138 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

So is science deeper than psychology (which comes first)?

Psychology is a branch of science (on a good day) not the other way around.

[Aegist]

So could I be right in saying that
DNA is an "accident" without (as of yet) a clearly defined origin
it is in a constant state of mutation/adaption/evolution
with no clear aim other than to continue to self replicate and/or mutate
DNA has no other "purpose"!?

That would be about right.

Even replication isn't an 'aim' exactly, at least no more than rolling down a hill is the aim of a ball, or the goal of Hydrogen atoms in a star is to become helium atoms etc. It is just what happens because of the physical laws of the universe. Chemistry simply dictates that given DNA, correct temperatures, and/or an enzyme/catalyst, then it will duplicating a single strand into a double strand, and either one of those strands can then duplicate another strand. Thats all there is to it.

What is it [DNA] evolving for?

Because it is compelled too, just like gas entering a vacuum.

Why does it have a survival instinct?

It doesn't, but organisms which have arisen on account of evolution have a survival instinct because DNA which programmed a survival instinct into its bodies replicates more effectively than DNA which doesn't program such a rule into its bodies. (or more accurately, the ones which don't try to stay alive, die.)

Does it have a survival instinct?

No. It has no thoughts or goals or emotions or instincts. It is just a molecule.

How does it know?

It knows nothing

Could there be a perfect DNA with no further need for evolution?

No. Evolution is not a directed process, there is no end, and there is no perfect. There is only mutation (random) and selective pressure based on environment. Thus while it is feasible that an organism may reach the 'most adapted' to an environment, that organism would be less well adapted to a different environment. (Dolphins aren't so smart on dry land...).

[Aegist]

Is there any area/s in science in which scientist "believe" they have the/an answer/s?

To build a little on what LL said, I think it is important for you to understand that the beauty of science is that there are two factors that contribute to it.
1. Observations
2. Theory

Observations alone are meaningless. Theories alone are philosophy, or fantasy. What makes Science great, is that regardless of whether the theories are correct or not, the observations continue to be accumulated, recorded and added together. So while our theories may not be "100% true", they are without doubt improving with time, because we have more information, more data, more observations. Science must improve our knowledge.

So every step of the way we tend to think we basically have it. It isn't until a new observation proves our theory wrong, or matches with a different theory better, or a more parsimonious theory is created that we realise that we weren't as accurate as we could be.

[pSimonKey]

There seems to be a an Alice-in-Wonderland-like rabbit hole of science and mind stuff tools of calibration. Theories are concepts of the mind which is useing thoughs theories to examine itself. How outside of the mind is science?

[pSimonKey]

Okay I posted that one without reading the previous.
Still then, how outside of the mind is science?

Does this mean that things are probable rather than deffinate?

[bob_d]

Okay I posted that one without reading the previous.
Still then, how outside of the mind is science?

Does this mean that things are probable rather than deffinate?

Science is the search for truth.The problem is, that it is impossible to prove the truth of any statement in a way, that no doubt remains. Therefore the ideas of falsification and consistence were introduced in science. Furthermore it is not sure that there are things beside you and your mind, which would put everything inside it. But in your mind there had to be truth, too, so science would be possible there as well and all your imagined scientists would keep their jobs [thumb]

[Lazarus Long]

And which news you refer to?

Fox News?

[pSimonKey]

Okay I posted that one without reading the previous.
Still then, how outside of the mind is science?

Does this mean that things are probable rather than deffinate?

Science is the search for truth.The problem is, that it is impossible to prove the truth of any statement in a way, that no doubt remains. Therefore the ideas of falsification and consistence were introduced in science. Furthermore it is not sure that there are things beside you and your mind, which would put everything inside it. But in your mind there had to be truth, too, so science would be possible there as well and all your imagined scientists would keep their jobs [thumb]

LOL [lol] Sounds like a double backed sukahara with a one and a half twist [lol]

[Live Forever]

Okay I posted that one without reading the previous.
Still then, how outside of the mind is science?

Does this mean that things are probable rather than deffinate?

Science is the search for truth.The problem is, that it is impossible to prove the truth of any statement in a way, that no doubt remains. Therefore the ideas of falsification and consistence were introduced in science. Furthermore it is not sure that there are things beside you and your mind, which would put everything inside it. But in your mind there had to be truth, too, so science would be possible there as well and all your imagined scientists would keep their jobs [thumb]

LOL [lol] Sounds like a double backed sukahara with a one and a half twist [lol]

[?] [huh] [?]

[Aegist]

Yeah, those last few exchanges left me rather confused....

Is Science outside the mind?
Ignoring the obviously huge philosophical questions which are brought to mind with this question, Science is a human construct, designed to guide human actions. Thus the rules are in the mind only, but the observations are being measured in the real world. The theories that are then created for those observations are mental constructs, designed only to help us understand those observations.

So the concept of science, in the mind. The world which we are measuring, outside the mind. The theories constructed to make sense of observations, in the mind.


Are things probable rather than definite?
Always. This isn't just a Science thing, this is a philosophical epistemological thing. We can never know anything for sure, we can just assure ourselves degrees of certainty. Historically, Science has produced the best results when it comes to proveing past concepts wrong, and therefore continually improving our degrees of certainty of knowledge over our world.

Bob D mentioned falsification, which is one of the best ideals for science to be held up to. If you don't understand what Falsification is, then read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia..../Falsifiability

[Live Forever]

It surprises me that none if the ID people have brought up (or pushed very hard) on the concepts of theistic realism, irreducible complexity (ok, they have a little bit), or a fine-tuned universe. (among other things)

Ok, so it doesn't surprise me a lot since they are easy to argue against concepts, but it surprises me that they haven't been mentioned more (since they usually come up).

[luv2increase]

It surprises me that none if the ID people have brought up (or pushed very hard) on the concepts of theistic realism, irreducible complexity (ok, they have a little bit), or a fine-tuned universe. (among other things)

Ok, so it doesn't surprise me a lot since they are easy to argue against concepts, but it surprises me that they haven't been mentioned more (since they usually come up).

I am shocked that you would say that. As if we haven't mentioned those things in the Christianity vs Atheism thread???

[Live Forever]

It surprises me that none if the ID people have brought up (or pushed very hard) on the concepts of theistic realism, irreducible complexity (ok, they have a little bit), or a fine-tuned universe. (among other things)

Ok, so it doesn't surprise me a lot since they are easy to argue against concepts, but it surprises me that they haven't been mentioned more (since they usually come up).

I am shocked that you would say that. As if we haven't mentioned those things in the Christianity vs Atheism thread???

For the most part, no. The arguments have not been innumerated very clearly. Most of the stuff in that thread was Bible thumping or arguments for/against the existence of god(s). What I meant was actual logical arguments that I have heard before specifically for Intelligent Design. (I have been in other such arguments before as you might have gathered, haha)

Perhaps it is because there are not many ID people here, but I was expecting the traditional arguments that I hear all the time is all I was saying. (which I haven't, for the most part, heard yet here)

Note: That isn't necessarily a bad thing; They aren't very good arguments. I am just surprised, that is all.

[luv2increase]

It surprises me that none if the ID people have brought up (or pushed very hard) on the concepts of theistic realism, irreducible complexity (ok, they have a little bit), or a fine-tuned universe. (among other things)

Ok, so it doesn't surprise me a lot since they are easy to argue against concepts, but it surprises me that they haven't been mentioned more (since they usually come up).

I am shocked that you would say that. As if we haven't mentioned those things in the Christianity vs Atheism thread???

For the most part, no. The arguments have not been innumerated very clearly. Most of the stuff in that thread was Bible thumping or arguments for/against the existence of god(s). What I meant was actual logical arguments that I have heard before specifically for Intelligent Design. (I have been in other such arguments before as you might have gathered, haha)

Perhaps it is because there are not many ID people here, but I was expecting the traditional arguments that I hear all the time is all I was saying. (which I haven't, for the most part, heard yet here)

Note: That isn't necessarily a bad thing; They aren't very good arguments. I am just surprised, that is all.

By the way you speak, it sounds like you were very enticed by the other arguments which aren't listed here upon these forums. Might you care to discuss them? How about you tell me and the others here what those arguments were.

The arguments have not been innumerated very clearly.

Maybe it is only you who doesn't understand their meaning? If they weren't clear enough, something should have been mentioned by you instead of brushing over them. Your lack of attention and understanding which you fail to mention isn't my problem unless you ask for a clarification over something too difficult to comprehend.

[Live Forever]

By the way you speak, it sounds like you were very enticed by the other arguments which aren't listed here upon these forums.

Oh, I just was wanting to discuss the issue in general. In case you might not have noticed, it is a fairly big debate in many areas of society.

Might you care to discuss them?  How about you tell me and the others here what those arguments were.

Well, I just mentioned 3 of them. I can list more if you would like, but if none of them are going to be argued I don't see the point, which is why I just started with 3.

Maybe it is only you who doesn't understand their meaning?

Nope, I understand them fine. Thanks. )
(at least the ones I have mentioned, if you have others I would love to hear them)

If they weren't clear enough, something should have been mentioned by you instead of brushing over them.

My point is they were never even mentioned. They weren't even "brushed over", but never brought up in the first place. That is the whole point.

Your lack of attention and understanding which you fail to mention isn't my problem unless you ask for a clarification over something too difficult to comprehend.

I have understood everything so far I think. I was just saying that I was surprised some of the more popular arguments for intelligent design have not been brought up in a thread dedicated solely to the issue of intelligent design. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Live Forever]

Kirk Cameron and Bill O'Reilly get schooled on evolution:



I like how Bill thought he won the "debate" he had against Richard Dawkins. The video shows arguments for how the eye evolved, transitional species, and some other good stuff that creationists/intelligent designists are always trying to use.

[JonesGuy]

I always forget that other people don't know about phototaxis and eyespots. It seems so obvious, and is something I learned as a teenager.

[Live Forever]

Intelligent Design ruled "not science" in UK:
http://www.theregist...id_not_science/

[Aegist]

All around the world, governments and court rooms are all unanimously ruling that ID is not science. Yet people still believe the lies spread by the Discovery Institute that it is....

I guess time alone will solve that problem.

[luv2increase]

All around the world, governments and court rooms are all unanimously ruling that ID is not science. Yet people still believe the lies spread by the Discovery Institute that it is....

I guess time alone will solve that problem.

Well, call me stupid. Since court rooms are saying it, it must be right. I'm glad that I don't let court rooms dictate my beliefs.

[Aegist]

So we have
1. Philosophy of Science says it isn't science
2. Scientists say it isn't Science
3. Courts say it isn't Science
4. Governments say it isn't Science
5. Laymen say it isn't Science

What would it take to convince you it isn't Science luv2? God himself? Too bad he doesn't make many public appearances since...well..ever.

[Live Forever]

All around the world, governments and court rooms are all unanimously ruling that ID is not science. Yet people still believe the lies spread by the Discovery Institute that it is....

I guess time alone will solve that problem.

Well, call me stupid. Since court rooms are saying it, it must be right. I'm glad that I don't let court rooms dictate my beliefs.

Lol, no it is the scientists that are saying it. Intelligent design people just try to bring it up in court and (thankfully) get smacked down.

If you have some kind of scientific evidence to bring up in favor of ID, I'd love to hear it, but my previous calls for such evidence were ignored.

So we have
1. Philosophy of Science says it isn't science
2. Scientists say it isn't Science
3. Courts say it isn't Science
4. Governments say it isn't Science
5. Laymen say it isn't Science

What would it take to convince you it isn't Science luv2? God himself? Too bad he doesn't make many public appearances since...well..ever.

If God were to appear and say it, I might actually believe it. (and believe in Him) Until then, I'll take the almost 100% agreement among biologists and people who study it to be proof enough.

[JonesGuy]

All around the world, governments and court rooms are all unanimously ruling that ID is not science. Yet people still believe the lies spread by the Discovery Institute that it is....

I guess time alone will solve that problem.

I dunno, there's an endemic effort to spread propaganda.

[Live Forever]

Evolution IS a blind watchmaker. For anyone still confused about the concept:

[lucid]

It seems that earlier, I confused the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis when I was talking about the creation of the first cell. I had always figured that was part of the theory of evolution.

[Aegist]

Well, the fact is, the line separating Abiogenesis and Evolution is not easily drawn. Life had to start for evolution to happen, and that is Abiogenesis, but the second it starts, it becomes evolution.

The real problem is that what constitutes life isn't as clear cut as "now it isn't, now it is" so whether abiogenesis was the creation of the first 'cell' or whether it was the creation of the first replicative Nucleic Acid, or the first template molecule or I don't know. Maybe the first Cell did in fact evolve from the first replicative molecule.... or perhaps the first cell spontaneously arose. Untill we know how life actually started, it is hard to say when life arose and when it started evolving...

I do personally think that the whole process is a sort of evolution. But it isn't Darwinian Biological Evolution until AFTER biogenesis.

[Lazarus Long]

Speaking of abiogenesis here is an article on the backwards engineering of synthetic life forms.

"Scientists take step to making synthetic life"



The gist is that they are working in both the bacteria down and virus up directions to find the sweet spot of how to make life in a test tube.

[pSimonKey]

So "we" don't know what initiated Abiogenesis!?