How and why is the Evolution theory considered plausible? (purely a science question)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:25 pm    Post subject:

Perfect Makes Practice wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Perfect Makes Practice wrote:
I think that's what makes it interesting.

And you're absolutely right, anyone can believe whatever they choose to.
Certain religion, science, etc...

I for one don't think anyone has the absolute perfect answer. So long as they are good people, that's all that matters. If they become good because of a believe in a god, then great. If it's because of science, great as well.

Until we have an absolute mathematical answer to all of this, I don't think one should try to convince another of their belief.

In a couple of hundred years, we might find out that we were all wrong. What if we do find the perfect answer and it's neither of what we thought (creationism)?

History has proven this time and time again.


I really have a problem with this. It reeks of "since we can't mathematically prove X, we'll allow anything in." It ignores the degree of certitude to which we DO know things. It also ignores the outcome when theories eventually ARE replaced -- the new ones don't obviate the old ones, they extend them to provide a better explanation. Einstein's theories of physics didn't say Newton's were wrong. Apples didn't stop falling from trees.

If someone believes in something that goes against all evidence, and that evidence is strong, then it's perverse to use the fact that we don't have a mathematical certainty as an excuse to go against the evidence.

You might ask, "what's the harm?" Well, potentially there can be a LOT of harm. Let's change the subject to health care -- specifically to breast cancer. There's a LOT of science behind our current medical knowledge and practice relating to breast cancer. Is everything known and proven 100%? No. Are you smart to go against all the science and allow for anything, because it's not proven 100%, and because as with any scientific knowledge, the current consensus can be replaced with new knowledge? Again, no. There's a science blogger named Orac who's a breast cancer surgeon, who blogged about a few cases where this has happened:

Read HERE.

And HERE.

And HERE.


Thanks for answering the questions I had in the posts above. I find this topic more interesting as more data comes in.

With this particular post, I have a question. Do scientists agree that they don't have the answer 100% correct, but rather it's the best answer that they can come up with considering our currect understanding? That's what I understood from all of this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's correct, then I still stand by my statement of not trying to force a belief onto someone else. It might be the "best" answer for now, but I don't agree with forcing it on others. That's just my personal feeling, be it right or wrong, I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks again for the knowledge in this thread. Great work!!!


Who's forcing who?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:10 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
You're right, it just sometimes frustrates when scientists ignore evidence to try and prove their point. It's a discussion that I have been having lately.


It's a complex and subtle issue. I'm not aware of the survey of which you speak, but you seem to come down pretty solidly on the side of the 97% being due to conflict of interest, and the 3% being due to integrity. I'm not sure of your basis for this claim, but its very nature would make me very suspicious.

Yes, you have to consider the source and consider any potential conflict of interest, but you're committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle when you draw it out in black & white like that.

You also need to consider whether a consensus of climatologists has emerged independent of any study, and also what the primary research has shown and where it's leading.

But as I said above, it's a subtle and complex issue. The global warming question is actually a series of questions:

1. Is a warming trend occurring?
2. Are anthropogenic (man made) causes a significant contributing factor?
3. What are the projections for future climates?
4. What effect will anthropogenic factors have on future climates?
5. What effect can human intervention have in slowing or halting the trend?

To the best of my knowledge (this isn't an area in which I've devoted a lot of time), the consensus is pretty solidly on the answer to question 1 being "yes," a little softer but still strongly trending toward the answer to question 2 being "yes," and a clear consensus has not resolved itself regarding the last three questions.

One of the problems is that even though the Earth has undergone many natural warming/cooling periods in its history (so the climate clearly can change without man's help), and the Earth itself will be fine if it happens, we won't be so lucky. In human terms, a significant temperature increase would be an unprecedented disaster. Two reasons off the top of my head: 1) The ability to continue feeding everyone; 2) Sea level increases would be disastrous to any cities near oceans.

Even if anthropogenic causes are minor factors right now, you have to keep in mind that climatology is a chaotic system (in a mathematical sense), where small changes in inputs can have large effects in outputs. So even if anthropogenic causes are a very small piece of the global puzzle, they can potentially end up tipping the scales in a big way.

One solid line of reasoning goes like this: Even though we aren't yet sure of future trends or exactly how man will affect them, it's reasonable to hedge our bets now -- because if we wait until we're sure, it could be way too late. Especially since there's no significant downside to being proactive in this area -- It makes sense from an economic perspective, a conservation perspective, and a foreign dependence perspective.


Good points, the reason I came down hard on the 97% was because the question asked if humans were responsible for global warming. From my education and training, and if you believe the geologic record, you would recognize that the Earth has been in this warming pattern for the past 13,000 years. I can't prove it, but I strongly believe that early man did little to cause the regression of icebergs from North America.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:10 pm    Post subject:

Perfect Makes Practice wrote:
Thanks for answering the questions I had in the posts above. I find this topic more interesting as more data comes in.

With this particular post, I have a question. Do scientists agree that they don't have the answer 100% correct, but rather it's the best answer that they can come up with considering our currect understanding? That's what I understood from all of this. Correct me if I'm wrong.


The answer depends on what you mean by your question. One of the big disconnects between science and the lay public is that science uses certain terms in a very precise way, and the lay public is used to using those terms in an informal way -- so we're using the same language to mean two different things. Same thing goes when we talk about the margin of error. Science doesn't ever know anything 100%, and will word things with that fact in mind -- but the lay public will take that to mean we don't know anything for a fact, or that the uncertainty is much larger than it is.

One of the greatest strengths of science is that it is self-correcting. Its very nature is to continually re-examine itself, find flaws, and look for better explanations. It's set up to weed out the parts that are wrong, and in doing so, converge on what's right. That process never stops, and that's one of the reasons we don't say we have everything 100%.

Add to that the fact that 100% means "down to the smallest detail." We'll NEVER get down to the smallest detail. So we'll NEVER know 100%. But this is one of those disconnects between science and the lay public. When we say we don't know 100%, that's what we mean. But the lay public takes it to imply uncertainty about the big picture.

To use a simple analogy, take a photograph of your mother. It should be easily recognizable to you. But does the photograph contain 100% of the detail? Down to the individual cells? Of course not -- and you don't need that level of detail to easily recognize the picture for what it is.

Now take evolution -- while we don't have 100% of the details worked out (and never will to that level of detail), we still have an incredible amount of evidence to be able to recognize the big picture with great clarity. Yet each piece of evidence that comes out -- every fossil, every genetic study, every experiment -- is held up against the picture to ensure that it still fits, and to figure out what's wrong if it doesn't fit (again, that's science's self-correcting nature).

What we have is not just one photograph, but millions of photographs, all showing the same thing. It's easily recognizable. It's unambiguous.

So to answer what I think is your real question, I'd ask, "what are the chances that science is wrong about the big picture? The basic fact OF evolution?" Is it possible that in 200 years, we'll look back on evolutionary theory and laugh at how wrong we were? Perhaps the same way that medical science looks back on blood letting 200 years ago and shakes its head at how little we knew back then?

Again, science won't give you 100%, but the chances of that happening at this point are so vanishingly small that they should be treated as 100%. We have evolution observed and confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse (as Gould put it) to withhold consent.

"But science has reversed itself before!" is the common reply to this. While this is true, there are a number of things to keep in mind:

1) When science reverses itself, it's often in regard to the smaller details, rather than the big picture. Punctuated equilibrium replacing phyletic gradualism, for example. But that's just one of the mechanisms WITHIN evolution, not the basic fact OF evolution.

2) When the big-picture explanations are wrong, we are usually well aware of the problems in advance. It's what I said about science's self-correcting nature -- we hold up new evidence against our theories and look for problems, then figure out what's wrong when those problems are spotted. An example is Relativity replacing Newtonian physics. We were well aware of the problems with Newtonian physics for a while before Einstein came along with a better explanation. With evolution, there are no lingering problems that question the basic fact of evolution. The big things that came along -- for example, Genetics -- didn't illuminate problems, they confirmed the theory to an incredible degree.

3) When the big-picture theories get replaced, it's usually very early in the process. We're very far into the process with evolution.

4) The scientific method itself was only refined in the last 200 years, and it's simply the best tool ever invented for examining the world around us. A lot of what we found using the scientific method quickly replaced our oeuvre of knowledge that was gained pre-scientifically. Blood letting is a perfect example. Those who are opponents of science who give "we used to think X" examples often give such scientific vs. pre-scientific examples, without realizing that it's a) disanalogous; and b) simply confirms the power of science.

5) You have to be careful what you say when you say that one big-picture idea replaces another. For example, as I said, Relativity replaced Newtonian physics -- but that doesn't mean that Newton was wrong -- just that his theory was incomplete. Relativity encompassed all of Newtonian physics, and explained it better, covering the parts where Newtonian physics started to get fuzzy. Likewise, if something comes along to replace evolution, it'll still explain everything we already see with clarity.


Quote:
If that's correct, then I still stand by my statement of not trying to force a belief onto someone else. It might be the "best" answer for now, but I don't agree with forcing it on others. That's just my personal feeling, be it right or wrong, I'll just leave it at that.


Here are two word that gets us into trouble: "belief," and "force." Since this post is already getting pretty long (and my lunch hour is over), perhaps I should throw the ball back into your court -- what do you mean when you say it's a "belief," and what do you mean by "force?"

I think we're going to find that we mean entirely different things when we talk about both terms.

Quote:
Thanks again for the knowledge in this thread. Great work!!!


Always happy to discuss this stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject:

Okay, before I quit for the afternoon, let me add just a little bit to the last part to fuel the discussion.

When examining something, it's always useful to examine a more extreme example (one the other person takes as a given) to identify the commonalities and differences in thinking.

So in answering what you mean by "belief" and "force," let me ask you -- if someone believes the Earth is flat, and you inform him that it is in fact round, citing all the reasons we know it to be so, then are you "forcing a belief" onto him?

Second question -- I have a pretty clear distinction in mind when I talk about "knowledge," "belief" and "faith," and I think one of those disconnects I talked about earlier is that people will often misapply these words, or use them interchangeably. So when you use "belief," how in your mind is that different from "knowledge" or "faith?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Belkin
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 372

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject:

I'm curious about something: If humans as we are are a result of evolution from the monkeys, are we also currently evolving? Like, in years to come, will we evolve into another species?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
stillmatic
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Tarzana

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:31 pm    Post subject:

Belkin wrote:
I'm curious about something: If humans as we are are a result of evolution from the monkeys, are we also currently evolving? Like, in years to come, will we evolve into another species?


We didn't evolve from monkeys!

EDIT: i'll shut up now, kthx.


Last edited by stillmatic on Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:38 pm    Post subject:

Belkin -- complex question, and there's a lot of subtlety to the answer. I'll get back to you with something on it.

Stillmatic -- No. We didn't evolve from MODERN monkeys, chimps or apes, but we share a common ancestor with them, and that common ancestor was an ape-like creature. Genetically we are VERY closely related to all primates, and to certain branches more closely than others. But we are related to ALL primates more closely than to other mammals. With other primates the genetic match percentage is in the high-90's, not 4%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
stillmatic
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Tarzana

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:44 pm    Post subject:

Larry, isn't that what he was assuming though? I took it as he meant we evolved from monkeys as we know them today, not our common ancestor.

I understand we share a common ancestor somewhere in our phylogenetic tree...but from my understanding, we are very similar to mice and rats physiologically, which is why we do so many tests and study on them as it provides us with great insight on how we work.


Last edited by stillmatic on Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Belkin
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 372

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:52 pm    Post subject:

well it wasn't really an assumption, I just meant to use the concept to make the question more understandable.

Another question whenever you get around to it, how do we(or the scientists or whoever has the authority) decide how much genetic difference constitutes a different species?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:00 pm    Post subject:

stillmatic wrote:
Larry, isn't that what he was assuming though? I took it as he meant we evolved from monkeys as we know them today, not our common ancestor.

I understand we share a common ancestor somewhere in our phylogenetic tree...but from my understanding, we are very similar to mice and rats physiologically, which is why we do so many tests and study on them as it provides us with great insight on how we work.

I know our DNA is in the 90%ish when compard to monkeys, but I thought physiologically, we were more similar to mice. Am I confused somewhere?


I want you to know that because of this thread, I'm going to be working well into the evening...

We're much more similar to other primates in all respects.

A lot of the reason for studying/testing with rats are threefold: 1) Availability -- we can get them a lot easier, and get a lot more of them; 2) Ethics -- we have higher ethical standards for primates, which reduces the kinds of testing we can do with them; 3) The shorter lifecycle means we can study generations of rodents much easier than primates.

So if we want to study something, it makes sense to do at least the initial studies where it's easiest (per the above three factors) at first. This is the same reason we use fruit flies where we can (much to Sarah Palin's chagrin). We have no problems getting lots of them, and can study many generations in short order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
stillmatic
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Tarzana

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject:

Thanks Larry, I didn't mean to come across as dumb.. I'm more of a calc/physics kind of guy to be honest.

My Bio lab teacher made it a point to emphasize that point, and I must have been confused somewhere, my bad. I did know that it was more so for availability than anything else. That's what it pisses me off, you learn something then someone else shoves something else down your throat and then you get your "facts" all confused.

Belkin, didn't mean to come across as a know it all, because the opposite couldn't be more true, sorry if I did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:28 pm    Post subject:

Belkin wrote:
well it wasn't really an assumption, I just meant to use the concept to make the question more understandable.

Another question whenever you get around to it, how do we(or the scientists or whoever has the authority) decide how much genetic difference constitutes a different species?


Even the definition of species is fuzzy. Nature isn't as clean-cut as we'd like it to be. One criterion is that the members of a single species should be able to reproduce, and create viable offspring (ones that can themselves reproduce). An example is a donkey and a horse. They can reproduce, but the result (a mule) is sterile, so they're considered different species.

But there are complications. One is a ring species. There are many cases (certain Robins, off the top of my head), where there are separate populations. Population A can reproduce with Population B. And B can reproduce with Population C. And C with D. But Population D can't reproduce with Population A.

This and may other complications make it so that we can't even define "species" cleanly.


But even without the "species" complication (i.e., let's set aside how we'll know that humans have evolved into a new species), there are many complications which at least slow down the process. One is that technology overcomes natural selection. Not only can an individual survive to reproduce (and therefore pass on his genes) when he might not have before, the human population itself can overcome selective pressures using technology rather than evolutionary adaptation. Before we might have had to evolve an adaptation for a changing environment. Now we'll just build something to do it, thus relieving the selective pressure.

The next factor is population distribution and isolation. When two species are isolated physically, either in time or in space, they are said to be allopatric. Breeding populations that are isolated from each other will accumulate genetic mutations independently, which will eventually (and more quickly) result in speciation. But since humans are actually one big breeding population, allopatry is restricted -- even a small fraction of interbreeding prevents complete isolation.

There are other forms of speciation -- there's parapatry, which is partial isolation, and sympatric, where new ecological roles are adopted and selection will tend to make them reproductively isolated. Humans might continue to evolve through these, but evolution is thought to mostly occur allopatricly.

Now that I've said all that, let me also clarify that "evolution" doesn't necessarily mean "evolution into a new species." It's when evolutionary changes accumulate over time that speciation happens (wth the above factors thrown in). There's evidence that the human population is still evolving:

* Analysis of variation in the human genome indicates that genes associated with brain size have evolved over approximately the last 37,000 years and 5800 years (Evans et al. 2005; Mekel-Bobrov et al. 2005).

* Sickle-cell resistance has evolved to be more prevalent in areas where malaria is more common.

* Lactose tolerance has evolved in conjunction with cultural changes in dairy consumption (Durham 1992).

* Some humans have recently acquired mutations which confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) and to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).


The AIDS example might be the easiest to use to summarize this entire post. Some humans have a genetic resistance to AIDS. In a world without AIDS, there's no selective pressure for or against this mutation. However, in a world with AIDS but without technology, this genetic mutation would have a selective advantage, and within a small number of generations (in an evolutionary sense), this mutation would be fully incorporated into our genome. The human species will have evolved resistance to AIDS.

Now add in technology, and with it the scientific treatments for AIDS. This lessens or removes the selective pressures, and now it takes much longer for this mutation to become a fixture in the genome, if it happens at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:33 pm    Post subject:

stillmatic wrote:
Thanks Larry, I didn't mean to come across as dumb.. I'm more of a calc/physics kind of guy to be honest.


That's no excuse. I'm a computer scientist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
stillmatic
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Tarzana

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:45 pm    Post subject:

Doh! That's my major....now I feel really inadequate.

For someone who is self-taught, you seriously blow my mind with all that knowledge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sheldonc
Rookie
Rookie


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:08 pm    Post subject:

Here is a good example of where evolution has been observed. Check out this interesting article on the evolutionary effects that hunting has had on a number species.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
55
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 12092

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Okay, before I quit for the afternoon, let me add just a little bit to the last part to fuel the discussion.

When examining something, it's always useful to examine a more extreme example (one the other person takes as a given) to identify the commonalities and differences in thinking.

So in answering what you mean by "belief" and "force," let me ask you -- if someone believes the Earth is flat, and you inform him that it is in fact round, citing all the reasons we know it to be so, then are you "forcing a belief" onto him?

Second question -- I have a pretty clear distinction in mind when I talk about "knowledge," "belief" and "faith," and I think one of those disconnects I talked about earlier is that people will often misapply these words, or use them interchangeably. So when you use "belief," how in your mind is that different from "knowledge" or "faith?"


You answered my question with your question back to me. Gotcha, Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
NickF
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Caerbannog

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:19 pm    Post subject:

Belkin wrote:
well it wasn't really an assumption, I just meant to use the concept to make the question more understandable.

Another question whenever you get around to it, how do we(or the scientists or whoever has the authority) decide how much genetic difference constitutes a different species?


it's just if species a can interbreed with species b
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
re4ee
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 12237

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:51 am    Post subject:

I have never heard or read any logically valid arguments supporting the premise that Evolution and so-called "Intelligent Design" are mutually exclusive. I think this is a straw man, and is used to drive a wedge between those who identify themselves as religious and those who are secular. My answer to those who refuse to consider evolution as being not anti-religion is.

"What could be a more "intelligent design" than built in tools to diversify, and alter ourselves depending on how nature develops?"
_________________
<
"Ev'rybody's got somethin' to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey"
<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
NickF
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Caerbannog

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject:

re4ee wrote:
I have never heard or read any logically valid arguments supporting the premise that Evolution and so-called "Intelligent Design" are mutually exclusive. I think this is a straw man, and is used to drive a wedge between those who identify themselves as religious and those who are secular. My answer to those who refuse to consider evolution as being not anti-religion is.

"What could be a more "intelligent design" than built in tools to diversify, and alter ourselves depending on how nature develops?"


I think biblical literalists have a problem with this because if life on earth evolved over billion of years the "world was created in 6 days" is false.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
postandpivot
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:26 am    Post subject:

Fan0Bynum17 wrote:
Perfect Makes Practice wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Perfect Makes Practice wrote:
I think that's what makes it interesting.

And you're absolutely right, anyone can believe whatever they choose to.
Certain religion, science, etc...

I for one don't think anyone has the absolute perfect answer. So long as they are good people, that's all that matters. If they become good because of a believe in a god, then great. If it's because of science, great as well.

Until we have an absolute mathematical answer to all of this, I don't think one should try to convince another of their belief.

In a couple of hundred years, we might find out that we were all wrong. What if we do find the perfect answer and it's neither of what we thought (creationism)?

History has proven this time and time again.


I really have a problem with this. It reeks of "since we can't mathematically prove X, we'll allow anything in." It ignores the degree of certitude to which we DO know things. It also ignores the outcome when theories eventually ARE replaced -- the new ones don't obviate the old ones, they extend them to provide a better explanation. Einstein's theories of physics didn't say Newton's were wrong. Apples didn't stop falling from trees.

If someone believes in something that goes against all evidence, and that evidence is strong, then it's perverse to use the fact that we don't have a mathematical certainty as an excuse to go against the evidence.

You might ask, "what's the harm?" Well, potentially there can be a LOT of harm. Let's change the subject to health care -- specifically to breast cancer. There's a LOT of science behind our current medical knowledge and practice relating to breast cancer. Is everything known and proven 100%? No. Are you smart to go against all the science and allow for anything, because it's not proven 100%, and because as with any scientific knowledge, the current consensus can be replaced with new knowledge? Again, no. There's a science blogger named Orac who's a breast cancer surgeon, who blogged about a few cases where this has happened:

Read HERE.

And HERE.

And HERE.


Thanks for answering the questions I had in the posts above. I find this topic more interesting as more data comes in.

With this particular post, I have a question. Do scientists agree that they don't have the answer 100% correct, but rather it's the best answer that they can come up with considering our currect understanding? That's what I understood from all of this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's correct, then I still stand by my statement of not trying to force a belief onto someone else. It might be the "best" answer for now, but I don't agree with forcing it on others. That's just my personal feeling, be it right or wrong, I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks again for the knowledge in this thread. Great work!!!


Who's forcing who?


exactly.

and my question to LC's response above would be this. what if there was a Creator..... are we saying that the science behind these creations are untrue? I dont think so. or atleast not untrue with everything. some perhaps. others probably spot on.

if God is real. do i think he will tell us that the we were always wrong and water isn't H2O? no. i think he will confirm a ton of science. and denounce some all at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
postandpivot
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:33 am    Post subject:

NickF wrote:
re4ee wrote:
I have never heard or read any logically valid arguments supporting the premise that Evolution and so-called "Intelligent Design" are mutually exclusive. I think this is a straw man, and is used to drive a wedge between those who identify themselves as religious and those who are secular. My answer to those who refuse to consider evolution as being not anti-religion is.

"What could be a more "intelligent design" than built in tools to diversify, and alter ourselves depending on how nature develops?"


I think biblical literalists have a problem with this because if life on earth evolved over billion of years the "world was created in 6 days" is false.


it goes beyond the world being created in 6 days. for the record. i'm still not sure about the exact timeline. whats 6 days to him and to me, back then could be two different things. our days are calculated by the sun and the earths rotation.

what if you were the creator, so you sat outside of the sun and the earths rotation? where would you get your sense of time from? if you're in outer space. there are many suns(stars). So again where are you getting your time from? or perhaps it was literally 6 days.

perhaps God was trying to say, even though I stand outside of man's time. because i stand outside of earth. It took me the equivalent of 6 Full earth spins, to finish the job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject:

postandpivot wrote:
Fan0Bynum17 wrote:


Who's forcing who?


exactly.

and my question to LC's response above would be this. what if there was a Creator..... are we saying that the science behind these creations are untrue? I dont think so. or atleast not untrue with everything. some perhaps. others probably spot on.

if God is real. do i think he will tell us that the we were always wrong and water isn't H2O? no. i think he will confirm a ton of science. and denounce some all at the same time.


What's the point of mentioning this? What's the point in bringing in a hypothetical God and conjecture on what it would confirm/disconfirm about scientific knowledge? I don't think anyone here implied that theists believed all science was false.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:04 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Perfect Makes Practice wrote:
Thanks for answering the questions I had in the posts above. I find this topic more interesting as more data comes in.

With this particular post, I have a question. Do scientists agree that they don't have the answer 100% correct, but rather it's the best answer that they can come up with considering our currect understanding? That's what I understood from all of this. Correct me if I'm wrong.


The answer depends on what you mean by your question. One of the big disconnects between science and the lay public is that science uses certain terms in a very precise way, and the lay public is used to using those terms in an informal way -- so we're using the same language to mean two different things. Same thing goes when we talk about the margin of error. Science doesn't ever know anything 100%, and will word things with that fact in mind -- but the lay public will take that to mean we don't know anything for a fact, or that the uncertainty is much larger than it is.

One of the greatest strengths of science is that it is self-correcting. Its very nature is to continually re-examine itself, find flaws, and look for better explanations. It's set up to weed out the parts that are wrong, and in doing so, converge on what's right. That process never stops, and that's one of the reasons we don't say we have everything 100%.

Add to that the fact that 100% means "down to the smallest detail." We'll NEVER get down to the smallest detail. So we'll NEVER know 100%. But this is one of those disconnects between science and the lay public. When we say we don't know 100%, that's what we mean. But the lay public takes it to imply uncertainty about the big picture.

To use a simple analogy, take a photograph of your mother. It should be easily recognizable to you. But does the photograph contain 100% of the detail? Down to the individual cells? Of course not -- and you don't need that level of detail to easily recognize the picture for what it is.

Now take evolution -- while we don't have 100% of the details worked out (and never will to that level of detail), we still have an incredible amount of evidence to be able to recognize the big picture with great clarity. Yet each piece of evidence that comes out -- every fossil, every genetic study, every experiment -- is held up against the picture to ensure that it still fits, and to figure out what's wrong if it doesn't fit (again, that's science's self-correcting nature).

What we have is not just one photograph, but millions of photographs, all showing the same thing. It's easily recognizable. It's unambiguous.

So to answer what I think is your real question, I'd ask, "what are the chances that science is wrong about the big picture? The basic fact OF evolution?" Is it possible that in 200 years, we'll look back on evolutionary theory and laugh at how wrong we were? Perhaps the same way that medical science looks back on blood letting 200 years ago and shakes its head at how little we knew back then?

Again, science won't give you 100%, but the chances of that happening at this point are so vanishingly small that they should be treated as 100%. We have evolution observed and confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse (as Gould put it) to withhold consent.

"But science has reversed itself before!" is the common reply to this. While this is true, there are a number of things to keep in mind:

1) When science reverses itself, it's often in regard to the smaller details, rather than the big picture. Punctuated equilibrium replacing phyletic gradualism, for example. But that's just one of the mechanisms WITHIN evolution, not the basic fact OF evolution.

2) When the big-picture explanations are wrong, we are usually well aware of the problems in advance. It's what I said about science's self-correcting nature -- we hold up new evidence against our theories and look for problems, then figure out what's wrong when those problems are spotted. An example is Relativity replacing Newtonian physics. We were well aware of the problems with Newtonian physics for a while before Einstein came along with a better explanation. With evolution, there are no lingering problems that question the basic fact of evolution. The big things that came along -- for example, Genetics -- didn't illuminate problems, they confirmed the theory to an incredible degree.

3) When the big-picture theories get replaced, it's usually very early in the process. We're very far into the process with evolution.

4) The scientific method itself was only refined in the last 200 years, and it's simply the best tool ever invented for examining the world around us. A lot of what we found using the scientific method quickly replaced our oeuvre of knowledge that was gained pre-scientifically. Blood letting is a perfect example. Those who are opponents of science who give "we used to think X" examples often give such scientific vs. pre-scientific examples, without realizing that it's a) disanalogous; and b) simply confirms the power of science.

5) You have to be careful what you say when you say that one big-picture idea replaces another. For example, as I said, Relativity replaced Newtonian physics -- but that doesn't mean that Newton was wrong -- just that his theory was incomplete. Relativity encompassed all of Newtonian physics, and explained it better, covering the parts where Newtonian physics started to get fuzzy. Likewise, if something comes along to replace evolution, it'll still explain everything we already see with clarity.


Quote:
If that's correct, then I still stand by my statement of not trying to force a belief onto someone else. It might be the "best" answer for now, but I don't agree with forcing it on others. That's just my personal feeling, be it right or wrong, I'll just leave it at that.


Here are two word that gets us into trouble: "belief," and "force." Since this post is already getting pretty long (and my lunch hour is over), perhaps I should throw the ball back into your court -- what do you mean when you say it's a "belief," and what do you mean by "force?"

I think we're going to find that we mean entirely different things when we talk about both terms.

Quote:
Thanks again for the knowledge in this thread. Great work!!!


Always happy to discuss this stuff.


Outstanding explanation LC. One thing I will add just as interesting tidbit, we DO blood let in medicine today for a disease called polycythemia-Too many red blood cells.

BTW, what is your profession? Curious obviously because of your obviously strong background in science in general and Evolution as evidenced here.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:16 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Outstanding explanation LC. One thing I will add just as interesting tidbit, we DO blood let in medicine today for a disease called polycythemia-Too many red blood cells.


And we still use leeches for certain applications, right?

Quote:
BTW, what is your profession? Curious obviously because of your obviously strong background in science in general and Evolution as evidenced here.


As I said above, my background is computer science. I'm an IT Director at UC Irvine (and avowed science junkie...).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
NickF
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 1946
Location: Caerbannog

PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:30 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Outstanding explanation LC. One thing I will add just as interesting tidbit, we DO blood let in medicine today for a disease called polycythemia-Too many red blood cells.


And we still use leeches for certain applications, right?

Quote:
BTW, what is your profession? Curious obviously because of your obviously strong background in science in general and Evolution as evidenced here.


As I said above, my background is computer science. I'm an IT Director at UC Irvine (and avowed science junkie...).


Larry, do you know of a Gabriella Ernsberger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 10 of 12
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB