Thread: God and DNA

Oh snap. It's time to trot out Dawkins and see what he has to say.

Yes, I said that a hypothesis is part of a scientific theory, this is how it works:

You observe something -> You suppose an explanation for what you observed (hypothesis) -> You construct an elaborate framework around your hypothesis using logical predictions and experimentation in an attempt to explain your hypothesis (theory) -> You successfully recreate and observe the phenomenon first-hand, leaving no doubt that your hypothesis is the sole explanation of the original phenomenon (scientific fact)

We can observe evolution first hand from now on, that is how we know that evolution is a scientific fact, but we weren't there to witness the evolution of life first hand in the millions of years preceding our existence, that is why the evolutionary path of man (and other living organisms) can only remain a theory.

That being said, we have substantial bodies of second hand evidence (mostly through fossils) that indicate that the current theory is correct. So if the certainty of a theory is hung at 99.99% because of the formality that we weren't there to witness it first-hand, why not just connect the dots and accept it already?

You use the word "indicate" which is not the same as proof. This is not science. This is not the scientific method. Sure, it might be a good hypothesis, but it is not a scientific theory. I'm only trying to defend science here. I don't understand how you can go against science?

How about curing yourself of your own ignorance? Read my argument above. You claim I'm ignorant, yet you are the one confusing a hypothesis for a theory. Do you see the irony of this situation?

Hypothesis: an untested observation, often with little or no supporting evidence
Testing and evidence collection: things you use with which to give the hypothesis credit
Theory: the result of a successfully supported hypothesis.

Through testing, we know that bacteria evolve. Through the fossil record, we know that creatures evolve (deny it all you want, you still aren't right). Through research with DNA, we know that organisms develop mutations and are capable of passing said mutations on to future generations. We know that this process is capable of producing new species and subspecies in a process called evolution.

We have tests. We have evidence. Evolution is a hypothesis no longer.

Mariuo92 and Spartiate, your posts are contradicting eachother. Whatever beliefs you both might have, it is obvious, that you guys are contradicting eachother. You both claim to defend evolution theory, yet your arguments are contradicting eachother. Which means, that one of you is wrong. Who is it?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Mariuo92 and Spartiate, your posts are contradicting eachother. Whatever beliefs you both might have, it is obvious, that you guys are contradicting eachother. You both claim to defend evolution theory, yet your arguments are contradicting eachother. Which means, that one of you is wrong. Who is it?

I see no contradiction...

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

You use the word "indicate" which is not the same as proof. This is not science. This is not the scientific method. Sure, it might be a good hypothesis, but it is not a scientific theory. I'm only trying to defend science here. I don't understand how you can go against science?

Lets try something else.

A person was murdered in a house and there are no witnesses but there is a substantial body of forensic evidence (such as DNA, bullet casings, etc.) that indicate that a particular person was responsible. You can't be 100% sure because there was nobody there to actually witness the murder, yet hundreds of murderers are convicted each year because of the evidence they leave behind.

Does this make you feel uncomfortable? Would you convict the man or not?

Evolution isn't the only scientific theory that's stuck at 99.9999999(etc.) % certainty because of the sole technicality that humans weren't around to witness it (until now), are you going to attack all of geology, history and astronomy as well?

Spartiate agrees that evolution is a hypothesis, but he says, as this hypothesis is so close to a theory, we might as well connect the dots and use it as a theory. You claim it is not a hypothesis, and that it is a theory.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Neat wiki article on the complete evolutionary path of humans from the first living organisms:

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article also claims, that it is a hypothesis, not a theory, it is a possibility, not a fact.

Spartiate, if your example of murder was correct, then we would never have any innocently executed people, which in reality, is not the case. It is perfectly possible, for evidence to create the illusion of proof, but in reality, we have seen many times, how this had led to the execution of innocent people.

Either way, I think we have come to the conclusion that evolution theory is indeed, not waterproof. But I do agree that is the best theory we have so far. I don't agree with you guys that the theory is complete, and this is the thing that is making me sad. As long as people believe evolution theory is complete, it will never be improved, and truly be completed, which is a loss for science.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Spartiate agrees that evolution is a hypothesis, but he says, as this hypothesis is so close to a theory, we might as well connect the dots and use it as a theory. You claim it is not a hypothesis, and that it is a theory.

No, I do believe his argument is that evolution actually is a theory, but that it is you who treat it as an infinitely close hypothesis, and that by the principle of Occam's razor, YOU should connect the dots and just accept it to be established theory, like the rest of the world.

This article also claims, that it is a hypothesis, not a theory, it is a possibility, not a fact.

It claims that human descent through evolution as specified exactly in the article is a hypothesis, not evolution as a whole.

Spartiate, if your example of murder was correct, then we would never have any innocently executed people, which in reality, is not the case. It is perfectly possible, for evidence to create the illusion of proof, but in reality, we have seen many times, how this had led to the execution of innocent people.

It happens, but by Occam's razor, it doesn't happen nearly frequently enough to justify dismissing every single murder case you didn't personally witness.

Either way, I think we have come to the conclusion that evolution theory is indeed, not waterproof. But I do agree that is the best theory we have so far. I don't agree with you guys that the theory is complete, and this is the thing that is making me sad. As long as people believe evolution theory is complete, it will never be improved, and truly be completed, which is a loss for science.

Nothing is waterproof. Prove to me that you have two hands. Nobody said evolution is perfectly complete, or closed to change, or that it is pure, universal fact. It is a theory - something with a very high probability of being correct. It MAY be false, but we have no reason to believe it is and a whole shit ton of reasons to believe it isn't. So to speak.

I think you're confusing a theory with a fact.

Are there any other extremely solid and well observed theories you want to contest? We don't understand 100% how gravity works, do you believe in gravity? I don't know why you're picking on evolution if not for a religious reason.

I gotta say that the crime analogy is a pretty bad one. This is what happens when you try to simplify something so that people can understand it when they might not otherwise be able to. It's a noble goal but some things just need to be worked at to be understood.

The problem with the analogy is that scientific standards are generally much higher than legal ones. Your typical prosecuter (here in the states, it's all I'm familiar with) only has to convince 12 people of which perhaps 7-9 will be about as intelligent as Chayba (remember that about 70% of "americans" are creationists). A scientist has to convince the entire scientific community including those with competing theories. They're two completely different ballgames.

remember that about 70% of "americans" are creationists

Okay, I want a source on this, cuz this seems excessive. >.>

Originally Posted by Mario92

Okay, I want a source on this, cuz this seems excessive. >.>

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation Here's the first thing that I googled up. According to this, as of 2004, I underestimated it. They're putting the number at 45 + 38 (crosses fingers) = 83? percent. I saw a scientific poll paid for by ABC (I think) that put it at around 70%. I'll try to find that.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I gotta say that the crime analogy is a pretty bad one. This is what happens when you try to simplify something so that people can understand it when they might not otherwise be able to. It's a noble goal but some things just need to be worked at to be understood.

The problem with the analogy is that scientific standards are generally much higher than legal ones. Your typical prosecuter (here in the states, it's all I'm familiar with) only has to convince 12 people of which perhaps 7-9 will be about as intelligent as Chayba (remember that about 70% of "americans" are creationists). A scientist has to convince the entire scientific community including those with competing theories. They're two completely different ballgames.

Same principle though, should we let all these murderers go free because there were no first-hand witnesses or at some point, if there is enough evidence, can we accept it as fact that the suspect committed the murder... It's just the concept of accepting something that can't be witnessed as fact if the probability is high enough and there are enough dots to connect.

In any case I'm off to bed.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I think you're confusing a theory with a fact.

Are there any other extremely solid and well observed theories you want to contest? We don't understand 100% how gravity works, do you believe in gravity? I don't know why you're picking on evolution if not for a religious reason.

Actaully eventho gravity is there, the theory of gravity does not make any logical sense, nor does it actually explain anything.

The theory of gravity claims, that gravity is caused by "the bending of space-time". That's it. No further explanation. Does this truly make us any wiser? No it doesn't. On top of that, it is logical, that the bending of space-time, would also result in the bending of every single object in that space-time, leading to a negation of the bending effect.

Eventho this is logical, people will refuse to look into this as they are convinced Einstein is too intelligent for them to understand. So they leave it at that. This again, the refusal to accept that a scientific theory might be wrong, leads to a loss for science, and it leads to humanity becoming dumber instead of smarter.

Same thing goes on with evolution theory. Too bad you guys can't see the danger in accepting a theory which is not complete. I believe however, that evolution theory could be completed if you adjusted the logical fallacies which I was pointing out. And by doing so, this would lead to evolution theory being compatible with intelligent design, and even, creationism without contradicting any of the physical evidence.



Btw when you said 70% of Americans are creationists I start to understand why you guys get so angry. Here in Belgium however 0.00001% are creationists. So I never thought you guys would take me for one. In Belgium we are all scientists.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation Here's the first thing that I googled up. According to this, as of 2004, I underestimated it. They're putting the number at 45 + 38 (crosses fingers) = 83? percent. I saw a scientific poll paid for by ABC (I think) that put it at around 70%. I'll try to find that.

Hmm...according to the most recent poll available, the Gallup poll of 2007, which offered a highly-loaded question to the public, got a 48% pro-creationist result:

2007: Gallup Poll

In the spring of 2007, following an all-candidates meeting of ten Republicans seeking the presidency, three denied a personal belief in evolution. This promoted the Gallup Organization to ask American adults between 2007-MAY-21-24: "Do you, personally, believe in evolution or not." This is one of the poorest polling questions that we have ever seen, because people generally hold one of three beliefs concerning origins:
bullet Naturalistic evolution: Evolution happened according to purely natural forces and processes without any divine guidance.
bullet Theistic evolution: Evolution happened and was/is guided by God.
bullet Creationism: Species were created separately by God.

When a person is asked if they believe in evolution, they might interpret the question as belief in naturalistic evolution only. Alternately, they might consider it as asking whether one believes in either naturalistic or theistic evolution. Pollsters tend to like simple yes and no answers. Sometimes they do not handle questions well where there are three discrete positions.

In addition, some people regard evolution as covering only the development of life forms from the first one-celled animal to the present diversity of plants and animals. Others define the term more widely, and include the origins of the universe, the development of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, development of mountain ranges, continental drift, etc.

The results, for what they are worth are a statistical draw:
bullet 49% believe in "Evolution;"
bullet 48% do not;
bullet 2% have no opinion.

As expected, more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:"
bullet 74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do:
bullet 48% of college graduates
bullet 50% of adults with some college
bullet 41% of adults with high school or less.

More frequent attendance at religious services correlated with a lack of belief in "evolution:"
bullet 24% of those who attend weekly believe in evolution, as do:
bullet 52% of those who attend nearly weekly or monthly, and
bullet 71% of those who attend seldom or never.

As expected, political affiliation reflects a difference of opinion on origins:
bullet Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not.
bullet 61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not.
bullet 57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.

But still, at any rate, how has the rest of the world not nuked America yet?

Because America is holding the rest of the world hostage. Here in Belgium for example, we have an american nuclear base.. I mean wtf are Americans doing in Belgium? No idea.

But they didn't give you the results. There were two options for selecting belief in "evolution" but one of them was creationist! "Evolution guided by god" is still creationism, it's just not new-earth creationism. They lumped "intelligent design" creationism in with evolution to get the draw that they claim to have. Based on the number, 48%, of people that claimed to believe in some variant of young-earth creationism, the results are about the same as the poll that I linked to.

Sad but true.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Actaully eventho gravity is there, the theory of gravity does not make any logical sense, nor does it actually explain anything.

The theory of gravity claims, that gravity is caused by "the bending of space-time". That's it. No further explanation. Does this truly make us any wiser? No it doesn't. On top of that, it is logical, that the bending of space-time, would also result in the bending of every single object in that space-time, leading to a negation of the bending effect.

Eventho this is logical, people will refuse to look into this as they are convinced Einstein is too intelligent for them to understand. So they leave it at that. This again, the refusal to accept that a scientific theory might be wrong, leads to a loss for science, and it leads to humanity becoming dumber instead of smarter.

Ok I'm out.

Chayba sort of reminds me of this girl I know who throws around the term "logic" like it's her job, but really has no understanding of it or how to use it.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Actaully eventho gravity is there, the theory of gravity does not make any logical sense

Several things in science don't seem to make logical sense, such as quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean it's wrong (the predictions it generates have been confirmed to be spectacularly accurate).

nor does it actually explain anything.

Actually it explains many things. But it's a high level theory, why would you expect it to make much sense to a layman?

That's it. No further explanation.

No it's not all there is. Of course there are still things to discover, and questions to be answered. But if you think the entire theory is "Einstein says space-time bends" then you're being foolish.

Does this truly make us any wiser? No it doesn't.

See below for why you're so wrong.

On top of that, it is logical, that the bending of space-time, would also result in the bending of every single object in that space-time, leading to a negation of the bending effect.

That is a truly spectacular failure to understand.

Hint: whilst gravity does interact at an infinite distance, it's also infinitely weak because the strength of gravity is inversely proportional to the distance squared. Nearby stuff bends space more than far away stuff.

Eventho this is logical, people will refuse to look into this as they are convinced Einstein is too intelligent for them to understand. So they leave it at that. This again, the refusal to accept that a scientific theory might be wrong, leads to a loss for science, and it leads to humanity becoming dumber instead of smarter.

What are you talking about? People are investigating this stuff. The theory has many applications. We make use of it to correct satelite timings, and to measure masses of stars. The theory has been responsible for significant insights in to the nature of the universe.

Same thing goes on with evolution theory. Too bad you guys can't see the danger in accepting a theory which is not complete. I believe however, that evolution theory could be completed if you adjusted the logical fallacies which I was pointing out. And by doing so, this would lead to evolution theory being compatible with intelligent design, and even, creationism without contradicting any of the physical evidence.

Excuse me whilst I go off and headbutt this nearby wall.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Chayba sort of reminds me of this girl I know who throws around the term "logic" like it's her job, but really has no understanding of it or how to use it.

If you honestly believe I have no concept of logic, why even bother discussing with me? How exaclty is this logical? It is you who is abandoning logic for the sake of defending your ego, you are attacking my person, you are using an argument ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

But the mere fact, that we are able to understand eachother, the mere fact, that we are able to communicate is proof that we both posses logic. How can you even deny this? It's making me sad you choose pride over reason. I believe every human being is capable of logic, which has been evidenced by Plato: he made an illiterate slave proof the theorem of pythogaros through question and answer.

I suggest, if you truly believe that I make no sense whatsoever, and am incapable of logic, that in the future, you simply ignore my posts. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Nearby stuff bends space more than far away stuff.

Now this is what I call a true scientific explanation. :

Anwyay, I understand your point, but do you understand mine? I'm only saying that making it forbidden to discuss current scientific theories, and trying to improve them, can only lead to the detoriation of science. Standing still is going backwards. Science is also evolving. It is a work in progress. We still have no unified theory.

No, the goal of science is to try and determine as accurately as possible the observed facts about the universe, and the explanations behind them. Making logical sense is a nice characteristic, but not essential. It's the accuracy and explanatory and predictive power that count.