Beau Perkins

Vivianne if this was true all research can end now.

__________________

detrius

The funny thing about missing links is that each time one is discovered and stops being "missing", two new ones are created. One to the left and one to the right.

And the admission that our knowledge isn't absolute and that there are "holes" in it is the very foundation of science (not just the theory of evolution). It's the reason why we're able to search for answers.

And science indeed has an agenda, it always had. It's called "advancing our knowledge of the universe".

Edit: Oh, and you and Viv are talking at cross purposes.

__________________

Aodhan McDunnough

Yep yep yep!

There is a difference between trying to prove you are right and trying to discover what is right then prove that it is right.

Science is the latter. Science doesn't give answers, it looks for them. When an answer seems to be found Science goes about trying to see if that answer is correct. If it's not, it continues searching. If it appears to be correct it tries to find out WHY it's correct (here is where proof comes in).

After all that, Science will continue and look for either a better answer or a deeper answer to something detailed. The process never stops.

That is Science's agenda.

Vivianne Draper

when i say that there are no holes, i mean that every piece of the puzzle found so far fits. there is no one piece that doesn't fit. I did not mean there is no more research to be done.

__________________

Beau Perkins

No no no this is not true, they do not all fit. Some are just loosely placed in there. Viv have you ever seen this "Tree Of Life"? Some of the things they stuck in the same branch makes no sense at all, it is all based on loose theory.

Science is doing this now with an Agenda to totally squish creation, not to advance our knowledge.

Science is in a dangerous position and it risks being abused.

Cindy Claveau

Not true at all, Beau. You're referring to taxonomies, which even paleontologists will admit are rather arbitrary.

But taxonomies are NOT the whole and sum of Evolutionary theory. The key component of Evolutionary Theory lies in how the parts fit, specifically genetic mutation, random genetic drift, environmental pressure, natural selection and the resulting speciation.

We know life mutates and speciates. The only debate - controversy is too of a strong word - lies in the methods by which that occurs. When Gould & Eldredge proposed "punctuated equilibrium", it was simply a suggestion as to why we don't find uniform evidence of gradual speciation, NOT as an argument against the idea of speciation and NOT as a proposition that species mutate overnight. Those people who misinterpreted what they said actually think that speciation can occur in a matter of days or a few years, when not even Gould & Eldredge ever suggested that -- in deep evolutionary time, "sudden" can be 10 or 20 million years. But the opponents of evolution never get that.

__________________
Sometimes, "I hit it with my axe" is the best solution.

Eirik

The Flemish catholic church turned its back on that crap several decades ago.

I was still taught Genesis in elementary school during religious education (catholic school ran by a priest).

During our bible classes we were also told over and over that anyone who takes the bible as literal is not a christian, but just a nutter.

OTOH they did teach us the pope was infallible. So they were just as much nutters.

__________________

Beau Perkins

Cindy if you look back, I said I had no problem with that part of evolution. Though when someone like Viv comes along and says there are no holes, I cringe.

It reminds me of fellow Christians I know who take what the Pastor says as absolute fact.

People are like that with science now. Without even giving an example or being specific, she was quick to say I am wrong, science is 100% correct.

No clue what I was talking about, just that she is ready to believe all science is correct because someone told her so.

There is no difference between the dangerous holy rollers and Science Groupies.

Aodhan McDunnough

Don't overreact.

Science regularly uses rather hard terms and they have specific meanings. I use the term "trivial" a lot and when I do I don't mean "insignificant." The trivial I use often means "requires relatively elementary thinking to work on." (aka something straightforward to do).

Please be forewarned that when scientists say "no holes" it doesn't mean it's complete. Our understanding of nature is still woefully incomplete so technically everything except mathematics has holes by default.

"No holes" is tantamount to saying "holds water" meaning the theory is sound and nothing has come up that disproves it.

I recommend studying some science in depth to get what we mean by the statements we say. Science is precise with terminology.

detrius

When I try to visualize Viv's and your approach to describe the growth of scientific knowledge, I see two different things. What you are describing resembles the growth of mold, a fungus that grows undirected, circumvents obstacles (therefore creating "holes"), explores and recedes. Viv's approach resembles an inflating balloon and when she says that every piece so far has fit, she means that it hasn't popped yet. The "holes" created by your fungus are the surface of Viv's balloon. It comes as no surprise that you two have trouble communicating your ideas.


*pokes*

Beau Perkins

Aodhan, I understand what your saying. Except I am refering to people who are not scientific who debate things by saying "Evolution has no holes" with no more scientific understanding than me. They just say so because it is "what they believe". It just reminds me of people who take their Pastors word as "truth"

A scientist saying "no holes" and someone on this forum proclaiming "absolutely no holes" are two different things.

Aodhan McDunnough

And I still say "Don't overreact."

What weight is a pronouncement like "no holes" in a forum like this? Don't give anyone's statements too much weight.

If they can back up their statements, THEN you react appropriately.

Mind taking things a little easier? You are intellectually wound up so tight a black hole won't be able to pull anything out of you.

Beau Perkins

How am I over reacting? I am stating my opinion.....

Are you saying I should only speak my mind on this forum if it goes with popular opinion? I am not angry. I am discussing my view point. What am I doing that is over reacting besides stating an opinion?

I think you need to stop over reacting, take that.

Aodhan McDunnough

By panicking at Viv's opinion.

Y'know maybe you should try out some real science or such. We have fun, we don't take ourselves seriously. Usually the more fun we have with what we're doing the better results we get.

Beau Perkins

Panicking? No I am discussing a claim I find to be false.......

Sorry if it goes against your all knowing scientific understanding. Really....Viv and I never agree. Unless we are talking about Conservative Scum, we almost always agree there. I am just engaging in a discussion. I am not sure how that warrants this underhanded little passive aggressive attack of yours.

See that is an example of over reacting

Aodhan McDunnough

detrius

Are you talking about opponents of creationism like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers? Uhm, no... when they are dabbling with religious issues, that's philosophy, not science.

And it's not like science has told them to do whatever they're doing, so it's rather far-fetched to say that this is part of an "agenda to squish creation".

If you're worried about religious persecution, I'd rather be worried about creationists whose ideology is based on the idea that millions of Christians who believe in evolution aren't true believers and that they hold a monopoly on the truth.

Beau Perkins

Yes and I stick to that. There is no difference when someone says "It cant be wrong!" with any topic. I am not saying Viv herself is bad as a holy roller, just that the thinking can be just as dangerous to society.

Beau Perkins

detrius I am not worried about religios persecution. In this thread, pretend you don't know I believe in a God. I wrote off "creation" a long time ago (well Young Earth Creation).

Aodhan McDunnough

Doesn't worry me.

I leave room for people who have a lighter understanding of a topic for as long as it is not on a critical matter. Evolution is not a life threatening topic. Even the "it can't be wrong" thought isn't life threatening, just as the Pastor's pronouncements aren't life threatening.

Now if someone were to say that eating mercury is a way to alleviate headaches. THEN I throw down the gauntlet.

It's all perspective.

Cindy Claveau

It's not verbiage I would personally choose to describe the state of the theory, but the fact remains that there really is NOT any debate today on whether Evolution happens or not. It does, end of story. That part doesn't have any holes.

But the same cannot be said for the methods/mechanisms we believe Nature uses to achieve that evolution. That part - the theoretical description of the factual data - is still evolving, pardon the pun. And that's also the part that could some day be rewritten if new evidence is uncovered that contravenes what we know today.

* We know for a fact that mutations occur in every population, seemingly at random. Genetic variation is the heart and soul of survival - that diversity guarantees that some portion of any population will probably be immune to disease, for example, and that those survivors will pass on their immunity to their offspring. The question, I think, is "what is the definition of random?" Does it imply that evolution is a blind, random force with no ultimate outcome? Evidence would point in that direction, yes.

* We know that when populations are isolated from each other (as Darwin observed on the Gallapagos Is.) that there is random genetic drift. It may have nothing to do with natural selection at all, but just another example of the randomness I mentioned. So how much of common genetic variation is just random drift and how much is the result of the pressures of natural selection? I don't think we're sure of that answer yet, but we are sure that random genetic drift does occur. It was one of the triggers that moved Darwin to write his book in the first place.

* How fast? Darwin theorized that speciation was a slow, gradual process. That idea has been questioned and modified, for example with Gould & Eldredge's punc eek proposition. There's still discussion as to the speed of evolution, but there are no holes in the idea that evolution happens whether it's fast or slow. The problem with us laypeople is that "fast" implies a few years, but in terms of deep geological time, "fast" is really 10 or 20 or 50 million years.

Those are just some points I can come up with off the top of my head, and not a complete list. It's not exactly true that there are no holes in the theory, but it IS true that there are no holes in the fact that Evolution does happen and that every form of life on this planet descended from common ancestor(s). We even share genetic code with houseflies, that's how common the descent was.

The debates are over mechanisms and details now, not over the fact that Evolution is a fact.

Aodhan McDunnough

@Cindy

Can I haz wow emoticon?

Beau Perkins

Evolution does happen.

I've seen nothing that sells me 100% that we all came from single cell organisms. They have some good theories but nothing archelogical or scientific to prove we can trace evolution back that far.

That is an example of the kind of hole I am referring to.

Aodhan McDunnough

Ah, but that's not considered a hole. Like any other theory, Evolution is a work in progress. That which to your lexicon is a hole is regarded by the sciences as missing pieces (or missing links). All scientists will gladly tell you that there are lots and lots of missing pieces.

A hole is when you find something that says that evolution absolutely cannot be true.

Why is there no hole? Because everytime someone finds a piece, it still fits.

Scientists are fond of the puzzle metaphor when dealing with putting knowledge together.

So you've seen nothing that sells you 100% that we came from single celled organisms. Flip it around. While my knowledge of evolution is limited in such a way that I don't see the full connection between one-cell and us, I've also seen nothing that sells me 100% that we didn't.

Beau Perkins

Ahh. See but you are wrong.

Kids are taught in school the claim as fact. Also, we are pushing science to find facts that prove my statement true. Not pushing science to figure out where we came from.

I am just saying just like someone said earlier about religion, it seems much of science already came up with the conclusion, and is now looking hard to prove it as fact.