Replies

Mylo,

You clearly know what the scientific method is, and I applaud you for that. You certainly cannot test God scientifically. You can see His necessity in probability.

I misspoke with I said evolved from chimps, just as you did when you said "while the chip remained".

I believe that mutation and natural selection can produce different species--even though that has not been observed. But it cannot account for the evolution of the human brain given the mechanisms of evolution, the time given, and the condiitions.

Do a little thought experiment:

how much time was there between emergance of our proto-ancestor and homo sapiens

what are the selective pressures

how often are beneficial genes passed on in germ cells, factoring in the low birthrate of hominids

how often are beneficial mutations in the brain--a most sensitive organ

if the mutations in the brain were enough to make mating with other members impossible (ie speciation), then what is the probability that two members of this new species would evolve in each others short lifetime, make contact, produce offspring that had the positive mutation, that offspring survived, and so on

how many mutations were necessary to differential our brain potential from our proto-ancestor

I'd like to share how I view scientific knowledge versus belief in God. On the x-axis there is sci knowledge. On the y-axis there is belief in God. At first when knowledge increases, belief decreases; you metaphorically realize that God does not push the sun across the sky. Then as knowledge continues to increase and you look deeply into the mechanisms and observational evidence (not hypothetical evidence like math-based quantum mechanics) your belief in God increases as the more you know the more God needs to be a part of it.

I am not saying ID is a theory, but it is a plausible philosophy. It should not stifle scientific research by allowing for the "who cares; God did it" course of action--but it is certainly not irrational or its evidence unscientific.

Learning science is just like reading the paper--you need to have a discernible eye. Just because NewScientist.com says that "String Theory helps explain origin of matter" doesn't mean that is agreed with or even in a large minority seen as accurate. That is one researcher who was interviewed. You need to look at consenses and trends.

What I said was "while the chimp remained a small brained species". This is correct. The common ancestor we share with a chimp was a (relatively) small brained species, and while we developed a large brain, they REMAINED a small brained species (i.e. they continue to share that trait with our common ancestor).

It was about 6 million years or so (going from memory) to account for that 1% difference in the genes between us and a chimp. Looking at where that difference accumulated you can see a pattern. There is the most difference in DNA that doesn't code for protein. There isn't much reason for conserving it, as far as evolutionary fitness, and so random mutations tend to crop up there more frequently. The changes in the DNA within genes are mostly conservative mutations (every conservative should know about conservative mutations) that, while they make a difference in the DNA (some of that 1%)the amino acid they code for at that position is exactly the same; once again not much selective pressure to keep it "real" if you get the same result. Only a little of the difference actually makes a difference as far as the actual protein that gets made. Additionally there are only two differences between chimps and humans on the chromosome level.

So this is what is needed over 6 million years. A 1% change in the genes, that if it wasn't from random mutation and natural selection, it looks exactly as if it was; and two chromosomal differences.

And to bridge THIS little gap you want to throw out the Scientific method and turn it all over to the philosophical posturings of people so dense that they think that Scientists have some sort of fetish for material explanations.

I'd like to share how I view the Scientific method versus the Superstitious method.

On the one hand we have ideas put forth by the people using the Scientific method. It is based upon observable phenomenon and measurable results that can be replicated. Based upon this theories are formed to better predict and explain the phenomenon.

On the other hand we have the ideas put forth by people using the Superstitious method. It is based upon nothing but how someone "feels" about the symmetry of the universe and their philosophy of complexity and how it can't exist without being designed by something in this universe, but somehow can in some other never before seen plane of existence where God lives. Based upon this scientific theories are attacked, and Scientists decried for only seeking material explanations that can help to observe and predict the universe, rather than philosophically relying upon non material and unmeasurable explanations that cannot be observed or predicted.

As one's knowledge increases along the X axis, they go from the negative area along the Y axis of philosophical cretinism and the Superstitious method and rise into the positive area along the Y axis of acceptance of unknowing enlightenment and use of the Scientific method.

You certainly cannot test God scientifically. You can see His necessity in probability.

How in the heck do you figure *that*? Sorry, but epistemology doesn't work that way. See my earlier post and associated link. Furthermore, all you can demonstrate with probability is that your *current* model (note: probability calculations can only be performed on the basis of a *specified* model) does not adequately explain the phenomenon under examination. It can *not* be used to rule out *all* conceivable (much less inconceivable) alternative explanations of a natural or deterministic type, because there will always be possible mechanisms which you have not yet thought of. In short, the *only* way you could actually rule out all possible naturalistic methods via "probability" would be to be *omniscient* yourself. Good luck with that one. And barring that, you can *not* "see the necessity" of supernatural involvement "in probability".

I believe that mutation and natural selection can produce different species--even though that has not been observed.

It has, actually. Furthermore, there are more ways of "observing" than the usual ultra-narrow one imagined by creationists.

But it cannot account for the evolution of the human brain given the mechanisms of evolution, the time given, and the condiitions.

You state your presumptions as if they were facts. Please stop it.

Do a little thought experiment:

Actually, I'd rather do some REAL-WORLD experiments -- you know, examining the evidence, testing predictions of a hypothesis against subsequent findings, that sort of thing. Just about anything can be "shown" via a "thought experiment", via armchair speculation, via ivory-tower theorizing. But the whole point of the scientific method is that human presumptions are notoriously unreliable -- sooner or later you're going to have to go out and do some real reality-checks, comparing your presumptions against the REAL WORLD. This is what the scientific method is all about -- it's rules about how to reliably do reality-checks.

how much time was there between emergance of our proto-ancestor and homo sapiens

Six million years.

what are the selective pressures

On average, 0.2 per basepair mutation.

how often are beneficial genes passed on in germ cells, factoring in the low birthrate of hominids

0.2 x (1-5)x10^-8 per generation.

how often are beneficial mutations in the brain--a most sensitive organ

Less than 0.7 x (1-5)x10^-8 per locus per individual per generation. If you want an absolute number, multiply by the number of basepairs involved in brain-related genes, and then multiply again by the size of the human population.

if the mutations in the brain were enough to make mating with other members impossible (ie speciation), then what is the probability that two members of this new species would evolve in each others short lifetime, make contact, produce offspring that had the positive mutation, that offspring survived, and so on

EERRNNTT!!! Sorry, you have a grossly incorrect presumption about evolution there, making this entire paragraph invalid. See this post of mine which explains the flaws in this common misconception.

how many mutations were necessary to differential our brain potential from our proto-ancestor

Fewer than 0.7 x (1-5)x10^-8 per locus per generation.

And by the way, the measured rate of non-deleterious novel mutations in humans is around four new mutations PER PERSON, meaning there are over twenty billion new mutations in the human genepool as we speak. That's a lot of variation for natural selection to act on and drive evolutionary change.

I'd like to share how I view scientific knowledge versus belief in God. On the x-axis there is sci knowledge. On the y-axis there is belief in God. At first when knowledge increases, belief decreases; you metaphorically realize that God does not push the sun across the sky. Then as knowledge continues to increase and you look deeply into the mechanisms and observational evidence (not hypothetical evidence like math-based quantum mechanics) your belief in God increases as the more you know the more God needs to be a part of it.

Does not follow (how does increased knowledge of how things work naturally result in "knowing" that "God needs to be part of it"?), and is a standard "god of the gaps" argument, which has a number of known flaws (try Google).

I am not saying ID is a theory, but it is a plausible philosophy.

...for suitably loose definitions of the word "plausible".

It should not stifle scientific research by allowing for the "who cares; God did it" course of action--but it is certainly not irrational or its evidence unscientific.

Um, *what* "evidence"? So far all you've offered is the usual "god of the gaps", "argument from incredulity", and "false dichotomy". The first is intellectual laziness, the last two are logical fallacies -- and none of them are "evidence".

Learning science is just like reading the paper--you need to have a discernible eye.

Indeed.

Just because NewScientist.com says that "String Theory helps explain origin of matter" doesn't mean that is agreed with or even in a large minority seen as accurate. That is one researcher who was interviewed. You need to look at consenses and trends

And the relevance of this observation to the current discussion would be...?