Did the "self-programming" systems arise by chance too?
why not? i mean by chance, you have to realize that there is a universe that exists, with given laws pertaining to chemical reactivity, structure, stability etc, within that context, yes a self programing system can arise by chance. A simple example I discovered in my lab the other day. I prepared a solution of Hexane/Ethyl Acetate/Acetic Acid. Water leaked in (from the atmosphere) allowing the Acetic Acid to hydrolyze the Ehtyl Acetate to more Acetic Acid and Ethanol. Acetic acid with in the presense of water catalzed its own creation, by chance, within the physical/chemical properties that are well defined (that is if i set up the experiment again the same thing will occur)...
"self programing", accelerating, why the reaction progress would look like a bacterial colony growth, if i plotted it.
Quote:
Yes, if a system has altered DNA you have a system failure, I think you are thinking of mutations in the transmission between progeny.
did you ever read my post way back when? or are you too ignoring me? Once you have many duplicates of two copies of something, there is no system failure. Thats it.
did you ever read my post way back when? or are you too ignoring me? Once you have many duplicates of two copies of something, there is no system failure. Thats it.
I have to apologize, but some of these posts ARE WAY TOO LONG.
You can't tinker with an DNA-based life form's DNA without causing "problems".
I saw saw at the movies, so it has to be true:
----------------------
Tyrell: What-- What seems to be the problem?
Roy: Death.
Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my
jurisdiction, you--
Roy: I want more life, fuucker.
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfanate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
You can't tinker with an DNA-based life form's DNA with causing "problems".
uh. but scientist do it all the time. as long as the organism survives it can still pass its genes on to progeny. there is a post doc in my lab who has (designed) a bacteria that completely lacks the ability to synthesize its own amino acids (or rather transfer its synthesized amino acids to tRNA), it reproduces fine when all of the AAs are added exogenously, it doesnt otherwise. What I am trying to say is that that exchange is not accurate actually, horrible mutations can be survivable...
uh. but scientist do it all the time. as long as the organism survives it can still pass its genes on to progeny. there is a post doc in my lab who has (designed) a bacteria that completely lacks the ability to synthesize its own amino acids (or rather transfer its synthesized amino acids to tRNA), it reproduces fine when all of the AAs are added exogenously, it doesnt otherwise. What I am trying to say is that that exchange is not accurate actually, horrible mutations can be survivable...
I think you're missing the point---you need to put this in the context of a lifeform, not a single cell. I can see you tampering with a single cell---an "organic life system"---as Dr. Tyrell pointed out, is a whole other ball game.
I think you're missing the point---you need to put this in the context of a lifeform, not a single cell. I can see you tampering with a single cell---an "organic life system"---as Dr. Tyrell pointed out, is a whole other ball game.
no, no its not. Fine, there are goats that produce spider silk in their milk, rats that cant fecate and blow up like balloons (they live long enough to reproduce though), etc. Again, cells and "organic life system" are the same thing... Modifications happen, there are plenty of genetic diseases, and those "modified organic life systems" survive to reproduce....
no, no its not. Fine, there are goats that produce spider silk in their milk, rats that cant fecate and blow up like balloons (they live long enough to reproduce though), etc. Again, cells and "organic life system" are the same thing... Modifications happen, there are plenty of genetic diseases, and those "modified organic life systems" survive to reproduce....
How old are you?
You are starting to sound belligerent and hysterical. Maybe we'll chat when you are old enough to control your temper.
the test of any real theory is not whether it suceeds in describing everything that has ever occured but if it is capable of PREDICTING experimental results. Based on evolution people predicted that animals with similar body forms would be genetically more similar than those with different body forms. This has been tested, and it confirms one aspect of evolution, that species are related to one another. There is nothing like this accounted for in "creation science". There is no reason in creation science to predict that species would be related because that makes little sense in the scheme of the theory. How did they become related? Woman came from man, but did chimp, gorilla, monkey? The is no mention of anything like this. What does it mean in creation science to have species that are related? If you discount evolution entirely, then species cant be related, and much much science dependent on that principle simply couldnt have occured, and yet it did.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfanate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
This is gibberish as far as I can tell. Billybobsky?
First you say there's not one piece of evidence, and then you state two pieces of the evidence. Ah, but you say that these two facts aren't evidence of evolution? It's only an assumption that these two facts are linked to evolution, right?
If that's how you see it, then you don't understand science. The word "evidence", in the sense of "piece of evidence", rather the in the sense "body of evidence", means a piece of information that contributes to a broader picture. Very seldom is one piece of evidence a slam-dunk straight to an inescapable conclusion.
Your strategy is clear: You are going to demand that each piece of evidence stands by itself, by more rigorous standards than even a whole body of evidence would normally be expected to support. When each piece of evidence doesn't in-and-of-itself prove the whole theory, you're going to dismiss it as worthless. You will call it an "assumption" when someone tries to use the piece of evidence to make any sort of claim.
Consider a murder trial. In most cases, if the prosecution had to rely on one single piece of evidence -- one fingerprint, one eyewitness, one suspicious life insurance policy, etc. -- they'd not merely be laughed out of court, they'd never get the case into a courtroom in the first place.
You treat all of the evidence ever presented to you supporting evolution like a single fingerprint in isolation from all other evidence, without consideration to the other evidence. If the "so-called evidence" for evolution can't stand up in court one piece at a time, with the jury kept ignorant of the bigger picture, you're happy to proclaim the whole thing nonsense.
Shetline the piece of evidence and body of evidence issue you forward I completely understand. I know what you are suggesting that I am doing. I am saying that there is no body of evidence as there is not one piece to begin with. I am not demanding that one piece carry the weight to prove the theory. Number one the theory has never been proven to date so why would I demand such a proof. I am speaking of evidence. There has been no empirical evidence or evidence that can be demonstrated to support the theory of evolution. What there is are assumptions based on the original concept of evolution.
Yes you noted that I understand natural selection and mutations do happen as can be seen clearly but you can't accept that I don't see the two as being responsable for origins of all life and the diversity of life as it is today. The two are not evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution makes assumptions that from rocks to humans materialistic reactions by chance lead from non-life to humans and all life forms. I don't buy that. If there was one piece of evidence that was found sufficient to demonstrate at least one aspect of evolution I would be happy to consider it. Natural selection does not do this. Nor do mutations.
This is gibberish as far as I can tell. Billybobsky?
yeah. the chemical mentioned is used as a none specific mutagen, for mutant analysis of genes and their function (its a common molec bio technique). As far as it creating a virus... that would be no...
...by chance lead from non-life to humans and all life forms. I don't buy that. If there was one piece of evidence that was found sufficient to demonstrate at least one aspect of evolution I would be happy to consider it. Natural selection does not do this. Nor does mutations.
Fellowship....
If you check most of the creationist science web sites, they suggest that natural selection is impossible. The reason is, that once you believe natural selection to occur, that is once you admit that the environment has a role in the reproducibility of an organism, it follow immediately that adaptations that enhance the ability for organisms to reproduce occur, and that these over time can lead to new organisms. What this doesnt account for, I will grant you, is how non-life chemicals became life chemicals. As a chemist this question is laughable, because there is no fundamental difference between a reaction far from equlibrium and life, nor from a reaction at equilibrium and death. But I will repeat, that is from a chemists perspective, and even in my own lab where most people are biologist, everyone wants to keep the evil "organic compounds" away from the good "biologic compounds" even though they are the same...
One of the issues people arguing with you have, Fellowship, is that the logical jump from natural selection to the POTENTIAL of evolution isnt that large. What I think we need to understand is how these two things dont connect in your mind. Perhaps, it is the fact that many arguing here think evolution occurs based upon the provable natural selection, and that IS a leap. Whereas saying, natural selection (which you have admitted to believe to occur) leads to the POTENTIAL of evolution is not a leap and requires no faith in evolution at all...
Shetline the piece of evidence and body of evidence issue you forward I completely understand. I know what you are suggesting that I am doing. I am saying that there is no body of evidence as there is not one piece to begin with.
But you've even stated and accepted as true some of the evidence for evolution -- you merely refuse to call it evidence. All that remains, then, is for you to give a clear definition of what you mean by "evidence", to make it clear why what others call evidence doesn't meet your obviously stricter (perhaps impossibly strict) standards.
I am not demanding that one piece carry the weight to prove the theory. Number one the theory has never been proven to date so why would I demand such a proof. I am speaking of evidence.
Strung together, these three sentences are such a logical tangle I barely know where to begin. Maybe if you finally spell out what exactly your criteria for evidence are, and what exactly your standards of proof are, I could get somewhere with the above.
There has been no empirical evidence or evidence that can be demonstrated to support the theory of evolution.
Sure there has been. Plenty. So, again, explain what's so special about your standards of evidence, and what's so terribly wrong with evolutionist's standards of evidence by comparison.
What there is are assumptions based on the original concept of evolution.
Is the the big sticking point? That scientists dare operate on... gasp! Assumptions!?
I'll go back to the analogy of a murder investigation. A fingerprint is found at the scene of a crime. Is this enough to prove that the owner of that fingerprint is the murderer? Of course not, and we'd have an awful justice system if that were enough to get you thrown in jail.
However, what does an investigator do at this point? He assumes that the owner of the fingerprint could be the killer, and goes from there. This doesn't mean that the investigator believes he already has found the killer, it's just a good working assumption. He goes from there and checks the print for a match. If he finds a match, he then investigates the suspect's whereabouts at the time of the crime, tracks down possible motives, looks for witnesses who might identify the suspect, etc.
If step by step the assumption of this one suspect's guilt leads to many pieces that fit into that picture, the investigator will indeed begin to believe he's found the killer. Some individual pieces of evidence might be strong, but no one piece of evidence has to be very strong if the overall fit of each piece is good. Some pieces of evidence might be explained by perfectly innocent circumstances, but again, if in total each piece fits well into a picture of the suspect's guilt, then you've got enough evidence for an arrest, and maybe even a conviction.
It sounds like you want to demonize the very notion of starting with an assumption as some sort of heresy to science, when in fact working assumptions are the backbone of any form of investigation.
Are there bad assumptions, assumptions that have outlived there usefulness, assumptions that are clung to even when they don't pay off? Sure. But after 150 years, most scientists are quite pleased with where the assumptions of evolutionary theory lead. For most scientists, evolution's fit to the existing picture formed by known data is amazing. When you discount those scientists who have a specific religious agenda (which doesn't make them wrong, but does give one reason to question there objectivity), or those who are commenting outside of their own disciplines, the number of scientists displeased with how well the theory of evolution fits the known data are few indeed.
Can you set aside for the moment demands for "proof"? Can you set aside trying to give alternate explanations? Can you set aside notions like "until they can show how inanimate matter turns into DNA, it's all a crock!" If you can...
Take evolutionary theory as a working assumption. Then evaluate the following:
The geographic distributions and particular variations of species that were the foundation for Darwin's original work.
The progression of fossil evidence, and how numerous dating techniques tend to sequence the fossils into sequences that looks like very much like a gradual progression of inheritance from one form to another. (Think like a grand jury here for a moment -- not a defense attorney looking for every bit of doubt he can try to shed on the prosecution's case.)
DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, is later discovered and has just the right kinds of characteristics Darwin's theory would need it to have -- a fairly stable mechanism for passing on traits, but with an element of chance mutation that can produce new variations.
"Microevolution" -- sure, it can't be used to PROVE "macroevolution", but small changes driven by natural selection, already seen on the small time scales we've had for studying the subject, certainly don't clash with the assumptions of evolution, do they?
Strong correlation between genomes in different species and likely lines of descent and common ancestry.
Numerous computational experiments that can demonstrate self organizing systems that arise from random variation coupled with selective forces.
Chemical experiments demonstrating that the building blocks of life can be produced with ease, starting from non-living matter. (Again, if your mind is screaming that this isn't the same thing as "proving" that DNA and cells can arise from inanimate matter, you aren't answering the right question. The question is: Do these experiments fit in without contradiction, and do they at least lend a little support, to the theory of evolution and its assumptions?)
Are you so ungenerous in your evaluation of evolution and the skills of evolutionary scientist's that you'd deny every one of these points even the faintest nod that, yes, you can see how this evidence might reasonably be viewed as fitting the assumptions of evolutionary theory?
yeah. the chemical mentioned is used as a none specific mutagen, for mutant analysis of genes and their function (its a common molec bio technique). As far as it creating a virus... that would be no...
The rest is crap too...
.....maybe you should study up on viral vectors and the problems (like death) associated with gene therapy.
but then again, since my age is in question...nevermind
.....maybe you should study up on viral vectors and the problems (like death) associated with gene therapy.
but then again, since my age is in question...nevermind
i understand gene therapy causes issues like death (mostly as of now because of intense immune responses to or indcution of cancer from the virus, and not by the virus itself). but the quote isnt refering to that at all. it is refering to using a mutagen to create a virus, when, well at least when the movie was made, other more specific methods of modifying DNA were perfectly available.
Comments
Feeling superior is a drug.
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
Here's the bogus science checklist. Does evolution fall under these points? Does creation science?
What is the relationship of creation science to fundamental Christianity?
That's all I got!
Originally posted by ena
Did the "self-programming" systems arise by chance too?
why not? i mean by chance, you have to realize that there is a universe that exists, with given laws pertaining to chemical reactivity, structure, stability etc, within that context, yes a self programing system can arise by chance. A simple example I discovered in my lab the other day. I prepared a solution of Hexane/Ethyl Acetate/Acetic Acid. Water leaked in (from the atmosphere) allowing the Acetic Acid to hydrolyze the Ehtyl Acetate to more Acetic Acid and Ethanol. Acetic acid with in the presense of water catalzed its own creation, by chance, within the physical/chemical properties that are well defined (that is if i set up the experiment again the same thing will occur)...
"self programing", accelerating, why the reaction progress would look like a bacterial colony growth, if i plotted it.
Yes, if a system has altered DNA you have a system failure, I think you are thinking of mutations in the transmission between progeny.
did you ever read my post way back when? or are you too ignoring me? Once you have many duplicates of two copies of something, there is no system failure. Thats it.
Originally posted by billybobsky
did you ever read my post way back when? or are you too ignoring me? Once you have many duplicates of two copies of something, there is no system failure. Thats it.
I have to apologize, but some of these posts ARE WAY TOO LONG.
You can't tinker with an DNA-based life form's DNA without causing "problems".
I saw saw at the movies, so it has to be true:
----------------------
Tyrell: What-- What seems to be the problem?
Roy: Death.
Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my
jurisdiction, you--
Roy: I want more life, fuucker.
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfanate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
--------------------------
ahh what a great movie......
......but seriously, this exchange is accurate.
Originally posted by ena
You can't tinker with an DNA-based life form's DNA with causing "problems".
uh. but scientist do it all the time. as long as the organism survives it can still pass its genes on to progeny. there is a post doc in my lab who has (designed) a bacteria that completely lacks the ability to synthesize its own amino acids (or rather transfer its synthesized amino acids to tRNA), it reproduces fine when all of the AAs are added exogenously, it doesnt otherwise. What I am trying to say is that that exchange is not accurate actually, horrible mutations can be survivable...
Originally posted by billybobsky
uh. but scientist do it all the time. as long as the organism survives it can still pass its genes on to progeny. there is a post doc in my lab who has (designed) a bacteria that completely lacks the ability to synthesize its own amino acids (or rather transfer its synthesized amino acids to tRNA), it reproduces fine when all of the AAs are added exogenously, it doesnt otherwise. What I am trying to say is that that exchange is not accurate actually, horrible mutations can be survivable...
I think you're missing the point---you need to put this in the context of a lifeform, not a single cell. I can see you tampering with a single cell---an "organic life system"---as Dr. Tyrell pointed out, is a whole other ball game.
Originally posted by ena
I think you're missing the point---you need to put this in the context of a lifeform, not a single cell. I can see you tampering with a single cell---an "organic life system"---as Dr. Tyrell pointed out, is a whole other ball game.
no, no its not. Fine, there are goats that produce spider silk in their milk, rats that cant fecate and blow up like balloons (they live long enough to reproduce though), etc. Again, cells and "organic life system" are the same thing... Modifications happen, there are plenty of genetic diseases, and those "modified organic life systems" survive to reproduce....
How old are you?
Originally posted by billybobsky
no, no its not. Fine, there are goats that produce spider silk in their milk, rats that cant fecate and blow up like balloons (they live long enough to reproduce though), etc. Again, cells and "organic life system" are the same thing... Modifications happen, there are plenty of genetic diseases, and those "modified organic life systems" survive to reproduce....
How old are you?
You are starting to sound belligerent and hysterical. Maybe we'll chat when you are old enough to control your temper.
bye bye
Originally posted by ena
You are starting to sound belligerent and hysterical. Maybe we'll chat when you are old enough to control your temper.
bye bye
what?
Originally posted by ena
You are starting to sound belligerent and hysterical. Maybe we'll chat when you are old enough to control your temper.
Actually, aside from the 'bye bye' comment, that was a very calm and well reasoned post. You shouldn't shy away with a false argument like this.
Originally posted by ena
......but seriously, this exchange is accurate.
Which bit? This bit?
Originally posted by ena
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfanate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
This is gibberish as far as I can tell. Billybobsky?
Originally posted by shetline
First you say there's not one piece of evidence, and then you state two pieces of the evidence. Ah, but you say that these two facts aren't evidence of evolution? It's only an assumption that these two facts are linked to evolution, right?
If that's how you see it, then you don't understand science. The word "evidence", in the sense of "piece of evidence", rather the in the sense "body of evidence", means a piece of information that contributes to a broader picture. Very seldom is one piece of evidence a slam-dunk straight to an inescapable conclusion.
Your strategy is clear: You are going to demand that each piece of evidence stands by itself, by more rigorous standards than even a whole body of evidence would normally be expected to support. When each piece of evidence doesn't in-and-of-itself prove the whole theory, you're going to dismiss it as worthless. You will call it an "assumption" when someone tries to use the piece of evidence to make any sort of claim.
Consider a murder trial. In most cases, if the prosecution had to rely on one single piece of evidence -- one fingerprint, one eyewitness, one suspicious life insurance policy, etc. -- they'd not merely be laughed out of court, they'd never get the case into a courtroom in the first place.
You treat all of the evidence ever presented to you supporting evolution like a single fingerprint in isolation from all other evidence, without consideration to the other evidence. If the "so-called evidence" for evolution can't stand up in court one piece at a time, with the jury kept ignorant of the bigger picture, you're happy to proclaim the whole thing nonsense.
Shetline the piece of evidence and body of evidence issue you forward I completely understand. I know what you are suggesting that I am doing. I am saying that there is no body of evidence as there is not one piece to begin with. I am not demanding that one piece carry the weight to prove the theory. Number one the theory has never been proven to date so why would I demand such a proof. I am speaking of evidence. There has been no empirical evidence or evidence that can be demonstrated to support the theory of evolution. What there is are assumptions based on the original concept of evolution.
Yes you noted that I understand natural selection and mutations do happen as can be seen clearly but you can't accept that I don't see the two as being responsable for origins of all life and the diversity of life as it is today. The two are not evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution makes assumptions that from rocks to humans materialistic reactions by chance lead from non-life to humans and all life forms. I don't buy that. If there was one piece of evidence that was found sufficient to demonstrate at least one aspect of evolution I would be happy to consider it. Natural selection does not do this. Nor do mutations.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is gibberish as far as I can tell. Billybobsky?
yeah. the chemical mentioned is used as a none specific mutagen, for mutant analysis of genes and their function (its a common molec bio technique). As far as it creating a virus... that would be no...
The rest is crap too...
Originally posted by billybobsky
The rest is crap too...
That's because it was a quote from the movie "Bladerunner."
Bladerunner screenplay
Scroll down to about p. 90 for the complete scene.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
materialistic reactions
Imput needed: Please define.
...by chance lead from non-life to humans and all life forms. I don't buy that. If there was one piece of evidence that was found sufficient to demonstrate at least one aspect of evolution I would be happy to consider it. Natural selection does not do this. Nor does mutations.
Fellowship....
If you check most of the creationist science web sites, they suggest that natural selection is impossible. The reason is, that once you believe natural selection to occur, that is once you admit that the environment has a role in the reproducibility of an organism, it follow immediately that adaptations that enhance the ability for organisms to reproduce occur, and that these over time can lead to new organisms. What this doesnt account for, I will grant you, is how non-life chemicals became life chemicals. As a chemist this question is laughable, because there is no fundamental difference between a reaction far from equlibrium and life, nor from a reaction at equilibrium and death. But I will repeat, that is from a chemists perspective, and even in my own lab where most people are biologist, everyone wants to keep the evil "organic compounds" away from the good "biologic compounds" even though they are the same...
One of the issues people arguing with you have, Fellowship, is that the logical jump from natural selection to the POTENTIAL of evolution isnt that large. What I think we need to understand is how these two things dont connect in your mind. Perhaps, it is the fact that many arguing here think evolution occurs based upon the provable natural selection, and that IS a leap. Whereas saying, natural selection (which you have admitted to believe to occur) leads to the POTENTIAL of evolution is not a leap and requires no faith in evolution at all...
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Shetline the piece of evidence and body of evidence issue you forward I completely understand. I know what you are suggesting that I am doing. I am saying that there is no body of evidence as there is not one piece to begin with.
But you've even stated and accepted as true some of the evidence for evolution -- you merely refuse to call it evidence. All that remains, then, is for you to give a clear definition of what you mean by "evidence", to make it clear why what others call evidence doesn't meet your obviously stricter (perhaps impossibly strict) standards.
I am not demanding that one piece carry the weight to prove the theory. Number one the theory has never been proven to date so why would I demand such a proof. I am speaking of evidence.
Strung together, these three sentences are such a logical tangle I barely know where to begin. Maybe if you finally spell out what exactly your criteria for evidence are, and what exactly your standards of proof are, I could get somewhere with the above.
There has been no empirical evidence or evidence that can be demonstrated to support the theory of evolution.
Sure there has been. Plenty. So, again, explain what's so special about your standards of evidence, and what's so terribly wrong with evolutionist's standards of evidence by comparison.
What there is are assumptions based on the original concept of evolution.
Is the the big sticking point? That scientists dare operate on... gasp! Assumptions!?
I'll go back to the analogy of a murder investigation. A fingerprint is found at the scene of a crime. Is this enough to prove that the owner of that fingerprint is the murderer? Of course not, and we'd have an awful justice system if that were enough to get you thrown in jail.
However, what does an investigator do at this point? He assumes that the owner of the fingerprint could be the killer, and goes from there. This doesn't mean that the investigator believes he already has found the killer, it's just a good working assumption. He goes from there and checks the print for a match. If he finds a match, he then investigates the suspect's whereabouts at the time of the crime, tracks down possible motives, looks for witnesses who might identify the suspect, etc.
If step by step the assumption of this one suspect's guilt leads to many pieces that fit into that picture, the investigator will indeed begin to believe he's found the killer. Some individual pieces of evidence might be strong, but no one piece of evidence has to be very strong if the overall fit of each piece is good. Some pieces of evidence might be explained by perfectly innocent circumstances, but again, if in total each piece fits well into a picture of the suspect's guilt, then you've got enough evidence for an arrest, and maybe even a conviction.
It sounds like you want to demonize the very notion of starting with an assumption as some sort of heresy to science, when in fact working assumptions are the backbone of any form of investigation.
Are there bad assumptions, assumptions that have outlived there usefulness, assumptions that are clung to even when they don't pay off? Sure. But after 150 years, most scientists are quite pleased with where the assumptions of evolutionary theory lead. For most scientists, evolution's fit to the existing picture formed by known data is amazing. When you discount those scientists who have a specific religious agenda (which doesn't make them wrong, but does give one reason to question there objectivity), or those who are commenting outside of their own disciplines, the number of scientists displeased with how well the theory of evolution fits the known data are few indeed.
Can you set aside for the moment demands for "proof"? Can you set aside trying to give alternate explanations? Can you set aside notions like "until they can show how inanimate matter turns into DNA, it's all a crock!" If you can...
Take evolutionary theory as a working assumption. Then evaluate the following:
- The geographic distributions and particular variations of species that were the foundation for Darwin's original work.
- The progression of fossil evidence, and how numerous dating techniques tend to sequence the fossils into sequences that looks like very much like a gradual progression of inheritance from one form to another. (Think like a grand jury here for a moment -- not a defense attorney looking for every bit of doubt he can try to shed on the prosecution's case.)
- DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, is later discovered and has just the right kinds of characteristics Darwin's theory would need it to have -- a fairly stable mechanism for passing on traits, but with an element of chance mutation that can produce new variations.
- "Microevolution" -- sure, it can't be used to PROVE "macroevolution", but small changes driven by natural selection, already seen on the small time scales we've had for studying the subject, certainly don't clash with the assumptions of evolution, do they?
- Strong correlation between genomes in different species and likely lines of descent and common ancestry.
- Numerous computational experiments that can demonstrate self organizing systems that arise from random variation coupled with selective forces.
- Chemical experiments demonstrating that the building blocks of life can be produced with ease, starting from non-living matter. (Again, if your mind is screaming that this isn't the same thing as "proving" that DNA and cells can arise from inanimate matter, you aren't answering the right question. The question is: Do these experiments fit in without contradiction, and do they at least lend a little support, to the theory of evolution and its assumptions?)
Are you so ungenerous in your evaluation of evolution and the skills of evolutionary scientist's that you'd deny every one of these points even the faintest nod that, yes, you can see how this evidence might reasonably be viewed as fitting the assumptions of evolutionary theory?Originally posted by billybobsky
yeah. the chemical mentioned is used as a none specific mutagen, for mutant analysis of genes and their function (its a common molec bio technique). As far as it creating a virus... that would be no...
The rest is crap too...
.....maybe you should study up on viral vectors and the problems (like death) associated with gene therapy.
but then again, since my age is in question...nevermind
Originally posted by ena
.....maybe you should study up on viral vectors and the problems (like death) associated with gene therapy.
but then again, since my age is in question...nevermind
i understand gene therapy causes issues like death (mostly as of now because of intense immune responses to or indcution of cancer from the virus, and not by the virus itself). but the quote isnt refering to that at all. it is refering to using a mutagen to create a virus, when, well at least when the movie was made, other more specific methods of modifying DNA were perfectly available.