Evolution is Unscientific

[RJM]

Genome Fusion

"Scientists believe the ultimate event in HGT (horizontal gene transfer) occurs through genome fusion between different species when two symbiotic organisms become endosymbiotic. This occurs when one species is taken inside the cytoplasm of another species, which ultimately results in a genome consisting of genes from both the endosymbiont and the host. This mechanism is an aspect of the Endosymbiont Theory, which is accepted by a majority of biologists as the mechanism whereby eukaryotic cells obtained their mitochondria and chloroplasts [from endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea] …

Within the past decade, the process of genome fusion by endosymbiosis has been proposed to be responsible for the evolution of the first eukaryotic cells. Using DNA analysis and a new mathematical algorithm called conditioned reconstruction (CR), it has been proposed that eukaryotic cells developed from an endosymbiotic gene fusion between two species: one an Archaea and the other a Bacteria. As mentioned, some eukaryotic genes resemble those of Archaea, whereas others resemble those from Bacteria. An endosymbiotic fusion event would clearly explain this observation ...

The theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts are endosymbiotic in origin is now widely accepted. More controversial is the proposal that (a) the eukaryotic nucleus resulted from the fusion of archaeal and bacterial genomes; and that (b) Gram-negative bacteria, which have two membranes, resulted from the fusion of Archaea and Gram-positive bacteria, each of which has a single membrane ..."

But which (across species) endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea has never been observed or reproduced

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, the question of truth or untruth does not even arise. If it is falsehood, it does not matter.

It is about PERCEPTION.
None of us were there in these "billions of years" it took for the universe to form.
Nobody actually experienced them. But we are led to believe that scientists are able to tell us exactly what happened
over these "billions of years" ?
We can't even agree what happened over the last 2000 years

It is as if "somebody" put playing of the video "the universe" on ultra fast-forward,
and it all happened in the blink of an eye. There are too many assumptions.
The whole science of physics is based on assumptions.

i.e. definitions of "time" and "distance", for example

That's all they are .. man-made definitions.
Time and again, I hear, "that is all we've got. Until you can prove that time is not linear, then we assume it is"

People can assume what they like. People can assume that "time rules, OK" .. but I say that "God rules, OK"

 

[RJM]

Am I permitted to defend myself?
On point one:

I swear this is not meant as an ad hominem (unlike his calling me a "Luddite" right at the start of the thread, in a fit of rage when l had been courteously rebutting him, and then deleting the post, yet still demeaning me)

What actually happened:

And yes l read your deleted replies, all of them.

Yes, sorry, as I said I realized I had failed to read your OP properly, so I deleted them.

Sure, l don't mind because you deleted them. I don't hold grudges like that, my grudges disappear within moments. I prefer to think well of people.

On point two:

I want it to be known that this individual is currently giving out a slew of false statements about current evolutionary theory, he has not understood the basics of it, and whether for or against whatever it is l believe, his statements are - objectively speaking - very confused and best avoided

... the guy really is clueless about the science of our current ToE and is making false statements such as that natural selection leads to gene mutation*.

* Quite false. I never said it or intended it in the causative way implied above.
What I actually said (and still await response):

Aren't natural genes exactly the genes that are subject to modification/mutation? Whether by laboratory design, or natural mutation?

Temporarily ignoring the next step -- to actual creation of a new species by the process -- why is deliberate laboratory gene modification of natural genes not equivalent to random natural gene mutation?

Are you demanding that a laboratory has to observe the process in the wild, rather than artificially initiate a process that could take forever to observe by random natural mutation (in the wild)?

Honest question. Please try to respond honestly

On point three:

he cited a Wikipedia article about the Swastika, to show me it was NOT a sun symbol, when the article right at the start states that it IS a sun symbol

What actually happened:

By the way, l actually knew this all along but decided not to call you out for it but as l am leaving, let me point out that you are knowingly misleading. Here is what the article you have quoted literally says:

"In Hinduism, the right-facing symbol (卐) is called swastika, symbolizing surya ("sun"),"

You cannot have missed that.

It'll be fun seeing how this pathological liar RJM Corbet wiggles his way out of this ...

(Comment was removed along with another insulting ad hominem towards another member, and warning issued)

Amongst other things, in the sense the sun symbolizes light, against the left-facing 'Kali' symbol for darkness. It's not sun worship. Hindus are not sun worshippers. They do not worship the sun as a deity. It is one sentence in context in an extended article, and I think the only sentence where the sun is mentioned, though I could be wrong:

Swastika Symbol
"The swastika symbol, 卐 (right-facing or clockwise) or 卍 (left-facing, counterclockwise, or sauwastika), is an ancient religious icon in the cultures of Eurasia. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[1][2][3]

In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the right-facing tilted form became a feature of Nazi symbolism as an emblem of the Aryan race. As a result of World War II and the Holocaust, many people in the West still strongly associate it with Nazism and antisemitism.[5][6] The swastika continues to be used as a symbol of good luck and prosperity in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain countries such as Nepal, India, Mongolia, China and Japan. It is also commonly used in Hindu marriage ceremonies.

The word swastika comes from Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक, romanized: svastika, meaning "conducive to well-being".[7][8] In Hinduism, the right-facing symbol (卐) is called swastika, symbolizing surya ("sun"), prosperity and good luck, while the left-facing symbol (卍) is called sauwastika, symbolising night or tantric aspects of Kali.[8] In Jainism, a swastika is the symbol for Suparshvanatha – the seventh of 24 Tirthankaras (spiritual teachers and saviours), while in Buddhism it symbolises the auspicious footprints of the Buddha.[8][9][10] In several major Indo-European religions, the swastika symbolises lightning bolts, representing the thunder god and the king of the gods, such as Indra in Vedic Hinduism, Zeus in the ancient Greek religion, Jupiter in the ancient Roman religion, and Thor in the ancient Germanic religion.[11]

The swastika is an icon which is widely found in both human history and the modern world.[12][8] In various forms, it is otherwise known (in various European languages) as the fylfot, gammadion, tetraskelion, or cross cramponnée (a term in Anglo-Norman heraldry); German: Hakenkreuz; French: croix gammée; Italian: croce uncinata. In Mongolian it is called Хас (khas) and mainly used in seals. In Chinese it is called 卍字 (wànzì) meaning "all things symbol", pronounced manji in Japanese, manja (만자) in Korean and vạn tự / chữ vạn in Vietnamese. A swastika generally takes the form of a cross, the arms of which are of equal length and perpendicular to the adjacent arms, each bent midway at a right angle.[13][14] The symbol is found in the archeological remains of the Indus Valley Civilisation[15] and Samarra, as well as in early Byzantine and Christian artwork.[12] …" etc

So ...

 

[Thomas]

It's unscientific as it is unevidenced.

The requirement of evidence is not as narrowly defined as you would like it to be.

Certainly, the ability to replicate an effect in the lab, or observed evidence of a theory, is the gold standard, but it is not the sole standard, and that's where your argument fails to carry sufficient clout. I'm sorry, but there is is ...

From Scientific American:
"The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain." (emphasis mine)

In fields where direct observation or laboratory experiments are difficult or impossible, the scientific method relies on observation and logical inference. In such fields, the test of falsifiability is satisfied when a theory is used to predict the results of new observations. When such observations contradict a theory's predictions, it may be revised or discarded if an alternative better explains the observed facts.

Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, suggested an unseen planet was the cause of unexpected variations in Mercury's orbit. This theory was superseded by Einstein's theory of General Relativity when the latter was observed to more precisely predict the orbit.

+++

If you mean its unevidenced in lab or field demonstrations, that's not the only evidence science relies on.

There's the stock of fossil evidence, similarities between species, similarities between varities within a species, enabling us to extrapolate graphs of procession. This is the core that God left us to form doubts with.

That is unscientific.

I consider it a mercy because if we had no option but to accept God, then our every little flaw would be a monumental sin.

No, that's an example of 'appeal to authority'.

One thing l want to intimate to you is that they are all likely to disappear up themselves within time as contrary findings mount. That is the nature of the beast.

Quite, but the beast is, nevertheless, scientific. Einstein displacing Newton is the nature of the beast. Is that unscientific?

Nowhere have l seen this more plainly than when l rode through Pennsylvania on a holiday, you actually see a soundwave stretched out in the form of these beautiful heavily forested hills. That's all l will tell of my alt theory.

Actually, that's an interesting theory.

As for my gruffness, that's because another moderator verbally abused me from the outset, and removed his abuse, and then gave me a warning when l pointed his various abuses out.

Well, two wrongs don't make a right.

Moreover, l felt put out that you let me write such a vast rebuttal which was actually giving you food for thought and upholding your principle of doubt and giving us common ground not just between us, but between ourselves and non-theists. It was an amazing piece of work and you just summarily dismissed it and l suspect didn't even read it and moreover added unpleasant counterpunches.

You seem to have a very high opinion of your own worth, to be honest. The rebuttal in itself was flawed.

My course tutor once said to me:
"You write very long sentences. The only other person I know who writes sentences as long as yours is St Augustine. His are worth reading. I'm not sure yours are."

I thought the comment quite amusing. The course director was horrified. I suppose its a skin-thickness thing.

As for the overtly abusive moderator ...

I think you're demonstrating petulance and a lack of objectivity. It seems you think we're all abusive moderators ... again I find this surprising, as you're not shy of dishing out the abuse yourself, in fact if you're unhappy with the tone of conversation, I'd look to its genesis – 'you reap what you sow'.

In response to this there will be a major troll rally after this post. Cave trolls, hill orcs, wobbling goblins, even an ogre. Every bizarre distorted cyber thoughtform will rise for this final apocalypse, led by their zombie moderator skeletal warlords. They will come at me strong, they will come at me good. Rank on rank, they will assemble for one climactic battle...

In your dreams – or is it honi soit qui mal y pense?

God bless, and go in peace.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..but the beast is, nevertheless, scientific. Einstein displacing Newton is the nature of the beast. Is that unscientific?

I'm not sure that it is.
I suppose we need to define science and its axioms.

I suppose something can be called science, but be complete nonsense
If we put the notion of science on a pedestal, we put mankind's opinions / perceptions on a pedestal, imo.

It's this "science is fact" and religion is only belief argument that continually purrs in the background.
It is none but satan who orchestrates it.. We are heading for a climatic catastrophe due to our thinking science
to be of more worth than other disciplines, and we think we can solve the conundrum with MORE science.

We can't !
..not unless people begin to see what is actually happening due to their turning their backs on truth,
and putting more faith in mankind than Almighty God.

 

[Thomas]

I suppose we need to define science and its axioms.

Those axioms are defined. If not, then any old nonsense could pose as science, and it can't.

Having said that, you can fool some of the people, etc., etc.

In 1957, the BBC serious documentary programme Panorama broadcast a programme about the spaghetti tree in Switzerland. It showed a family harvesting pasta that hung from the branches of the tree. Hundreds of people phoned in asking how they could grow their own tree.

It was broadcast on April Fools' Day.

The problem here is the want to redefine the axioms in support of a pet theory.

Simply, to insist on the rules of scientific proof, established in the 17th century, requires the ability to reproduce the effect or event on a laboratory, or observe its occurrence in the wild, will set us back 400 years.

I suppose something can be called science, but be complete nonsense

Yep.

It's this "science is fact" and religion is only belief argument that continually purrs in the background.

Always will among those who don't understand or accept they are two distinct fields with their own axioms. Most sensible people know this.

Richard Dawkins made a fool of himself when he tried to prove, scientifically, that God doesn't exist. He wrote very thick books. A Catholic philosopher wrote a very slim pamphlet which highlighted the flaw in his thinking. Dawkins was the more popular because he played up to contemporary secular thinking – that is, he told people what they wanted to hear. Like the other 'New Atheists' he bred prejudice and ignorance.

Then again, I have seen devout Muslims misled in the claim that the Qur'an is scientific because it confirms the speed of light. This is unfortunate because:
A) scientifically, the thesis fudges three different sets of parameters to arrive at the correct answer, and
B) theologically, angels are not 'light' in the sense of creatures of the electromagnetic spectrum.
C) it leaves them Islam open to unfair and ill-directed criticism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Always will among those who don't understand or accept they are two distinct fields with their own axioms..

I know what you mean, but are they?
Isn't reality the whole, and all academic disciplines somewhat overlapping each other to CONSTRUCT the whole?

It is convenient to put each academic discipline in neat little boxes in order to study for further education,
but that is not the reality that I perceive. I see reality as one reality

This is one reason why atheists are likely to come to different conclusions when studying scientific data than theists.

The data is the same, but the conclusion is not.
What constitutes the science .. the data, or the conclusion?

 

[juantoo3]

The whole science of physics is based on assumptions.

For the most part I have no philosophical disagreement with the rest of this post, but physics is basically advanced mathematics. It is way over my head, but it boils down to developing and interpreting the complex math equations, which are (as much as possible) based in observation and testing. Even broader concepts such as red shift between galaxies can be measured mathematically.

 

[juantoo3]

I know what you mean, but are they?
Isn't reality the whole, and all academic disciplines somewhat overlapping each other to CONSTRUCT the whole?

As I mentioned earlier, following after Gould, Science addresses "how?" and Religion addresses "why?" With that in mind, I think the two disciplines are mostly divergent, and only in very rare, specific instances do they overlap. The only that leaps to mind is "Love," in my opinion.

It is convenient to put each academic discipline in neat little boxes in order to study for further education,
but that is not the reality that I perceive. I see reality as one reality

This is one reason why atheists are likely to come to different conclusions when studying scientific data than theists.

The data is the same, but the conclusion is not.
What constitutes the science .. the data, or the conclusion?

This is called "bias." If a researcher is thoughtful and well intended, they do their level best to set aside their personal bias. Another way to look at it; so many folks in my experience enter a discussion with a foregone conclusion in mind, and their goal is to lead you to that place at any cost.

A thoughtful, well intended researcher begins at the beginning and follows the trail of clues, no matter where they lead, just like a detective. They might end up where he or she thought, then again they might end up a world away from where they thought...but that is a good researcher to set aside their beliefs and follow where the evidence leads to.

This actually goes back to a previous discussion you and I had, and I won't go into details, but you asked how I could argue for one thing in one place and argue what seemed basically the opposite in another place. I can answer plainly, here, now in this discussion because it highlights what I am trying to point out. In the one place I was defending my belief, in the other place I was following the evidence. In the one place my audience were and are believers, and out of respect and courtesy I argued my belief. In the other place it was an exploration of the history and background, and believers are not all able or capable of digesting such information, but the audience that was open to the history could understand the evidences presented. In my experience this isn't limited to Christianity. One argument was my faith, the other my science.

 

[juantoo3]

Genome Fusion

"Scientists believe the ultimate event in HGT (horizontal gene transfer) occurs through genome fusion between different species when two symbiotic organisms become endosymbiotic. This occurs when one species is taken inside the cytoplasm of another species, which ultimately results in a genome consisting of genes from both the endosymbiont and the host. This mechanism is an aspect of the Endosymbiont Theory, which is accepted by a majority of biologists as the mechanism whereby eukaryotic cells obtained their mitochondria and chloroplasts [from endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea] …

Within the past decade, the process of genome fusion by endosymbiosis has been proposed to be responsible for the evolution of the first eukaryotic cells. Using DNA analysis and a new mathematical algorithm called conditioned reconstruction (CR), it has been proposed that eukaryotic cells developed from an endosymbiotic gene fusion between two species: one an Archaea and the other a Bacteria. As mentioned, some eukaryotic genes resemble those of Archaea, whereas others resemble those from Bacteria. An endosymbiotic fusion event would clearly explain this observation ...

The theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts are endosymbiotic in origin is now widely accepted. More controversial is the proposal that (a) the eukaryotic nucleus resulted from the fusion of archaeal and bacterial genomes; and that (b) Gram-negative bacteria, which have two membranes, resulted from the fusion of Archaea and Gram-positive bacteria, each of which has a single membrane ..."

But which (across species) endosymbiosis between bacteria and archaea has never been observed or reproduced

I vaguely recall something like this in an introductory biology class years ago, but the details are long lost in a mental fog. Something about two not quite alive simple celled creatures combining to live symbiotically giving rise to what we now call "cells."

 

[muhammad_isa]

..This is called "bias."

Yes, that's what it is.
We are only human after all. We are not vulcans or what have you

Of course, we can be biased as an atheist or biased as a theist.
I know which one I choose and why

If a researcher is thoughtful and well intended, they do their level best to set aside their personal bias..

I agree, but I'm not sure how detached most people can become.
Perhaps all scientists should be hypnotized before they come to any conclusions?

This actually goes back to a previous discussion you and I had..
...
One argument was my faith, the other my science.

Yes .. I do understand.
Personally, I try to connect all the dots together between the two. Nothing is perfect, of course,
and nobody knows all.

It's this established science, established history thing. I've always been a rebel,
and I hope always will. Not just for the sake of it.
If I "smell a rat", I don't want to be herded into what I'm supposed to believe.

 

[RJM]

I vaguely recall something like this in an introductory biology class years ago, but the details are long lost in a mental fog. Something about two not quite alive simple celled creatures combining to live symbiotically giving rise to what we now call "cells."

Bacteria and Archaea are both very much alive. But they are single celled organisms. It was their combination that allowed the development of multicellular life forms. However that conjectured combination event between the two different species happened only once in the whole history of life on earth.

It took 1.5 billion years to happen, and has never been observed again in the 2.7 billion years that have followed since.

It is why although there are expectations of finding prokaryotic life (bacteria and archaea) on other worlds, it is considered unlikely to discover advanced life forms. I don't think they'll find even that ... but there's another story

 

[juantoo3]

Bacteria and Archaea are both very much alive. But they are single celled organisms. It was their combination that allowed the development of multicellular life forms. However that conjectured combination event between the two different species happened only once in the whole history of life on earth.

It took 1.5 billion years to happen, and has never been observed again in the 2.7 billion years that have followed since.

It is why although there are expectations of finding prokaryotic life (bacteria and archaea) on other worlds, it is considered unlikely to discover advanced life forms. I don't think they'll find even that ... but there's another story

We may never know.

 

[wil]

it is considered unlikely to discover advanced life forms. I don't think they'll find even that ... but there's another story

Didn't the king call his thumb an inch, and his foot a foot?

We always reference things to what we know.

You know like making gods in our image.

Even going so far as referring to all stars in relation to our miniscule sun, the basis of star size, one measly sol.

Thinking there arent other advanced forms of life is the thinking that we are an advanced form of life, lol.

I will agree we will probably never find them...my conjecture is they have seen us, want nothing to do with us, and are better at hide and seek than us.

As we place supreme.meaning in one measly soul.

Aren't y'all glad you don't have to live in my brain?

My stream of consciousness is a meandering creek bed, which occasionally overflows it's banks.

but there's another story

 

[RJM]

We always reference things to what we know.

Bingo

Thinking there arent other advanced forms of life is the thinking that we are an advanced form of life, lol.

Oh, I think advanced life forms surround us all the time: they're just not the corporeal carbon-based life we are looking for out there. Every planet harbours life. We just won't be able to recognize it. There are angelic beings able to move between worlds and dimensions, imo

 

[RJM]

We may never know.

Never. I agree.

The answers will only lead to more questions. I don't think we will ever nail down LUCA (the last common universal ancestor) of all life, or determine the point at which life originated by abiogenesis from inanimate stuff. It will always recede.

Science doesn't remove God from man's existence. Understanding the mechanism -- the tiny amount we do understand -- just makes it all the more wonderful, imo? I don't know how anyone can consider the incredible complexity of a single blade of grass and not worship and wonder ...

 

[juantoo3]

Oh, I think advanced life forms surround us all the time: they're just not the corporeal carbon-based life we are looking for out there. Every planet harbours life. We just won't be able to recognize it. There are angelic beings able to move between worlds and dimensions, imo

That is some of the most intriguing hypotheses I've read and heard recently.

The Fermi Paradox:

The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and various high estimates for their probability (such as some optimistic estimates for the Drake equation).[1][2]

The following are some of the facts that together serve to highlight the apparent contradiction:

• There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.[3][4]
• With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets.[5]
• Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun.[6][7] If the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
• Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
• Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.[8]
• And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.[9]
• However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.[8]

There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox,[10][11] primarily suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial beings are extremely rare, that the lifetime of such civilizations is short, or that they exist but (for various reasons) we see no evidence.

Although he was not the first to consider this question, Fermi's name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York and Emil Konopinski. While walking to lunch, the men discussed recent UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel. The conversation moved on to other topics, until during lunch Fermi allegedly said suddenly, "But where is everybody?" (although the exact quote is uncertain).[12][13]

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia

Voyager spacecraft have shown the background radiation to be far too high for life as we know it to sustain...at the very least some protective shielding would be necessary for interstellar travel.

So...if interstellar travel is prohibited because of radiation, what about interdimensional travel? A hypothesis with a cult following slowly gaining traction is that maybe UFOs are not from Outer Space, but from another Dimension of Space. It is an intriguing concept, but I don't have enough information to elaborate further.

 

[Thomas]

Isn't reality the whole, and all academic disciplines somewhat overlapping each other to CONSTRUCT the whole?

Yes. Interpretation supported by evidential data, the 'best worst' system we have. That cannot preclude the data being 'true', but interpreted incorrectly.

It is convenient to put each academic discipline in neat little boxes in order to study for further education, but that is not the reality that I perceive. I see reality as one reality

OK, but if we're going to add to the sum of human knowledge, then academic disciplines are a benefit and a necessity.

This is one reason why atheists are likely to come to different conclusions when studying scientific data than theists.

Well theists draw different conclusions, too.

What constitutes the science .. the data, or the conclusion?

The conclusions.

Hence different religious traditions interpret the data of revelation differently, whereas the different academic disciplines generally agree with each other when discussing their respective disciplines. You don't get biologists (for example) going to war with physicists (for example).

 

[juantoo3]

Hence different religious traditions interpret the data of revelation differently, whereas the different academic disciplines generally agree with each other when discussing their respective disciplines. You don't get biologists (for example) going to war with physicists (for example).

OK, but there are disagreements in Science rather often.

Clovis, or Solutrean?

Hard science is pretty well cut and dried. 2+2=4, that kind of stuff. But most science is soft science (a delineation a lot of wannabees would rather not discuss). Pea soup green is soothing, true, but color psychology is not exactly hard science because it isn't true under any and all situations. (This is called "institutional green" by the way, and why psych wards and such tend to be painted in this color.)

Evolution, in spite of any arguments to the contrary, is a soft science. It is no less science, but the very nature of the line of inquiry demands that certain presumptions have to be put forward until proven or disproven. There is a great deal of proof, but that proof is not universal and total.

 

[Thomas]

Pea soup green is soothing, true, but color psychology is not exactly hard science because it isn't true under any and all situations.

Yeah, Heaven help the man who invented pea soup green if I meet him down a dark alley