Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15659
Credit: 66,119,020
RAC: 5,151
United States
Message 1299458 - Posted: 27 Oct 2012, 19:58:12 UTC - in response to Message 1299440.  

Prejudice and ad hominem attacks is not an argument.


Then I suggest you build a better foundation of belief system that doesn't use bad science or discredited ideologists.
ID: 1299458 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1299563 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 0:08:16 UTC

Discredited by who. You Folks? BAWahahahahahahahahahaha!

Science by who? You folks? Once again....BAWahahahahahahaha!

ID: 1299563 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15659
Credit: 66,119,020
RAC: 5,151
United States
Message 1299592 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 0:54:52 UTC - in response to Message 1299563.  

Discredited by who. You Folks? BAWahahahahahahahahahaha!

Science by who? You folks? Once again....BAWahahahahahahaha!


"Prejudice is not an argument" - I believe those are your words. Your prejudice against us is not an argument in favor of your views.
ID: 1299592 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1299660 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 6:19:49 UTC

Robert,
I asked you a question earlier, lets try again;

Do you take the young-earth view that the whole planet earth is only a few thousand years old?
Do you think the whole planet is 6,000 years old?
Do you think God created the dinosaurs in the last 6,000 years?

What is your position? Speak freely Robert, i'm not going to attack you. But i will debate it with you. I think that only the human beings are 6,000 years old, not all the fossilised creatures in the rocks. I think the fossils are from a completely different epoch that God did NOT discuss in the Bible.

John.
ID: 1299660 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 7031
Credit: 2,055,082
RAC: 996
Italy
Message 1299700 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 9:21:37 UTC

Why nobody reads "The human phenomenon" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,SJ?
Tullio
ID: 1299700 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1299806 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 16:02:48 UTC

Do you take the young-earth view that the whole planet earth is only a few thousand years old?

No John, 4.5 billion years old.

Do you think the whole planet is 6,000 years old?

A repeat of the first question John.


Do you think God created the dinosaurs in the last 6,000 years?

No John, KT boundary is older then that.


I answered the questions you asked of me long ago. You did not read the article I started this thread out with NOR DID ANYONE ELSE here at this site. None of them have the brain pan to comprehend it. I took some parts out of the article..just for conversation and STILL no one understood the article...LOL. Yet they say they can discredit it. [smile]

So John here is my answer once again...

It has been said by many that birds are living Dinosaur's. And this part kinda confirms this...

…collagen [type] I has unique characteristics… making validation of its presence relatively straightforward.This finding suggests that the bone mineral is virtually unchanged from the living state and has undergone little if any alteration. … the elasticity of dinosaur tissues was similar to that of demineralized extant bone.…bone extracts showed reactivity to antibodies raised against chicken collagen… We confirmed the antibody reactivity data by in situ immunohistochemistry…Additionally, antibody reactivity (Fig. 2J) was significantly decreased after we digested dinosaur tissues with collagenase…Immunohistochemistry performed on sediments was negative for binding.In situ TOF-SIMS [ion mass spectroscopy] analyses were performed to unambiguously detect amino acid residues consistent with the presence of protein in demineralized MOR 1125 [T. rex] tissues.Sandstones entombing the dinosaur, subjected to TOF-SIMS as a control, showed little or no evidence for these amino acids.… that molecular fragments of original proteins are preserved in the mineralized matrix of bony elements of MOR 1125 is supported by peptide sequences recovered from dinosaur extracts, some of which align uniquely with chicken collagen… The amount of protein or protein-like components… was ~0.62% for cortical bone and 1.3% for medullary bone.Additionally, experiments have been conducted independently in at least three different labs and by numerous investigators, and the results strongly support the endogeneity [internal origin] of collagen-like protein molecules. -Science 2007, Schweitzer, et al.

Also the piece kinda tell how the soft tissue lasted so long...

"The possibility that microbes may have invaded bone and vascular channels after death, secreting extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that subsequently mineralized, was also considered. If deposition of mineral upon microbial biofilm allowed retention of flexibility in one case, it is feasible to propose that the same process contributed to the preservation of the original vessel walls."And back in 2007, the authors write that while they remain open to further pending analysis of the osteocytes, they "consider these cell-like structures to be remains of original cells."Then a few months later the journal Science published a peer-reviewed paper from a team of scientists including from Harvard and the University of Chicago marking a significant development in the history of this breakthrough field. For this excerpt, remember that the word endogenous means originating within, of course, as opposed to an external contamination.

[Triceratops Update: An unpublished preliminary report from the director of the electron microscope lab at the Northridge campus of California State University indicates the first-ever discoveries in 2012 of soft tissue from a triceratops horn, and more significantly, apparently of osteocytes (bone cells) in matrix, that is, not found after de-mineralization while floating in isolation, but still in situ, where they would have appeared in the living animal.]
2007 - Science: Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein by Schweitzer [and six other authors from NCSU; MSU; Beth Israel Med. Ctr.; Harvard School of Med.; Univ. of Chicago].
"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary [pregnancy-related bone] tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation." And the team considers the implications of the "presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone…""…it has been hypothesized that original molecules will be either lost or altered to the point of nonrecognition over relatively short time spans (well under a million years) (1–7). However, the discovery of intact structures retaining original transparency, flexibility, and other characteristics in specimens dating at least to the Cretaceous (8, 9) [65+ mya] suggested that, under certain conditions, remnant organic constituents may persist across geological time." -Science 2007, Schweitzer, et al.

The standard explanation by atheists and evolutionists that I've seen, including at League of Reason, is that the biofilm interpretation published in 2008 has "refuted" the soft-tissue claims. Apparently that's your explanation too. I can't be sure because rather than provide evidence for me and the readers you have simply stated that the soft tissue has been "refuted." And whereas I've been posting all along extensive evidence of my assertion, you've left us guessing as to how, when, where, by whom this has been "refuted." The 2008 biofilm paper is a worthwhile scientific endeavor: exploring whether bacteria could create these dinosaur artifacts. But on its primary goal it was given far too much credit because it virtually ignored the following positive evidence from this same 2007 paper (and from elsewhere):

All in all Id have to say that I still believe in billions and millions of years. But, I leave the door open for other thoughts. This isn't the door slammer on Darwin, but it does slam the door shut on Neo-Darwinism. I would hope that they do such work on human bones. For example, it has been said and work done on Neanderthals finds that RED HAIR can be traced to them. While this doesn't, once again, slam the door shut on Darwin or for that matter Neo-Darwinism it does leave it open for more study with this new find. Neo-Darwinism does not allow, 'for'..."source of variation involving blending inheritance" as the piece I posted here tells us about with Dinosaurs and chickens. I believe that God's Guiding Hand was involved in this process. Darwin just stumbled onto Gods plan. Neo-Darwinism makes HUGE attempts to take God out of the equation. It has now been proven to my satisfaction that Neo-Darwinism is false. THANK YOU!
ID: 1299806 · Report as offensive
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 19545
Credit: 2,694,446
RAC: 865
Ireland
Message 1299822 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 16:39:22 UTC - in response to Message 1299806.  
Last modified: 28 Oct 2012, 16:39:57 UTC

It has now been proven to my satisfaction that Neo-Darwinism is false. THANK YOU!


Oh & as it has been proven to your satisfaction, the rest of us are wrong & we must put blind faith in your satisfaction?
ID: 1299822 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1299860 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 17:39:22 UTC - in response to Message 1299806.  
Last modified: 28 Oct 2012, 17:45:28 UTC

All in all Id have to say that I still believe in billions and millions of years. But, I leave the door open for other thoughts. This isn't the door slammer on Darwin, but it does slam the door shut on Neo-Darwinism. I would hope that they do such work on human bones. For example, it has been said and work done on Neanderthals finds that RED HAIR can be traced to them. While this doesn't, once again, slam the door shut on Darwin or for that matter Neo-Darwinism it does leave it open for more study with this new find. Neo-Darwinism does not allow, 'for'..."source of variation involving blending inheritance" as the piece I posted here tells us about with Dinosaurs and chickens. I believe that God's Guiding Hand was involved in this process. Darwin just stumbled onto Gods plan. Neo-Darwinism makes HUGE attempts to take God out of the equation. It has now been proven to my satisfaction that Neo-Darwinism is false. THANK YOU!

Thanks Robert,
All i wanted to know was if you believed the young-earth theory that the whole planet earth is only 6,000 years old. And you said you don't think that way, good! That means your keeping it real Robert, that's good!!

In a nutshell Robert, this is what i think happened. In quick bullet points;

A - The Bible is 100% correct, but its extremely difficult to extract its meaning because its full of prophesy and analogies.

B - The Bible ONLY discusses the start of HUMAN history, which says we were created 6,000 years ago.

C - The Bible says almost NOTHING about astronomy. So you can't use the Bible to fight any of the theories in astronomy. Especially the Big bang theory, which never happened!

D - There are no dinosaurs in the Bible, full stop! But God did create them, just he did it millions of years ago, just like the fossil record proves!

E - Evolution is a myth Robert, living things don't evolve, in any way shape or form, ever!! But similar living creatures do hybridise. Like you can cross a big dog with a little dog and you get a hybrid of the two. This can be done with thousands of living plants and animals. And on quick inspection, hybridisation can give the appearance of the creature "evolving". But its just thousands of generations of species hybridising and cross breeding. The living things are NOT evolving!

F - The fossil record is correct, living things have been on this planet for millions of years. At any epoch in the fossil record, if new living things appear, then people were here doing it. If there was dinosaurs here 100 million years ago, then there was people here who genetically engineered them.

G - I repeat again; Living things don't evolve, they cross breed and hybridise giving you thousands of similar species that look alike!

H - Human beings were genetically engineered 6,000 years ago, and the Bible is a written record of roughly what happened.

I - Human beings are NOT related to monkeys. They are NOT our relatives!

John.
ID: 1299860 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1299967 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 22:28:18 UTC
Last modified: 28 Oct 2012, 22:35:29 UTC

E - Evolution is a myth Robert, living things don't evolve, in any way shape or form, ever!! But similar living creatures do hybridise. Like you can cross a big dog with a little dog and you get a hybrid of the two. This can be done with thousands of living plants and animals. And on quick inspection, hybridisation can give the appearance of the creature "evolving". But its just thousands of generations of species hybridising and cross breeding. The living things are NOT evolving!


Ummm those little and big dogs just happen to be the same species. Each and every modern breed of dog evolved from wolves or wolf like dogs. This is called breeding or technically genetic selection for our own purposes.

How did they get small dogs? they bred the smallest in the litters with other small dogs from other litters. dozens of generations later you get tiny dogs.

why else would you get so many breed that look similar. Look at dauchshunds, pinchers, mini pins, Rotwiellers. all had common starting point but bred for different tasks.

Further proof is the interbreedability of dogs. Notice that dogs can breed with wolves. That's any breed.

An interesting article in Mindfloss describes how dogs are different from Wolves. If a dog and a wolf are given a "treat" in a toy that cannot be opened a dog will eventually stop attempting to get at the treat. A wolf will continue endlessly. Man has made dogs reliant on us.

Man has managed to manipulate many living creatures and plants in the last 6000 years. From wheat barley soy to dogs cattle horses each has been altered from its wild type by man.
You might think I neglected to mention cats. Cats have resisted mans influence and still maintain their native cat instincts if grown wild. Cats have the distinction of being the only animal that voluntarily attached itself to man.


And lets leave it to Russian scientist to to turn foxes into dogs. In 50 years scientists bred foxes into something completely unfoxlike
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1299967 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3043
Credit: 1,672,899
RAC: 1,795
United States
Message 1299984 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 22:58:03 UTC

I would say that the Bible tells the story of the Hebrew people and their version of the creation story that every tribe or closed population had. When a Jewish boy or girl asked inevitably where did we come from the story was told by word of mouth from generation to generation until Moses came along and wrote down what was the current version of the story. This version of human history was eventually adopted by both Christians and Muslims. It is only a small twist in fate that has some of us clinging to this version of man's origin over Greek, Roman or Nordic mythology.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1299984 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1299990 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 23:06:39 UTC - in response to Message 1299967.  

E - Evolution is a myth Robert, living things don't evolve, in any way shape or form, ever!! But similar living creatures do hybridise. Like you can cross a big dog with a little dog and you get a hybrid of the two. This can be done with thousands of living plants and animals. And on quick inspection, hybridisation can give the appearance of the creature "evolving". But its just thousands of generations of species hybridising and cross breeding. The living things are NOT evolving!


Ummm those little and big dogs just happen to be the same species. Each and every modern breed of dog evolved from wolves or wolf like dogs. This is called breeding or technically genetic selection for our own purposes.

How did they get small dogs? they bred the smallest in the litters with other small dogs from other litters. dozens of generations later you get tiny dogs.

why else would you get so many breed that look similar. Look at dauchshunds, pinchers, mini pins, Rotwiellers. all had common starting point but bred for different tasks.

Further proof is the interbreedability of dogs. Notice that dogs can breed with wolves. That's any breed.

An interesting article in Mindfloss describes how dogs are different from Wolves. If a dog and a wolf are given a "treat" in a toy that cannot be opened a dog will eventually stop attempting to get at the treat. A wolf will continue endlessly. Man has made dogs reliant on us.

Man has managed to manipulate many living creatures and plants in the last 6000 years. From wheat barley soy to dogs cattle horses each has been altered from its wild type by man.
You might think I neglected to mention cats. Cats have resisted mans influence and still maintain their native cat instincts if grown wild. Cats have the distinction of being the only animal that voluntarily attached itself to man.


And lets leave it to Russian scientist to to turn foxes into dogs. In 50 years scientists bred foxes into something completely unfoxlike

skildude,
Your whole post sounds like you are agreeing with me. You sound like your acknowledging that hybridisation in living creatures is common, which it is.

Which also means that if you reverse the process back in time, in every case, you would arrive at just two of each creature or plant. Which is exactly what the Bible says. Its says that people/God/Yahweh "created" the living creatures, each to its own kind.

There is no evolution, ever!! Just people genetically engineering the living things!

John.
ID: 1299990 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1299995 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 23:12:46 UTC - in response to Message 1299984.  
Last modified: 28 Oct 2012, 23:14:09 UTC

I would say that the Bible tells the story of the Hebrew people and their version of the creation story that every tribe or closed population had. When a Jewish boy or girl asked inevitably where did we come from the story was told by word of mouth from generation to generation until Moses came along and wrote down what was the current version of the story. This version of human history was eventually adopted by both Christians and Muslims. It is only a small twist in fate that has some of us clinging to this version of man's origin over Greek, Roman or Nordic mythology.

Bob,
You are one of the Israelites. You have their genes in your cells. You have their blood flowing through your veins. The story in the Bible is not an accident, its real. It really happened Bob. Its part of YOUR personal family history, and mine too. Science will prove this beyond all doubt in time. And we are very close to that time. You Bob are a decendant of the people of Israel. You are my distant brother Bob.

John.
ID: 1299995 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1300003 - Posted: 28 Oct 2012, 23:43:48 UTC

It's a PDF file, just a heads up...

Guns Germs and Steel

Dogs, cows, wheat, corn, etc, etc, etc...

Man in our form as we know now has been around for 150,000 years or so, give or take a little. Of course when did we get our conscience, that is the real question?
ID: 1300003 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 7031
Credit: 2,055,082
RAC: 996
Italy
Message 1300085 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 3:13:42 UTC - in response to Message 1299860.  
Last modified: 29 Oct 2012, 3:14:28 UTC

Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a Jesuit priest but also a paleontologist who discovered the fossil rests of the "Peking man" (Sinanthropus Pekiniensis), unfortunately lost or destroyed in WWII. This happened in Chukutien, China, in 1038. Read his book "The appearance of man", Collins, London, 1965.
Tullio
ID: 1300085 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1300252 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 16:16:12 UTC - in response to Message 1299990.  

E - Evolution is a myth Robert, living things don't evolve, in any way shape or form, ever!! But similar living creatures do hybridise. Like you can cross a big dog with a little dog and you get a hybrid of the two. This can be done with thousands of living plants and animals. And on quick inspection, hybridisation can give the appearance of the creature "evolving". But its just thousands of generations of species hybridising and cross breeding. The living things are NOT evolving!


Ummm those little and big dogs just happen to be the same species. Each and every modern breed of dog evolved from wolves or wolf like dogs. This is called breeding or technically genetic selection for our own purposes.

How did they get small dogs? they bred the smallest in the litters with other small dogs from other litters. dozens of generations later you get tiny dogs.

why else would you get so many breed that look similar. Look at dauchshunds, pinchers, mini pins, Rotwiellers. all had common starting point but bred for different tasks.

Further proof is the interbreedability of dogs. Notice that dogs can breed with wolves. That's any breed.

An interesting article in Mindfloss describes how dogs are different from Wolves. If a dog and a wolf are given a "treat" in a toy that cannot be opened a dog will eventually stop attempting to get at the treat. A wolf will continue endlessly. Man has made dogs reliant on us.

Man has managed to manipulate many living creatures and plants in the last 6000 years. From wheat barley soy to dogs cattle horses each has been altered from its wild type by man.
You might think I neglected to mention cats. Cats have resisted mans influence and still maintain their native cat instincts if grown wild. Cats have the distinction of being the only animal that voluntarily attached itself to man.


And lets leave it to Russian scientist to to turn foxes into dogs. In 50 years scientists bred foxes into something completely unfoxlike

skildude,
Your whole post sounds like you are agreeing with me. You sound like your acknowledging that hybridisation in living creatures is common, which it is.

Which also means that if you reverse the process back in time, in every case, you would arrive at just two of each creature or plant. Which is exactly what the Bible says. Its says that people/God/Yahweh "created" the living creatures, each to its own kind.

There is no evolution, ever!! Just people genetically engineering the living things!

John.

Incorrect and you did not read what I said or you don't understand what hybridization means.
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1300252 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1300303 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 18:27:52 UTC

hybridization...

More often then not results in a line that DOES NOT allow for reproduction, corn, soy, and the mule. It requires help along the way... Nature by itself is not the answer. Darwin--yes, Neo-Darwinism--NO!
ID: 1300303 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1300315 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 18:42:58 UTC - in response to Message 1300303.  
Last modified: 29 Oct 2012, 18:49:50 UTC

hybridization...

More often then not results in a line that DOES NOT allow for reproduction, corn, soy, and the mule. It requires help along the way... Nature by itself is not the answer. Darwin--yes, Neo-Darwinism--NO!


I dont disagree but we are starting to nit pick over terminology here. though nobody calls dog breeders dog hybridizers. Selective breeding is more the term for animal husbandry. Hybridization is usually used for describing crops.

another term that im not familiar with, Neo Darwin.
I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Is that like an agressive darwinist like a Neo Consevative is? I'm not up on all the pseudo science terms please enlighten us.
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1300315 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3043
Credit: 1,672,899
RAC: 1,795
United States
Message 1300339 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 19:51:45 UTC
Last modified: 29 Oct 2012, 19:52:40 UTC

I remember from either a high school or college science class the documented evolution of a species of moths in England that prior to the industrial age had been light grey in color. During the peak of the industrial age the moths became predominantly dark grey or black. Now due to the fact that the sooty air from that period has been mostly eliminated the moths are slowly evolving back to their light grey color.

The color change was attributed to the need for the moth's camouflage to adapt to the gradual change in the color of tree bark in the region. A light color on a dark tree made the moths easy targets for predators so gradually moths that had darker colors dominated the reproduction cycle. Then as the trees returned to their lighter natural colors the moth population followed suit.

As I understand the definition of evolution the above description is a perfect example.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1300339 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2332
Credit: 920,166
RAC: 1
Message 1300353 - Posted: 29 Oct 2012, 20:18:08 UTC
Last modified: 29 Oct 2012, 21:17:05 UTC

I have not followed this discussion in this thread so therefore I am neither biased nor inclined towards favouring one way of thinking against another.

Should Charles Darwin be recognized among atheists and agnostics because he was supposed to have been making a big contribution in the field of evolutionary science, in his case the study field of biology?

Are there any atheists and agnostics among such people who believe that everything in nature has been created as we see it just by pure chance and coincidence (including randomness and chaos) alone?

Where does order exist amongst all of this then and in which way do you define order? Does it mean rules and laws?

Some people believe that mutations are a reason for natural selection in nature in order to create or be able to obtain "the survival of the fittest" - meaning that this selection process can not be a totally random one but is based on a stepwise principle of evolution when it comes to the development of species.

Nature around us is neither total anarchy or chaos, nor perfect symmetry and perfectness. At least not all the time.
We are able to observe both elements of this process at the same time because the rules of nature has made both things possible to exist together simultaneously.

Nature is changing all the time because of events which are continuously happening. Still the rules governing it are supposed to be the same all the time because they are based on "fundamental physical laws" which were created by means of creation of the Universe through the Big Bang, something which some people think was a random event, others think was as a result of creation.

There are some people in these threads who are "believers". Others do not believe, they are either atheists or agnostics. Because of this fact, creation which may be thought of as being "divine" or "divine in nature", is therefore not necessarily the same as evolution (of species).

Is it either harder or easier to believe in "something else" being present and possibly dominant in nature based on the same elements which either appear to us as being "perfect" or the opposite, namely "imperfect"?

Why do both kinds of such elements exist in nature together with each other and perhaps competing against each other as well? Is there a mathematical explanation for such a thing? Competition may mean death for one for the life for another. A whale is supposed to be eating a lot of shrimp in order to survive.

Is it possible to believe in evolution if there is not a reason to believe in survival of the fittest in order to make or create the very best which nature may be able to offer?
ID: 1300353 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 7031
Credit: 2,055,082
RAC: 996
Italy
Message 1300485 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 9:58:23 UTC
Last modified: 30 Oct 2012, 10:00:06 UTC

I've read Jacques Monod's "Chance and necessity" and "La logique du vivant" by Francis Jacob. They, molecular biologists, both believe that life developed by casual fluctuations in a "primaeval broth", but this is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, where the entropy of every closed system is increasing. The opposite view is taken by scientists like Erwin Schroedinger who, at the end of his book "What is life?", written in 1948 before the discovery of DNA wrote: "God created life with the help of quantum mechanics".

How to reconcile those two views?
Maybe a way can be found in the ideas of people like physicist Freeman J. Dyson eho, in his book "Disturbing the Universe", writes:

"It is interesting to note how mind appears at two separate
levels in our knowledge of nature. At the highest level, the
level of human consciousness, our mind is somehow aware of
the complex flux of electric and chemical patterns in our
brain. At the lowest level, that of single atoms and of sin-
gle electrons, the mind of the observer is again involved
in the description of events. The level of molecular biology
lies between the two, where mechanical models are valid and
mind is irrelevant. But as a physicist I am led to suspect
the existence of a logical connexion between the two ways
in which mind appears in the universe. I cannot help thinking
that consciousness in my brain has something to do with the
process called observation in atomic physics...in other words,
mind is already an intrinsic feature of every electron".


These ideas were further developed by physicist Roger Penrose of Oxford University in his books "The emperors's new mind" and "Shadows of the mind".
Tullio
ID: 1300485 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence


 
©2018 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.