BS: Got Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 11:05 AM

and then:
"maybe someone here can explain how mutually dependant parts arise step by step by evolution?."

The human eye is the classic example (and one often cited by creationists). Complex organs with mutually dependant parts arise just like everything else - in very small, almost imperceptible steps. All the steps that did not provide an advantage died out, while those very very few that did provide an advantage also provided a (perhaps imperceptibly slightly) greater chance to be passed on by reproduction. For the eye, all of the incremental steps along the way still exists somewhere in the animal kingdom, and can be observed today:

simple photosensitive cells

collections of pigment cells unserviced by a nerve

nerve cells surrounded by pigment cells

nerve cells surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent membrane

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deep depression

pigment cells forming a deep depression with a translucent curved membrane (proto lens)

the membrane over the depression forming an actual lens (but fixed)

muscles surrounding the membrane that allow it to adjust or focus

All of these are still found, still functional, and provide the creature that bears them with some benefit in their particular niche.

A similar description is possible for all of the other so-called "unevolvable" mutually dependant systems such as the woodpecker's tongue, hawk moth and bombardier beetle defense systems, vertebrate heart, bat sonar, etc.

In fact the entire book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins addresses this issue. If you truly want to understand this answer, go read Dawkins, not Darwin. Darwin did not have the understanding and evidence available to Dawkins 150 years later.

And this leads to another important point...it is wrong and unscientific to expect all explanations of evolutionary processes to be explained in Darwin's writings. Science (remember, it is a method) ensures that our body of knowledge necessarily changes. Any meaningful argument with any product of science must argue with the current knowledge - not some idea that has since bee expanded, refined, or discredited.

Cheers,
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 10:45 AM

pete asks:

"tia-just so i understand;are you saying that when surprise was expressed at 65mill blood residue that they had no basis or reasoning for such amazement?."

Plenty of reason for amazement. No one had tested for it before, and everyone **assumed** it could not exist. But someone had the idea to actually do science and perform the test, and found the residue, and overturned a long-held, unproven (and untested) ****assumption****. An all-around amazing story.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 09:39 AM

I should have thought it impossible to misconstrue my mention of Piltdown man.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 05:26 AM

One reason that Piltdown man was recognized as a fraud was because it contradicted evolutionary principles. One of the distinguishing features between hominids and the great apes is the shape of the lower jaw, so if you mix a pongid mandible with a hominid cranium suspicions will be aroused.

"As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct."

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 05:02 AM

Personal anaecdote time.

Some years ago now I purchased and read a copy of Stephen Jay Gould's book of essays, 'Ever Since Darwin'(1980) ... which contained, you guessed it, essays about Evolution (although none of them contained anything about something called "evolutionism").

I remember being very impressed by this book - the essays in it were beautifully written and taught me a lot about Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.

A couple of weeks after I had finished the book an Evangelical Christian came to my door and attempted to convert me to his particular sect of Christianity. He offered me a booklet which purported to be the last word on Creationism (i.e. 'God did it, it's all in the Bible, the end'). I said that I would read his pamphlet if he would read Gould's book (I even offered to lend him my copy). He made a muttered excuse and left and I never saw him again ... funny that!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:24 PM

is it not a scientific law that life only arises from life.
scientific observation has never attested any other way has it?. unless you qualified people know otherwise.

Drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:19 PM

shimrod
i dont suppose evolutionism can be disproved.it seems to me that every time some part of the evidence is removed or distanced by new evidence,darwins followers appeal to the non regid scientific method.
disproved-no,proved neither.
creationists dont regard their research as a waste of time.it has results.and not just among laymen like myself.

Please apprise us of the research papers published by these creationist researchers. Pete, just cut the bullshit, will you.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:15 PM

Piltdown Man is a total red herring. It was a complete fraud that had nothing to do with science and it is equally fraudulent to attempt to use it to besmirch science, which, on the whole, is practised by people of good faith. I can't think of one good reason why you should have raised it in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:10 PM

"I can think of no good reason why natural selection was not operating right from the word go..."
Then think a little harder. Natural selection requires self-replicating entities to "work" on. If that is the case, natural selection could not, by definition, have created self-replicating entities from entities which did not self-replicate.

In 1971, when I was studying botany at Imperial College, I wrote an essay on the origin of life (I got an "A", but hey). In researching for the essay I discovered that coacervate droplets, a long way back from the threshold of life, could indeed replicate from materials available in their environment. It taught me not to look at the point of origin of life in black and white. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. Things are not always as crystal clear as popular science would portray them as.   

"Your description is a little abject ..."

I described nothing; how, then, could my description be abject?

You said that evolution can describe the development of life. How dry and unimaginative that is. Natural selection does far more than that. It's a common problem for people who think modern science must always deal in complex ideas. For those like you and Pete who refrain from taking a close enough look, natural selection must seem to be too ridiculously, suspiciously, simple to explain anything. But the sheer elegance and beauty of the idea (far more beautiful than any false creationist construct, which is one hell of a struggle even for its most ardent supporters) is its glory. It explains everything about life on Earth yet assumes almost nothing. No better idea has ever emanated from science. It explains the whole of life on Earth in all its beauty and diversity and complexity. I think I prefer my less abject description over yours any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:04 PM

Actually, though some of the so-called "evidence for evolution" has been discredited (notably "Piltdown man"), none of what's been discredited has any bearing on the remaining, vast, foundational evidence that evolution exists or that natural selection can explain it.

Now, if significant parts of that remaining evidence were shown to be false, evolutionary theory would be in trouble.

Equally to the point, the fact that false "discoveries" like Piltdown man can be discredited by the procedures of science itself, coming at the problem from multiple directions and specialties, suggests strongly that the evidence that remains undiscredited is genuine and reliable.

Some anthropologists were suspicious of Piltdown from the start. The proof of fraud finally came from independent radiation dating. It was unmistakable and there was no scientific scrambling to deny it. Some major anthropologists were embarrassed, but they admitted they'd been fooled without crying "foul!" Darwin's theory was unaffected because "Piltdown man" wasn't needed to explain anything.

Had the fraud never been discovered, Piltdown man might have seemed so odd, so detached from the rest of the human family tree, that some people would undoubtedly have claimed, erroneously, that Piltdown man itself was proof of Creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 06:28 PM

shimrod
i dont suppose evolutionism can be disproved.it seems to me that every time some part of the evidence is removed or distanced by new evidence,darwins followers appeal to the non regid scientific method.
disproved-no,proved neither.
creationists dont regard their research as a waste of time.it has results.and not just among laymen like myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 03:18 PM

There's a good deal of speculation concerning basic life mechanisms arising from non-organic silicates, clays and the like under certain conditions. Dawkins goes into this in some interesting detail. And life has been generated from non-organic elements inlaboratory experiments thought to simulate possible conditions early in the planetary history. Don't have the reference to hand, sorry.

But that doesn't mean it happened that way, or thatr there were no other factors in play. Or even that it happened on Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:57 PM

Pete,

There are lots of organisms aound that haven't changed much for millions of years (e.g. certain ferns and fern relatives and certain marine organisms). That doesn't 'disprove' evolution it probably means that those organisms are well suited to their particular ecological niches, those niches are relatively stable and hence the particular organism hasn't been subjected to much selective pressure.

Still, the obsessive 'exception hunting' that 'creationists' indulge in is a waste of time! You are not going to discover some overwhelming exception which 'proves' that 'it wus God wot did it' and that we can then throw 'The Origin of Species' in the bin!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:47 PM

is it not a scientific law that life only arises from life.
scientific observation has never attested any other way has it?. unless you qualified people know otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:45 PM

News to me, too, Pete. Looked 'em up on Google Images and they look like a cross between a squirrel and lord knows what.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Ringer
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:39 PM

"I can think of no good reason why natural selection was not operating right from the word go..."

Then think a little harder. Natural selection requires self-replicating entities to "work" on. If that is the case, natural selection could not, by definition, have created self-replicating entities from entities which did not self-replicate.

"Your description is a little abject ..."

I described nothing; how, then, could my description be abject?

"Perhaps you think that we atheists are incapable of appreciating all that."

I did not know you were an atheist; equally, you do not know that I am not. What on earth has atheism or its lack got to do with this?

I made no explicit reference to "complexity and beauty and diversity" because my argument does not involve them. Your introduction of them is a red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:37 PM

i was reading about a creature i,ve not heard of before.
the colugo does,nt fit neatly into any category ,having unique features, and features found in other disparate creatures.
fossils alledgedly 34 mill yr old are apparently little different to modern colugos .
i thought to myself;thank God they didnt become extint a few thousand years past or the darwinists would be claiming an intermediate find!.

i thought-maybe a break in the slanging match!?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:04 PM

And who is to say that pre-life forms could not have been subjected to natural selection? We may never know, of course, whether life arose once or millions of times, or whether it arrived on a comet, etc. But that life was subject to natural selection wherever it was, and I can think of no good reason why natural selection was not operating right from the word go, if not even a tad earlier. I would also go so far as to claim that natural selection would very likely be able to explain life on whatever planet it arises. Your description is a little abject in that you leave out complexity and beauty and diversity. Perhaps you think that we atheists are incapable of appreciating all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Ringer
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:33 PM

"No, [the theory of evolution] doesn't "increase our understanding, etc. etc." It explains life on earth in all its beauty and complexity.

Not so. It explains the development of life on earth, but only after that life was there. It has nothing to say about how self-replicating life-forms came to be there in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:51 PM

"Ah, hem, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a failyuerr to communicate."

May I ask, who is pissed off at whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 10:18 PM

Hey Steve, Now 'Snail' will pick on me, instead of you...though you're the one who deserves it.. I did you a favor. Consider bitching less.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 10:01 PM

Good. Maybe we can discuss something sensible for a change then. Yep, nice joke, Guff-ex. What a misfire. Only post sober is my advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:24 PM

JESUS H. CHRIST!

I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 07:22 PM

'Guest from Sanity', do you really think that anyone here would find such disgusting misogyny funny? To be frank such dubious filth is quite a long way from sanity! What planet are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:38 PM

Do you know why women have legs????

.....>>>>>> V


                                              V


                                              V


                                          VVVVVVVVVVVVV
                                           VVVVVVVVV
                                             VVVVVV
                                              VVVV
                                              VV
                                                V


                                                V

                                     Because if they didn't
                              

                                     There would be snail trails

                                    

                                     All over the sidewalks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:51 PM

It suddenly hit me whilst preparing my tea. Snail is so ittitating because he is Mudcat's self-appointed censor! In many of his posts he demands that other posters submit to his impertinent interrogations or alter their views to conform with his.

He attempted to censor one of Mudcat's most distinguished contributors (work it out, Snail!) because he called for greater critical standards within the British Folk scene.

He attempted to censor me because I called for greater critical standards within the British Folk scene and expressed myself robustly and somewhat facetiously.

He attempted to censor Steve Shaw because he did not approve of Steve's word choice.

I, for one, do not recognise you as Mudcat's censor, Snail. I will decide how I express myself. I do, however, accept the authority of the site's moderator and will happily conform to any standards which he imposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:13 PM

Well, it's certainly dense and badly-written. Hands up all those people here who think I'm illiterate. Or, to put it another way, illiterater than Guffs ex-Sanitorium.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:01 PM

Snail, Steve is notorious on here for making irrational, illiterate posts, complete with half-witted insults...and not answering questions posed to him....he says; "As you have never actually managed to compose a comprehensible question in your life,.." but then, ironic, considering he claims to have a Catholic school education, he is still disoriented trying to sort out seeing spiritual things, as a whole different realm, than his Catechism class. All that he lives within, is his bitter rejection, of 'less than accurate' religious 'teachings'..but hasn't found where to go, to get it sorted out.....(and BTW, that WASN'T an insult, just an observation of the obvious)...so he rejects any and everything that even resembles a clue, that could imply that there is a God, or intelligent life.

NOTE: 'Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once!'

Funny, how religious nuts, are waiting for eternity to begin!

GfS

P.S. Before you start hacking at your keyboard, to refute common sense, try considering comprehending the post, first....it won't bite!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:53 PM

I've told you. Now contribute something of your own for once by telling me which bits of evidence undermine my contention that evolution by natural selection is the true story of life on Earth in all its beauty and complexity. No evidence from any facet of evolutionary theory comes near to contradicting that. You think I'm wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong, show me the contradicting evidence and we'll discuss it properly. But you won't, because you are disingenuously clinging to your dishonest position of claiming not to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:39 PM

Steve, please tell me what you mean by "Evolution is true.".

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:01 PM

You don't try to compete. All you do is attack what someone else has said. I rarely, if ever, see a constructive alternative point emanating from your keyboard. Every single post in this thread has been a snipe at me. That is easy. The hard bit is contributing to the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 11:52 AM

Fight? Surely not. A vigorous discussion carried out with mutual respect on all sides.

However, I shall quietly withdraw now as I cannot possibly hope to compete with the scientific rigour of Steve's arguments (He knows far more about the sex lives of snails than I do) or the precision of Shimrod's debating skills as exemplified in this first post to another thread.

After all, as Shimrod said, "You see Snail isn't like you and me". For some reason, I don't seem to feel as upset by that as you might expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 10:08 AM

Is anyone making book on this fight?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 10:03 AM

Yep, Snail, I'm on Steve Shaw's side against your pomposity and insufferable self-righteousness!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 08:12 AM

Yep, take that as a no. There, a simple instruction in words of one syllable. OK now? Ever seen those little mites that run around all over garden snails?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 07:18 AM

I'll take that as a "No" then.

Keep up the good fight Steve. With Shimrod by your side, how can you fail?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 08:33 PM

Nobody's listening to you any more. Your own medicine. Aren't you snails both sexes in one body? In that case, I could suggest that you...no, Stevie-boy, no, don't...

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:20 PM

Steve Shaw

I have conspicuously done it in words of as few syllables as I could muster. Isn't it the gastropod breeding season or something?

A good, standard, Shaw answer. No information. No rational argument. A gratuitous insult.

Well, Steve, I've looked but I can only find one post of yours that might count as an explanation. I asked you what you meant by "Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust." and you replied -

That was in response to Shimrod, not Mr Disingenuous above. Fossil evidence, morphological evidence, evidence from developmental biology, genetic evidence and biochemical evidence on many levels, right down to the subcellular, have all overwhelmingly supported Darwin's theory, and no evidence (in spite of manful attempts by religious quackery) has been produced to oppose it. Of course, there has been controversy over the pace of evolutionary change, etc., even over the exact mechanism of selection, but nothing whatever to undermine the general thrust of the theory. There. Facets and thrusts to the heart's content of your average gastropod. Of course, Snail knows all this, but he's a bit slow on the uptake, as ever.

and shortly afterwards you said -

Just for you, I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true, but you don't appear to have read it yet.

(My emphasis in both quotes.)

If you can't work out whether you are talking about evolution or the theory, how can you expect me to? Remember that it is you who insists on the distinction between The Theory of Evolution (which you don't say is true) and Evolution (which you do say is true).

If I have missed your monosyllabic explanation, here is your chance. If it's there already, you don't even have to type it in, you can just cut-n-paste. With a few seconds effort you can humiliate me completely and get me off your back.

How can you resist this opportunity?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 12:25 PM

If the distinction is so clear, it should be the work of a moment for you to explain it and then to explain what you mean by "Evolution is true." which you have so far conspicuously failed to do.
I have conspicuously done it in words of as few syllables as I could muster. Isn't it the gastropod breeding season or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 12:21 PM

Don't get me started.
Hey ever even attempted to answer those questions I asked you???
Nobble nobble.

GfS

As you have never actually managed to compose a comprehensible question in your life, let alone put together anything resembling an articulate sentence in what is commonly regarded as "English," I find that an odd thing to be confronted with. Have you ever considered putting yourself forward for a bit part in a future series of The Young Ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 12:16 PM

oxymoro      n

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 12:14 PM

Pete

For goodness sake, I was indoctrinated by Catholic teachers and priests, and a combination of both, those blessed Salesian Fathers, for thirteen years. I was so hoodwinked by the damned thing that I could recite the Mass in Latin from memory. I even thought I was going to be a priest at one time. I assure you that I got enough creation doctrine shoved down my throat to stuff a hundred mattresses. I was in my 30s before I confronted this and rejected it all out of hand. Ask any ex-Catholic who has done this and they will tell you it takes considerable resolve and courage (especially when your family are believers as well) to go through with it. So yes, I know both sides and I've done my confronting, thank you. On the other hand, you seem so afeared of questioning that you refuse to read anything that runs the risk of not confirming what you hold in your cotton wool-wrapped comfort zone. I reckon that if there really was a good Lord floating around up there somewhere he'd be sorely pissed off with you for refusing to use the best gift he gave you, your brain.

And if you're going to carry on refusing to study Darwin, why don't you stop asking daft, nit-picking questions about it here. And yes, "creationist scientist" is an oxymoro, whether you're fed up of hearing it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 09:43 AM

steve-you are making a unwarrented assumption about whether i need to confront what i believe.it is me that is at least looking at the other side to some measure.so far as i can ascertain,you have not read any creation science-and spare us the oxymoron evasive answer.
some atheists have for whatever purpose read some of it and for that i respect them.

shimrod
"micro change in species seen
groundless to enact
theorizing macro change
as though a proven fact"

who says it has to lead anywhere beyond the bounds to which the species may change by natural selection.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 05:46 AM

i use the word [evolutionism] because for me,it describes a belief system that is opposed to creationism

Thank's for that, Pete. Very timely. It is Steve's "This is true. You'd better believe it." attitude that leads him open to accusations of quasi-religiosity.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 05:26 AM

Steve Shaw

No I'm not. I'm just weary of you clattering on about this in your obstinate refusal to see what is a perfectly clear distinction.

If the distinction is so clear, it should be the work of a moment for you to explain it and then to explain what you mean by "Evolution is true." which you have so far conspicuously failed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:42 AM

"i use the word [evolutionism] because for me,it describes a belief system that is opposed to creationism,and not to confuse with evolution as a fact,in that [in accordance with creationsts pre-dating darwin]there is change within species,but not from one to another."

So where does this "change within species" lead to if it doesn't lead to another species then?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 01:29 AM

Don't get me started.
Hey ever even attempted to answer those questions I asked you???
Nobble nobble.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 07:00 PM

Gosh, you're several days behind. Where have you been? Good stuff was it? Whatever it was, it didn't nobble those exclamation marks that substitute for your inability to express yourself properly, I notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:59 PM

Steve Shaw: "Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust."

Take his word for it..he is an expert!!...and was there!!..in fact, still is! He has more genetic strains of baboon than human!

Opinions are like assholes..everyone has one, and most of them stink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:23 PM

I think you need to. And you also need to know that there is nothing scary about confronting what you believe. How do you think atheists manage to survive in this default-religious world of ours?