Private Schools and evolutionary theory

pezenfuego

Active Member
Why exactly are you being sent to a Christian school for academic training?  I'm guessing you are attending a public school system so why are they sending you to observe at religious schools?
This here could be argued is the reason that scientific theories are not quite so reliable as we are asked to believe.  Science does not change, only our understanding of it changes.  And, as you point out here, that understanding is flawed or evolving.  Perhaps that was mantis' point? Facts espoused 20 yrs ago, should still be facts today. But, they are not.   LOL
At least with faith, there is no exclamation that a belief system is fact, except to the individual who believes.  
Hey, guess what! Science isn't perfect. What alternative methods do you recommend? Seriously, if you have a better method, don't hold it in.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Hey, guess what! Science isn't perfect. What alternative methods do you recommend? Seriously, if you have a better method, don't hold it in.
Hey snack cheese, beth is a proponent of science.
Darth (passed english 101) Tang
 

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531384
Hey snack cheese, beth is a proponent of science.
Darth (passed english 101) Tang
That was not an attack on Beth. "You" refers to a nonspecific person, not Beth. I was about to get pissy in retort, but now that I reread the post, I see how it was misinterpreted. I love Beth! I wouldn't talk to her like that.

PEZ (I deserved to be called snack cheese this time) enfuego
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
I am not offended, but my comment holds its own truth. Science is fact, interpretations are not. So, when we speak of things which are scientific theories, we also have to admit that the theory may be later debunked or it may evolve into some other thing that we believe is fact. My comment was in relation to Snake questioning the validity of some of mantis' resources based on their age. If old science is on shaky ground as it aged, then it wasn't really a fact. In that light, things like evolution and determining the age of things may never be completely nailed down to an absolute science.

I am a supporter of science and I do embrace the evolution of our plant and its various lifeforms. But there is wiggle room for interpreting how we get from A to Z.
 

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/80#post_3531376
If all living things evolved from one organism, where does plant life turn into "animal" life. And what is the progression of evolvement (is that a word) of plant life?

Now I'm repeating things that I have been taught. I have not done any of my own personal research nor do I have any experience with it beyond it being in a book... I'm going to use wikipedia as references, but anyone with two brain cells can go and dig through scientific journals.


The Miller-Urey experiment was one of the first experiments that replicated early conditions of life on Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) In this experiment, they put elements into a series of tubes and heated and cooled everything in various conditions and even shocked it with electricity to replicate lighting scenerios. At the end of the experiment, vials were collected and tested in the lab. Within the vials contained 20+ different types of amino acids that are the building blocks of proteins. have a protein put it together and they form peptide bonds. Put many of these peptide bonds together and you come with with secondard, tertiary and quarternary structures that form various proteins. RNA, Ribosomal Nucleic Acid is also a very, very simple compound and is now thought of to be one of the first organic molecules to come into existance, because early RNA didn't have to have proteins to cleve itself, it could do it on it's own. DNA was the next thing to form - and it's so simple because if RNA is already existing, then all it takes is to add an oxygen molecule to a five carbon sugar and you get Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. DNA is a double stranded helix, and it doesn't take much to reason that DNA was the prefered information storage molecule because it's much more stable with the additional oxygen molecules. RNA started to associate with these strands and began to make proteins through Ribosomes... early replication. Since ribosomes are nothing more than long strands of RNA in a quarternary structure with associated proteins, it's not hard to think that these molecules would not want to interact with DNA. Through trial and error, Natural Selection and natural chemical occurances, a phospholipid bilayer was formed so that DNA, RNA and proteins would have at least some protection from the environment. Now, this is the first cell.

As far as scientists have been able to test for, a type of cyanobacteria was one of the first organisms on Earth. This is great, because it was able to "fix" nitrogen in the atmosphere and use it to it's advantage. Over time and through allopatric speciation, other cells began forming with their own functions - like mitochondria organelles actually are now theorized to be bacterial cells that early Eukaryotic organisms engulfed and figured out that it's a highly beneficial cell (makes ATP, or useable energy.) That's considered horizontal gene transfer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer . Chloroplasts - those pretty green looking pigments in plants, are also one of those early bacterial cells that were engulfed by early Eukaryotic cells. Eventually, there has come to be ____ different types of organisms on earth, and probably many more to be discovered: Prokaryotes like bacteria, archaebacteria, protista and Eukaryotes like plants, animals and we will put fungi to the side... Plants got the chloroplasts and mitochondria, animals are sans chloroplasts and got mitochondria to respire. So on and so forth.
p>
Plants developed around the ability to harness the power of light to make organic carbon molecules like glucose (sugar), but depend on bacteria in the soil to fix nitrogen into useable forms. Harnessing light doesn't require the ability to move, but to out-compete it's neighbor for space, nutrients and light. Therefore, they went down a different evolutionary path than animals did. Animals don't have the ability to make their own food, so they have to catch food - or move - in order to compete with their neighbors... so evolution selected for animals who were faster, stronger, better equipped or smarter in order to survive - hence natural selection being one of the driving forces for evolution.

I hope all of that made sense. If it doesn't, I'll try to clarify on any points. Chemistry and time...

Now, saying all that, and knowing in my head that it all makes sense because of my education doesn't say that I don't believe in God. I think S/He exists, but I don't think that S/He has no interest in our affairs.
 

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531392
I am not offended, but my comment holds its own truth. Science is fact, interpretations are not. So, when we speak of things which are scientific theories, we also have to admit that the theory may be later debunked or it may evolve into some other thing that we believe is fact. My comment was in relation to Snake questioning the validity of some of mantis' resources based on their age. If old science is on shaky ground as it aged, then it wasn't really a fact. In that light, things like evolution and determining the age of things may never be completely nailed down to an absolute science.

I am a supporter of science and I do embrace the evolution of our plant and its various lifeforms. But there is wiggle room for interpreting how we get from A to Z.

I agree - and I wasn't saying that old theories have no validity, I was saying that since the theory was published, new information has come to light and better scientific techniques have been put into practice.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
And what I am saying is, if old information can change or evolve, then it may not be valid in the here and now, just as the theories of today may not be valid some day in the future. This is a good reason not to be dogmatic in interpreting science.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Beth, the theories are always up for change and improvement but real facts shouldn't be changing or they weren't facts to begin with. For example, I held a cent between my thumb & forefinger and let go 10 times and for all 10 repetitions it migrated from my fingers to my desk. That's a fact.

My hypothesis is that my fingers repelled the cent and forced it to accelerate toward my desk. After more observations, I changed my hypothesis that it's not my fingers repelling the cent, it's the desk attracting the cent.

You see how the fact didn't change? And yet my hypothesis was wrong both times.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531403
Beth, the theories are always up for change and improvement but real facts shouldn't be changing or they weren't facts to begin with. For example, I held a cent between my thumb & forefinger and let go 10 times and for all 10 repetitions it migrated from my fingers to my desk. That's a fact.

My hypothesis is that my fingers repelled the cent and forced it to accelerate toward my desk. After more observations, I changed my hypothesis that it's not my fingers repelling the cent, it's the desk attracting the cent.

You see how the fact didn't change? And yet my hypothesis was wrong both times.
Right! And so could be theories concerning evolution, which is what I think mantis and others are trying to point out. Scientific theories are not absolute facts.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Would it be safe to say that some folks out there have faith in the theory of evolution?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped' for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews Xi. 1.
 

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531403
Beth, the theories are always up for change and improvement but real facts shouldn't be changing or they weren't facts to begin with. For example, I held a cent between my thumb & forefinger and let go 10 times and for all 10 repetitions it migrated from my fingers to my desk. That's a fact.

My hypothesis is that my fingers repelled the cent and forced it to accelerate toward my desk. After more observations, I changed my hypothesis that it's not my fingers repelling the cent, it's the desk attracting the cent.

You see how the fact didn't change? And yet my hypothesis was wrong both times.
But you are using your flawed human perceptions. All that you can say for sure is that electrical signals were sent to your brain that caused you to perceive this. Actually, you can't even say that. You can't even say that you have a brain. Some even reject Descarte's famous line, "I think, therefore I am."

We strive to get as close to deductive nomological arguments as possible, but that isn't always attainable (unless you are omniscient). So we settle for less and reasonably so. DN models provide perfect explanations, but even that doesn't mean anything if the explanans in your argument are invalid.

As long as we can ask "why" we will never satisfactorily answer anything. How come unimpeded objects which are moving at a certain velocity continue at that velocity? You can answer that they have inertia, but what did you really do there? Did you answer the question, or did you simply add a label to what was all ready accepted as fact? Would it be that hard to believe that this isn't true?
 

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531414
OK, yes, theories are not facts. They are supported or rejected based on facts.

LOL...based rather on our understanding data as of to date
. . A theory is still just a theory.

Dictionary:
the·o·ry
noun ?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
But you are using your flawed human perceptions. All that you can say for sure is that electrical signals were sent to your brain that caused you to perceive this. Actually, you can't even say that. You can't even say that you have a brain. Some even reject Descarte's famous line, "I think, therefore I am."
We strive to get as close to deductive nomological arguments as possible, but that isn't always attainable (unless you are omniscient). So we settle for less and reasonably so. DN models provide perfect explanations, but even that doesn't mean anything if the explanans in your argument are invalid.
As long as we can ask "why" we will never satisfactorily answer anything. How come unimpeded objects which are moving at a certain velocity continue at that velocity? You can answer that they have inertia, but what did you really do there? Did you answer the question, or did you simply add a label to what was all ready accepted as fact? Would it be that hard to believe that this isn't true?
Flawed human perception? Please explain.
 

bang guy

Moderator
PEZ is right. At minimum, our perception of events can be easily fooled into missing or inventing things different from reality.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531416

LOL...based rather on our understanding data as of to date. . A theory is still just a theory.

Dictionary:
the·o·ry
noun ?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

This is the definition of theory, as used, for example, in courtrooms. This definition allows any explanation to be a theory (the famous "Martians did it" defense). However, in science the term "theory" has a very different meaning. It is an explanation of observed events that has been repeatedly tested and been found to be a satisfactory explanation for those observations. Of course, new observations can cause a change in a theory, but scientists generally place great reliance on theories even though we know that they are only the "best-to-date" explanation. The theory of evolution is a perfect example of this in action. We now know that many of Darwin's explanations (theories) were incorrect, but it took many years and the accumulation of considerable data to disprove some of his ideas. This does not make the theory of evolution wrong, it makes it a theory that explains the observation (fact) that there is diversity in life, and that life forms arise from other life forms by a process of change. As research proceeds to examine the current explanations for this we will get more understanding of the mechanisms that underlie this fact, and the theory will itself evolve.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
the lay (non scientific) definition of theory is as you stated basically conjecture.

But in science a theory is a proven hypothesis. Hence a generally accepted explanation of something.

And in science the hypothesis is actually more like the lay theory.


my .02
 

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531417
Flawed human perception? Please explain.
One of my favorite examples comes from thermodynamics. We had to define temperature because our perception of temperature and the actual definition of temperature are two separate things. For instance, if there is a metal rod and a plastic rod sitting in a room, they will both be at room temperature (assuming that they are in equilibrium-see 0th law). But if we touch the metal rod, we perceive it to be cooler than the plastic one. The reason for this is not that they are at a different temperature because they are both at the temperature of the room. The reason for this is that the metal is a better thermal conductor and it conducts heat away from your hand quickly enough that we perceive it as being colder. If we were to define temperature in terms of our perceptions, then we would not have any of these four laws and our understanding of the universe would be significantly diminished.

But that isn't exactly where my point was heading. My point was that there does not exist a scientific proof which uses no assumptions. In the idealized, DN model, everything is traced back to a bed of assumptions (using inverse logical deduction). And these is the fundamental axioms of the proof. In order to prove them, you will need to make more assumptions, which are hopefully more readily acceptable. For Bang Guy's example, one assumption that he made was that he had a body. You might be thinking that this is trivial and it is, but it is also quite important. The idea that he has a body is reasonable. There is no reason to believe that this shouldn't be true and if it isn't true, then the fact that our theory is false is the least of our problems. So you have to look at each of the assumptions and justify that they are either true, approximately true, or would have a negligible impact if false.

Something else that hasn't been mentioned yet is the biggest assumption in all of science. How do we know that the general laws which are true today will still be true tomorrow? Let's pretend that Newton's laws have been proven (which they cannot be, as previously discussed). How do we know that they will still be valid tomorrow?

Russel uses the example of the chicken. It wakes up every day and gets fed by the farmer. This goes on for hundreds of days (though now-a-days, chickens reach maturity very quickly). It expects to wake up the next day and get fed, but instead the farmer chops its head off. In what way are we better than the chicken?

PEZ(you don't have to answer the above questions, but none of them are necessarily rhetorical)enfuego
 

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/100#post_3531445

This is the definition of theory, as used, for example, in courtrooms. This definition allows any explanation to be a theory (the famous "Martians did it" defense). However, in science the term "theory" has a very different meaning. It is an explanation of observed events that has been repeatedly tested and been found to be a satisfactory explanation for those observations. Of course, new observations can cause a change in a theory, but scientists generally place great reliance on theories even though we know that they are only the "best-to-date" explanation. The theory of evolution is a perfect example of this in action. We now know that many of Darwin's explanations (theories) were incorrect, but it took many years and the accumulation of considerable data to disprove some of his ideas. This does not make the theory of evolution wrong, it makes it a theory that explains the observation (fact) that there is diversity in life, and that life forms arise from other life forms by a process of change. As research proceeds to examine the current explanations for this we will get more understanding of the mechanisms that underlie this fact, and the theory will itself evolve.

Admittedly, and obvious to all who know me.... I'm no brainiac. It doesn't matter to me how everything became what it is, I am convinced 100% that God did it, and anything the scientists decide on for the time being to be how it all took place, doesn't nullify the creation of them. I only have a pet peeve, (for lack of a better term) with folks who think that if they have science, it will somehow nullify the fact that there is a God who made it. Yes I said FACT.... the creation account in the books, are for each to interpret and consider, just as evolution and different facts are there for us to examine and think about. However, just like gravity and the air you breath, it's still there whether you can see it or not.
 
Top