Real Science making a comeback!

[Bearpaw]

There is no point in asking EVERY scientist anything. When all objective evidence points to something being correct, it is reasonable to accept it as correct - not on faith, but on the actual evidence. It is irrational to not believe it. If evidence comes out later that refutes it, then it is reasonable to no longer accept it.

Your pedantics are entirely useless here.

And I have to say, to use the remark, the majority of the scientific community believes in evolution, thus I am logically correct, it would be proper to actually have factual evidence that the majority of the scientific community has been asked their opinions on evolution vs. creation, instead of asking a minority, and using statistics to make it look like the majority supports you. You only have the majority of the minority you've asked.

Sounds like a religion to me, irrational not to accept your enlightened beliefs. And, because I do not blindly believe your beliefs, you end your comment by insulting my logical criticism. I use science, but I do not blindly believe it as the whole truth.

You do realize that belief is defined as faith, right?

be·lief
[bəˈlēf]




NOUN

• an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
  "his belief in the value of hard work" · [more]
  "a belief that solitude nourishes creativity"
  • something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction:
    "contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language" · [more]
    "we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"
    
    
    synonyms: opinion · view · conviction · judgment · thinking · way of thinking · [more]
    idea · impression · theory · conclusion · notion
  • a religious conviction:
    "Christian beliefs" · [more]
    "I'm afraid to say belief has gone" · "local beliefs and customs"
    
    
    synonyms: ideology · principle · ethic · tenet · canon · doctrine · teaching · [more]
    dogma · article of faith · creed · credo
• (belief in)
  
  trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something:
  "a belief in democratic politics" · [more]
  "I've still got belief in myself"
  
  
  synonyms: faith · trust · reliance · confidence · credence

[Guisslapp]

How long does science say it took for DNA to evolve?

Did human emotion also evolve?

DNA has always evolved and will continue to. It isn't fixed. Cancer is caused by the change in the DNA of a single entity.

When you reproduce you create a human with a unique DNA. There can be translation "errors" that occur when reproducing, which can further create mutations in DNA. It is much more complex than that as you can see from the following technical paper which only deals with a small subset of mechanisms for genetic mutation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...0/#!po=9.71223

Emotions, as they are experienced by your brain, are biochemical byproducts that are influenced by a confluence of physiological factors as they interplay with your cognitive processes. It would be surprising if they too haven't changed over time.

[Bearpaw]

DNA has always evolved and will continue to. It isn't fixed. Cancer is caused by the change in the DNA of a single entity.

When you reproduce you create a human with a unique DNA. There can be translation "errors" that occur when reproducing, which can further create mutations in DNA. It is much more complex than that as you can see from the following technical paper which only deals with a small subset of mechanisms for genetic mutation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...0/#!po=9.71223

Emotions, as they are experienced by your brain, are biochemical byproducts that are influenced by a confluence of physiological factors as they interplay with your cognitive processes. It would be surprising if they too haven't changed over time.

I agree Guisslapp, such are theories of our understanding of what we have observed. But just because we see things now, does not mean that it has always given the same result. We only have a small percentage of the possibilities of observations (just as the views of small percentage of scientists gives us strength in our belief that certain theories are stronger than others). Thus, while we may attempt to logically interpret the future & present with some confidence, such interpretations of the past are less logically correct.

[Guisslapp]

Bearpaw, you are really reaching. Not all scientists opinions should be equally rated. They have different expertises and some are probably no more qualified as an expert on this subject as you or me.

In the real world we assess quality of data - and it almost never based on the number of responses to a survey. Learning how to assess quality is hard-won in almost any field.

If you don't accept with certainty the validity of evolution, you are simply out of your league on this one. So much of the work of modern medicine, pharma, and biotechnology is predicated on these concepts that have been validated, time and again. People don't accept evolution as certain for the same reasons they have faith in religion - they accept it as certain because it works so well that they can rely on it.

[Dawgonit]

The most "logical" explanation is your subjective viewpoint. You believe it to be so, thus to you it is. Just because you subjectively view something to be "the most logical" does not make it so.

The most "logical" explanation is not my subjective viewpoint; it is the work of scientists in many different scientific fields. These works are based on facts and evidence. You can't call facts and evidence subjective. If you disagree with these scientists works, you are welcome to study the facts and evidence they have and submit your own works and have them be reviewed by professionals just like them. I don't subjectively view something in this case to be "the most logical", I trust the scientists that have done the work in these fields. Why do you not trust these scientists? Do you think there is a big conspiracy and that they are all colluding in secret bunkers trying to dupe mankind?

The evidence that scientists make observations on are very limited, less than 1% of possible observations. Scientists then make interpretations of these observations and attempt to apply it to all things. Just the same as my previous argument.

Where does this 1% come from? Are you making numbers up or have you done a lot of scientific research into this topic? If so, why don't you submit your work to be peer reviewed like all other scientists?

Saying creation is illogical is unscientific

Did I say creation was illogical? That would be me trying to put rational scientific thinking into a different field - Religion. I have already argued against that kind of thing happening. I'm not here trying to prove creation wrong, that's something that just has to be believed. Which is fine, that's how it works in religion. But that's not how it works in science. Please don't bring religion into science.

I can see why you're so defensive. I know there are many people that go after religious people at any chance to prove them wrong about evolution vs. creation and I disagree with that. I'm not one of those people, I am not here to attack creation or religion. I am totally fine with letting people believe what they want. But they shouldn't bring their religion into places where its not supposed to be. Just like people should be buttholes about going into churches just to argue for evolution. Let academic institutions be in their place and religion in its, they are not comparable.

[dawg80]

Guisslapp, I'll give you credit for one thing. At least you present your argument in a non-combative, calm, and respectful manner.


So, how many of your relatives are apes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DDTPXXo

[DONW]

Here's an interesting lecture to high school students on evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNhtbmXzIaM

[Guisslapp]

Here's an interesting lecture to high school students on evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNhtbmXzIaM

That is really good. Would hope that all students today would have the opportunity to get such clear explanations.

[detltu]

The most "logical" explanation is not my subjective viewpoint; it is the work of scientists in many different scientific fields. These works are based on facts and evidence. You can't call facts and evidence subjective. If you disagree with these scientists works, you are welcome to study the facts and evidence they have and submit your own works and have them be reviewed by professionals just like them. I don't subjectively view something in this case to be "the most logical", I trust the scientists that have done the work in these fields. Why do you not trust these scientists? Do you think there is a big conspiracy and that they are all colluding in secret bunkers trying to dupe mankind?



Where does this 1% come from? Are you making numbers up or have you done a lot of scientific research into this topic? If so, why don't you submit your work to be peer reviewed like all other scientists?



Did I say creation was illogical? That would be me trying to put rational scientific thinking into a different field - Religion. I have already argued against that kind of thing happening. I'm not here trying to prove creation wrong, that's something that just has to be believed. Which is fine, that's how it works in religion. But that's not how it works in science. Please don't bring religion into science.

I can see why you're so defensive. I know there are many people that go after religious people at any chance to prove them wrong about evolution vs. creation and I disagree with that. I'm not one of those people, I am not here to attack creation or religion. I am totally fine with letting people believe what they want. But they shouldn't bring their religion into places where its not supposed to be. Just like people should be buttholes about going into churches just to argue for evolution. Let academic institutions be in their place and religion in its, they are not comparable.

So I am not a anti evolution person or anti global warming or any of that, but I do find it funny when people try to argue their belief in such concepts against someones religious beliefs as if they are intellectually superior.

What work have you and Guislapp done to confirm evolution. Have you discovered new dinosaur bones yourself? Have you discovered any remnants of primitive human relatives and studied the bones and come up with theories on why they are different. Surely you are not just trusting other people who claim to have found these items and studied them and drawn conclusions. That sounds an awful lot like faith or religion.

[Guisslapp]

My judgment is informed by thousands of pieces of evidence that points in one direction with no evidence to the contrary. That is what is laughable - there is no real debate here. I don't care to get into my specific experiences, because it is no more persuasive than the evidence itself. Suffice it to say that almost everyone that works or has worked in the medical/biotech/pharma fields rely on the certainty of evolution and do so for good reason - understanding how it works helps them accomplish their jobs and get results.

It serves no utility to give any sense of seriousness to an argument that evolution is not certain. It is just preposterous - like arguing the holocaust didn't happen. Believing the holocaust happened is not the same thing as faith in religion either. If there is solid evidence, faith isn't required.

[Dawgonit]

So I am not a anti evolution person or anti global warming or any of that, but I do find it funny when people try to argue their belief in such concepts against someones religious beliefs as if they are intellectually superior.

Are you implying I've been condescending in my posts?

What work have you and Guislapp done to confirm evolution.

I can't speak for Guislapp, but I'm fine with saying I haven't done any. I also haven't done any work about the holocaust, the moon landings or the deaths of Elvis and Tupac. Are you saying I should only believe things to be true if I've done the research?

Have you discovered new dinosaur bones yourself? Have you discovered any remnants of primitive human relatives and studied the bones and come up with theories on why they are different

I have not. Are you implying that only people that do this can defend evolution? Because the people that do this, already defend evolution.

Surely you are not just trusting other people who claim to have found these items and studied them and drawn conclusions. That sounds an awful lot like faith or religion.

Why shouldn't I trust them? You can't know everything in life, it's expected to trust the academics in their fields as they are the most knowledgeable.

I can trust to know that the asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter but I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that metamorphic rock is made with extreme heat and pressure below the earth's surface. I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that my appendix is a useless organ in my body but I've never done any research about that. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that living things have become different species through evolution but I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

That sounds an awful lot like faith or religion

It shouldn't. In the scientific world, you can go look at the evidence for these things and understand that these are the best explanations. The evidence supports the conclusion. In faith or religion this idea isn't necessary.

[DONW]

Even the pope believes in evolution. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/

The vatican has come a long way in accepting science since the days when they put Galileo under house arrest for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the earth was not the center of the universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ0g1xW-nE

[Bearpaw]

The most "logical" explanation is not my subjective viewpoint; it is the work of scientists in many different scientific fields. These works are based on facts and evidence. You can't call facts and evidence subjective. If you disagree with these scientists works, you are welcome to study the facts and evidence they have and submit your own works and have them be reviewed by professionals just like them. I don't subjectively view something in this case to be "the most logical", I trust the scientists that have done the work in these fields. Why do you not trust these scientists? Do you think there is a big conspiracy and that they are all colluding in secret bunkers trying to dupe mankind?

The trust you have in the works of others is belief, i.e. faith. It is not the truth, only a limited rational explanation of what is interpreted, fallibly, to be going on. If you would like to know how facts and evidence are subjective, feel free to read my prior discussion with Guisslapp. Post 59 I present how scientific facts, evidence, and interpretations (i.e. theories) are all subjective: http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...-mission/page4

I don't think there is a big conspiracy, but I do find fault with scientists who do not understand that all of our interpretations are in fact fallible, theorized interpretations. Science has no ability to prove, only to observe, and subjectively interpret. The observation is the highest level in logic of science, the interpretation of what has happened is a lower level of logic, the application of the limited sample of information which was observed to try to explain the rest of the universe, present, future, and past, is the lowest level of logic. We have not observed the personally, at the very least we have no observations of what occurred on Earth beyond the invention of writing, theorized to be 4-6K years ago. To interpret what has happened before this time, is the least logical part of science. We may have clues, but to say we have evidence that evolution from nothing is almost a certainty is just about as logical as religious theory of creation, which by the way we do have a written record of belief in that for thousands of years (3K at least, 4K if you count Egyptian and Sumerian Texts).

Nothing conceived by a logical being, i.e. humans, is illogical, as there is some reason and thought in what occurs. I will give you that scientific observations are often more logical than religious norms, but that is not always the case.

Where does this 1% come from? Are you making numbers up or have you done a lot of scientific research into this topic? If so, why don't you submit your work to be peer reviewed like all other scientists?

My less than 1% is based on what is known. In the vast history of the universe, present, and future, and in the vast expanses of the universe and multiverse, we only inhabit less than 1% of the space, can see less than 1% of the space, and if our carbon dating/4-5billion year timeline is correct, we've only been around for 1% of the time. Yet based on the observations of less than 1% of possible observations, we try to interpret the mysteries of the universe. We will most likely never get it perfectly right, only use fallible, error-prone, subjective, interpretations of the limited information we observe. Does it mean it cannot be objectively right, I'd say there is less than 1% chance it can, but there would require an objective fact, observation, truth, being, etc. To say so. And really, our observations, which we can make again and again, are really only guesswork to the whole picture. Something people in the past often founded religions over. I'll give you they likely had less evidence to support them, but they are both logical at some level. All science is based on the belief, just as religion is, it is just based on subjective belief, rather than the belief in an objective truth.

As for the less than 1%, I was also pointing out that scientists will often survey/ask less than 1% of the scientific community, and based on those minor findings, they will say that the majority support them. I demonstrated that with JuBru's link.

Did I say creation was illogical? That would be me trying to put rational scientific thinking into a different field - Religion. I have already argued against that kind of thing happening. I'm not here trying to prove creation wrong, that's something that just has to be believed. Which is fine, that's how it works in religion. But that's not how it works in science. Please don't bring religion into science.

I can see why you're so defensive. I know there are many people that go after religious people at any chance to prove them wrong about evolution vs. creation and I disagree with that. I'm not one of those people, I am not here to attack creation or religion. I am totally fine with letting people believe what they want. But they shouldn't bring their religion into places where its not supposed to be. Just like people should be buttholes about going into churches just to argue for evolution. Let academic institutions be in their place and religion in its, they are not comparable.

Guisslapp said creation, and religion is illogical. Nothing conceived by logical beings are illogical, just have varying shades of "gray" of logic.

If you read my observation to Guisslapp in post 59 of the link above, I show how science has to also be believed, as it is founded on 5 tenets of basic belief, starting with that you have to believe on what others have done before you. No scientists has attacked every scientific theory believed to be widely accepted, from first principles, because it is nigh impossible. And I thank you for not being combative over evolution vs. creation.

As a scientist, I think the world is becoming sick by believing that widely accepted scientific theories are beyond doubt, or objectively true. I hope Guisslapp understands from our previous conversation that evolution's chance of being correct is not 100%. Science gives us logical, but not 100% logical, interpretations of what we have observed. But such interpretations are believed, and often these building blocks of theories are biases for future observations. Is that right, probably not from a purely rational perspective. However, to advance, sometimes it is necessary.

[Bearpaw]

Are you implying I've been condescending in my posts?




I can't speak for Guislapp, but I'm fine with saying I haven't done any. I also haven't done any work about the holocaust, the moon landings or the deaths of Elvis and Tupac. Are you saying I should only believe things to be true if I've done the research?



I have not. Are you implying that only people that do this can defend evolution? Because the people that do this, already defend evolution.



Why shouldn't I trust them? You can't know everything in life, it's expected to trust the academics in their fields as they are the most knowledgeable.

I can trust to know that the asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter but I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that metamorphic rock is made with extreme heat and pressure below the earth's surface. I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that my appendix is a useless organ in my body but I've never done any research about that. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that living things have become different species through evolution but I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?



It shouldn't. In the scientific world, you can go look at the evidence for these things and understand that these are the best explanations. The evidence supports the conclusion. In faith or religion this idea isn't necessary.

Dawgonit, Detltu made a logical point. Religion is based on faith, and trust. Your observations of what others have told you is also based on faith, and trust. You trust that the scientists have been truthful, understood what happened, and provided you with the important evidence. You have not personally seen the evidence for yourself, but because it has been done by others, you believe it to be the correct theory.

That seems to be a blind trust, without considering the evidence for yourself. Such blind trust in the objective truth is the foundation for many religions.

[Bearpaw]

Even the pope believes in evolution. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/

The vatican has come a long way in accepting science since the days when they put Galileo under house arrest for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the earth was not the center of the universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ0g1xW-nE

The pope said evolution was the most likely theory. It doesn't mean that he believes it objectively true. There is a difference. I think that evolution is also likely, but I don't believe it to be a concrete fact, because I did not observe it in the pre-human past. Neither did you Donw, Dawgonit, Guisslapp, or any human being alive today as scientists understand it. Such believe without observing is the least logical part of a scientific mindset.

I do however, believe in an objective truth.