Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

[jwcalla]

Whenever I hear stuff like "the science is settled" or some other appeal to the infallibility of a scientific "truth" in the context of any one of the unserious sciences* like evolutionary biology or climate warming, then I know that what I'm hearing is decidedly not based in demonstrable fact, but is rather something that requires a vocal consensus and the browbeating of "denialists" in order to bolster the confidence above a level that should be appropriate for the evidence available.

(* The serious sciences being mathematics and physics, which are actually capable of direct, unequivocally true proofs and subject to a far greater extent of rigor than, say, the hunches and anecdotes of evolutionary biology.)

 

[aShrubbery!]

The point isn't whether or not they are in contradiction of the religious principles, the point is they used the guise of religion to justify their actions or bolster their cache to facilitate what they did.

Yet we hear time and again how religion is horrible and how it contributed to the 'wort tragedies in History.'
The same could be said for science.
Yet, the constant is the stupidity of man, in this universal equation.
When man has plans of dominance, tainted with hatred that's what happens.

 

[aShrubbery!]

One of the main reasons that the Holocaust was as detrimental as it was against Jewish people was because of religion. Many denominations of Christianity used to view the Jewish people as rejects from Christianity.

Antisemitism wasn't just a Hitler thing. The Jewish people weren't just fleeing Germany. They were fleeing Europe. Generally the US got involved in WW II because of larger economical and imperialistic reasons not necessarily to save the Jewish people. Even then the US found it easier to create the boundaries for a Jewish state then to let all of the Jewish flee here.

In some way shape or from, religion has almost always been intertwined (if not the catalyst) in most of the military conflicts.

The Jews were exterminated because they were Jews.
The gays were exterminated because they were gay.
The dissidents were exterminated because they refused to bow to Hitler.
The Communists were exterminated because they were Communists.
The cripples were exterminated because they were sub-human.
The gypsies were exterminated because they were gypsies.

And you will find that History is replete of examples of persecution because some people didn't like the people they tormented. And that not BECAUSE OF religion, but rather BECAUSE OF their hatred for a specific group of people.

 

[BassDX]

GW is not AGW and not proof of AGW. Nor is the theory testable (or do you have a spare Earth in you labratory?). There is no proof of significant AGW.

We do not have a spare Earth, but various aspects of the theory are directly observable (for example, how the greenhouse effect increases tempurature). Human CO2 emissions are also measurable. Given that we have observed an unprecedented long-term (30+ year) trend in mean-surface temperature, I'd say that calling anthropogenic climate change a "theory" is very acceptable indeed. An excellent reference here that backs up this statement would be Marcott et al. (2013).

Did I mention Evolution? Since when does Evolution prove AGW?

When did I ever say that Evolution proved AGW? Please don't try to twist my words. All I said was that the types of arguments used to discredit AGW are very similar to those used by creationists to discredit evolution in contrast to your previous post, nothing more.

There are only theories and models which predictions from said models are failing to correlate well with observation.

Notice how I did not need to reference data from numerical models as a means of establishing how AGW acceptably fits the scientific definition of theory a bit earlier. However, since you asked, from IPCC AR5, Ch. 9:

In summary, there is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions.

So for most of period where we recorded temperatures, the correlation is quite good. The only disagreement is the past 10 years or so, the so-called "global warming pause". However recent studies (such as Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013) show evidence that the pause is simply a result of natural variability. This conclusion is also consistent with what is emphasized by IPCC AR5. Though it remains true that the most recent generation of numerical climate models have overestimated recent short-term temperature trends, it should also be noted that global mean surface temperature is not the only relevant metric for proving the consistency of AGW as a theory, as your post posits. For example, ocean heat content has continued to increase, Arctic sea ice has melted faster than projected, and sea level rise has historically exceeded IPCC predictions from models (see IPCC AR5, Ch. 13, and the previously linked Trenberth and Fasullo paper). At best, you can claim that the models are uncertain about the magnitude of the future temperature increase, which is something that no scientist worth their salt would disagree with. It does not discredit AGW as a theory, which is underpinned by empirical evidence.

There's a consensus among people paid to study and prove AGW that AGW is real. Shocker. There's a consensus among the Theistic that God created the Universe. Shocker.

What an absolutely ridiculous claim. For what purpose do you say it? That scientists simply believe in AGW because of their funding sources tell them to, and not the the statistical trends in the data they are supposed to be analyzing? Let's examine this in more detail. For your claim to have even an ounce of truth, at least one of the following things must be true: The scientist must endorse AGW in their grant applications, or their home department or organization must tell them that they must produce research results that support AGW to be paid. The second claim is obviously false because PI's are free to choose any research area of interest to them, as long as they can receive adequate funding through their grant and produce publications. As for grant funding, you couldn't be further from the truth for a variety of reasons: First, a vast majority of grant funding comes from the government, which historically has not been very supportive of climate policy, and sometimes has outright harassed scientists (like Michael Mann). In addition to this, grant funding in all scientific fields have become more competitive due to sequestration, so there is now less government funding for AGW research. Furthermore, the term "climate scientist" is sort of a huge misnomer, because it is extremely inter-disciplinary. For example, a geologist studying sea ice dynamics, or an atmospheric scientist studying nucleation in clouds could both be considered "climate scientists". I emphasize this point only to mention that one need not explicitly endorse or reject AGW in their publications, let alone grant proposals to receive funding. My own research area happens to be related to designing dynamical cores in atmospheric models. It may obviously relevant to AGW, but it does not require it to be true for it to be an important research topic as it is also essential in other applications such as weather forecasting. It just so happens that many of these subjects are relevant to AGW, and the findings of scientists in different disciplines (oceanography for sea level rise, geology for sea ice changes, and atmospheric science for temperature change) support the consensus.

Here come the insults with the 'Denialist' term. You must really be a good believer to become that pasionate about your view or you don't really have anything solid to offer. Or both. And y ou have to twist the analogy to try to make the statement. The correct comparison is that people often doubt things that aren't proven and sometime get incensed to be expected to accommodate someone else belief as fact. This fits both AGW and Creationism.

I am sorry to offend you, but there really is no better word to describe it. Should I call you a "skeptic" instead? As a scientist, I take issue with that because all scientists are skeptic by definition. A skeptic's claims should have a basis in observed evidence. The original null hypothesis for GW was that it was due to natural cycles. With our knowledge of radiative physics and anthropogenic CO2 emissions, scientists were naturally skeptical and eventually rejected the null hypothesis. In other words, AGW theory was formulated by skeptics!

I guess when you have a closed mind, you would believe that Evolution would disprove Creationism. For some it may but for far more it does not.

That is not being close minded, it is simply a part of being a mature adult. It is accepting that the story of creation as literally told in the bible cannot be true given that radiometric dating proves that the Earth cannot be 10,000 years old, and that evolution proves that humans descended from apes. As Neil Degrasse Tyson says, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Sorry but 'believers' in AGW have nothing solid to prove AGW but they want the rest of us to accommodate them is a far more profound way than what the Creationists are asking for.

I have stated that the greenhouse effect and observed changes in temperature, sea level, sea ice, and ocean heat content are all lines of evidence that support AGW theory. All you have done is claim that to the contrary, "there is no evidence" and imply that scientists only claim otherwise to keep their career. Denial is a choice to not believe in something because it is an uncomfortable truth that conflicts with your own ideology. Creationists reject evolution due to conflicts with their religious beliefs, and global warming denial is due to a fear of a big government regulating CO2 emissions from libertarians and conservatives. The close minded one is you for not believing in AGW despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, so I think denial is a very appropriate term.

 

[kbrickley]

The religious folks already had equal airtime with the miniseries "The Bible" (which was so successful it is getting another miniseries) ... Cosmos is a show about science on a paid network so there is no equal time requirement ... if the creationists really want to push their idea (I don't really wish to give it the credence that calling it a theory would convey) then they can pay to make a show and pay to have it aired (if a network is interested in selling them the time) ... if they are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is then they can do as was suggested to Hook in tonight's episode, "Put up or shut up"

 

[kac77]

And you will find that History is replete of examples of persecution because some people didn't like the people they tormented. And that not BECAUSE OF religion, but rather BECAUSE OF their hatred for a specific group of people.

Thank you for providing the Cliffs Notes version. However, I think your rendition is lacking substance.

 

[motomonkey]

Whenever I hear stuff like "the science is settled" or some other appeal to the infallibility of a scientific "truth" in the context of any one of the unserious sciences* like evolutionary biology or climate warming, then I know that what I'm hearing is decidedly not based in demonstrable fact, but is rather something that requires a vocal consensus and the browbeating of "denialists" in order to bolster the confidence above a level that should be appropriate for the evidence available.

(* The serious sciences being mathematics and physics, which are actually capable of direct, unequivocally true proofs and subject to a far greater extent of rigor than, say, the hunches and anecdotes of evolutionary biology.)

You admit that there are provable truths in mathematics and Physics, but claim it's all a big hoax when the Evil Scientists demonstrate a proof in "evolutionary biology" (whatever THAT is, Biology is Biology) here is a little secret, maths, physics, chemistry, biology it's all about the data and repeatability. there is no secret conspiracy of "Darwinian scientists" I think the term is among the YEC crowd.

The evidence for evolution stands on it's own. there is no secret cabal of Darwinian scientists out to silence those poor oppressed Creationist scientists that have a valid provable theory of evolution. I'd be delighted to read one single bit of serious evidence you might have to prove otherwise. Hell, I'd be delighted to read a single serious scientific article put forth by the YEC science community. I'll file it on the shelf next to my copy of "Chariots of the Gods"

 

[motomonkey]

That should have been "Creationist scientists that have a valid provable theory of creation" oops.

 

[BravO)))]

good luck with that . . ,


http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/people-who-found-jesus-in-their-food

LOL, but at the same time want to cry.

 

[jwcalla]

That should have been "Creationist scientists that have a valid provable theory of creation" oops.

But I haven't proposed anything from creationist scientists or whatever, so I'm not sure how criticizing Darwin automatically means the only other option is some form of YEC. I think that we don't really know the exact methods and mechanisms that caused the development of the wealth of species currently in existence. I think we can say with fairly high confidence that the idea that it was all caused by random mutation has practically no evidence of value and is completely unlike anything we experience in the real world.

It could be true. But we need a whole lot more serious evidence before accepting this as established truth.

I don't know why it's so hard for so many to acknowledge that we just don't know. I understand why scientists aren't eager to admit it. Their funding and their prestige is based completely on them having the answers. A certain new kind of priestly class.

The corresponding analogy is that we start with Windows 3.11 on a hard disk and after a sufficiently long time, random bit errors and radiation corruption develop the software into Windows 8. If someone finds that kind of explanation to be satisfactory, then I think he's being lazy. But I think moving from Windows 3.11 to Windows 8 requires a lot more sophisticated mechanism.

 

[Tawnos]

The corresponding analogy is that we start with Windows 3.11 on a hard disk and after a sufficiently long time, random bit errors and radiation corruption develop the software into Windows 8. If someone finds that kind of explanation to be satisfactory, then I think he's being lazy. But I think moving from Windows 3.11 to Windows 8 requires a lot more sophisticated mechanism.

That's not an absurd model. Assume you did a copy of the "working" machines. Sometimes, the copy would have changes. Sometimes, the things you were copying would have changes. Those things that still functioned would be copied. Those that didn't wouldn't. Repeat this process for a very long time. You'd end up with a "working" system that could very well be quite different than the one you started with.

Now, add in other pressures. Take these machines you're copying and select for ones that have the best network throughput. Or the best hard drive copy rate. Or the best support for high resolution graphics, etc.Over a large enough period of time, those whose changes don't negatively affect the selected-for traits or whose changes create better form of those traits will end up representing the population as a whole.

 

[Inu]

What does religion have to do with science?

No really, WHAT DOES RELIGION HAVE TO DO WITH SCIENCE?!

I'm hyper religious, and even I know the two don't mix

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.”
Job 26:7

“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.”
Ecclesiastes 1:7

“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”
Isaiah 40:22

You asked.

 

[evilsofa]

I don't know why it's so hard for so many to acknowledge that we just don't know. I understand why scientists aren't eager to admit it. Their funding and their prestige is based completely on them having the answers. A certain new kind of priestly class.

What you say about funding and prestige being based completely on having the answers applies perfectly to priests of all religions.

Scientists get their funding and prestige on having the questions. Scientists question everything, especially the scientific work that has been done before them. The most exciting thing to a scientist is finding a new question that nobody has asked yet.

When you say you understand why scientists aren't eager to admitting that they don't know something, you understand nothing about science. Try reading this article about the recent big discovery in physics, and taking note of the scientists' reactions to the news - what they're really excited about is all of the questions that the discovery is spawning.

 

[Ocean]

There are only nine people in this entire forum of thousands that deny evolution. Who gives a fuck?
Its up to them to prove creationism with a testable conclusion, not evolutionists responsibility to try to teach them all the ways they don't comprehend evolution.

It would be akin to me pointing out that in the original bible that [god's followers] were instructed by god to rape children, and then god tortured thousands of babies to death.

 

[Brackle]

LOL best thread ever. I just have 1 thing to day.

If it wasn't for evolution, You wouldn't be able to post on this thread with the computer you are on with the metals and electronics you are using.

Everything we do today for our normal daily lives we have to contribute to evolution.

 

[nightfly]

C'mon, everybody, be nice. Religions were created to provide answers to questions that people had before they had the science to figure it out. We're still doing that. Also, lots of people are insecure, and have a deep need to believe that someone is watching over them and protecting them. Hence, the use of the word father so often, and the concept that we are all god's children. Without that feeling, many people feel the world is out of control, and feel panic. Then you add in the rules that religions have which favor one group over another (everyone wants to feel that they are the special, chosen ones, that they're better than everyone else, to the point where they believe other people are different and/or have different religions should all be killed) and there are all sorts of reasons why people feel the need to believe in a god. I just want them to pay taxes like everybody else.

Edit. O.K., here's the thing. Pedophiles (priests, whatever) that tell kids that god wants them to do it should be boiled in hot oil.
Other religious people, just stop bothering me and everybody else. Keep your religion in your house, and your building of worship, and stop trying to make laws that push your religion on other people.

 

[Brackle]

C'mon, everybody, be nice. Religions were created to provide answers to questions that people had before they had the science to figure it out. We're still doing that. Also, lots of people are insecure, and have a deep need to believe that someone is watching over them and protecting them. Hence, the use of the word father so often, and the concept that we are all god's children. Without that feeling, many people feel the world is out of control, and feel panic. Then you add in the rules that religions have which favor one group over another (everyone wants to feel that they are the special, chosen ones, that they're better than everyone else, to the point where they believe other people are different and/or have different religions should all be killed) and there are all sorts of reasons why people feel the need to believe in a god. I just want them to pay taxes like everybody else.

Edit. O.K., here's the thing. Pedophiles (priests, whatever) that tell kids that god wants them to do it should be boiled in hot oil.
Other religious people, just stop bothering me and everybody else. Keep your religion in your house, and your building of worship, and stop trying to make laws that push your religion on other people.

IMO Religion is just a form of control. It's a way to make weaker minded people blindly follow someone who interprets a book in his way, and preaches people. This is why in some 3rd world countries where people can't get an education listen to someone who can read and think they know how words of the god! (some are even known as extremists!) The crappy part is some people in america have to have something to follow. It's just how it works, some people need something to believe in, be it God, Tree's, water, or bubblegum. Lets not even bring up the part where the bible was re-written so many times that we don't even know which is the real one. I mean hell a King in England re-wrote the bible in his way because he was worried the Church had too much control. If anyone wants to know its called the King James Bible.

Anyway just my 0.02c

 

[SRTie4k]

IMO Religion is just a form of control. It's a way to make weaker minded people blindly follow someone who interprets a book in his way, and preaches people. This is why in some 3rd world countries where people can't get an education listen to someone who can read and think they know how words of the god! (some are even known as extremists!) The crappy part is some people in america have to have something to follow. It's just how it works, some people need something to believe in, be it God, Tree's, water, or bubblegum. Lets not even bring up the part where the bible was re-written so many times that we don't even know which is the real one. I mean hell a King in England re-wrote the bible in his way because he was worried the Church had too much control. If anyone wants to know its called the King James Bible.

Anyway just my 0.02c

Oh how ironic this post is. If you replaced all the references to religion with mainstream media, scientists and politicians, you get the same result.

Men in "prestigious" and powerful positions have always wielded a greater amount of power over large subsets of people to bend them towards their own ways of thinking, whether it's in religion, science or politics. It all boils down to the natural instinct of mankind to form themselves into competing groups.

 

[kbrickley]

IMO Religion is just a form of control. It's a way to make weaker minded people blindly follow someone who interprets a book in his way, and preaches people. This is why in some 3rd world countries where people can't get an education listen to someone who can read and think they know how words of the god! (some are even known as extremists!) The crappy part is some people in america have to have something to follow. It's just how it works, some people need something to believe in, be it God, Tree's, water, or bubblegum. Lets not even bring up the part where the bible was re-written so many times that we don't even know which is the real one. I mean hell a King in England re-wrote the bible in his way because he was worried the Church had too much control. If anyone wants to know its called the King James Bible.

Anyway just my 0.02c

That is certainly true of most organized religions (mostly in the West) ... however, there are definite benefits to a little spiritualism (as opposed to religion) like the philosophies of the East ... Philosophies like Buddhism, Shinto, and Taoism are less about the control of an organized church and more about spiritual awareness of yourself and of your place in nature and the universe ... there is a certain amoral quality of pure science that doesn't think through the repercussions of what is created and how it is used ... this has led to a lot of disharmony between mankind and the other plants and animals that live on this planet ... also, pure science can offer just as many dangerous philosophies as organized religion (social Darwinism, Eugenics, etc) ... I think there is a balance somewhere between the two where we can view ourselves as a part of nature that needs to work to be more harmonious with the other inhabitants of this planet ... as the famous saying goes, "We are living on the planet as if we have another one to go to."

 

[Brackle]

Oh how ironic this post is. If you replaced all the references to religion with mainstream media, scientists and politicians, you get the same result.

Men in "prestigious" and powerful positions have always wielded a greater amount of power over large subsets of people to bend them towards their own ways of thinking, whether it's in religion, science or politics. It all boils down to the natural instinct of mankind to form themselves into competing groups.

Difference is science has been proven. Religion hasn't, I mean I'm still waiting for all these things to come true.

Science isn't control. Its just the truth. Problem is religion isn't truth it's control. There is a reason why the church did not want people to know that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Or that the earth was really 4 billion years old. Or that dinosaurs were fake.

Its all about control. Not sure how I see science as control. Unless you talk about the law of gravity. Now that controls everything lol

 

[Brackle]

That is certainly true of most organized religions (mostly in the West) ... however, there are definite benefits to a little spiritualism (as opposed to religion) like the philosophies of the East ... Philosophies like Buddhism, Shinto, and Taoism are less about the control of an organized church and more about spiritual awareness of yourself and of your place in nature and the universe ... there is a certain amoral quality of pure science that doesn't think through the repercussions of what is created and how it is used ... this has led to a lot of disharmony between mankind and the other plants and animals that live on this planet ... also, pure science can offer just as many dangerous philosophies as organized religion (social Darwinism, Eugenics, etc) ... I think there is a balance somewhere between the two where we can view ourselves as a part of nature that needs to work to be more harmonious with the other inhabitants of this planet ... as the famous saying goes, "We are living on the planet as if we have another one to go to."

Great quote at the end It's true we do have another planet to go too, we just havent discovered it yet.

If there are billions of stars in just our Milky Way, and each star has say on average 6 planets. You gotta think there is 1 planet that can harbor life.

Anyway you cannot change someones opinion or faith if they believe in it that much. The only thing you can ask is where is the evidence? If they say the bible says all. Just tell them by's who's account? They left out ALOT of stuff they didn't want people to know.

Just look up the Book of Enok. Then ask yourself why they left out his stuff fromn the bible.

 

[ravx25]

I believe strongly in evolution, but the one question I would like to see answered that I have always pondered is how did the singularity that started the universe come about? Where did the energy come from to beget a singularity? It'a hard to believe it was just there. Something, or someone, had to create it.

 

[SRTie4k]

Difference is science has been proven. Religion hasn't, I mean I'm still waiting for all these things to come true.

Science isn't control. Its just the truth. Problem is religion isn't truth it's control. There is a reason why the church did not want people to know that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Or that the earth was really 4 billion years old. Or that dinosaurs were fake.

Its all about control. Not sure how I see science as control. Unless you talk about the law of gravity. Now that controls everything lol

Like religion, it's not the idea that controls people, it's people using those ideas in nefarious ways that controls people. Some people use religious teachings for that reason, as they similarly use scientific knowledge to control other people.

The aforementioned eugenics is a perfect example, as is the global warming issue that Al Gore was peddling. It is well documented that he used a huge amount of misleading information and fear mongering factoids to push his agenda. That is another great example of science being used for control by a "well respected" individual.

 

[kbrickley]

Great quote at the end It's true we do have another planet to go too, we just havent discovered it yet.

If there are billions of stars in just our Milky Way, and each star has say on average 6 planets. You gotta think there is 1 planet that can harbor life.

Anyway you cannot change someones opinion or faith if they believe in it that much. The only thing you can ask is where is the evidence? If they say the bible says all. Just tell them by's who's account? They left out ALOT of stuff they didn't want people to know.

Just look up the Book of Enok. Then ask yourself why they left out his stuff fromn the bible.

Oh I agree, I am not a big fan of Religious Dogma (which is why I prefer the Eastern philosophies over the Western ones) ... I agree that there is another planet out there somewhere but I still don't see a need to destroy this one on our way to the next (otherwise we do become the Virus that Agent Smith accused us of being ) ... also, I would hate to see the Sci Fi classic "Silent Running" become true

 

[Disposed]

I believe strongly in evolution, but the one question I would like to see answered that I have always pondered is how did the singularity that started the universe come about? Where did the energy come from to beget a singularity? It'a hard to believe it was just there. Something, or someone, had to create it.

That's some seriously flawed logic that runs in circles. If a define being created it who made him? Hard to believe he just was.

 

[TechLarry]

I'll take the science, thank you.

 

[Kelby]

Equal airtime because of Cosmos?

... OK. I'm cool with that. Maybe we can watch the parades celebrating Fred Phelps Senior's death.

 

[Axiomatic]

Man I love Neil Degrasse Tyson as much as I loved Carl Sagan. I also loved that you could tell Degrasse was not meaning to be degrading to creationists. The facts are just the facts. To deny them is pissing in to the wind.

 

[SRTie4k]

That's some seriously flawed logic that runs in circles. If a define being created it who made him? Hard to believe he just was.

You can ascribe the concept of logic to the idea of a supreme being. God is inherently illogical, by all of our standards of logic anyways.

 

[Parja]

That's some seriously flawed logic that runs in circles. If a define being created it who made him? Hard to believe he just was.

Turtles all the way down!

 

[Armenius]

I like how all these religious people keep spouting "it's just a theory." Let me correct you by saying it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is directly supported by the scientific process of testing and by peer review. It is always going to be defined as a theory because there is no way to observe the original conditions of which the hypothesis was made. We cannot physically observe the big bang, the creation of planet Earth, or the evolution of man. However, hundreds of years of compounding evidence support what the theory is. That is the difference: science is supported by the preponderance of evidence, while Creationism points to a book that was written by and for man to call it fact.

Extending from that, it also really bothers me when someone inserts "faith" into scientific discussion. Science is not a religion, it is an evidence-based process used to understand the universe in which we live to better our lives. By contrast, religion has always historically been about control. There is no problem with having faith in deific beliefs, but don't try to bring faith into a scientific discussion.

 

[Tawnos]

I believe strongly in evolution, but the one question I would like to see answered that I have always pondered is how did the singularity that started the universe come about? Where did the energy come from to beget a singularity? It'a hard to believe it was just there. Something, or someone, had to create it.

Check out "a universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo is a presentation about it, and the book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

 

[ravx25]

Turtles all the way down!

Hah, I had to look that one up, but I like it. A differnet twist on the whole chicken and egg thing.

 

[Parja]

It's only "from nothing" if ours is the only universe.

 

[jwcalla]

That's not an absurd model. Assume you did a copy of the "working" machines. Sometimes, the copy would have changes. Sometimes, the things you were copying would have changes. Those things that still functioned would be copied. Those that didn't wouldn't. Repeat this process for a very long time. You'd end up with a "working" system that could very well be quite different than the one you started with.

Now, add in other pressures. Take these machines you're copying and select for ones that have the best network throughput. Or the best hard drive copy rate. Or the best support for high resolution graphics, etc.Over a large enough period of time, those whose changes don't negatively affect the selected-for traits or whose changes create better form of those traits will end up representing the population as a whole.

It's definitely an interesting proposition that you offer there... the only problem I have with it is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And we see absolutely nothing like that ever in the universe.

Not to mention you're doing an awful lot of hand-waving to fill in the gaps.

Again... what you stated could be true. It could be true. There's just no evidence for it on that scale. It's not the 19th century anymore. We're beyond the age of primitive ignorance in molecular biology.

The model you propose should be easily provable with some kind of well-formed computer model. Make a program that models random changes in software and run it with enough cycles to mimic a billion years of evolution. Do you really expect to get a massively more sophisticated piece of software at the other end of your model run?

 

[jwcalla]

If it wasn't for evolution, You wouldn't be able to post on this thread with the computer you are on with the metals and electronics you are using.

Everything we do today for our normal daily lives we have to contribute to evolution.

I'm not really following what you're saying here. You seem to be using the term evolution loosely and trying to conflate it with the Darwinian concept.

Yes, the choices we humans make today are influencing the future, hopefully for the better. But that is a future designed through the application of intelligence, not from random mutation and natural selection, which is the Darwinian theory.

 

[kbrickley]

It's definitely an interesting proposition that you offer there... the only problem I have with it is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. And we see absolutely nothing like that ever in the universe.

Not to mention you're doing an awful lot of hand-waving to fill in the gaps.

Again... what you stated could be true. It could be true. There's just no evidence for it on that scale. It's not the 19th century anymore. We're beyond the age of primitive ignorance in molecular biology.

The model you propose should be easily provable with some kind of well-formed computer model. Make a program that models random changes in software and run it with enough cycles to mimic a billion years of evolution. Do you really expect to get a massively more sophisticated piece of software at the other end of your model run?

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing ... we know that mutations occur periodically in our species and other species (albinos and certain genetic diseases illustrate this) ... we know that there are tons of genetic diversity in the human species (different heights, hair color, eyes, etc) and mutation provides a reasonable explanation for that diversity ... we know that animals can be negatively or positively affected by their biology and their environments (the large number of recent extinctions due to climate and biosphere changes and the increases in Red Tides) and that animals that can adapt survive while those that do not adapt become extinct (natural selection) ... we know that both our species and other species can artificially modify an animal population through artificial selection (dogs, domestic animals, peacocks, etc) ... what is so extraordinary of the natural mechanisms of that operating over millions of years resulting in new and optimal species (evolution)

 

[jwcalla]

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing ... we know that mutations occur periodically in our species and other species (albinos and certain genetic diseases illustrate this) ... we know that there are tons of genetic diversity in the human species (different heights, hair color, eyes, etc) and mutation provides a reasonable explanation for that diversity ... we know that animals can be negatively or positively affected by their biology and their environments (the large number of recent extinctions due to climate and biosphere changes and the increases in Red Tides) and that animals that can adapt survive while those that do not adapt become extinct (natural selection) ... we know that both our species and other species can artificially modify an animal population through artificial selection (dogs, domestic animals, peacocks, etc) ... what is so extraordinary of the natural mechanisms of that operating over millions of years resulting in new and optimal species (evolution)

It's extraordinary because we never seen anything like it in the real world. We can't take things "we know" and then say that evolution is just "more of" that kind of stuff. That's a huge leap in logic and definitely not suitable for a proof in a scientific setting. An organism with relative simplicity can evolve to something of enormous complexity merely by a combination of time, random mutation, and a selection of the mutations that are good (even though the overwhelming majority of mutations are actually injurious to the organism)? It's certainly possible, it's just that it goes against all of the accumulated empirical observations we've ever made, both in nature and any other artificial system that the same models can be applied to.

I start with a simple sentence and after introducing random copying errors I will get, in time, the Encyclopedia Britannica? This is a 19th century fairy tale propped up by a class of people desperate to maintain their influence and so they chain together a variety of disjoint discoveries and lab experiments to cover the implausibility of the hypothesis.

Exactly how did the vast wealth of species on the planet come to their current forms? We don't know. We just don't know. We might even be 100, 500 or even a 1,000 years away from knowing with certainty. But to lazily settle on a fairy tale and hush discussion by claiming "the science is settled", are we really going to stimulate the kind of exploration in this topic that is necessary to enrich our understanding?

 

[kbrickley]

It's extraordinary because we never seen anything like it in the real world. We can't take things "we know" and then say that evolution is just "more of" that kind of stuff. That's a huge leap in logic and definitely not suitable for a proof in a scientific setting. An organism with relative simplicity can evolve to something of enormous complexity merely by a combination of time, random mutation, and a selection of the mutations that are good (even though the overwhelming majority of mutations are actually injurious to the organism)? It's certainly possible, it's just that it goes against all of the accumulated empirical observations we've ever made, both in nature and any other artificial system that the same models can be applied to.

I start with a simple sentence and after introducing random copying errors I will get, in time, the Encyclopedia Britannica? This is a 19th century fairy tale propped up by a class of people desperate to maintain their influence and so they chain together a variety of disjoint discoveries and lab experiments to cover the implausibility of the hypothesis.

Exactly how did the vast wealth of species on the planet come to their current forms? We don't know. We just don't know. We might even be 100, 500 or even a 1,000 years away from knowing with certainty. But to lazily settle on a fairy tale and hush discussion by claiming "the science is settled", are we really going to stimulate the kind of exploration in this topic that is necessary to enrich our understanding?

We know that artificial selection can make profound changes in a species in just hundreds or thousands of years because we have seen it first hand (dogs, cats, cows, turkeys, peacocks, Heike crabs, etc) ... why are you so skeptical that natural selection can't do the same thing over millions (or billions) of years (in even more dramatic fashion) ... we know that evolution has to involve genetics at some level (since that is the only way to fundamentally change a species) hence the interest in mutation ... I am unclear what mechanic you are suggesting to replace mutation and natural selection (which both hold up very well in the fossil record ... including our own)

 

[maverikv]

It's extraordinary because we never seen anything like it in the real world. We can't take things "we know" and then say that evolution is just "more of" that kind of stuff. That's a huge leap in logic and definitely not suitable for a proof in a scientific setting. An organism with relative simplicity can evolve to something of enormous complexity merely by a combination of time, random mutation, and a selection of the mutations that are good (even though the overwhelming majority of mutations are actually injurious to the organism)? It's certainly possible, it's just that it goes against all of the accumulated empirical observations we've ever made, both in nature and any other artificial system that the same models can be applied to.

I start with a simple sentence and after introducing random copying errors I will get, in time, the Encyclopedia Britannica? This is a 19th century fairy tale propped up by a class of people desperate to maintain their influence and so they chain together a variety of disjoint discoveries and lab experiments to cover the implausibility of the hypothesis.

Exactly how did the vast wealth of species on the planet come to their current forms? We don't know. We just don't know. We might even be 100, 500 or even a 1,000 years away from knowing with certainty. But to lazily settle on a fairy tale and hush discussion by claiming "the science is settled", are we really going to stimulate the kind of exploration in this topic that is necessary to enrich our understanding?

What the pants are you talking about? Evolution has been observed.