Mach

Logic doesn't typically lead to circles, if you find you're going in circles I submit that you're just making an error. I mean that seriously.

As to reading your link, I have already read plenty of Aquinas. A seemingly intelligent and diligent individual. And, tragically wrong about a great many things. I do not scorn him for being so wrong, most people who add to knowledge/culture fail at far more things than they succeed at. It's the norm.

All I'm pointing out is that for you to suggest that presenting works of a historical priest who was a theologian, is hardly the definition of empircal evidence. You then attempt to claim that because Aquianas may have in some cases actually appealed to evidence (certianly not all, he starts with premises of god existing in his work!), this doesn't convey credibility to his conclusions, which are not entirely based on empirical evidence.

If I see a turtle go underwater for a long time and I conclude it has gills, you're saying it's fine because my claim is based on empirical evidence. Wrong. The empircal evidence of a turtle going under water doesn't mean the incorrect conclusion is valid, and it also doesn't mean it's based entirely on empirical evidence. In PART, but I left out the part where the turtle surfaced and inhaled, and when we dissected a dead turtle found no evidence of gills.

Going under water does not imply gills. Having gills, implies having gills. Not tricky at all.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

nkgupta80

no, genetic drift as a process was discovered by mendel, but the theory explaining what pushes this drift is evolutionary theory. Evolution's predictions of relatedness of species was later confirmed by evidence in genetic drift.

I specifically said that "Genetic drift for example has followed what is expected from evolutionary theory". I never said evolutionary theory led to the discovery of genetic drift.

I've read your posts, and they show a lack of understanding of what went into developing evolutionary theory (Darwin was only the start).

Natural selection is just a continuation of a simple logical process that we observe in the universe. Selection goes as follows:

If there are something competing within an environment, and these things have the ability to change, you will see an evolution of those things towards an equilibrium. When you change the environment, equilibrium is disturbed, and evolution ensues again to reach an equilibrium. (This can be all put a lot more elegantly and abstract but I won't try).

Natural selection works cause the things we're looking at are species competing within an environment. The environment changes since genes change through generations and the external environment changes (other species, climate, etc.)

Of course there are selection forces in anything following the same model. [Chemistry is a good example].

Now the logical step is that if we expand this process over a billion years, change will be very very significant.

What do you find unbelievable in all this.

justone

It was not only discovered but also described; and it is a part of the 3 fundamental principals of all genetics.



I am sorry you again are doing the same. There are laws of genetic drift. They were described by Mendel and they have no relation to Darwin. It is known that Darwin couldn’t even read Mendel’s work due to absence of any understanding of mathematics.


Genetic drift happened at the same time as TOE they had no connection. Late evolutionists tried to make a connection – I had described all of it….

So you are repeating my experience of conversations with evolutionists. ‘’Shut up you don’t understand.’’ No my dear, I have reported, if you cared to read, that I was aware of the claims that Darwin was only a start. I am aware and familiar with a whole number of denominations of the religion of evolution.


Well, I am sorry for the above. You are so kind to explain, but not just to call me stupid. I am sending you roses. Thanks, but no, thanks. Here you are missing the point I have repeated many times. There is no logic or logical process that has a value in science. As you are taking away from science, I have already said that I respect your logic and on this particular thread I pursue no interest of arguing logic.

You don’t have to try I have heard the same in a all elegant and abstract forms. It is all fine with me. I am not arguing why logically evolution cannot happen, I am assuming your logic is flawless. But it has no relation to the scientific method. All I have been asking is one justone link. Did you read my quote of the religious fanatic of the scientific method who had happened to be an atheist:’’ No matter how smart you are, no matter how beautiful your theory is… ‘’? You are smart and beautiful, but it is not what I am trying to discuss here…

justone

It is not relevant.

I am breaking my legs at your English. Is English your native language? I guess I agree with your suggestion.


In what case out of the 5 he does not appeal to empirical evidence?


Nothing would make a blind believer to click on the link submitted to him. It is exactly the opposite – he starts this particular chapter with premises that God cannot be proven, but known to be taken by faith only…. In what case out of the 5 he starts with premises of god existing?

Again, there is the link, the short text – where his conclusions are not based on empirical evidence and where they are based on empirical evidence? You make me laugh, it seems I have beaten you down to accepting that they are based on empirical evidence, but not entirely. I am going to sleep well tonight, Mach has accepted that my faith has some empirical evidence in its base…. I have never been able to get such an acceptation from an atheist for all my life on DP. I am going to sleep well after partying hard…. Unless it is just Mach’s English as the second language.

If I see a turtle under water I only conclude that the turtle is under water. When I see Mach underwater I can conclude that Mach has gills…. Can we try to hold you under water for 15 minutes, to prove that you have gills? You have been swimming in so much of waters in your posts… can we try to go dry?

Voidwar

Complete Falsehood.

ID is a reworking of creationism, where dishonest people tried to get around U.S. Law, by the transparent tactic of taking their god's name out of the fairy tale they are trying to peddle.

Creationism did not come from any kind of science, but from fear of the unknown, and the lies preachers tell to use this fear to control their flock.

nkgupta80

[quote]ok..



Where do I say that they had some direct relation. Of course later scientists made the connection. Its called verifying a theory. If evolution were true, then later scientists hypothesized that genetic drift (as discovered by Mendel), should support the claims of evolution, which it did. Yes evolution at its beginnings (by darwin), was a fairly unsupported theory, so scientists continued to make hypotheses and predictions upon it.

Evolution answers why genetic drift goes the way it does, why populations change in a certain way, and not the other.



you're talking about origins of ideas, I am talking about how biologists used and connected those ideas. Again, if genetic change occurs in competeing environments, there will be always selective forces at work. Darwin had no idea of genetics, but he had the insight to see that species have similarities depending on their environments. This was an incomplete theory of evolution. Genetics filled in the missing piece.


when did I say shutup? I said that your posts show a lack of understanding of evolution and even science it seems from your absurd claim that logical process has no value in science..




Uhh, then you miss the point of science. Science is a two step process. You take empirical evidence. Try to find models that fit that evidence. Then you make predictions on that evidence (through experiments), and see if those models are verified. You can ALSO expand the logic of that simple model and see whether empirical data in the world fits that. Science is both an inductive and deductive process. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. Seriously, if there is no logical process, then mathematics would have no place in physics...



well of course, a theory can be beautiful but unbased if it doesn't have predictive value. If it cannot predict observable events in the real world, then it cannot be validated.

natural selection is verifiable. easily in fact. Now I go to the second step in science, which is expanding your simple model logically, and then seeing if it contradicts or predicts observable data in the world. That is what evolution is. It takes the idea of natural selection and says that logically natural selection over billions of years would cause A LOT of change (i.e new species). "If this hypothesis were true, what kind of data would we expect to find." Cool thing is, the expected data is continually found, and contradictory data never is.

justone

I may have to get back to you later, but again, - what do i have to do - to repost my previous posts?

''Science is a two step process. You take empirical evidence. ''

No you don't it is not step 1. Read my posts - the 4 rules, the full and complete description of the scientific method.

nkgupta80

sry, by empirical evidence i meant observable data you see aroudn the world. Otherwise my steps pretty much concur. Now where does it say there is no logical process. formulating a model is a logical process. expanding the model deductively is a logical process. That is what einstein did on classical mechanics. He expanded the model deductively. Then the new model was tested over the years (it took years before it could be tested more accurately).

justone

Don’t be sorry, we are just talking. I can only notice that one needs a good intellect and character to be able to withdraw, reconsider or correct his/her statement in a debate on DP..
No. Observable data is even more strange for the method.

Neither evidence nor data are considered. Read my reply to Rev.

The first step is to observe a PHENOMENON (or as they often call today – an event).
One has to observe a monkey turning into a man or one specie turning into another one, or as they call it in TOE “speciation” or “genetic isolation”. Like the Christian creationist scientist Mendel observed the genetic inheritance variations as real time events. Then using logic (mathematics) he described as nearly as possible the regularity and the path of events – statistically or mathematically or graphically. Then, in experiments, scientists verify the accuracy of the formulas and descriptions and make corrections if necessary. The speculations about the nature of the causes of the phenomena are not considered, until such causes are observed. It is like Aquinas would have to observe the first cause and measure and describe it mathematically (which of course would be a total contradiction to the nature of the first cause and any possible logic; only an atheist would require it from Aquinas)

Absolutely not, he was looking for explanation of the phenomena observed in experiments of the Christian creationist scientist Maxwell, as well as some other observations. TOR is a mere attempt to explain (describe mathematically) the observed phenomena. The principal of relativity goes 350 years back to Galileo. TOR does not deny classical mechanics in any way or measure. It does not correct it. Then I would ask you to drop TOR unless you feel comfortable in physics, including not only TOR but also classical mechanics. Do you completely understand and can apply the 3 laws of Newton? Inertial frame of reference? Can you write the proof of the first law if I give a hint where to start? The hint is – such a proof does not exist. OK? Can you make it a kind of a simple “”biology for idiots’’? Do you really have to loose me in Einstein?

Step 1 – observe speciation. Step 2 - try to formulate regularity and applications and describe mathematically. Step 3 - confirm that experiments follow the description. Make correction in the description, conduct a new experiment. If one justone experiment denies the description your theory is wrong, start all over again. Not data, not evidence but observation of a phenomena, an event is the starting point. Not logic, but experiment is the key word of science.

The thing is it shouldn’t take you so long to read my previous posts, then you would spare me from repeating them. All I have been asking for is one justone link to an event of speciation. In real science it does not even matter if you have 1000s of links, - when one justone link is contradicting, justone makes 1000s wrong. ‘’No amount of experiments can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong’’ – said Einstein playfully reciting rule 4. TOR was and still is a subject for disproval. I have been asking for one justone link proving that you’re right when I have already pointed to a whole number proving you wrong. It's like I am asking you to put cross shoes on and race with me when my feet and legs are tied, I am giving you full advantage.

You say:
1. Did I ever claim that genetic drift was discovered by Mendel? Based on Mendel’s laws it was introduced a lot later. Then even later some evolutionists announced it to be evolution but as the matter of fact they were not in agreement with you or Darwin at all, because you say:


The idea of genetic drift is that the combinations of alleles may be calculated with some approximation statistically with no environment function involved. Genetic drift is the process of change in allele frequencies that occurs entirely from chance. You see I am no biologist – is it why when I look at Pinnet square or what his name – Da Fenitti (?) triangle I see no coordinate of environment and I see no line of genetic isolation (speciation)? Can you see and show to me? But again it is not important. Each evolutionist sees his own lines of evolution, has his own variant of theory of evolution and I flatly refuse to undertake a futile task to refute each and every variation. I accept that your logic is beautiful.

2. What is important. If you read you would know that I don’t even care what do you mean as long as you accept that you have said ‘’scientists hypothesized’’, ‘’scientists continued to make hypotheses’’ and you stand by these words of yours.

You have been ignoring rule 4.


‘’This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses. “

do not feign hypotheses…… hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
I can cut you a slack considering 2 facts. 1. Newton is a prophet and no earthly being can follow his commands exactly.
2. I may accept that during the last century due to some practical reasons hypothesis are unavoidable.

So, you may make hypotheses as long as you want.

I am not trying to disprove you. I have been demonstrating that I make no attempt to disprove evolution here. I merely point that hypotheses however smart they are, however beautiful they are, however many scientists accept them do not constitute any scientific truth and do not have any practical scientific use. They are not a subject to disproval. That’s all.

I have been demonstrating 2 points.

1. Theory of evolution does not exist. There is nothing to talk about or argue against from the scientific POV.
2. All different personal philosophies of evolution a.k.a. hypotheses are not subjects of disproval.

That’s all.
You logic is as beautiful as you are. My logic is ugly, but I like it.
It's Only Rock 'n Roll (But I Like It)

nkgupta80

observable data is observations...if I observe a monkey on a tree, its observable data. If I see that two species have similar characteristics its observable data.

Secondly, Acquinas, on the nature of causes doesn't prove anything special. There must be a first cause with no beginning... Ok... sure we'll call that god. But what practical purpose is there, I can call that god, someone calls it Allah, another calls it a singularity, someone else calls it an infinite transgression, whatever. his later proofs of god begin sticking in interesting but highly subjective and indirect conclusions. Like: everything tends towards the best, so there must be a perfection, which is god. OK... but you see that it has no practical value as well, and there is a lot of room for argument of what "best" is, and again what the nature of god is. All acquinas really brings up are interesting conundrums in logic and reason, and even limits to logic and reason. No scientist disagrees that there are open questions that are unsolvable. The human mind is limited. A scientist's goal however is simply to understand the observable world based on the abilities we have.

Uhh TOR does correct classical mechanics when considering larger bodies and faster frames of reference. Classical mechanics was inadequate in explaining it. actually the simple formula of relativity figured out years before was plain wrong for calculating relative speeds near the speed of light. He has a corrected version, that takes into account all reference frames.

The second half of your paragraph gets into an interesting thing about the nature of reason, proof, and truth. Yes every logical system we use comes back to a basic set of assumptions that we take for granted. We cannot necessarily prove why there is momentum, or something simple like why red is red. But we have to take them for granted when we create our models. If they have practical results, we give those assumptions more value.

I digress, the point of bringing Einstein into the picture was to show that his extension of classical mechanics was largely deductive, based on a few hypothetical assumptions deduced by simple observations. The rest was mathematical formulation (a think of beauty). It was only later on that the final step of the scientific method was employed, which was to prove that his theory yielded observable results.




Key word is models which are logic. Experiments are designed through logic. Logic is everything. Math is pure logic. Science is nothing without math. Again its quite absurd to think there is no value of logic in science.

Evolution, the steps were (and quite valid)
Darwin:
Observed similarities in species. Attempted to observe why those similarities occur (seemingly random). Take into account other observations: Populations change, die off, grow. By each generation we see many changes such as hair color, height, etc. (humans are an easy observation).

Now comes logic and hypothesis:

Well if two populations are competing in an environment of limiting resources, the population with the better advantage to survive will grow faster than a population with less of an advantage. This could be the same species or different species. Darwin's hypothesis was that evolution would occur over time, cause changes that are more advantageous will stick, while changes that are not advantageous will die off with the population. Hence evolution.

Open question: What causes that change from generation to generation. Evolution was still not considered valid until this question was answered, and it was later answered by genetics.



No, because genetic differences show only one line of evolution, there isn't much room for interpretation. You are right that if we still followed Darwin's methods of relating species, we'd be running into a lot of problems. We'd probably try relating fish and whales as more related than whales and other mammals. Phenotypes aren't hardfast like genotypes. By examining genes we see only one set of relations and very little confusion.

This last part got me kinda confused (i haven't quoted your whole post). Are you saying that hypotheses are not necessary? Or are they invalid? Or unprovable? I agree that I said that scientists hypothesize and continue to hypothesize. But they also test them. whats so hard about that.

And as for your 2 points, I'm claiming that you haven't demonstrated either. The last sentence again kinda alludes to the nature of reason. Yes there are different logical systems, but once they start conflicting drastically, you have a problem. The logic that goes into natural selection and evolution is NOT different from the logic that goes into every other science. Now if you accept science as a study, if you accept its results, then you accept the logic behind it. You live in a society where technology created from scientific models is all around you and you constantly use it. If you deny that the logic behind those models produced valid results, then you're living in conflict.

BTW, you keep saying you have to repeat your posts. I've read your posts, and a lot of it doesn't make sense, and it is hard to argue with out bringing some of those topics up. So it is better that if we have a debate here, we debate step by step. You argue, i refute, i argue, you refute. If need be that you need to repeat something, you gotta do it, sry about that.

One final question: why do you find evolution so hard to accept? Evolution doesn't disprove god (even in Acquinas' proofs), it just shows that the Christian version of creation is wrong, which Acquinas did not prove haha. It was actually the Christian thinker St. Augustine that said wonderfully(Its funny how you put christian scientist infront of everyone ):