Posted by gmays 4 days ago
I'll also add creating a throwaway account to mention you thought other comments were jokes doesn't feel in particularly good taste, regardless of how surprised you were about it. Just asking how many here hold different creationist views suffices to start the discussion.
Not sure I get the preprocessor analogy though. Unless you mean specifically changing some #define constants and not stuff like preprocessor macros?
I was thinking more like genetics is the code base, epigenetics are like decorators that can modify function without changing the behavior without changing code.
(Now, back to scientists seeing evolution which has none of these attributes of observation-driven science. An overloaded term meaning both adaptation and large-scale changes of which I'll focus on the unproven part.)
We'll start with the scientific method since it's usually absent in some way in these claims. We work from real-world observations to a hypothesis to testing that. There's usually predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. We must be willing to modify it or let it go entirely if we're scientists. There's also peer review by skeptical parties willing to consider alternatives. They're to be weighed on the bases of evidence, not feelings or politics. Dissent is always allowed regardless of credentials or numbers behind mainstream theories.
With this process, you'd have to look at the testable predictions of macro-evolution, observe them happening, observe no contradictions, and review by people who didn't have die-hard faith in evolution. Unfortunately, the theory fails in all of those areas.
First, we never see it happening in reality despite billions of observations over thousands of years. Second, life just appears out of nowhere fully formed in the fossil record, like the Cambrian explosion. Third, the man-made creatures don't change much or live long even under ideal, lab conditions but somehow random events worked better millions of times. Fourth, complexity science along with studies of life and the universe proved both are vastly more complex than initially assumed. We can't create them, esp self-sustaining. Yet, mainstream science keeps believing evolution just happened in a way that kept happening, doesn't now the same way, and just take their word for it. No dissent is allowed either with or without observations or experiments.
Eventually, there's going to be some actual science done. That requires evolution being marked as refuted by observed evidence. (Minor adaptation is proven, though.) They need to ask where we came from with a clean slate. They must factor in complexity theory, evidence of design, what optimization theory taught us about success rate of random vs intelligently-parameterized changes, and observations in programming like design and maintenance requirements. Whatever is predicted must match real-world observations. That will be science.
Christian scientists already do that. Our current theory is that the universe and humans must have been designed by a being whose power exceeds all human knowledge and technology. The purpose isn't scientifically discoverable. The Bible, separately proven, explains it's to know and glorify God (Jesus Christ) and reflect His character as we live together and love each other. The awe of the purpose, beauty, and brilliance of God's overall creation motivates us to dig deeper into it to understand it. That God requires truth to come first is why we can't allow popular, unproven lies about either science (macro-evolution) or theology (false religion).
I wonder if we went out into the world which we would find more evidence in favor of?
The mind is a frustrating thing.
This statement is doing a lot of work. I would be interested to see anything resembling proof that the bible is the inerrant word of a god.
Or look at recent examples of Covid strains evolving. There is not intelligence there either.
God (or what ever your source of faith is) will always exist, not because of anything Scientists uncover, but because all people are constantly faced with problems that require generation of Faith in themselves or others.
If you understand that you dont even need to use Science as part of you argument.
It would be a great news story. Especially if it contrasted the proof of minor adaptations within types of creatures vs lack of actual evolution of the kind we always read about. Then, explain what falsification is, evolution’s predictions, and how observations contrary to predictions should decrease belief in the theory.
Meanwhile, snails are still snails, ants are still ants, and chickens are still chickens. Billions of things not turning into new animals. It’s like God had to intervene to create these categories since it’s observationally impossible by chance.
Strictly speaking, this is a theory, however reasonable.
We know from history that life can be surprising, hence, from a truth point of view, it's better to be careful, avoid rushing to conclusions, especially if this implies closing all other doors.
If we don't, then we're sowing the seeds for discord for when our theories will need to be updated. And it's reasonable to think that they will, as, so far, most (all?) scientific theories has evolved.
IIRC, Darwin's views on evolution require patching e.g. to take into consideration chaotic incidents affecting mortality/genes propagation (e.g. asteroids, epidemics).
Maybe if that theory keeps accumulating patches, it'll end up very different from where it started!
Again, as I've said, it's a reasonable theory. Using the word "theory" isn't about casting doubt, it's purely about intellectual honesty, at least as far as I'm concerned.
The way it's taught is often in an absolute way. The way science is taught in general is in an absolute way. That's because humans struggle immensely with nuance.
Typical traditional Eastern views transcend this creationism/evolution duality for example; one more door to explore.
Changing your chromosome numbers is an entirely different (and unproven to have ever occurred) beast compared to simply expressing some different but previously already present genes due to changing environments (something easily observable).
Not sure why people aren't able to grasp that.
Meanwhile the proposed alternative seems to be: some dude just created it all and he's supernatural so we can't even conceive of a way to falsify his existence. Talk about fairy tales!
Edit: what? It is part of the sophisticated successor of falsification, it reflects the history of Science, and it just makes sense. I cannot give a course in a post. Find material Lakatos: it is more than absolutely worth it.
Could it have been lack of food as well? Humans got taller after having wide access to milk etc.
How did they control the experiment, given that it was on a rock in the ocean? Could the smaller variation have come from somewhere else?
Experiments like this one will not turn skeptics into even micro evolution believers.
Thus, there is no distinction at all between "microevolution" and "macroevolution".
For Macro, isn't it just longer. 300 years, 3000 years.
How would that be done in a lab to the satisfaction of anybody that would deny evolution to begin with.
There is no experiment that will satisfy people of this because they don't want to know.
Adaptation != Evolution
The article demonstrated adaptation
That's a weird way of thinking about it. What actually happens is that one species splits into two, when two populations of the species are separated for long enough to make them incapable of interbreeding.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
You show one species becoming another, they’ll complain about how it was done. Or how long it took, etc.
For instance, ring species are pretty good evidence of speciation. But that’s not good enough because all those animals exist right now.