Two Questions for Christians

[Voter]

Yes, authors of science articles have a nasty habit of assuming their readers have a basic understanding of science. This unfortunate assumption certainly doesn't help mend the widening rift between Christianity and science.

So what would you propose? We need to agree on that before assessing your proposed evidence.

Since you're the one asking, you propose one first.

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

[Voter]

Regarding natural/supernatural, the terms aren't particularly useful, as the distinction can result from perspective. For instance, if Jesus can explain just how he turned water into wine, then it's natural from his perpective, supernatural from ours. If someday he does explain it, or we figure it out on our own, then it is natural to us as well. Just because we haven't figured out how to discuss or test something in natural terms doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.

[Loffler]

So what would you propose? We need to agree on that before assessing your proposed evidence.

Since you're the one asking, you propose one first.

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

We're looking for a definition for scientific evidence, not scientific theory.

[tdh26]

Wow, this thread is cool. First:

As in another thread on the forum, I'm seeing the potential for good discussion go by the wayside because tdh and voter are ignoring perfectly sound answers to questions. loffler provided exactly what you two needed, but you blew it off. If you want to discuss science, then be willing to discuss science, not why you don't believe it.

I absolutely believe in science and love learnig more about it and I really disagree with other comments about how science and religion are a odds. I think they compliment each other.

The level of misunderstanding is astounding here. One thing I do agree with you on is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural. At least we've got that behind us! But I highly encourage you to take some college level biology, physics, astronomy courses...something that brings you beyond the level of "Answers in Genesis", etc.  This is really painful and it is also why I started staying out of any threads to do with the subjects I am most knowledgeable on, biology and astronomy. It's just too head-bangingly hard to go over and over the same ground with people who don't want to learn something. It's hard not to get sucked back in though, especially when you see people not responding to valid points. It's different and much more rewarding when people actually want to learn something, but that so rarely happens that it's just easier and less time consuming/frustrating to sit back and watch the wheels fall off the wagon.

To get and understanding of where I'm coming from, please google 'Most scientific papers are wrong'. There are a host of other books on the subject. I just don't believe a lot of science as an absolute because it changes a lot. Just look at papers that were published just 30-40 years ago.

There we go again, my wife just came in bitching about me being on the internet. We all have our crosses to bear.

Part of the reason I started on this forum is I got laid-off work and had a little time on my hands. I just found another job and most likely won't have as much time as I'd like to spend here and I've learned a lot from you guys from your prospective. (my views haven't changed though--go figure) I'm sure my responces haven't been up to par as this has been new to me. I'm sure Voter and myself are very different, just as you all are, but I wish you all the best. I hope you don't mind me visiting in the furture.

[Voter]

Since you're the one asking, you propose one first.

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

We're looking for a definition for scientific evidence, not scientific theory.

I thought it was apparent that scientific evidence is the fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

[Loffler]

OK. In simplest form, I'd say that a scientific theory is supported by fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

We're looking for a definition for scientific evidence, not scientific theory.

I thought it was apparent that scientific evidence is the fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions.

As did I, which is why I found it peculiar when you requested a definition for scientific evidence.

[McQ]

Wow, this thread is cool. First:

As in another thread on the forum, I'm seeing the potential for good discussion go by the wayside because tdh and voter are ignoring perfectly sound answers to questions. loffler provided exactly what you two needed, but you blew it off. If you want to discuss science, then be willing to discuss science, not why you don't believe it.

I absolutely believe in science and love learnig more about it and I really disagree with other comments about how science and religion are a odds. I think they compliment each other.

The level of misunderstanding is astounding here. One thing I do agree with you on is that science doesn't deal with the supernatural. At least we've got that behind us! But I highly encourage you to take some college level biology, physics, astronomy courses...something that brings you beyond the level of "Answers in Genesis", etc.  This is really painful and it is also why I started staying out of any threads to do with the subjects I am most knowledgeable on, biology and astronomy. It's just too head-bangingly hard to go over and over the same ground with people who don't want to learn something. It's hard not to get sucked back in though, especially when you see people not responding to valid points. It's different and much more rewarding when people actually want to learn something, but that so rarely happens that it's just easier and less time consuming/frustrating to sit back and watch the wheels fall off the wagon.

To get and understanding of where I'm coming from, please google 'Most scientific papers are wrong'. There are a host of other books on the subject. I just don't believe a lot of science as an absolute because it changes a lot. Just look at papers that were published just 30-40 years ago.

There we go again, my wife just came in bitching about me being on the internet. We all have our crosses to bear.

Part of the reason I started on this forum is I got laid-off work and had a little time on my hands. I just found another job and most likely won't have as much time as I'd like to spend here and I've learned a lot from you guys from your prospective. (my views haven't changed though--go figure) I'm sure my responces haven't been up to par as this has been new to me. I'm sure Voter and myself are very different, just as you all are, but I wish you all the best. I hope you don't mind me visiting in the furture.

Best of luck with the new job. Stop by as you can. We may never agree on these things, but that doesn't mean it isn't good to discuss them. And You have my sincere apology for misunderstanding your original intent.  

[McQ]

[Voter if you are so willing to discuss what loffler already pointed out, then you would answer him directly and not try to shift responsibility to me.

You jumped in and asserted yourself as somewhat of an authority on matters scientific. Seemed like a definition of scientific evidence was a reasonable request. Apparently I was wrong.

Shifting...again. And yes, you are wrong. You've been asked by more than just me to start with your own definition. Additionally, I am somewhat of an authority on biology, oncology, and genetics. It's my job, every day. You seem to have a problem with that. But it's not my problem. By the way, I'm not the only person asking you to come up with the definition yourself, first.

I don't need to get up to speed, I'm allowing an opponent a first crack at defining basic terms of discussion. Friendler people find that to be a polite gesture.

Yeah, actually, you do seem to really need to get up to speed, and I provided you with some credible sources. And again, you are shifting responsibility. As for being friendly, I'm quite friendly to people who respect the forum, the forum rules, and the people here. If you want to accuse me of something, make it worth while, like that I am intolerant of people who do not wish to discuss things rationally. I genuinely thought that you seemed like you might want to discuss something rationally and gave you kudos for it. But your desire to simply argue without merit came right back out. And by trying to attack the person (me) by applying labels to suit yourself, you lose credibility.
 

No, it doesn't make sense to rail against a request for a definition of scientific evidence, then claim that your goal is to educate me on science and what it is and does. That's complete nonsense.

Rail against? Really? Happy to disappoint you. That's not railing. Re-read it and get down to the business of answering or move on. Stick to the topic and avoid building straw men.

Lastly, as I said before, I'm out of this shindig, except to keep it on track. I have neither the time nor desire to slog through it. I simply jumped in to moderate the discussion in order to keep it from veering too far off because of people not directly answering posts from members.

If only...

My statement of why I entered into the thread is truthful and accurate. Your sarcasm will only serve to lower your credibility even further. Now, either get back to the topic at hand or leave the thread to people who actually want to discuss it. You've shown a need to try to engage in fruitless argument, but I hope you will try to continue this in a more meaningful way from this point.

And please do not bother trying to engage me in this thread, unless it is to legitimately learn something about science, or to legitimately discuss the topic of science.

[Voter]

[Voter if you are so willing to discuss what loffler already pointed out, then you would answer him directly and not try to shift responsibility to me.

You jumped in and asserted yourself as somewhat of an authority on matters scientific. Seemed like a definition of scientific evidence was a reasonable request. Apparently I was wrong.

Shifting...again. And yes, you are wrong. You've been asked by more than just me to start with your own definition. Additionally, I am somewhat of an authority on biology, oncology, and genetics. It's my job, every day. You seem to have a problem with that. But it's not my problem. By the way, I'm not the only person asking you to come up with the definition yourself, first.

As soon as Loffler passed on the opportunity and asked me to go first, I did so. It was very easy, a lot easier and faster than your diatribes. Seems you were unable to answer.

I don't need to get up to speed, I'm allowing an opponent a first crack at defining basic terms of discussion. Friendler people find that to be a polite gesture.

Yeah, actually, you do seem to really need to get up to speed, and I provided you with some credible sources. And again, you are shifting responsibility. As for being friendly, I'm quite friendly to people who respect the forum, the forum rules, and the people here. If you want to accuse me of something, make it worth while, like that I am intolerant of people who do not wish to discuss things rationally. I genuinely thought that you seemed like you might want to discuss something rationally and gave you kudos for it. But your desire to simply argue without merit came right back out. And by trying to attack the person (me) by applying labels to suit yourself, you lose credibility. [/quote]
Loffler agreed with my definition. Does he need to get up to speed, too? Are we both wrong? Or are you just unwilling to admit when you are wrong?
 

No, it doesn't make sense to rail against a request for a definition of scientific evidence, then claim that your goal is to educate me on science and what it is and does. That's complete nonsense.

Rail against? Really? Happy to disappoint you. That's not railing. Re-read it and get down to the business of answering or move on. Stick to the topic and avoid building straw men. [/quote]
Yes, that's railing - bitter complaint. I am on topic with Loffler. If you'd just butt out and show some patience it would go a lot smoother.

[Voter]

The strongest evidence is the subsequent discover, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true

No, DNA does not behave exactly as expected after reading Darwin. Darwin thought that acquired characteristics were heritable. If Darwin were correct, then DNA would be altered by, for instance, exercise, or lack of exercise. A person born with normal musculature who then exercised to greater musculature would effect a heritable change in his DNA. This is not what we have found.

From Origin of Species Ch. 5:
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited.

And from Ch. 1:
But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.

The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with the state of these organs in other countries, is another instance of the effect of use.

[Loffler]

The strongest evidence is the subsequent discovery, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true

No, DNA does not behave exactly as expected after reading Darwin.

Like most Christians, you have an unhealthy fixation with Darwin. He is one scientist of thousands of scientists responsible for the state of modern biology.

My actual statement, rather than the statement you dishonestly tried to pass off as my statement , still holds true: DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true. Evolution is not "Darwinism." Evolution is modern biology.

Darwin thought that acquired characteristics were heritable. If Darwin were correct, then DNA would be altered by, for instance, exercise, or lack of exercise.

Not what Darwin had in mind, but diet and exercise can trigger changes to your DNA.

I'm going to do you a big favor: go tell your Christian buddies to stop wasting their time trying to disprove Darwin. Evolution has advanced light years beyond Origin of Species and you guys have so much catching up to do, you can't afford to get caught up on a 150-year-old book.  Darwin is not our Jesus. Say it with me: Darwin is not our Jesus. Knock him down, and you've got thousands more biologists to contend with. And if you think Darwin being proven wrong on many facts makes his theory weaker for it, you completely misunderstand how science works. Simply put, you think science works like religion. But when someone finds a flaw in a theory and corrects it, that theory is made stronger, not weaker. Darwin would be delighted to know about these corrections.

[Voter]

The strongest evidence is the subsequent discover, long after Darwin, of DNA. DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true

No, DNA does not behave exactly as expected after reading Darwin.

Like most Christians, you have an unhealthy fixation with Darwin. He is one scientist of thousands of scientists responsible for the state of modern biology.

Strange that you bring up Darwin, I quote you and respond, yet I'm the one with the fixation on Darwin.

If you want to change from Darwin, go ahead and quote the prediction.

My actual statement, rather than the statement you dishonestly tried to pass off as my statement , still holds true: DNA behaves exactly as it should behave if evolution were true. Evolution is not "Darwinism." Evolution is modern biology.

This boils down to, DNA behaves exactly as modern biology has found it to behave. There is no prediction in that statement, only observation.

Darwin thought that acquired characteristics were heritable. If Darwin were correct, then DNA would be altered by, for instance, exercise, or lack of exercise.

Not what Darwin had in mind, but diet and exercise can trigger changes to your DNA.[/quote]I agree, this is not what Darwin had in mind.

I'm going to do you a big favor: go tell your Christian buddies to stop wasting their time trying to disprove Darwin. Evolution has advanced light years beyond Origin of Species and you guys have so much catching up to do, you can't afford to get caught up on a 150-year-old book.  Darwin is not our Jesus. Say it with me: Darwin is not our Jesus. Knock him down, and you've got thousands more biologists to contend with. And if you think Darwin being proven wrong on many facts makes his theory weaker for it, you completely misunderstand how science works. Simply put, you think science works like religion. But when someone finds a flaw in a theory and corrects it, that theory is made stronger, not weaker. Darwin would be delighted to know about these corrections.

We agreed that scientific evidence requires prediction.
You mentioned Darwin and DNA, so I looked into his writings and found that his predictions were wrong.
You do not give any other specific scientist or prediction that I can examine, yet blame me for discussing the one that you did mention.
So far, evolution is 0-for-1. Moving on:

all subsequent (and lucrative) scientific research and development in DNA has depended on natural selection being true.

Natural selection removes deleterious mutations. However, apparently deleterious mutations have fixated in species. This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability. Therefore, natural selection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

[Loffler]

You mentioned Darwin and DNA, so I looked into his writings and found that his predictions were wrong.
You do not give any other specific scientist or prediction that I can examine, yet blame me for discussing the one that you did mention.

I mentioned Darwin merely as a starting point for modern biology. The discovery and subsequent study of DNA demonstrated that all life forms really are part of one extended family as early evolution and natural selection predicted. I blame you merely for assuming evolution is a card castle hinging on Darwin; it's not. You can refute every single sentence in Origin of Species and you will only have succeeded in wasting your own time, because evolution today is backed up by every level of biology from organic chemistry up to zoology.

You do not give any other specific scientist or prediction that I can examine, yet blame me for discussing the one that you did mention.
So far, evolution is 0-for-1. Moving on:

Later evolutionary science proves an earlier evolution postulate wrong, and you count that as a point against evolution. Only a Christian would use that logic.

These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability. Therefore, natural selection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

First of all, natural selection isn't scientific "evidence," it's scientific "theory."
Natural selection is perfectly falsifiable. As J.B.S. Haldane famously said, a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian would falsify natural selection. Furthermore, if new barriers to evolution are discovered in the DNA sequence which prevent evolution from one species to another, this would falsify evolution. Furthermore, if even beneficial mutations are demonstrated to normalize rather than exaggerate over long periods, this would falsify evolution (this one is not going to happen as science has already witnessed beneficial mutations exaggerating over time).

[Squid]

Natural selection removes deleterious mutations. However, apparently deleterious mutations have fixated in species. This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability. Therefore, natural selection does not qualify as scientific evidence.

Most mutations are neutral (not exclusively deleterious as is commonly believed) in the sense they do not confer any advantage or disadvantage.  Also what is deleterious and beneficial does not exist within a vacuum or in a static state.  It must be remembered that there is constant change not only within the organism population but in the environment in which they live.  The point being that what may be beneficial at one time or in one place may not be so great in another time and/or place - case in point, sickle cell.  A simple one amino acid substitution (point mutation) - glutamatic acid is replaced by valine which occurs on the beta globin chain.  Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell trait have an effective resistance to malaria.  Unfortunately, those homozygous can develop sickle cell anemia. The trait has persisted due to the advantage of the protective trait in confers toward malaria.  This is due in large part to not providing a hospitable reproducing environment for the parasites as well as enhancement of immunoprocesses such as IgG antibody response.  This is just one simple example without getting into the many other covariates involved in the process on natural selection.  The process is not as simple or black and white as  evolutionary opponents portray it.  It is easy to dismiss something when it is presented in such a simplified and hackneyed manner.

[/drive-by posting]...we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

For those who require supporting references for the above statements:

Aidoo, M., Terlouw, D., Kolczak, M., McElroy, P., O ter Kuile, F., Kariuki, S. et al. (2002). Protective effects of the sickle-cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality.  The Lancet, 359, 1311-1312.

Allison, A. (1954). Protection afforded by sickle-cell trait against subtertian malarial infection.  British Medical Journal, 1, 290-294.

Cabrera, G., Cot, M., Migot-Nabias, F., Kremsner, P., Deloron, P. & Luty, A. (2005). The Sickle Cell Trait Is Associated with Enhanced Immunoglobulin G Antibody Responses to Plasmodium falciparum Variant Surface Antigens.  The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 191, 1631-1638.

Kimura, M. (1968). Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature, 217, 624-626.

Mayr, E. (2001).  What Evolution Is.  New York: Basic Books.

Nachman, M. & Crowell, S.(2000). Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics, 156, 297-304.

[Voter]

I mentioned Darwin merely as a starting point for modern biology. The discovery and subsequent study of DNA demonstrated that all life forms really are part of one extended family as early evolution and natural selection predicted.

Can you quote the prediction? Then you might have something.

I blame you merely for assuming evolution is a card castle hinging on Darwin; it's not. You can refute every single sentence in Origin of Species and you will only have succeeded in wasting your own time, because evolution today is backed up by every level of biology from organic chemistry up to zoology.

Then your time would be better spent presenting those fulfilled testable, falsifiable predictions rather than faulting me for reasonably responding to your post.

Later evolutionary science proves an earlier evolution postulate wrong, and you count that as a point against evolution. Only a Christian would use that logic.

No, I count it as a lack of evidence for evolution, which is correct.

First of all, natural selection isn't scientific "evidence," it's scientific "theory."

OK. Got any evidence?