of star size, one measly sol.

    Thinking there arent other advanced forms of life is the thinking that we are an advanced form of life, lol.

    I will agree we will probably never find them...my conjecture is they have seen us, want nothing to do with us, and are better at hide and seek than us.

    As we place supreme.meaning in one measly soul.

    Aren't y'all glad you don't have to live in my brain?

    My stream of consciousness is a meandering creek bed, which occasionally overflows it's banks.

     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  15. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Bingo
    Oh, I think advanced life forms surround us all the time: they're just not the corporeal carbon-based life we are looking for out there. Every planet harbours life. We just won't be able to recognize it. There are angelic beings able to move between worlds and dimensions, imo
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
    juantoo3 likes this.
  16. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Never. I agree.

    The answers will only lead to more questions. I don't think we will ever nail down LUCA (the last common universal ancestor) of all life, or determine the point at which life originated by abiogenesis from inanimate stuff. It will always recede.

    Science doesn't remove God from man's existence. Understanding the mechanism -- the tiny amount we do understand -- just makes it all the more wonderful, imo? I don't know how anyone can consider the incredible complexity of a single blade of grass and not worship and wonder ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
    juantoo3 likes this.
  17. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    That is some of the most intriguing hypotheses I've read and heard recently.

    The Fermi Paradox:
    Fermi paradox - Wikipedia

    Voyager spacecraft have shown the background radiation to be far too high for life as we know it to sustain...at the very least some protective shielding would be necessary for interstellar travel.

    So...if interstellar travel is prohibited because of radiation, what about interdimensional travel? A hypothesis with a cult following slowly gaining traction is that maybe UFOs are not from Outer Space, but from another Dimension of Space. It is an intriguing concept, but I don't have enough information to elaborate further.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Yes. Interpretation supported by evidential data, the 'best worst' system we have. That cannot preclude the data being 'true', but interpreted incorrectly.

    OK, but if we're going to add to the sum of human knowledge, then academic disciplines are a benefit and a necessity.

    Well theists draw different conclusions, too.

    The conclusions.

    Hence different religious traditions interpret the data of revelation differently, whereas the different academic disciplines generally agree with each other when discussing their respective disciplines. You don't get biologists (for example) going to war with physicists (for example).
     
  19. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    392
    OK, but there are disagreements in Science rather often.

    Clovis, or Solutrean?

    Hard science is pretty well cut and dried. 2+2=4, that kind of stuff. But most science is soft science (a delineation a lot of wannabees would rather not discuss). Pea soup green is soothing, true, but color psychology is not exactly hard science because it isn't true under any and all situations. (This is called "institutional green" by the way, and why psych wards and such tend to be painted in this color.)

    Evolution, in spite of any arguments to the contrary, is a soft science. It is no less science, but the very nature of the line of inquiry demands that certain presumptions have to be put forward until proven or disproven. There is a great deal of proof, but that proof is not universal and total.
     
    muhammad_isa and Thomas like this.
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,391
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Yeah, Heaven help the man who invented pea soup green if I meet him down a dark alley :mad:

    :D
     
    juantoo3 likes this.

Share This Page