Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

[coachn]

How did the genetics change? There is no data that I know of that can answer that question. There is fossil record before a fork there is fossil record in the same line as before. There is a record of what looks like a fork but why did the genetics change drastic enough to cause a fork or why did fork side one not evolve in the same manner as fork side two. The theory I have is divine intervention and I know there are others that like this theory as much as I do. But it is just a theory that I believe in as much as others don't.

Viral Attacks upon the cells that viably create the next generation which add/delete/modify in such a cumulative way as to eventually make it impossible for them to procreate with the source species while at the same time procreating amongst themselves.

 

[coachn]

So, we can strike out the part about them being used to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?

No we can strike out the word "more". More or less is supposition.

Then, we strike out the part about theories being used to deal with reality in knowledgeable and predictable ways?

 

[Aeelorty]

The theory I have is divine intervention and I know there are others that like this theory as much as I do. But it is just a theory that I believe in as much as others don't.

Except this theory falls outside of the purview of science for that stated reason that it is not testable. It also appeals to the supernatural which is outside of the purview of science. So this is not a scientific theory but a religious theory. Different areas.

How did the genetics change? There is no data that I know of that can answer that question. There is fossil record before a fork there is fossil record in the same line as before. There is a record of what looks like a fork but why did the genetics change drastic enough to cause a fork or why did fork side one not evolve in the same manner as fork side two.

So we don't necessarily need the DNA out of fossils to show the changes. We contain genetic material of our precursors same goes for other species. For instance birds contain the genes of dinosaurs that they descended from. It has been shown that they contain the genes for teeth. Now why genes change is a chemical issue. Somewhere in the transposing of DNA into RNA and back results in mistakes sometimes. This genetic mutation is the same thing that causes cancer but instead of being deadly these changes provide a small benefit and theses small benefits add up over time for big changes and bigger benefits.

 

[jvarnell]

Except this theory falls outside of the purview of science for that stated reason that it is not testable. It also appeals to the supernatural which is outside of the purview of science. So this is not a scientific theory but a religious theory. Different areas.



So we don't necessarily need the DNA out of fossils to show the changes. We contain genetic material of our precursors same goes for other species. For instance birds contain the genes of dinosaurs that they descended from. It has been shown that they contain the genes for teeth. Now why genes change is a chemical issue. Somewhere in the transposing of DNA into RNA and back results in mistakes sometimes. This genetic mutation is the same thing that causes cancer but instead of being deadly these changes provide a small benefit and theses small benefits add up over time for big changes and bigger benefits.

This is all why it is "just a theory" yours not mine and what I am trying to point out is that there is not enough evidence to make me change for the theory that prevails in my mind at this time. I have faith to fill in the gaps science and religion can work together.

 

[jvarnell]

Then, we strike out the part about theories being used to deal with reality in knowledgeable and predictable ways?

No that is a part of it just not all.

 

[dfreybur]

Are all Protons Identical? Could our precision not reveal differences?

The way that protons are not identical is quantum interconnectedness. As usual with quantum mechanics any experiment that tests classical mechanics features of protons will show them as identical and any experiment that treats protons as waves will show them as identical. Most experiments that treat protons as particles will show them as identical.

Currently most experiments that dealing with quantum interconnectedness work with photons and electrons so I don't know if the current state of the art is able to tell protons apart.

 

[coachn]

No that is a part of it just not all.

What I'm hearing then is that Theories are perceived reality models used by their carriers to explain things; some are accurate, some are precise, some focus on reality, and others focus on fantasy and every last one of them are subject to evolving mutation, depending upon the memes surrounding and influencing them.

 

[Aeelorty]

This is all why it is "just a theory" yours not mine and what I am trying to point out is that there is not enough evidence to make me change for the theory that prevails in my mind at this time. I have faith to fill in the gaps science and religion can work together.

I am just trying to point out that you are combing two logic systems that are different and not transnational. Moreover the theory proposed is well supported but you are not familiar enough with the evidence and are mistaking your lack of specific knowledge on the topic for evidence against it. It really is a cool topic once you start looking into it in depth and in a scientific manner and stop trying to reconcile two systems that don't need reconciliation in the first place.

 

[jvarnell]

What I'm hearing then is that Theories are perceived reality models used by their carriers to explain things; some are accurate, some are precise, some focus on reality, and others focus on fantasy and every last one of them are subject to evolving mutation, depending upon the memes surrounding and influencing them.

Yes they are what you have called "perceived reality" but you should never call something fantasy/myth. You limit things to what you call reality because of your perceptions and I limit things to what I perceive to be reality. If I wrote what you just said I would have left out the word "fantasy" to leave an open mind to what I have note yet perceived.

 

[jvarnell]

I am just trying to point out that you are combing two logic systems that are different and not transnational. Moreover the theory proposed is well supported but you are not familiar enough with the evidence and are mistaking your lack of specific knowledge on the topic for evidence against it. It really is a cool topic once you start looking into it in depth and in a scientific manner and stop trying to reconcile two systems that don't need reconciliation in the first place.

I have a background in science and technology but I attempting to show you that if you don't have an open mind to everything you will miss answers. Just because someone has a theory and a lot of people believe it doesn't make it right for all time. Newton was right, Enstin was right but there theories of gravity have differences and yet are the same. There was a theory that when the collider at CERN had it first test with dark mater it would cause a black hole. That was a theory a lot of scientist thought. Did it, No. It was a theory. Darwin has a theory others have theories that are close but not the same. Why is Darwin's right because he published it first. Did Darwin steal his ideas from Alfred Russel Wallace's paper on natural selection.

I have a theory that art is a higher order of science than what we call science today. Think of fractal, chaos and the sacred numbers of geometry. This is like we came from a analog recording world to a digital and are getting so many digits of resolution in recording we are almost back to analog.

 

[coachn]

Yes they are what you have called "perceived reality" but you should never call something fantasy/myth. You limit things to what you call reality because of your perceptions and I limit things to what I perceive to be reality. If I wrote what you just said I would have left out the word "fantasy" to leave an open mind to what I have note yet perceived.

I included it because of the few people I have encountered who claim to have riden unicorns around on the north pole.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I have a background in science and technology but I attempting to show you that if you don't have an open mind to everything you will miss answers. Just because someone has a theory and a lot of people believe it doesn't make it right for all time. Newton was right, Enstin was right but there theories of gravity have differences and yet are the same. There was a theory that when the collider at CERN had it first test with dark mater it would cause a black hole. That was a theory a lot of scientist thought. Did it, No. It was a theory. Darwin has a theory others have theories that are close but not the same. Why is Darwin's right because he published it first. Did Darwin steal his ideas from Alfred Russel Wallace's paper on natural selection.

I have a theory that art is a higher order of science than what we call science today. Think of fractal, chaos and the sacred numbers of geometry. This is like we came from a analog recording world to a digital and are getting so many digits of resolution in recording we are almost back to analog.

There was a theory that some diseases can be caused by bacteria and not "miasma" or "evil spirits. However, it's "just a theory"--it's not called the "germ law of disease" after all, so people are free to ignore it on a whim and believe that all diseases are caused by evil spirits.

Regarding "art" and "science", how do you intend to express that theory in such a way that it is explicitly testable and these tests are repeatable? Merely throwing around "theory" to mean anything you want it to mean reduces the word "theory" to mean absolutely nothing.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Some people choose to refuse evolution. This is always ultimately done on religious grounds. They then make up all kinds of rationalizations to pretend to sound "scientific" about it. Why not just be honest and admit the rejection is on religious grounds? There is nothing wrong with this. Inventing flat-out lies like "creation science" and "intelligent design" only makes people look foolish. Just be honest and admit to religious grounds. Why buy into the very paradigm of empirical science that one rejects by flatly rejecting evolutionary theory.

The scientific response to a model that is still "undecided" by consensus is to to run around hooting that it's false or "just a theory". The scientific response is to simply suspend judgment, neither believing nor disbelieving.

 

[BryanMaloney]

And yes I do like this conversion a lot it pushes me to grow. But the way I grow is by trying to prove my thoughts out and not trying to disprove others.

I try to disprove myself, as well. I am an actual working scientist. Thus, when an issue is scientific, I apply the scientific method, which does not mean "proving". It means attempting to disprove. That's how science works. Note I do not say I am "from a scientific background". I am a scientist. Look me up in PubMed. Most of my work is done with a Dr. D.K. Lahiri and involves Alzheimer's.

 

[coachn]

...Merely throwing around "theory" to mean anything you want it to mean reduces the word "theory" to mean absolutely nothing.

Yup. BTW - There's a theory floating around out there that says if you repeat anything often enough, no matter how wrong or insane it might be, people eventually come around to making that their way of thinking.

But it's ONLY a theory.

 

[Aeelorty]

My issue, and scientist in general, Is that creationism doesn't follow the rules of the scientific method.

 

[coachn]

My issue, and scientist in general, Is that creationism doesn't follow the rules of the scientific method.

That's because it is not scientific, no matter how anyone tries to frame or reframe it. It is religious; which, as I understand it, does not follow the scientific method.

Does anyone here know what method it does follow?

 

[tob]

I never believe in it...

mu gilo

 

[Aeelorty]

I doesn't really follow any method it mixes empirical evidence and beliefs (not really hypotheses even) that are assumed to be in capable of being falsified.

 

[jvarnell]

I believe every statement I made was to invoke though and I have found out very quickly how people think that an induction and offence is really a defense of the theory they back. I think to really gain knowledge we can not divide what has been called myth and science here. they do mix. What was myth 20 years a go is being found to be fact today. Like the town of Jericho. At fist it was said to not be a town at all. Now they have found it with the walls down and as the are allowed to excavated. We can never know it the account in the bible happened but it is written history. In the Darwin story we have archaeology without any written account. You would think more information was better than not. Archaeology is finding more things that don't fit the theories of today all the time. When these things are found what happens if the don't fit the prevailing theory? The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it. How scientific is that.