Oh dear, first of all, he's dragged out the tiresome creationist "information" canard, and now the bullshit "common design" canard. Let's deal with each of these in turn shall we?
The infamous canards surrounding "information".
Now this is a particularly insidious brand of canard, because it relies upon the fact that the topic of information, and its
rigorous analysis, is replete with misunderstanding. However, instead of seeking to clarify the misconceptions, creationist canards about information perpetuate those misconceptions for duplicitous apologetic purposes. A classic one being the misuse of the extant rigorous treatments of information, and the misapplication of different information treatments to different situations, either through ignorance, or wilful mendacity. For example, Claude Shannon provided a
rigorous treatment of information, but a treatment that was
strictly applicable to information transmission, and NOT applicable to information storage. Therefore, application of Shannon information to information storage in the genome is a
misuse of Shannon's work. The
correct information analysis to apply to
storage is Kolmogorov's analysis, which erects an entirely different measure of information content that is intended strictly to be applicable to storage. Mixing and matching the two is a familiar bait-and-switch operation that propagandists for creationist doctrine are fond of.
However, the ultimate reason why creationist canards about information
are canards, is simply this. Information is NOT a magic entity. It doesn't require magic to produce it. Ultimately, "information" is nothing more than
the observational data that is extant about the current state of a system. That is IT. No magic needed. All that happens, in real world physical systems, is that different system states lead to different outcomes when the interactions within the system take place. Turing alighted upon this notion when he wrote his landmark paper on computable numbers, and used the resulting theory to establish that Hilbert's conjecture upon decidability in formal axiomatic systems was false. Of course, it's far easier to visualise the process at work, when one has an entity such as a Turing machine to analyse this - a Turing machine has precise, well-defined states, and precise, well-defined interactions that take place when the machine occupies a given state. But this is precisely what we have with DNA - a system that can exist in a number of well-defined states, whose states determine the nature of the interactions that occur during translation, and which result in different outcomes for different states. indeed, the DNA molecule
plays a passive role in this: its function is simply to store the sequence of states that will result, ultimately, in the synthesis of a given protein, and is akin to the tape running through a Turing machine. The real hard work is
actually performed by the ribosomes, which take that state data and use it to bolt together amino acids into chains to form proteins, which can be thought of as individual biological 'Turing machines' whose job is to perform, mechanically and mindlessly in accordance with the electrostatic and chemical interactions permitting this, the construction of a protein using the information arising from DNA as the template. Anyone who thinks magic is needed in all of this, once again, is in need of an education.
As for the canard that "mutations cannot produce new information", this is manifestly false. Not only does the above analysis explicitly permit this, the production of new information (in the form of new states occupied by DNA molecules) has been
observed taking place in the real world and documented in the relevant scientific literature. If you can't be bothered reading any of this voluminous array of scientific papers, and understanding the contents thereof, before erecting this particularly moronic canard, then don't bother erecting the canard in the first place, because it will simply demonstrate that you are scientifically ignorant. Indeed, the extant literature not only covers scientific papers
explicitly dealing with information content in the genome, such as Thomas D. Schneider's paper handily entitled
Evolution And Biological Information to make your life that bit easier, but also papers on
de novo gene origination, of which there are a good number, several of which I have presented here in the past in previous threads. The mere existence of these scientific papers, and the data that they document, blows tiresome canards about "information" out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. Post information canards at your peril after reading this.
Whilst dwelling on information, another creationist canard also needs to be dealt with here, namely the
false conflation of information with ascribed meaning. Which can be demonstrated to be entirely false by reference to the following sequence of hexadecimal bytes in a computer's memory:
81 16 00 2A FF 00
To a computer with an 8086 processor, those bytes correspond to the following single machine language instruction:
ADC [2A00H], 00FFH
To a computer with a 6502 processor, those bytes correspond to the following machine language instruction sequence:
CLC
ASL ($00,X)
LDX #$FF
BRK
To a computer with a 6809 processor, those bytes correspond to the following machine language instruction sequence:
CMPA #$16
NEG $2AFF
NEG ??
the ?? denoting the fact that for this processor, the byte sequence is
incomplete, and two more bytes are needed to supply the address operand for the NEG instruction.
Now, we have
three different ascribed meanings to one stream of bytes. Yet,
none of these ascribed meanings influences either the Shannon information content, when that stream is transmitted from one computer to another, or the Kolmogorov information content when those bytes are stored in memory. Ascribed meaning is
irrelevant to both rigorous information measures. As is to be expected, when one regards information content simply as observational data about the state of the system (in this case, the values of the stored bytes in memory). Indeed, it is entirely possible to regard
ascribed meaning as nothing other than the particular interactions driven by the underlying data, once that data is being processed, which of course will differ from processor to processor. Which means that under such an analysis, even ascribed meaning, which creationists fallaciously conflate with information content, also requires no magical input. All that is required is the existence of a set of interactions that will produce different outcomes from the different observed states of the system (with the term 'observation' being used here
sensu lato to mean any interaction that is capable of differentiating between the states of the system of interest).
Now let's move on the "common ddesign" canard, shall we? Starting with this:
[quote="questioner121";p="1933459"][quote="Animavore";p="1933341"]I'm amazed by creationists' obstinance really. It really is a case of seeing four fingers and saying five. The picture I posted wonderfully shows the similarities with humans and other apes at the genetic level, not that just looking at them doesn't. It takes an awful leap of faith for me to say they are not related. And an even bigger one to believe we popped into being fully formed, especially when we never see this happening in real life. Saying the opposite, which Questioner does, that it takes a bigger leap to say we are related is an inversion of reasoning so profound it's no surprise he gets accused of being a troll.
His view just does not explain why we have similar chromosomes and why scientists were able to predict in advance, ie. before we had the technology available, what happened to the extra chromosome. It doesn't explain the extra telomere which was predicted, in the centre of chromosome 2. This can't be accounted for any other way except for common ancestry.
How is the above explained with the creationist 'model'?[/quote]
We have similar chromosomes because the core design is common amongst creation made of earth. You're implying common ancestry based on likeness rather than observations of the populations reproducing. This is an assumption. It's not fact.[/quote]
Bullshit. And in case you didn't bother looking at the above diagram, which should have told you something very important, I'll tell you why your canards are bullshit, that diagram providing one of the reasons I'm going to present. But first of all, let's deal with the "common design" bullshit. I'll start by referring everyone to the insulin gene. If the "common design" assertion bore any connection to reality, then we would expect the gene for a critical metabolic molecule such as insulin, to be the same in every living organism. After all, why waste effort "designing" lots and lots of
different insulin genes, if one will work satisfactorily in every case? Surely handing out lots and lots of
different insulin genes, apart from undermining the entire "common design" apologetics, because those purported "designs" aren't "common" any more, is wasteful from any genuinely "intelligent" design perspective, when one will do the job for all?
But here's the rub. There ARE differences in insulin genes between species, and the further apart those species are in the phylogenetic tree of life, the greater the differences. The gene that codes for insulin is well known, and has been mapped in a multiplicity of organisms, including organisms whose
entire genomes have been sequenced, ranging from the pufferfish
Tetraodon nigroviridis through to
Homo sapiens. There is
demonstrable variability in insulin molecules (and the genes coding for them) across the entire panoply of vertebrate taxa. Bovine insulin, for example, is not
identical to human insulin. I refer everyone to the following gene sequences, all of which have been obtained from publicly searchable online gene databases:
[1]
Human insulin gene on Chromosome 11, which is as follows:
atg gcc ctg tgg atg cgc ctc ctg ccc ctg ctg gcg ctg ctg gcc ctc tgg gga cct gac
cca gcc gca gcc ttt gtg aac caa cac ctg tgc ggc tca cac ctg gtg gaa gct ctc tac
cta gtg tgc ggg gaa cga ggc ttc ttc tac aca ccc aag acc cgc cgg gag gca gag gac
ctg cag gtg ggg cag gtg gag ctg ggc ggg ggc cct ggt gca ggc agc ctg cag ccc ttg
gcc ctg gag ggg tcc ctg cag aag cgt ggc att gtg gaa caa tgc tgt acc agc atc tgc
tcc ctc tac cag ctg gag aac tac tgc aac tag
which codes for the following protein sequence (using the standard single letter mnemonics for individual amino acids, which I have colour coded to match the colour coding in
this diagram of the insulin synthesis pathway in humans):
MALWMRLLPLLALLALWGPDPAAAFVNQHLCGSHLVEALYLVCGERGFFYTPKT
RREAEDLQVGQVELGGGPGAGSLQPLALEGSLQKR
GIVEQCCTSICSLYQLENYCN
Now, I refer everyone to
this data, which is the coding sequence for insulin in the Lowland Gorilla (differences are highlighted in boldface):
atg gcc ctg tgg atg cgc ctc ctg ccc ctg ctg gcg ctg ctg gcc ctc tgg gga cct gac
cca gcc
gcg gcc ttt gtg aac caa cac ctg tgc ggc
tcc cac ctg gtg gaa gct ctc tac
cta gtg tgc ggg gaa cga ggc ttc ttc tac aca ccc aag acc cgc cgg gag gca gag gac
ctg cag gtg ggg cag gtg gag ctg ggc ggg ggc cct ggt gca ggc agc ctg cag ccc ttg
gcc ctg gag ggg tcc ctg cag aag cgt ggc
atc gtg gaa
cag tgc tgt acc agc atc tgc
tcc ctc tac cag ctg gag aac tac tgc aac tag
this codes for the protein sequence:
MALWMRLLPLLALLALWGPDPAAAFVNQHLCGSHLVEALYLVCGERGFFYTPKT
RREAEDLQVGQVELGGGPGAGSLQPLALEGSLQKR
GIVEQCCTSICSLYQLENYCN
which so happens to be the
same precursor protein. However, Gorillas are closely related to humans. Let's move a little further away, to the domestic cow,
Bos taurus (whose sequence is found
here):
atg gcc ctg tgg aca cgc ctg cgg ccc ctg ctg gcc ctg ctg gcg ctc tgg ccc ccc ccc
ccg gcc cgc gcc ttc gtc aac cag cat ctg tgt ggc tcc cac ctg gtg gag gcg ctg tac
ctg gtg tgc gga gag cgc ggc ttc ttc tac acg ccc aag gcc cgc cgg gag gtg gag ggc
ccg cag gtg ggg gcg ctg gag ctg gcc gga ggc ccg ggc gcg ggc ggc ctg gag ggg ccc
ccg cag aag cgt ggc atc gtg gag cag tgc tgt gcc agc gtc tgc tcg ctc tac cag ctg
gag aac tac tgt aac tag
Already this is a smaller sequence - 318 codons instead of 333 - so we KNOW we're going to get a different insulin molecule with this species ... which is as follows:
MALWTRLRPLLALLALWPPPPARAFVNQHLCGSHLVEALYLVCGERGFFYTPK
ARREVEGPQVGALELAGGPGAGGLEGPPQKRGIVE
QCCASVCSLYQLENYCN
clearly a
different protein, but one which
still functions as an insulin precursor and results in a mature insulin molecule in cows, one which
differs in exact sequence from that in humans. Indeed, prior to the advent of transgenic bacteria, into which human insulin genes had been transplanted for the purpose of harnessing those bacteria to produce human insulin for medical use, bovine insulin harvested from the pancreases of slaughtered beef cows was used to treat diabetes mellitus in humans. Now, of course, with the advent of transgenically manufactured true human insulin, from a sterile source, bovine insulin is no longer needed, much to the relief of those who are aware of the risk from BSE.
Moving on again, we have a
different coding sequence from the tropical Zebrafish,
Danio rerio, (sequence to be found
here) which is as follows:
atg gca gtg tgg ctt cag gct ggt gct ctg ttg gtc ctg ttg gtc gtg tcc agt gta agc
act aac cca ggc aca ccg cag cac ctg tgt gga tct cat ctg gtc gat gcc ctt tat ctg
gtc tgt ggc cca aca ggc ttc ttc tac aac ccc aag aga gac gtt gag ccc ctt ctg ggt
ttc ctt cct cct aaa tct gcc cag gaa act gag gtg gct gac ttt gca ttt aaa gat cat
gcc gag ctg ata agg aag aga ggc att gta gag cag tgc tgc cac aaa ccc tgc agc atc
ttt gag ctg cag aac tac tgt aac tga
And this sequence codes for the following protein:
MAVWLQAGALLVLLVVSSVSTNPGTPQHLCGSHLVDALYLVCGPTFTGFFYNP
KRDVEPLLGFLPPKSAQETEVADFAFKDHAELIRK
RGIVEQCCHKPCSIFELQNYCN
so again we have a
different insulin precursor protein that is ultimately converted into a
different insulin molecule within the Zebra Fish.
Now I don't intend to spend all day tracking down hundreds of different insulin genes to reinforce this point, but those who are interested in doing so, and tracking how the differences dovetail nicely with phylogenetic distance between lineages, can do so by hunting down the relevant sequences on the ExPasy database, or the Swiss-Prot database, or any of about half a dozen other online gene databases with full sequence data.
So, the fact that [1] different vertebrate species possess
different insulin genes, [2] the differences match up very closely to the phylogenetic distance between those lineages, and [3] those differences exhibit
exactly the pattern of variation that would be expected to occur within a common ancestry model, on its own tells us something important with respect to the likely validity of common descent with modification. Even better,
large numbers of other genes exhibit the same patterns of variation. But even better still,
pseudogenes and endogenous retroviral insertions exhibit the same patterns of variation as well, along with positional occurrences in chromosomes which could only happen in a common ancestry model. So the idea that common ancestry is an "assumption" is another of those bullshit creationist lies we can flush down the toilet, because
vast swathes of genetic evidence supports common descent with modification, of which the observed variation in insulin genes is but one example.
Now, moving on to the fused chromosome 2 in the human lineage. How do we know that said chromosome was the result of a fusion event in the distant past of our species? Simple. Because of the way chromosomes are usually structured. When chromosomal DNA is analysed, special marker sequences are found at specific positions within the chromosome being analysed. For example, at the ends of the chromosomal 'arms', we have sequences known as telomeres, which possess a particular, well-defined structure, and in normal chromosomes, these are
only[/] found at the ends of the chromosomal 'arms'. Likewise, the central 'pivot', known as a centromere, is associated with specific, well-defined DNA sequences.
When scientists were testing the relationship between the human and chimpanzee genomes, back in the early days before the genomes had been sequenced in full, scientists hit upon a nice idea. Namely, generate molecular 'probes' that would attach to specific DNA sequences, and use these to latch on to specific human genes. Each probe was attached to a fluorescent marker, so that it would be easy to see, where on the human chromosomes the probes had latched onto the gens in question: the locations would show up as bright fluorescent green under the microscope.. Once the probes had been synthesised, and demonstrated to latch reliably onto the requisite human genes, the scientists then had the idea of using the same probes to see if there was any gene sequence similarity in chimpanzees. When the probes were tested on chimpanzee DNA, lo and behold, not only did those probes latch onto the requisite genes, but in the majority of cases, they appeared in the same positions on the same chromosomes.
There was, however, one set of differences. When probes that latched onto genes on human chromosome 2 were tried on chimpanzee chromosomes, the genes were found to be spread across two chromosomes in the chimpanzee. Since other primates on the same cladistic branch also had the extra chromosome, the most parsimonious solution to the problem, was to propose that the human chromosome 2, was the result of a fusion event between two chromosomes that remained separate in the other primate lineages. The fluorescent probe test already pointed to this, as described above. But how could it be confirmed that human chromosome 2 was the result of a chromosome fusion event?
That's where the structure of the chromosomes comes into play. If an end-to-end fusion of two chromosomes occurred, then we would expect to find, in the fused chromosome, two sets of centromere DNA sequences, one set in the centromere proper, and one set displaced some way beyond the centromere proper, the remnant of the old centromere in the unfused chromosome. One would also expect to see telomere DNA turn up in the middle of the 'arms', where the ends joined together. So, the question was, did those out of place centromere and telomere sequences appear in human chromosome 2?
When this was tested, lo and behold, the scientists found exactly this result. As a consequence, there is no doubt that human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event between two formerly separate chromosomes, which remained separate in the chimpanzee and other lineages within the same clade. Those out of place centromere and telomere sequences can only occur as a result of a fusion event. Which, lo and behold, is what that diagram illustrates above.
So once again, this isn't an "assumption", it''s a tested hypothesis that has been found to be in accord with the observational data. Now of course, if the scientists had not found those extra out of place telomere and centromere sequences, then the hypothesis would have been in deep trouble, because that hypothesis predicted this very result. The fact that the data matches the prediction, tells us that the chromosome fusion hypothesis is NOT an "assumption" (how creationists love misrepresenting tested hypotheses as "assumptions").
I think that's game over on this pair of canards.
Meanwhile ...
[quote="questioner121";p="1933472"][quote="Bribase";p="1933469"][quote="questioner121";p="1933460"][quote="campermon";p="1933332"]
...and if he's not for real, it doesn't matter. I for one have benefited from learning new stuff posted by the more enlightened members here.
[/quote]
I hope you learnt that humans still can't create life from scratch.[/quote]
Before we go Gish galloping around the Darwinian tree of life again. Can you explain to us why this is relevant to evolutionary biology?[/quote]
For one thing it shows that the origin of life could not have started through natural processes[/quote]
No it doesn't. It merely shows that scientists haven't joined up the dots rigorously yet. Which they're working on. The moment those dots are joined, it's game over for supernaturalist fantasies, Which is why supernaturalists peddle so much dishonest apologetics on the subject.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933472"]therefore there has to be another cause. [/quote]
Wrong. See above.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933472"]Could evolution still be possible for the life we observe today or life that existed in the past? Sure it could but we need to see proper evidence.[/quote]
Oh, over a million peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting the experimental evidence, isn't enough for you? There were over 18,000 papers published in the field in the year 2007 alone (at least, that's how many papers PubMed returned to me on a search).
[quote="questioner121";p="1933493"][quote="Bribase";p="1933480"][quote="questioner121";p="1933472"]For one thing it shows that the origin of life could not have started through natural processes therefore there has to be another cause. Could evolution still be possible for the life we observe today or life that existed in the past? Sure it could but we need to see proper evidence.[/quote]
It shows nothing of the sort, Q. You're saying that since humans aren't able to create life from scratch universes cannot, it's a non sequitur. You're also making the assumption that since humans cannot do it yet it cannot be done at all (another non sequitur) and therefore god has to have done it (an argument from incredulity).
Should we have considered the same thing regarding powered flight just over a hundred years ago? We were yet to create machines capable of sustained flight, therefore should we have assumed that since we hadn't yet we never could and the only thing that can make them is god? Your Quran has a verse that is quite specific about this.[/quote]
Doesn't matter what you want to call it the claim is there. Create life from scratch.[/quote]
Those papers on protocell synthesis and experimentations demonstrate that scientists are far more uncomfortably close to this than creationists dare contemplate.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933493"]I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying do it until you've exhausted all the possibilities.[/quote]
How many of those 232 papers on abiogenesis shall I bring here again?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933493"]Until then creationism have a great argument for the belief in God.[/quote]
No it doesn't, all it has is blind assertions and appeal to ignorance. The creationist pseudo-argument can be summed up as follows: "I can't imagine how a testable natural process can achieve X, therefore no testable natural process can achieve X, therefore Magic Man did it". Which falls flat on its face the moment someone else comes along and says "oh, here's the experiments we did demonstrating that testable natural processes can do X". Enough of those experiments are now in place, to flush creationist assertions down the toilet on this one.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933702"][quote="hackenslash";p="1933617"]Not to mention that, in the case of that fusion, it was a prediction of evolutionary theory, not an assumption. What predictions have been made by cretinism again?[/quote]
Humans can't create life from scratch[/quote]
Keep playing this worn record. We'll simply continue watching as the research renders your fantasy all the more absurd.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933702"]and they can never prevent ageing or death.[/quote]
So what? We have a scientific reason for this. It's called entropy.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933709"][quote="Onyx8";p="1933612"]There's something wrong here (besides the obvious). When you say "ancestry based on likeness rather than observations of the populations reproducing." The populations you are discussing cannot now reproduce, that is the point. At some time in the past the populations could reproduce as evidenced by such things as the chromosome 2 and ERVs.
You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.[/quote]
This is better. So today you can observe that certain closely related populations cannot reproduce with one another. You make the assumption that they could in the past, probably because there were less differences between the populations.[/quote]
Er, no. Enough instances of speciation have been observed to allow us to make the appropriate predictions, given sufficient data about another lineage. How many of those papers on speciation shall I bring here?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933709"]First I'd like to remind you again it's your assumption that they could reproduce with one another. There is no conclusive evidence of this. [/quote]
Once again, how much of the speciation literature do I have to bring here to toss your !"ssumptions" bullshit into the toilet?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933709"]Just because both populations exists today does not prove they came about by evolution with a common ancestry.[/quote]
Oh, so the fact that they share almost 99% genetic commonality is an inconvenient fact you're going to ignore?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933709"]To prove this there needs to be a lot better evidence of the gradual evolution AND evidence that at each stage the populations could reproduce with one another.[/quote]
Once again, how much of the speciation literature do I have to bring in here?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933709"]Secondly there needs to be better understanding of WHY certain populations are not able to reproduce with one another. Many evolutionists/atheists [/quote]
Drop the "evolutionist" bullshit.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933709"]take this observation as "natural" without thinking much more about it.[/quote]
Bullshit. Oh wait, there is an extensive literature on speciation genes. Including the fertillin subset of the major histocompatibility complex. Which determines whether or not sperm and egg are compatible enough to permit one to fertilise the other. The only one who ins't thinking about this here is you.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933720"][quote="Darwinsbulldog";p="1933591"]questioner121 wrote:-
Doesn't matter what you want to call it the claim is there. Create life from scratch. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying do it until you've exhausted all the possibilities. Until then creationism have a great argument for the belief in God.
Claims innocent of evidence are useless. I am Napoleon, I am a rubber duck, God is love-none of these statements have any meaning unless they are demostrated to be true,and often, not even after they can be claimed to be true.
Why have a rigid belief at all? You have a brain which evolved to take account for changes in the environment, and act appropriately to such changes. Even if you reject evolution, then your brain was designed by god. If god gave you a brain, then he woul d expect you to use it. God gives one a brain, and then one blasphemes by not using it?
Either way, it does not make sense to have rigid beliefs, and even less sense when those beliefs are based on no evidence or logic or poor evidence and logic.
Even if god exists, how do we know what purpose he has for us [if any?]. Ancient texts are unreliable, heresay is unreliable, and personal revelation is unreliable.
Science works, whether one believes in god or not-that should tell you something. On the other hand, religion only "works" if you believe in it. That is, when you stop believing in god, he dissapears-it is that simple.[/quote]
It's not science vs religion. It's a silly assumption made by atheists to give their group a sense of credibility. [/quote]
Bullshit. The ONLY objections to evolutionary science come from religious fundamentalist wingnuts.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933720"]Science is simply observation. [/quote]
There's more to it than that. There's hypothesis formulation, testing, and prediction.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933720"]These observations are interpreted and used as arguments by both sides or however many people are arguing over a certain point. [/quote]
Oh no, it's the "interpretations" canard. Yawn ...
The "assumptions" canard (with "interpretation" side salad).
This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. As I have stated earlier, science is in the business of testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named "Answers in Genesis" with respect to their assertion that 14C dating was based upon "assumptions". I've also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don't even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest.
Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the "interpretation" assertion, which creationist erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does NOT rely upon "presupposition". Indeed, scientists have expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were proper inferences to draw.
Basically, there is only one "interpretation" of the data that matters to scientists, and that is whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933720"]Religion is a way of life and guidance to mankind. It does contain claims which can be proven by science so people can test and be assured that it is the truth.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like the coloured sticks nonsense in Genesis 30:37-39? Which was demonstrated to be WRONG by an Austrian monk?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933720"]Yes there are many many false scriptures, false prophets, crazy cults, corrupt believers, etc. We can recognise these because if you look deeper they can be proven to be false.[/quote]
You mean the way we've demonstrated your fixed Earth assertions to be wrong?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"][quote="Thomas Eshuis";p="1933732"][quote="questioner121";p="1933730"][quote="Thomas Eshuis";p="1933725"]
It really is. One is based on blind faith, the other on evidence, rigour and falsification.[/quote]
What is the "other"?[/quote]
Science. Religion being the one.[/quote]
As i said before religion is a way of life and guidance for mankind. It contains knowledge which has been passed on down through the generations which people who follow it trust. [/quote]
No it doesn't. Blind assertions do not equal "knowledge".
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]It's similar to science, it's a body of knowledge. [/quote]
No it isn't. One important difference being that religion presents assertions as fact, and expects people to treat them unquestioningly in this manner. Science, on the other hand, is in the business of testing assertions to destruction, and discarding those assertions that fail said test.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]Both contain some things which can be tested or falsified and things which can be proven to be true. But they also contain things that can't be tested or falsified.[/quote]
Bullshit. If it can't be tested or falsified, it isn't a scientific hypothesis by definition.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]For example, can you prove the big bang as false or true? There's no way you can do that. You just have a bunch of assumptions.[/quote]
Bullshit. cosmic microwave background, anyone? Which was predicted to exist by the theory? Viz (relevant part highlighted in bold below):
The Cosmic Microwave Background is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation).
Now of course, this prediction, that there would be some left-over radiation, could have caused a lot of trouble for BIg Bang cosmology, if it hadn't been found. However, it WAS found, and what's more, its predicted black body spectrum matches observation so closely, that the error bars are too small to draw on the graph.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]It doesn't matter how many experiments you do unless you can reproduce the big bang you will never be able to prove it true.[/quote]
Bullshit. Apart from your displaying the usual supernaturalist inability to distinguish between proof and evidential support, the simple fact is, that the theorypredicted the existence of left-over radiation, and that radiation was found. Game over.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]The same goes for the claim that life evolved from a collection of molecules. Until you can prove it it's just an assumption not matter how much fossil/DNA evidence you have.[/quote]
Oh, so you're going to ignore those 232 papers from the field of abiogenesis, demonstrating that the relevant chemical reactions work?
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]The same goes for common ancestry, you need to prove that the populations were related because they were able to reproduce with one another not with the assumption that the DNA was/is similar.[/quote]
Ahem, the similarity of DNA in the requisite lineages isn't an "assumption", it's a fucking observation. Learn this.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]Again, atheists use science to support their position/ideas/assumptions but that does not mean they are the party of science. it's not science vs religion.[/quote]
Bollocks. Your posts here alone demonstrate that your above assertion is horseshit.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]There are many believers who do have blind faith. They won't accept scientific facts. That's just the nature of some people.[/quote]
Oh the fucking irony, from someone who dismisses experiments above as "not proof", even allowing for the woeful inability to distinguish between proof and evidential support ...
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]It may seem to the atheists on this forum that I'm ignoring scientific facts but I'm not. I'm trying to explain as best as I can the difference between what is an assumption and what can be proven today through experimentation and observation.[/quote]
No you're not, you're making shit up on this subject to prop up your mythology based fantasies.
[quote="questioner121";p="1933750"]I'm not doing a great job because of my lack of intelligence and poor english vocabulary. Hopefully I'll get better.[/quote]
Try dropping the Magic Man blinkers for a nanosecond. You might find a vast improvement.
