I wrote “There is no theory of science that requires that a challenge of the theory must offer an alternative theory, yet you persist in attacking an alternative of your choice as if its either a choice between evolution or the alternative.”
You responded “I'm sorry, but that is so convoluted as to almost make no sense at all. Are you really trying to say that if one does not like a theory, they do not have any responsibility to propose what they think is a better, more explanatory/predictive theory?”
I said “challenge a theory” which you turned into “like a theory”. A challenge is evidence, regardless of the source or motive, that a theory has a flaw, one that may be sufficient to overthrow the theory. No one has an obligation after demonstrating the flaw to offer a correction to the theory or an alternative theory.
There are three experiments that challenge the invariance of the speed of light (Fermi Lab, Rio and CERN). Other researchers revisiting the Michelson-Morely data believe they may have been too ruthless eliminating data as background noise and may have reached a wrong conclusion as a result. If any one of the experiments can be reproduced and no systemic or logical flaws are found, then it can be proved that the speed of light is not invariant. If any one or all three experiments do the same, the General Theory of Relativity will either need a major overhaul or replacement. None of the experimenters is required to do the overhaul or propose the alternative. That would be a ridiculous burden. Science doesn't work that way and you should know better. Yet I see you repeat this claim in a later post.
You go on to say “If a theory is rejected, and there is no alternate theory to take its place, how can scientists possibly continue to do research?”
Rejection of a theory does not bring research to a halt and in fact, has exactly the opposite effect. From the description of some work you did, you said you had to account for the effects of evolution on a cell line. Actually, you were accounting for the fact the cells would mutate. A mechanism, or theory explaining the reason for the mutation was irrelevant as long as you had a sound method based on experimental data to account for those mutations.
You later assert “The challenges which are, in your words, “based on mathematics, information theory and a sprinkling of good old common sense,” are, in reality, based on a fundamental lack of understanding of biology and the nature and purpose of scientific theory. Not one challenge has been based on a legitimate science-based argument.”
Quite the contrary. A mathematician is not required to have an understanding of the physics behind the development of the Field Equations to validate or invalidate a particular solution of those equations. In fact, the prediction of the existence of blacks holes was based on a purely mathematical solution. It is astronomers, not physicist that are turning up the evidence to support the mathematical solution. Whether the astronomers have training is theoretical physics or not is irrelevant to their discoveries and only relevant when they try to explain the nature of what they observe. Biology is no different because if it were, it wouldn't be a science. Trying to shield a theory from scrutiny on the pretense you suggest is anti-scientiffic.
I said “By the way, I did a lot more reading about horse evolution and found most of the disputes are within the evolutionist community.”
You turned that to “Your objections here are to the nature of science. It is true that scientists often disagree with each other on the details, and spend inordinate amounts of time discussing those disagreements.”
I wasn't objecting to anything but making an observation. Again, you deliberately misrepresent what I said. I was illustrating how science works and that some people involved in the development of evolutionary theory were sincere in the pursuit of science while others were playing games. The point was evolution is not a “settled science.”
You continued with “It is a fact of life that new research often reveals flaws in older research that necessitates revising details and even renaming species. As I've pointed out before, science is an iterative process. That's the nature of science.”
No kidding. I would never have known that unless you said it [sarc].
I said “I don't have a degree in the life sciences, thank God, or I might be in that universe of small minds that defend their theories by devious and disingenuous means.”
That was sarcasm if you didn't get it, but you responded “What a shame that you've never had enough curiosity about the natural world to be motivated to pursue an education in the life sciences. How sad that you must narrow your world-view so that you won't encounter anything that contradicts your belief that a creation story from the Bible is meant to be believed as a literal account, instead of being taken as a moral lesson.”
Considering you have no idea of who I am, my education, experience, interests and beliefs, you prove exactly what I stated, that you are a narrow minded person who, if you cannot defend the criticism of the science, attack the critic, making up whatever you want about them as you go. That is being devious and disingenuous.
You have yet to point out any flaws in my posts. You've made it quite clear that you dislike what I am saying, but that doesn't mean that what I have said is flawed.
I said “challenge a theory” which you turned into “like a theory”. A challenge is evidence, regardless of the source or motive, that a theory has a flaw, one that may be sufficient to overthrow the theory. No one has an obligation after demonstrating the flaw to offer a correction to the theory or an alternative theory.
Let's put it this way: someone who likes a theory, who finds that every prediction they make based on the theory pans out, is unlikely to challenge it. Someone who finds that the theory falls short and does not adequately explain observations, or does not inform accurate predictions, probably does not like the theory and is more likely to challenge it. Most likely, they will challenge the component of the theory that they find inadequate. The fact that components of a theory are frequently challenged does not mean that the entire theory can be thrown out. The theory of evolution has been revised and refined numerous times, because scientists have challenged it. Literal young-earth creationists do not, in fact, challenge the theory on a scientific basis, nor do they demonstrate any interest in the science. They want the entire theory to be tossed out, and offer no alternative.
As for your assertion that "No one has an obligation after demonstrating the flaw to offer a correction to the theory or an alternative theory," I'll just say that it is difficult to conceive how someone would demonstrate a flaw if they did not, in fact, already have an alternative hypothesis in mind.
There are three experiments that challenge the invariance of the speed of light (Fermi Lab, Rio and CERN). Other researchers revisiting the Michelson-Morely data believe they may have been too ruthless eliminating data as background noise and may have reached a wrong conclusion as a result. If any one of the experiments can be reproduced and no systemic or logical flaws are found, then it can be proved that the speed of light is not invariant. If any one or all three experiments do the same, the General Theory of Relativity will either need a major overhaul or replacement. None of the experimenters is required to do the overhaul or propose the alternative. That would be a ridiculous burden. Science doesn't work that way and you should know better. Yet I see you repeat this claim in a later post.
I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that the speed of light is not invariant is taught in first-year physics classes; the speed of light is affected by the medium through which it travels and the gravitational field. I seem to remember doing several experiments showing exactly that in the physics lab courses. I think, if you're going to discuss relativistic aspects of light, you need to define your terms a bit more precisely.
Again, your assertion that "None of the experimenters is required to do the overhaul or propose the alternative" is just plain wrong. If those experimenters set out to challenge an aspect of the general theory of relativity, they had an alternate explanation in mind long before they conducted the experiments (hint: it was written into their grant proposals). If they didn't have an alternate in mind, they wouldn't have been able to design experiments. Designing a hypothesis and corresponding null hypothesis are absolutely crucial to the research process, and no scientist would ever insist that they are dispensable. To my knowledge, the theory of general relativity has been refined, but is in no danger of being outright rejected.
Rejection of a theory does not bring research to a halt and in fact, has exactly the opposite effect. From the description of some work you did, you said you had to account for the effects of evolution on a cell line. Actually, you were accounting for the fact the cells would mutate. A mechanism, or theory explaining the reason for the mutation was irrelevant as long as you had a sound method based on experimental data to account for those mutations.
Outright rejection of a working theory--the goal of young-earth creationists--*would* bring all life sciences research to a halt. Remember--research isn't possible without formulating at least one hypothesis and null hypothesis. And those hypotheses and nulls are formulated based on the principles of the theory of evolution. Why do I have to account experimentally for the effects of mutation on my cell line (or my bacteria or yeast)? Because the theory of evolution tells me that evolution is a continuous process, whose effects we see in mutations. Put into the most simple form I can think of, evolution is the process by which the genome of a given population changes over time. This is not the theory; this is the process observed throughout history that the theory was devised to explain. If you want to show that evolution does not happen, you'll have to show that genomes (at the population level) do NOT change over time. That's impossible...
Quite the contrary. A mathematician is not required to have an understanding of the physics behind the development of the Field Equations to validate or invalidate a particular solution of those equations. In fact, the prediction of the existence of blacks holes was based on a purely mathematical solution.
Hmm, I'd really like to see the mathematician who can derive all of those equations describing physical phenomena without actually knowing anything about the physics. Although, I suppose it is possible to derive equations in the absence of a physical context; it still requires a scientist to recognize that the equations can be applied to a physical phenomenon.
It is astronomers, not physicist that are turning up the evidence to support the mathematical solution. Whether the astronomers have training is theoretical physics or not is irrelevant to their discoveries and only relevant when they try to explain the nature of what they observe. Biology is no different because if it were, it wouldn't be a science. Trying to shield a theory from scrutiny on the pretense you suggest is anti-scientiffic.
Astronomy is, as far as I can tell, a special branch of physics. I'm not going to get into a discussion of "theoretical" physics vs. some other type of physics, since I do not see how theories can be proposed in the absence of some sort of experimental testing. All of the "hard" sciences deal with physical objects and can be considered off-shoots of physics, whether we call them "biology", "chemistry", "molecular biology", "geology", "meteorology", or whatever.
And no one is trying to "shield a theory from scrutiny," as you put it. We're defending science from the anti-scientists who want to shut down life sciences research because--let's face it--they believe it goes against the will of God.
Considering you have no idea of who I am, my education, experience, interests and beliefs, you prove exactly what I stated, that you are a narrow minded person who, if you cannot defend the criticism of the science, attack the critic, making up whatever you want about them as you go. That is being devious and disingenuous.
The language you use and the assertions you have made about the scientific process tell me a great deal about your educational background. You have said that you program computers, and you mentioned working with engineers. I probably don't know much about your interests or life experience (although I could probably read through your posting history and find out, if I wanted), and your beliefs are pretty evident. I could be wrong, but I'm also guessing that you're a guy, based on the fact that physics and computer programming don't interest females nearly as much as they do males.
If the definition of a "narrow-minded" person is someone who has an unquenchable desire to know everything about the physical world and has devoted years to getting an education towards that end, I wonder what the definition of a "broad-minded" person would be...
I've yet to see a literal creationist present a bona fide scientific criticism of the theories that guide life sciences. I'll go out on a limb here by stating my belief that no such criticism exists.