Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
On this we definitely agree. Which is why you hear it repeated so often in the science threads that purely theological issues are outside the domain of science. But that doesn't mean, nor do most scientists claim (nor do I claim), that theology is all about nothing. As I've often said, only a "strict" materialist would declare that theological matters (gods, souls, heaven, hell, etc.) have no existence. All scientists, I assume, would agree that such matters can't be addressed by scientific methods. At least not yet.
I do however believe that science has made some cuts too narrow in trying to comply with a "scientific materialism". As an example, the study of the mind or consciousness would suffer if only the corporeal (the physical brain) could be considered. The same is true of information in biological systems.
But, thankfully, the physicists and mathematicians are not halted by such constrants and will continue to pursue anything that is at least one of these three: corporeal, spatial or temporal.
Wow! You are an "innocent," aren't you, PH? It's been my observation/experience that a whole lot of new research isn't even getting into the so-called peer review journals, because the "gatekeepers" and "custodians of the received wisdom" are there to make sure it doesn't ever see the light of day. And the reasons such first-pass "jurors" give for declining publication are so spurious and unreasonable as to be laughable. Indeed, one could laugh -- if what is actually going on here were not so very serious. FWIW.
Great catch, Lindykim. Well said!
It's part of my universal appeal.
Interesting, A-G. Of course, science must have more than "explanatory power"; in order to be science, it must also be able to make predictions. Now I wonder: What predictions does/can neo-Darwinism make? Somebody??? Anybody???
LOL, PH!!! However, you manage to duck my main point.
You've been around too long for such a question. In a nutshell, given the theory that all life is descended over time from earlier forms, one never-disproved prediction is that any fossil that is found will fit into that framework (Piltdown Man didn't, and turned out to be bogus). There is also the prediction that transitional forms once existed, and some of them may therefore be found. Many have indeed been found. Here's a load of such evidence, which I'm sure you've seen before, but maybe haven't studied: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
I also agree with you that Darwinism needs to make predictions about the future of species and needs more methods of falsification. At the moment, the original "randomness" tenet of the theory is rarely mentioned evidently because recent discoveries of regulatory control genes indicate many mutations were not by happenstance.
Perhaps the newer theories of autonomous biological self-organizing complexity will eventually replace the "random mutation + natural selection = species" formula.
That's about as difficult as predicting the future history of America. But if you can tell me what environmental changes will occur, I can make general predictions as to what will be the result -- if the environment changes slowly to allow evolution to take place. We do see some changes with predictable results. Where the climate is becoming more dry (or wet), there are observed changes in vegetation. What had been adapted to live there dies out, and better-adapted species take hold. The fossil record, and the geological record, tell us what's happened in the past. I can't predict the future. If the changes are gradual, life will probably adapt. But no one can tell you what, say, horses will look like in a million years.
Perhaps reexperienced would be a better term than reconstructed. If memory is holographic it would be useful to realize that holograms do not contain all the information of the original image. There is considerable noise and loss of detail in any real hologram. In the case of memory, the detail fades intil real information content is problematic. We tend to fill in gaps in details, and any trial lawyer knows, the fill-ins are not reliable.
One method of removing bias is to randomize not only the experiments but even the output data before analyzing. For example, were one trying to fit a straight line to a set of (x,y) pairs, one would have another person (or even a computer) just give you new values X=ax+b and Y=cy+d for four random numbers a,b,c,&d. The person doing the fitting, fits Y vs X by any means wished (least squares, WAG, inspiration, chicken livers, etc.) without knowing even what ranges the fitted parameters should take. Afterwords, the true fit is back computed.
This has even been done in the following manner. A physics paper was written, refereed, and set for publishing without anyone knowing the exact results. After the referees checked the metholodogy and the journal accepted the paper, the real values (and conclusions) were computed and published.
Not really. Nature is only adequate. There are few optima.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. What has your experience been? Did you ever submit a paper for publication? Have you ever been a reviewer?
Your comments are false and a slur on those who actually publish and review. I don't think you understand the process at all. (Most people who haven't done scientific research nor review it don't. Many who take part in the process don't understand it either, even though they may be good scientists or reviewers.)
I've been in all four positions: submitted papers which were accepted, submitted papers which were rejected, reviewed and recommend publication, reviewed and recommend non-publication. Mostly peer review is concerned with sound methodology (which is why astrology doesn't get published much), spelling, grammar, numerical errors, and whether the article is somewhat original (so as to keep out plagerism or unintentional duplication.)
An unusual procedure, I assume. Do you know why this was done?
You say that like there's something wrong with infanticide!?
Aw, did you neglect to read the thread once again?
An abundance of transitional forms?
A reconciliation between the first law of thermodynamics and general relativity?
Repeated incidents of spontaneous generation?
New forms of life appearing regularly?
Five to ten new human base pairs added annually?
What a Kerry-flip-flopping surprise.
But there's no bone evidence either. There are appearances of new species in the fossil record, but no gradual descent from one species to the next. There are gradual moves in the fossil record, but they are pretty much all within-species.
An excellent critique of evolution is the book "Darwin's God".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.