Posted on 07/10/2006 12:22:16 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Reminds you of Baghdad Bob doesn't it?
Not exactly. Only the science side makes testable predictions about what physical evidence will be found in the field or lab.
Two (out of thousands) examples:
1) If a genetic marker is found in both cows and whales, but is not found in horses, tell which category each animal goes in:
1) will definitely have the same marker.
2) definitely won't.
3) not enough data.
People, pangolins, 'possums, pigs, platypuses, camels, cats, hippos, rhinos, elephants, zebras, giraffes, dogs?
The ToE can answer questions like this. So far, its answers have always been confirmed by actual genetic testing.
Neither the ID nor the creationist faction of the anti-evolution coalition can answer the above questions (or many others of a similar nature) correctly.
This shows that neither one is as powerful as standard biology.
This fact, coupled with the fact that neither one is a scientific theory, shows that they have no place in science classes.
2) The recent discovery of Tiktaalik.
The paleontologists used the ToE in two ways: 1) it predicts what a transitional between fish and amphibians should look like, and 2) it predicts what ancient environment it was likely to have lived in.
Both predictions were fulfilled, as usual.
For the scientists, no issue. They make hypotheses, test them and proceed from the results.
For the IDers, the issue is that they declare reproduction to be irreducibly complex and therefore beyond access to scientific study.
For other Biblical literalists (not in the ID camp), the results of these studies seem to them to contravert their understanding of the current translations of the Bible, and rather than challenge their understanding, they try to challenge the science.
We evos are so predictable </sigh>.
And your example. Google "baraminology" - I am sure you will be surprised.
False. By its very nature as a well-supported and well-tested scientific theory, it has already shown the ability to make predictions. You just don't want to acknowledge that. There have been several recent threads about a find where both the nature of the fossil and its likely location were predicted--and then found.
And your example. Google "baraminology" - I am sure you will be surprised.
I was surprised. I have rarely seen such a vapid cluster of words masquerading as a pseudoscience.
Hmmm. Let's say that a genetic marker is found in both cows and pigs, but not in horses. According to the ToE, it will also be found in sheep, deeer, giraffes, hippos, dolphins and whales.
Please explain how "baraminology" accounts for this fact.
Are the species in a "baramin" either all "clean" or all "unclean"?
Well, these facts were predicted, and the theory of common descent was used to make the prediction.
I think what you're trying to say is that we don't know how to predict the future of species; eg. is the "flying" squirrel a transitional to a truly flying rodent.
I'll tell you what - you tell me the environment for the next 500,000 years, and I'll make a pretty good guess as to what traits will be selected for. Ice Age - hairier; drought - more efficient kidneys; harsh winters - hibernation
Guidelines In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information [bolding added]. Source.
This is not science!
This is a real clue as to the methods:
Scripture claims ... This has priority over all other considerations.
Baraminology is apologetics, pure and simple. It is religion trying to masquerade as pseudoscience hoping to be passed off as real science. While the article claims, "ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information," it comes up with the same answers! And they are far from those arrived at by the scientific method. Hmmmmm.
For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may appear to be a preposterous proposal. Source.
At last! Something I can agree with!
Placemarker
Interesting. Based on this "logic", just about everyone convicted of murder needs to be released now. Do you have any idea how many criminals have been put away because of the work of forensic scientists who were not "actually there at the time of death"?
"The scientific process did not exist a million years ago, so there is no way to test accurately a million year old subject as there was no one there to observe it,..."
Which brings us back to you releasing all the prisoners convicted on forensic evidence, where there was no one there to observe the events. Forensics is not constrained by whether the subject existed before science was invented; what matters is whether the investigator is using science now.
The logic of forensics is the same whether the body is 2 weeks dead or a million years dead (though the techniques will obviously be different, as in the later case you will be working with fossils.)
So you presume to know my "one objective"? Actually, I have many objectives, one of which is to point out the inconsistency of certain arguments I see being put forth. For example, you *once again* bemoan the fact "there was no one there to observe it" with regards to a million-year old subject, while glossing over the point I made about scientists drawing conclusions about a murder scene of which they were not observers.
The principle, you see, is whether or not we can draw conclusions about events which have had no observers, using "just" the evidence available. There are so many examples of this (forensics being but a single one) it is impossible to list them all. Some situations have more available evidence, some less. But the principle remains.
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.