13
   

Aren't scientists rather arrogant and elitist in abiogenetic theories?

 
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:24 am
@TheJackal,
TheJackal wrote:
Without sufficient evidence you cannot have a scientific theory.
     No, if the Universe has always existed, for example, the claim of the Big Bang that it has created the Universe out of Singularity that has existed somehow before the launching of the Time is out of subject - no matter how much evidence you may fabricate in support to that 'theory'.
TheJackal wrote:
A theory is the best explanation of the evidence to which the evidence itself dictates.
     Explaining 4% of the visible and known Universe does not seem to me like 'best explanation'. BTW what part in % of the microbiology can you explain with the Evolution?
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:28 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Asking a question that has nothing to do with the subject requires no answer.
     Why don't you prove it - that the Evolution is valid for any assumptions and in any case scenario, like for example that in case the green algae are bio-technology of a previous ILF it is the Evolution with the lightning that has created them out of the bullion of amino-acids ... by means of stochastics? Can you repeat the experiment with such act of creation ... in a laboratory ... on a sterile place without access to the biosphere, by using only bullion of amino-acids and lightnings hitting at random?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:39 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
Asking a question that has nothing to do with the subject requires no answer.
     Why don't you prove it - that the Evolution is valid for any assumptions and in any case scenario, like for example that in case the green algae are bio-technology of a previous ILF it is the Evolution with the lightning that has created them out of the bullion of amino-acids ... by means of stochastics? Can you repeat the experiment with such act of creation ... in a laboratory ... on a sterile place without access to the biosphere, by using only bullion of amino-acids and lightnings hitting at random?

Probably, but you would need the same, not different, circumstances - a planet full of ocean and a billion years. Evolution explains the presence of the life forms we see on Earth today, we see it in operation when bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and in similar situations, and, it's hard to see how it wouldn't occur. You got another theory that meets that standard?
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:39 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
How can one start solving a problem from the middle - this is the real 'deflection and idiocy'.

More idiocy from you. The only way to solve a problem is to define it correctly. The correct definition of evolution is that it tells us how life changes over time. Under your idiotic argument you shouldn't be using a computer because you can't tell us how the atoms used to make that computer work came into existence. Shouldn't you apply the same standard to yourself that you want to apply to others? Or are you exempt because you know so much?


Apparently, it's the final option with this one. He's got the whole world and all of existence explained (without ever offering up his explanation), but somehow the Nobel Committee has overlooked him up because scientists are all part of a huge conspiracy. I don't recommend shining the spotlight on him too brightly; the reflection off his tinfoil hat might blind you. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/emot-tinfoil.gif
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 12:01 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
Why don't you prove it - that the Evolution is valid for any assumptions and in any case scenario, like for example that in case the green algae are bio-technology of a previous ILF it is the Evolution with the lightning that has created them out of the bullion of amino-acids ... by means of stochastics?

Why should I prove that Evolution is what you want to pretend it is? It isn't what you claim so I see no reason to try to prove your idiotic statements true.
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 01:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Why don't you prove it - that the Evolution is valid for any assumptions and in any case scenario, like for example that in case the green algae are bio-technology of a previous ILF it is the Evolution with the lightning that has created them out of the bullion of amino-acids ... by means of stochastics?

Why should I prove that Evolution is what you want to pretend it is? It isn't what you claim so I see no reason to try to prove your idiotic statements true.


“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should NEVER TRUST EXPERTS.” Lord Salisbury

When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 02:31 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Rickoshay75 wrote:
“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should NEVER TRUST EXPERTS.” Lord Salisbury...

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, I don't necessarily have faith that scientists will be correct about every scientific matter, but I have absolute faith that non-scientists will be wrong.
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 04:06 pm
Personal attacks and put-downs don't really advance the discussion much, so in an attempt to redirect this a little... I draw your attention to volcanic soils. I find it fascinating that freshly-made volcanic soils are among the most fertile on earth. Almost as soon as an island appears and cools, it is covered with life, even when far from the nearest island. We were taught that life is dependent upon life, that plants won't grow without organic matter, yet here is cooled magma straight from the earth's interior that has every nutrient required to sustain so many life forms.
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mauisoil/b_andisol.aspx

Life, it seems, has an affinity for the bare essence of the earth, and vice versa.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 08:54 pm
@Banana Breath,
That's an excellent point. A couple of days ago, I was watching a documentary about the Mount St. Helens eruption. Therein, the scientists had documented the shocking speed that the flora had rebounded in just a year's time, due to the fertility of the volcanic ash that had previously smothered everthing.
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:54 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Probably, but you would need the same, not different, circumstances - a planet full of ocean and a billion years.
     You don't have any evidence that the green algae have been created for 'billions of years', and also that if something is impossible it becomes somehow possible with the time, so far the time is long enough. Can you give an example of something other that is impossible in principle, but becomes somehow possible with the time ... and how exactly?
Brandon9000 wrote:
Evolution explains the presence of the life forms we see on Earth today
     Evolution cannot start explaining anything without having the assumptions, in the first place, after which it should verify and validate them and assign probability truth values by belief revision, and hardly after that and not before to start claiming: on the grounds of these and these assumptions with probability of that and that we have reasonable ground to believe (not we know) that the green algae might have been formed by this and this process. This is the straightforward approach - everything else is something else.
Brandon9000 wrote:
You got another theory that meets that standard?
     I may have another theory, but it is meeting some other standards. The only reason for the Evolution and the Big Bang to exist as 'theories' is because of the Church. The only reason is to overtrump the Church and to prove that Science has the leading role in society and that the Church does not know what it is doing ... in the last three thousand years, which to some extend might be true, but something that has plastered the minds in gypsum of so many people for so many years is not that easily wiped out ... especially by two 'theories' sewed by color threads.
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:05 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Why should I prove that Evolution is what you want to pretend it is? It isn't what you claim so I see no reason to try to prove your idiotic statements true.
     I am not claiming anything about any Evolution in particular - this is a standard approach of making formal models, like scientific theories for example. I am asking you what are the assumptions of the Evolution 'theory' - and the truth of the matter is that you don't have the vaguest idea. Why don't you simply confess that you don't know what the assumptions might be (even as hypotheses), why is that so important, and why your favorite Evolution 'theory' will never start working properly (if at all) without having the assumptions and their verification and validation in the first place.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:11 pm
@Herald,
I'd take a reasonable, evidence-based assumption over a blind belief any day.
Brandon9000
 
  4  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:33 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Probably, but you would need the same, not different, circumstances - a planet full of ocean and a billion years.
     You don't have any evidence that the green algae have been created for 'billions of years', and also that if something is impossible it becomes somehow possible with the time, so far the time is long enough. Can you give an example of something other that is impossible in principle, but becomes somehow possible with the time ... and how exactly?

Things that are impossible do not become possible given a longer period of time, but here's something that is possible - random chemical reactions in the oceans over a billion years finally resulted in a molecule that copied itself. Under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced green algae, as well as other things.

Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Evolution explains the presence of the life forms we see on Earth today
     Evolution cannot start explaining anything without having the assumptions, in the first place, after which it should verify and validate them and assign probability truth values by belief revision, and hardly after that and not before to start claiming: on the grounds of these and these assumptions with probability of that and that we have reasonable ground to believe (not we know) that the green algae might have been formed by this and this process. This is the straightforward approach - everything else is something else.

And that's what evolutionary biologists do. However, I'm not going to reproduce 150 years of it here for you, at least partially because it's not my field.

Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You got another theory that meets that standard?
     I may have another theory, but it is meeting some other standards. The only reason for the Evolution and the Big Bang to exist as 'theories' is because of the Church. The only reason is to overtrump the Church and to prove that Science has the leading role in society and that the Church does not know what it is doing ... in the last three thousand years, which to some extend might be true, but something that has plastered the minds in gypsum of so many people for so many years is not that easily wiped out ... especially by two 'theories' sewed by color threads.

You didn't answer the question which was whether you have another theory that meets that standard. Why don't you surprise me and give a direct and straightforward answer?

Your speculations as to motive are irrelevant to a discussion of whether evolution is a correct theory. The theory of evolution consists of the following assertion. Errors in reproduction sometimes occur. Once in a blue moon, one is beneficial. Beneficial traits tend to spread through the gene pool and negative traits, that is, traits that reduce the likelihood of surviving and producing healthy offspring, tend to get edited out. Over long periods of time, this process produces a slow drift toward greater functionality.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:45 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
I'd take a reasonable, evidence-based assumption over a blind belief any day.


No, you don't, because you BELIEVE the religion called 'science'!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:45 pm
@FBM,
I don't know much, but I take that as an old story, re volcanic ash.

I can be argued with easily.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 01:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
but here's something that is possible - random chemical reactions in the oceans over a billion years finally resulted in a molecule that copied itself.
     Where have you proved that 1) random chemical reactions can create bio-code at all 2) such reactions can change subsequently the bio-code from PNA (green algae) to DNA (higher organisms) (in order to preserve the green algae just in case?! - how does that happen without any intelligence) 3) why such random chemical reactions are not observed anywhere else in the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe.
     BTW, the second law of thermodynamics is claiming just the opposite: the total amount of disorder always increases with the time, so if your random chemical reactions have been chaos in the ocean from the very beginning how have they succeeded to end up with a beautifully synthesized and with the ability to replicate bio-code - this is in absolute contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics - can you prove that this is possible: to arrange a bio-code from ground zero to a beautifully structured entity with ability to process actively chemical elements from the environment in its benefit, and also to replicate ... against the laws of physics?
Brandon9000 wrote:
Under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced green algae, as well as other things.
     Can you write down with math formulas into a formal model all the processes engaged with the casual statement 'under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced'?
Brandon9000 wrote:
And that's what evolutionary biologists do.
     Don't make a fool of yourself ... that you have not understood the statement: 'Evolution can't explain' means 'the scientists (not only evolutionary biologists) dealing with evolution' cannot start explaining anything without constructing the formal model in the first place ... with the properly validated assumptions.
Brandon9000 wrote:
You didn't answer the question which was whether you have another theory that meets that standard.
     There have been a large number of other theories 'meeting the standard' (whatever this might mean for a theory without assumptions), and some of them not entirely bad - only my theory is missing.
     I don't have any intentions to make any new theories (especially in a field that is none of my business) - all I want is to find the truth, and the truth starts with the formulation, assigning the probability values, belief revision, verification & validation of the assumptions of the formal model (scientific theory in this case). If this does not concern me as a human and as a part of the 7.3 BN population on a planet with constraint resources and nothing like it within a radius of several light years - I would not even read such theories.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 02:10 am
@Herald,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism

Quote:
Denialism

“”You can't give up just because it's hopeless! You gotta hope even more. And cover your ears and go BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH!
—Fry, Futurama

Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence.[1]

In scientific contexts, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (the Earth is not warming), the association between the two (the Earth is warming, but not because of carbon dioxide), the direction of the cause-and-effect relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing because the earth is warming) or the identification of the cause-and-effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm). Often denialists practice minimization (the Earth is warming, but it's not harmful) and use misplaced skepticism to give an unwarranted veneer of scientific thinking.

Major scientific targets of denialism include evolution, global warming, the link between HIV and AIDS, the link between smoking and lung cancer, and the lack of a link between vaccination and autism. Often self-interest is the motivation behind denialism, hence arguments are often politicised or financially motivated. For example, tobacco companies denied the smoking-lung cancer link as it would have hurt their profits, and Andrew Wakefield had a strong conflict of interest in ensuring people didn't take established and effective vaccines. Similarly, global warming denialists tend to oppose the solutions that are needed to address the problem (see the logical fallacy of argument from adverse consequences), and are supported by energy conglomerates and others who could lose financially from reductions in fossil fuel use.

Politicians use variations of the phrase "I'm not a scientist but…" to proclaim that they are proudly and willfully ignorant of science while at the same time that they are willing to offer policy opinions in other areas where they also have no expertise, especially economics or religion. The proudly ignorant include John Boehner, Rick Scott, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio.[2][3][4][5]

Denial of fact is one of the foundations of woo. Denialism can also fill a deep psychological need, as in the question of why one's child has autism — since in reality there is no known easy answer.[6]

Mark and Chris Hoofnagle at Denialism Blog use their "Denialists' Deck of Cards" series[7] to describe how denialists of all stripes use remarkably similar tactics. Denialists often claim that an established set of knowledge or scientific theory is not proven or "sound" and lacks evidence (or enough evidence). They say it is a controversy, requires balance, or requires both the strengths and weaknesses be considered. These tactics make the denialists appear "fair" (and those who oppose them not) and implies doubt in what is being denied with no consideration of evidence. Denialist groups also produce competing evidence through their own "research", which is often poorly performed (if at all) as it often is done by public relations firms with no technical expertise. They encourage people to form their own opinions or do their own tests, rather than relying on studies with appropriate methods and controls. Lists of experts (who may have no credentials in the area) are compiled as testimonials, or public relations campaigns are used to improve denialists' images (and slime legitimate scholars). Actual errors in mainstream science will often be blown out of proportion.[8] Most denialist rhetoric is focused at the layperson and not the expert, and usually paints a contrast between two positions rather than being about one point-of-view.[9] The use of self-generated content on the Internet ("Web 2.0") unfortunately contributes to the dissemination of denialist arguments.[10]

Leah Ceccarelli describes the rhetoric of denialists:[11]

“”First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American.
Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in ... American life. Highly specialized scientific experts can’t spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them.

Third, today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is. They portray science as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data. Any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there’s no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet.[12]
Diethelm and McKee have identified five characteristics of denialists:[13]


The identification of perceived conspiracies. This includes belief of corrupted peer review and inversionism (i.e., attributing some of one's own characteristics and motivations to others).[14]
The use of fake experts (often with the smearing of real experts).
Selecting or cherry picking sources: picking the weakest papers or only ones that are contrary. Particularly worrisome is looking at only a single study, especially in medicine, as one study rarely conclusively proves something.[15] Others note that this includes anecdotal evidence[6] and quote mining.[16]

Demanding impossible standards for research.
Use of fallacy, including misrepresentation and false analogy.[17] Informally, this can include a witch's brew of half-truths and sob stories.[18] and/or spin to try to force the public to ignore an important issue.
An example of AIDS-HIV denialist rhetoric is from Herbert Vilakazi:

“”"The situation in America is one of intolerance," [Vilakazi] continued, never raising his voice. "There are A.R.V.s [antiretroviral drugs]. Only one approach to treating this deadly illness is permitted. You are not allowed to talk about anything else." He said that people are obsessed with whether H.I.V. causes AIDS, but that he considered such arguments "completely academic and not relevant for the treatment of sick people." He went on, "Let us be honest. Who benefits from A.R.V.s? Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been spent on research and you have to get a return on your investment. It is the first rule of pharmaceutical companies, and they simply terrorize their opponents. Very frankly, in America there is an official literature-and there are a lot of people in the African-American community who feel maybe there is a conspiracy and that racism has a lot to do with it. Why, for instance, is AIDS the biggest problem that exists in Africa? You start to wonder if there is a social selection for this disease. Is it not a coincidence that Africa is the poorest continent in the world? Did you ever think that it's in the interest of some people for it to stay that way?"[19]


Denialism vs. skepticism

It is possible to conflate skepticism and denialism, as proponents of both seem to "deny" that something exists until they're convinced otherwise. Denialists themselves often claim to be skeptics, and very rarely self-identify as denialists. But to say that a skeptic is a homeopathy denier and that a Holocaust denier is skeptical would be wrong.

While both have a negative or critical tone, the positions are different in how they view and acquire and interpret data. Skepticism is a method while denialism is a position. The opposite of "skeptic" is not "believer," and it is possible to embrace something while remaining skeptical. This is an essential part of the ethos of science as it suggests new experiments to strengthen or falsify a proposition. Skeptics look at experiments to ensure that they were performed properly with the appropriate controls, proper data analysis and so on. The skeptical method involves examining all data and coming to a conclusion that it produces. Denialists, on the other hand, view data slightly differently, as a means to a predetermined end – minimizing its importance if it goes against their opinion, highlighting it if it supports them, or just plain misrepresenting it for their own purposes. Skeptics keep an open mind until data shows that a hypothesis is invalid, while denialists start with the conclusion and look for support. To put it another way, denialism embraces confirmation bias while skepticism seeks to avoid it.
...
Denialism also differs from legitimate historical revisionism in that the latter acknowledges that a historical event occurred, but uses a different interpretation of evidence. Denialism is usually historical negationism.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 03:54 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence.[1]


Why????????????????????????
Who says so?????????????????????????
That something is o my god!!! - established- doesn't make it true mate!!!!

ONLY EVIDENCE does.

Gee, again, the popularity fallacy!!!!


farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 06:07 am
@Quehoniaomath,
When evience abounds in its truest, simplest, and most testable means, AND, then, you keep denying its existence, what does that make you?

Loony as a cave rat, Id say.
Quahog denies evidence why>?
I think he had an "approach -avoidance" sequence with science in school.

I hope he gets well, but , these Creationists are a strange un-teachable lot.

FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 06:12 am
@farmerman,
Blind faith is a lot easier. No studying, no tests. Just make a public statement of unyielding belief from time to time in front of other believers and you're good to go. Maybe handle a snake or two or speak in tongues as icing on the cake. A lot cheaper than a university education, too. Blind faith has a lot going for it in this mundane world, and that's before considering the promise of spending eternity in bliss.*




*(Ignorance is _______)
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 06:13:04