News and Politics Forum

Buho wrote:

Turbio wrote:

Buho wrote:

I'm interested how the theory of evolution can be disproven.

If it could be shown that biodiversity and ecological systems today are not substantially different from any other period in history, that'd be a good start.

A few things:  First, that's it?  Is that the only thing that can falsify neo-Darwinian evolution?  I would have expected something...I dunno, more robust.  Second, as I said above, how sure are you that exceptions to this rule will not be "explained away?"  Third, how familiar are you with the phrase "morphological conservation?"  Or "living fossils?"  Have you heard about the recent platypus find that pushes its line back 200%, and the fossil is essentially identical to living platypuses?  Fourth, have you heard of the "Cambrian explosion?"  It seems to me that the biodiversity at this point looks to be identical to what we have today in the oceans.  So, is evolution falsified?

I wrote the above (off-topic) post two days ago and Turbio didn't respond.  I would have left it alone except I just ran across this recent article titled "Ancient Marine Invertebrate Diversity Less Explosive Than Thought" which pretty much satisfies Turbio's (simple) falsification criterion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 140718.htm

Graphs of diversity over time can be viewed in the original paper.

Let you think this is not considered a falsification, a follow-up article is titled "Disproving Conventional Wisdom On Diversity Of Marine Fossils And Extinction Rates."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 090057.htm

Of course, to be fair, even I wouldn't hold his falsification criterion as gospel.  It's much too simple and doesn't account for the many predictions the speculation of evolution makes and has made in the past.  But this is all off-topic anyway.

Have we reached a consensus on the usefulness of the grand speculation of evolution to advance science?

Have we reached a consensus on the usefulness of the grand speculation of evolution to advance science?

If by "we" you mean "fundies", sure.

Let you think this is not considered a falsification, a follow-up article is titled "Disproving Conventional Wisdom On Diversity Of Marine Fossils And Extinction Rates."

It's not a falsification.  It's a refinement.  It doesn't disprove evolution in the slightest, it just calls evolution rates into question.

"Diversity among the ancestors of such marine creatures as clams, sand dollars and lobsters showed only a modest rise beginning 144 million years ago with no clear trend afterwards, according to an international team of researchers. This contradicts previous work showing dramatic increases beginning 248 million years ago and may shed light on future diversity."

Which merely shows that diversity of mollusks and crustaceans has not substantially increased recently.  I'd be impressed by a study showing that overall, global, terrestrial AND aquatic biodiversity is roughly equivalent to levels across biological history.  This just illustrates evolution's erratic, ecologically-driven, fits-and-starts nature.   

Of course, to be fair, even I wouldn't hold his falsification criterion as gospel.  It's much too simple and doesn't account for the many predictions the speculation of evolution makes and has made in the past.  But this is all off-topic anyway.

It's a reasonable criterion.  If somebody were able to demonstrate that biodiversity now is substantially equivalent to that of the past, that the net number of species and lineages are unchanged, that speciation does not happen, that diversity has not increased over time, that would tend to cast the idea that the metagenome gains information over time into doubt.

Really?  That's odd...  The information I have seems to indicate that DNA is contained in structures made of proteins, peptides, and amino acids...  None can exist without the others.

The information you have is incorrect for prokaryotes.  Sorry. 

You have not been keeping up with current research on this issue...  ribozomes require the signals from the nucleus in order to act.  It is a complicated (like everything in the cell) act of balance between chemical messengers and cell needs.  I'm getting this info from 2008 published works that I'm reading currently

I have been keeping up on current research, and I may suggest that there's a wide gulf between "reading" and "understanding completely and in context".   You're neglecting to account for the fact that, while ribozymes require nuclear signaling when they are resident in cells, there is nothing about the capability of RNA to act as a synthetic catalyst that is inherently dependent on those signals.  Cell-bound ribozymes require them, but Cech and Zhang have no problem with in vitro RNA catalytic action.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 096a0.html

It is notable that the paper does not talk about the grand theory of evolution at all, but specifically "contemporary evolution," which, from what I gather, is observed genetic variation, adaption, and speciation.

That's all evolution is, dude.

Buho wrote:

Nach.  I was just asking because the thread got quiet.  Nevertheless, none of what your latest posts talk about advance the idea that the grand idea of evolution assists in scientific discoveries.  I'll show you what I mean throughout this post.

Point of clarification here.  I've been puzzled throughout this thread by the use of the idea that evolution must somehow assist in scientific discoveries.

Evolution is a term for a theory that describes how living things got to be the way they are.  What one makes of that depends upon what one is capable of making of that.  Science advances.  If someone doesn't grasp that, well...(shrugs)

Turbio wrote:

Buho wrote:

Let you think this is not considered a falsification, a follow-up article is titled "Disproving Conventional Wisdom On Diversity Of Marine Fossils And Extinction Rates."

It's not a falsification.  It's a refinement.  It doesn't disprove evolution in the slightest, it just calls evolution rates into question.

Buho wrote:

A "refinement."  Right.  When I think of refining, I think of, in mathematical terms, the Taylor series, where each iteration gets closer and closer to the theoretical number.  With your "refinement," I see chaos.  The current target is not slowly bearing down on anything, but jumping around erratically with each new find.  Each new study contradicts the last.

I can't address your consternation or your inability to grasp what Turbio is saying, I don't share your difficulty.  New studies often cause scientists to revise what they understand.  Try this exercise in redutio ad absurdum; a scientific study concludes that the moon is a planet like body that orbits the earth at a certain distance and is made of green cheese.  Other scientists go to the moon and, following a bunch of broken teeth, return to earth and report that the moon is not made of green cheese, but of rock.  I call that a refinement,  You apparently see it as a contradiction.

Shrugs...

Buho wrote:

I have to question what evolution is useful for if blue-green algae can remain essentially the same for three billion years while voles, guppies, anolis lizards, stickleback fish, and many others can evolve dramatically in a matter of three to thirty years.

Well, first, you certainly may question what evolution is useful for.  Dunno why you'd do that, but it's your prerogative, go ahead.

But your statement implies to me that you don't understand evolution.  Evolution is not some creature changing into some other creature, leaving us all standing around and wondering where the hell the first creature went.  Rather, like the case of the blue-green algae, some cells mutate and spin-off new, changed critters, while others remain unchanged. 

If the critter is not well adapted to its environment, it's apt to disappear.  But one especially well adapted to its environment is apt to hang around unchanged as long as that remains true.  Sharks and cockroaches have been around a very long time in essentially their current form. 

Buho wrote:

Turbio, I don't mean to be harsh, but you seem to be blindly reciting the evolution mantra here.  I'd like to encourage you to wake up a bit to see what's really on the table being discussed here.  When you say "recently," do you realize that you mean the last 100% of all mammalian history, the last 50% of complex animals (see the Cambrian explosion), and the last 25% of all multicellular life?  This is not recently at all, but a major fraction of the history of evolution, as the "theory" describes it.  250my encompasses the K-T extinction event, massive geologic upheavals and ice ages.  When you say evolution is erratic, you basically say it makes no predictions and cannot guide research at all.

Who said the evolution was able to predict anything?  It explains how living things change over time via random mutation; and how random mutations, when they provide something  that makes the offspring of the original critter more successful than the original, sometimes result in a new and better critter.  As noted above, sometimes the original critter was so successful that it remains around also.  And sometimes not.  (shrugs)

And the time scale varies.  What's your point?  Who cares whether its days or eons?  Fruit flys mutate in hours.  How is time scale significant? (hint: it ain't significant.  At all.)

Look at Australia, the way marsupials have evolved there in isolation illustrate this so well, it simply baffles me that reasonable folks are even having this discussion in the first place.

Well, that as much as I've got to invest in this matter.  As we say in southern Italy, Ciao, you all...

Last edited by Unka Bart (08-02-2008 01:53 AM)

zukiphile wrote:

As to your specific puzzlement, if one asserts that evolution is a scientific theory, then he should be able to show how it is used in the way other scientific theories are, i.e. as a paradigm on which further research and discovery are based.

Creationism is also a "theory that describes how living things got to be the way they are", but that doesn't make it an accepted element of a paradigm for biological research.

You seem to use a different dictionary than is common throughout the english-speaking world (beyond this forum, that is.)  Just as a frame of reference, I'll offer the Encyclopedia Brittanica to show you what the words I use mean to me when those words are "Scientific Theory" and "creationsim," respectively:

scientific theory:

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

added by yer kindly ol' Unka Bart:  as in the theory of evolution.  and as opposed to creationism, which by definition, does not

creationism:

the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo).

(parenthetically, US dictionaries are a bit more a bit more specific about creationism, e.g.; so as a lagniappe, I offer the first hit on Dictionary.com. There are others, but all are sufficiently similar.)

1.    the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.    (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.    the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

I'm sure that you can now understand my  puzzlement now.  If not, please refer to your own sig quotation, the line about explanation and comprehension.

You seem to use a different dictionary than is common throughout the english-speaking world (beyond this forum, that is.)

Your assumption that we were arguing dictionary definitions is mistaken.

Well, zuki ol' sport, it sure is hard to hold a rational discussion when one of the parties insists on using words in the common lexicon, but rejects the common definitions of those words and secretly substitutes his own.

It would be helpful in the future if you would do the casual reader the boon of announcing your dis-inclinement to use the vulgate in the subject at hand, feel free to simply regard this as a helpful suggestion and disregard it (as you will.)

But I confess that I suspected such to be the case, I'm glad you confirmed it.  On the plus side, it does dispel my perplexity alright.  Does bollox for advancing the cause of clear communication, but that's OK too.  Obviously, communicating clearly is not one of your priorities.  And that's OK too.

I understand that you've little apparent interest in the topic.  I encourage you to review the threads here.  That you see no overlap between the entries you cut and paste leave a reader to wonder how much you first pondered them.

Tut, tut, zuki old man, you've leapt to a mis-conclusion. I have diligently read all of the prior entries; that fact was what led to my confusion, and your disclosure above has cleared that all up.  Thank you.

The fact that I see no overlap between scientific theory and (religious) doctrine is easily explained by the fact that I speak conventional english. 

That you do see such an overlap is probably explained by the fact that you speak some new age language where the meanings you attach to the words we use in common is not readily known to a simple seeker of enlightenment as myself.

I'll offer the Encyclopedia Brittanica to show you what the words I use mean to me when those words are "Scientific Theory" and "creationsim," respectively:
scientific theory:

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited.

A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

Leaving aside the tautological nature of defining a "scientific" theory with the word "scientifically", review the entry.

I've split that so that even you can see that the entire definition is contained in the first sentence.  In the english language as it is commonly spoken, no part of ID fits any part of that definition.  To a speaker of the version of english commonly used, the second sentence can be seen to be an illustrative application of the general to the specific.

But if you find "scientific" as used in that second sentence to be a tautology, and as such interfers with your comprehension of the definition, I recommend that you contact the EB and set them straight.  They are known for their love of clear expression and would be embarrassed, if not downright humiliated, to learn of their faux pas.  And doubtless, grateful in equal measure, to clear things up.

According to the entry, ID is a scientific theory, yet few would contend that the issue is that simple.

Well not according the the entry, if one reads the entry and only uses the commonly agreed upon meaning of the words therein.  Of course, now that you've explained where you're coming from, I understand how you feel the way you feel.

Central to the issues in this and associated threads is the issue of what science is, demarcation, and how we know what we know.  If you are reluctant to engage beyond the EB, you will continue to be puzzled.

No, actually, I have you to thank for the fact that I am now totally and happily disfuddled. My former befuddlement, completely and thoroughly banished; even as we speak fading from my memory like the evanescent scent of a beautiful woman who passed unseen this way some moments ago.

As to my sig line, Bart, I understand your position, but it seems afflicted by torpor.

Beyond observing that being afflicted by topor beats being afflicted by crabs (no, I shan't explain), and beyond wondering idly what you understand my position to be, given our differing lexicons; I'll accept your claim. 

All is right with the world then, eh, Zuki?  And now that that is settled, my topor has transubstantiated itself into a more benign form of simple and total disinterest in pursuing this further.

An old soldier, I've spent enough time on the water to learn the futility of urinating up a rope.

Be well and have a happy weekend,

yer kindly ol' Unka Bart

Last edited by Unka Bart (08-02-2008 07:42 PM)

It takes a good man to know his limitations.

Why, thank you, Zuki, that's a nice compliment, I appreciate it!

Unka Bart wrote:

...but rejects the common definitions of those words and secretly substitutes his own.

Bart, your whining about me using an idiolect is transparently false.

Wow, we aren't talking about an idiolect, but your admitted, and frankly, snarky refusal to adhere to the conventional meaning of terms as they are defined. 

You lost the original argument the moment that you admitted that you couldn't prevail using the terms as they are commonly used.  Cloaking your responses in 50 cent words doesn't change a thing, and worse, is apt to embarrass you when you misuse them as you have here.

I'm only responding to the rest of the message because I get a perverse pleasure from doing so.  Bad idea on my part, (sigh,) just more ego karma to work off...

As to whining, wow.  You sure told me.  Pardon me while I creep quietly away and lick my wounds...

Just kidding.

Your entire response is nothing but another snarky bit of whining, and it's the only whining in this exchange.  Not that I mind, mind you.  My only question is,

(pauses, dons disguise as a french waiter, complete with pencil mustache)

"Would monsieur care for some fromage with that whine?"

  Turbio and I are closer to one another in our ideas about science than are you, your encyclopaedia, and I.

Well, let me be the first to wish the two of you the very best, I'm sure you'll be very happy together.

See, Zuki, you've been using your own meanings in lieu of the commonly accepted meanings for so long that you've lost your grip.  You may be irritated at me, but you've no basis for calling my remarks whining.  It's bad form, old man, bad form indeed.  Sign of hysteria, one might conclude.

Slow down and take a deep breath, there's a good fellow.

And as you and turbio being closer in your ideas about science than am I, my encyclopedia and you; well, that syntax is awkward to the point of being nigh incomprehensible in english.  Than are I (et al) what, one wonders...

You and I are not close, that would seem the point.  Are you Capt Obvious in disguise?

The idea that I've secretly substituted my own meanings is disproven not only by the many threads on this forum, but nearly a century of writing about this in the philosophy of science.

I'm having difficulty following you here, Zuki, ol' Kumquat.  Are you seriously claiming that many threads on this forum somehow prove that what you yourself proclaimed, that you weren't using the dictionary meaning of the terms...(squints his eyes, shakes his head, and still can't shake the headache that this convoluted line of thinking is giving him...)

What exactly, would "the many threads on this forum" have to do with our exchange, in which you unequivocally rejected the dictionary definitions of the terms of the discussion?  And, being entirely external to our discussion, they prove exactly squat relevant to our exchange.  If you can't make your point yourself, don't expect me to read the rest of this entire site expecting to find some rosetta stone that will magically prove your point for you.

It was you, dear zuki, not I, who disavowed the "dictionary meanings" of the terms in use, that the terms don't mean what the definitions say they mean.  This leads me to pose the perenial pergunta, to wit: are you currently under the influence of strong drugs, or is this disorientation of yours your usual (almost said "normal" but that would be a stretch, wouldn't it?) state?

Unka Bart wrote:

The fact that I see no overlap between scientific theory and (religious) doctrine is easily explained by the fact that I speak conventional english.

It really isn't.  It can more easily be explained by your having stumbled into the midst of a conversation, and having not yet gotten your bearings.

I'd see someone about that attention deficit, Zuki.  I understand that there are drugs that can work wonders and help you become aware of what's going on around you.

I showed you the difference between scientific theory and doctrine in unambiguous language.  That difference stands, all your rhetorical hand waving and hysterical bafflegarb, notwithstanding.

And compadre, I've had my bearings since before you were even a gleam in your daddy's eye.  I didn't stumble into any conversation, I read a thread and commented on the fact that it seemed pointless.  And gave clear and unambiguous reasons for my position.

What precisly is the epistemological difference between an unproven assumption necessary for a specific paradigm in the material sciences and one in any other metaphysical theory?

See Zuki, this illustrates the problem with not using the words as they are commonly defined.  Your juxtaposition of the terms "...in the material sciences and one in any other metaphysical theory" is what most of us call a non sequitur.

Unka Bart wrote:

I'll offer the Encyclopedia Brittanica to show you what the words I use mean to me when those words are "Scientific Theory" and "creationsim," respectively:
scientific theory:

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

An ID proponent will describe his systematic study of objects and events, describe the patterns and regularities he observes and posit his conception of the best explanation, as well as problems with other explanations.

Perhaps I was asleep at the time this happened.  Do be a good fellow and point out the number of the message in which that happened in this thread.

Clinging to an encyclopaedia entry like a drowning man to a life preserver is ultimately unpersuasive because it signals only the beginning of the inquiry, not as you suggest, its end.

Well, most of us in the world outside this list who get into discussions do indeed expect that we will have a common basis for defining the terms.  You call this "clinging to an encyclopedia entry..." and I laugh in your face in derision at the pathetic weakness of your response.

Perhaps that's rude of me, perhaps you simply don't get outside in the real world enough to understand how rational communication is conducted.  From your responses in this thread, I'm rather inclined to that view.

Do you genuinely not understand the problem with using a term to define itself?

Are you genuinely unable to read and comprehend english?  Is this an attention deficit  manifestation?  I addressed that previously.

Last edited by Unka Bart (08-03-2008 02:44 AM)

Unka Bart wrote:

You lost the original argument the moment that you admitted that you couldn't prevail using the terms as they are commonly used.

Your incuriosity about ideas as demonstrated in this exchange is not consistent with an attempt to understand the issue.

Unka Bart wrote:

Unka Bart wrote:

...but rejects the common definitions of those words and secretly substitutes his own.

Bart, your whining about me using an idiolect is transparently false.

Wow, we aren't talking about an idiolect, ...

A trip back to your disctionary would help you here.

Unka Bart wrote:

You may be irritated at me, ...

Up to this point, I thought you might be somone I know.  Bart, if I were irritated, I wouldn't have encouraged you to post in a PM.

Unka Bart wrote:

I'm having difficulty following you here, Zuki, ol' Kumquat.  Are you seriously claiming that many threads on this forum somehow prove that what you yourself proclaimed, that you weren't using the dictionary meaning of the terms...(squints his eyes, shakes his head, and still can't shake the headache that this convoluted line of thinking is giving him...

Take your own advice.

Unka Bart wrote:

Slow down and take a deep breath, there's a good fellow.

If you are having a rough time gaining a purchase on the conversation, search for the recent threads on science and ID in which MC Escher participated.  Contemplate the issues that arise in those, then see whether the encyclopaedia is still the end of your inquiry.

Unka Bart wrote:

What exactly, would "the many threads on this forum" have to do with our exchange, ...

They can be a part of solving what has left you puzzled in this thread, but only if you want them to be.

MC Escher recently provided the appearance of having lost his temper for being put through a discussion of just these issues.  I've little temper to loose, but I am not inclined to spend too many keystrokes on something so recently covered.

Unka Bart wrote:

What precisly is the epistemological difference between an unproven assumption necessary for a specific paradigm in the material sciences and one in any other metaphysical theory?

See Zuki, this illustrates the problem with not using the words as they are commonly defined.  Your juxtaposition of the terms "...in the material sciences and one in any other metaphysical theory" is what most of us call a non sequitur.

So, you've no substantive response? 

Unka Bart wrote:

An ID proponent will describe his systematic study of objects and events, describe the patterns and regularities he observes and posit his conception of the best explanation, as well as problems with other explanations.

Perhaps I was asleep at the time this happened.  Do be a good fellow and point out the number of the message in which that happened in this thread.

The attempted condescension would work better if you'd noted the underlined word above.  Use of the future tense doesn't lead a reasonable reader that something had already happened "in this thread". 

If you've any genuine questions on the issues, feel free to pose them.

I was out of town all last week and am now just catching up to things. 

Reading the exchange between Bart and Zuki, I couldn't help but think of fluted daggers.  I was thoroughly entertained by the flowery language disguising hidden ad hominems, which I'm not really a fan of.  Stripping those parts away, what I see left is a sort of meta-discussion on how people should reason, understand things, and define terms.  This is probably useful for those that need improvement in these areas, but it barely touches on the OP.

Bart wrote:

Point of clarification here.  I've been puzzled throughout this thread by the use of the idea that evolution must somehow assist in scientific discoveries.

Well, that is the OP:  Is evolution needed to further the advances of science?  Apparently you conclude that, no, it isn't.  I agree.  What then, is the purpose (use, design) of the grand speculation of evolution?  If its purpose has nothing to do with science, why did Dobzhansky say that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"?  This is an oft-repeated phrase of the NCSE, one of the more visible groups in the Dover ID trial.  No, if you consider yourself an evolutionist (as opposed to IDist or creationist), you stand completely alone in your belief that evolution is not needed to advance science.

Bart wrote:

New studies often cause scientists to revise what they understand.  Try this exercise in redutio ad absurdum; a scientific study concludes that the moon is a planet like body that orbits the earth at a certain distance and is made of green cheese.  Other scientists go to the moon and, following a bunch of broken teeth, return to earth and report that the moon is not made of green cheese, but of rock.  I call that a refinement,  You apparently see it as a contradiction.

A single fix is good, particularly when repeated observations confirm the fix is accurate.  But when a third observation concludes thirdly, and a fourth observation concludes fourthly, one wonders if the observers are bearing down on any semblence of reality at all.  Perhaps a real example would be better than a "redutio [sic, reductio] ad absurdum."  What killed off the dinosaurs in the K-T boundary?  The currently-popular theory is the asteroid impact theory.  But in scientific circles, this entertains only a modest consensus due to the amount of evidences that argue against this theory.  Other theories postulated over the past 50 years include:  extreme volcanic activity followed by drastic climate change, changes in Earth's orbit resulting in a drastic global cooling, mammals eating dinosaurs' eggs, large amounts of methane changing the atmosphere, herbivorous dinosaurs over-foraging and carnivorous dinosaurs over-culling, a nearby supernova radiating Earth, and smoking.  Each of these, I'm sure, have been hailed as a "refinement" that "sheds light" on paleontology, but I see nothing of the sort.  There is a good chance that in another 50 years a completely new theory from left field will displace the impactor theory.

Bart wrote:

Well, first, you certainly may question what evolution is useful for.  Dunno why you'd do that, but it's your prerogative, go ahead.

Considering how much federal grant money we funnel into evolutionary programs and museums, I think this is a serious question to ask.

Bart wrote:

Who said the evolution was able to predict anything?

On this thread, nobody.  It is good to establish this for future reference, though.  Is that your position, that the grand theory of evolution makes no predictions?  Wikipedia has something to say about that:

Wikipedia wrote:

In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous, (often quantitative), statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions, typically expressed in the form If A is true, then B will also be true. The scientific method is built on testing assertions which are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

A scientific theory whose assertions are not in accordance with observations and evidence will probably be rejected. Theories that make no testable predictions remain protosciences until testable predictions become known to the community. [Bold added by Buho, italics in original.]

Alchemy is considered a protoscience, since it helped usher in modern chemistry.  Some anti-evolutionists agree with you that evolution does not make predictions. 

However, most evolutionists assert evolution does make predictions.  NCSE is one such example.  So, again, you find yourself at odds with those whom you claim to belong.  Odd.

A little bit more on the discussion between Bart and Zuki....  I don't mean to gang up, but Zuki is right:  dictionaries and encyclopedias are the beginning of the inquiry, not the end.  Is it any wonder that most detailed papers include custom definitions in the beginning?  It is because the "dictionary definitions" are either too vague, too baseline, or are incorrect, as the paper will clarify.  Although the definition of creationism that Bart provided is good, it serves only as a minimal definition;  nearly every creationist I've met says creationism posits much more than this definition.  Therein lies the journey to understanding the issues. 

Nevertheless, I think Bart has an element of truth to what he says.  It may be that creation and evolution are less comparable than ID and evolution.  Bart did not elaborate on how "no part of ID fits any part of that definition [of scientific theory]."  I'm still digesting all this myself, so I'll hold off on further commenting.  At any rate, it's off-topic.

Unka Bart wrote:

Bart wrote:

New studies often cause scientists to revise what they understand.  Try this exercise in redutio ad absurdum; a scientific study concludes that the moon is a planet like body that orbits the earth at a certain distance and is made of green cheese.  Other scientists go to the moon and, following a bunch of broken teeth, return to earth and report that the moon is not made of green cheese, but of rock.  I call that a refinement,  You apparently see it as a contradiction.

A single fix is good, particularly when repeated observations confirm the fix is accurate.  But when a third observation concludes thirdly, and a fourth observation concludes fourthly, one wonders if the observers are bearing down on any semblence of reality at all.  Perhaps a real example would be better than a "redutio [sic, reductio] ad absurdum."  What killed off the dinosaurs in the K-T boundary?  The currently-popular theory is the asteroid impact theory.  But in scientific circles, this entertains only a modest consensus due to the amount of evidences that argue against this theory.  Other theories postulated over the past 50 years include:  extreme volcanic activity followed by drastic climate change, changes in Earth's orbit resulting in a drastic global cooling, mammals eating dinosaurs' eggs, large amounts of methane changing the atmosphere, herbivorous dinosaurs over-foraging and carnivorous dinosaurs over-culling, a nearby supernova radiating Earth, and smoking.  Each of these, I'm sure, have been hailed as a "refinement" that "sheds light" on paleontology, but I see nothing of the sort.  There is a good chance that in another 50 years a completely new theory from left field will displace the impactor theory.

You correction of my spelling is oddly disconsonant with the tone of the rest of this post, but, oh well.  Perhaps next time, you might just note that I am a dunce and let it go.  But seriously, I'm fairly dyslexic and if you think that was bad, you should see some of the text as it flows from my flying fingers while the stream of thought pours from my (alleged) brain before I check over the finished product

Of course your otherwise excellent discussion is correct.  You seem to believe that the statement of mine to which you respond was limiting, that it describes the full range of ways scientist treat data that do not fit a generally accepted theory or hypothesis.  A closer reading of the first sentence, "scientists often..." should make it clear that such was not the case. 

Other members of this group might prefer that I don't do anything to add the the length of my responses, and appreciate my (feeble) attempt at brevity...

I believe some members here would be more appreciative of something responsive to the point Buho made, i.e. the difference between refinement of an explanation and serial and wholesale replacement.

Buho also includes sic and bracketed inclusions in response to my posts.  I didn't and wouldn't take that as any sort of personal insult.

Unka Bart wrote:

Here's my view on this, without any attempt at rigor.  What evolution predicts is that all forms of life will mutate over time.  Some of those will prove to give that organism an advantage and be passed along resulting in a change in the organism in future generations.  Rinse and repeat.

What I don't believe (but don't rule out) is that it is useful for predicting with any degree of accuracy what the particular change(s) will be.

If evolution reduces to "things change", its explanatory power is more modest than some of its adherents suggest.

Unka Bart wrote:

It's not clear to me what you are asking me to respond to.  Why don't you clarify what is is you unclear about.  Extract the point that you believe Buho made that hangs unanswered and ask me a question about it.

zukiphile wrote:

Unka Bart wrote:

Bart wrote:

New studies often cause scientists to revise what they understand.  Try this exercise in redutio ad absurdum; a scientific study concludes that the moon is a planet like body that orbits the earth at a certain distance and is made of green cheese.  Other scientists go to the moon and, following a bunch of broken teeth, return to earth and report that the moon is not made of green cheese, but of rock.  I call that a refinement,  You apparently see it as a contradiction.

A single fix is good, particularly when repeated observations confirm the fix is accurate. But when a third observation concludes thirdly, and a fourth observation concludes fourthly, one wonders if the observers are bearing down on any semblence of reality at all.  Perhaps a real example would be better than a "redutio [sic, reductio] ad absurdum."  What killed off the dinosaurs in the K-T boundary?  The currently-popular theory is the asteroid impact theory.  But in scientific circles, this entertains only a modest consensus due to the amount of evidences that argue against this theory.  Other theories postulated over the past 50 years include:  extreme volcanic activity followed by drastic climate change, changes in Earth's orbit resulting in a drastic global cooling, mammals eating dinosaurs' eggs, large amounts of methane changing the atmosphere, herbivorous dinosaurs over-foraging and carnivorous dinosaurs over-culling, a nearby supernova radiating Earth, and smoking.  Each of these, I'm sure, have been hailed as a "refinement" that "sheds light" on paleontology, but I see nothing of the sort.  There is a good chance that in another 50 years a completely new theory from left field will displace the impactor theory.

You correction of my spelling is oddly disconsonant with the tone of the rest of this post, but, oh well.  Perhaps next time, you might just note that I am a dunce and let it go.  But seriously, I'm fairly dyslexic and if you think that was bad, you should see some of the text as it flows from my flying fingers while the stream of thought pours from my (alleged) brain before I check over the finished product

Of course your otherwise excellent discussion is correct.  You seem to believe that the statement of mine to which you respond was limiting, that it describes the full range of ways scientist treat data that do not fit a generally accepted theory or hypothesis.  A closer reading of the first sentence, "scientists often..." should make it clear that such was not the case. 

Other members of this group might prefer that I don't do anything to add the the length of my responses, and appreciate my (feeble) attempt at brevity...

I believe some members here would be more appreciative of something responsive to the point Buho made, i.e. the difference between refinement of an explanation and serial and wholesale replacement.

I’ve underlined the core of Buho’s argument, which was not about your spelling.  That is the portion to which I refer in the underlined portion of my response above that would call for a substantive response.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Unka Bart wrote:

My knickers are knot-free.

Certainly sounds like it.

Unka Bart wrote:

zuki wrote:

If evolution reduces to "things change", its explanatory power is more modest than some of its adherents suggest.

As ususal, you are correct sir.

That's why there are 4 sentences to my summation of my view, not just the first two you read.

Is your point that the other sentences contradict my observation?  I don't believe they do, so your explanation of their existence seems to have only frustrated your goal of brevity.  Or are you still feeling injured and searching for a good dig?

Bleh, I can't get all my thoughts out at once.  I meant to expand on the usefulness of evolution part beyond just money.  Yes, taxpayer money is one factor.  Other factors include:  the correspondence to reality, the impact on culture, the impact on worldviews, and the impact on eternal destiny with respect to how it contradicts Christian claims. To elaborate on the last one, many people, after accepting the general tenets of the grand idea of evolution, that humans have apelike ancestors, look at the historical claims the Bible makes, find they contradict the general idea of evolution, and reject the entire Bible, including the life-giving message of Jesus.  This is a logical inference.  But if the grand idea of evolution makes no substantive impact on science, how is it that the idea so thoroughly trumps the claims of the Bible, which checks out on archaeological and prophetic levels (i.e., a correspondence to reality)?  If people understood that the grand idea of evolution has no claim to reality, then the Bible contradicts nothing and the Biblical news of Jesus is not obscured.  If the Bible's claims on the eternal perspective are true, this is of utmost importance, no?

Further, for the evolution-lovers (on a philosophical level), if the Bible demands a choice -- to follow Jesus or not to follow Jesus, which it does -- then the evolution worldview is still freely available.  Atheists are free to be intellectually fulfilled.