An example ...

[Seasanctuary]

See, it's not a question of whether sea urchins and humans have a common ancestor - that's taken as "fact, Fact, FACT!". The question, rather, is to "figure out why they evolved" [my emphasis].

I agree. This is as bad as when we plan Shuttle missions just assuming the Earth is spherical.

Where's the critical thinking in modern science?

[Roy]

I think you are completely correct that in these situations you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, the researchers involved are not questioning whether common ancestry is true. They are assuming that it is true, and are attempting to figure out something about how it supposedly happened.

I disagree. They are not assuming that it is true. They are using a conclusion based on multiple independent lines of evidence, backed up by a huge amount of data, and acknowledged by the extreme majority of experts in the relevant fields. They are no more 'assuming' common descent than planetary science researchers 'assume' Kepler's laws.

Edited to add:

Note to everyone: Don't read too much into the word "assuming".

Oh. Yes, their research is (if Jorge's extract is correct and in context) based on the premise that common descent is valid. Just like exoplanet work is based on the premise that Kepler's laws are valid.

Roy

[chickenman]

of course they're assuming common ancestry, thats because it has been well established by the evidence - whether jorge agrees or not

this is simply whinging from someone on the wrong side of an argument

[Jorge]

Considering your track record for ... less than reliable statements, you will of course understand if we give your opinion of what is and what is not scientific all the attention it so richly deserves?

That is to say, none whatsoever.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Boy, you really told me off! Now go back to your sandbox and continue playing with your little friends.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Well then let me set the record straight. I acknowledge that they accept evolution as factual. Having accepted it, they then go on to find out how it works.

And a jolly sensible thing to do too Jorge!

Like a poor marksman, you keep missing (in this case, the point).

I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging the assumption that evolution is fact, Fact, FACT. Here's the thing :
a group of people assume that Martians exist and then go out to find them. If they're persistent and won't take NO for an answer, they'll spend countless resources plus their lives in this quest.

But wait ... if their assumption is wrong then their quest will all be in vain - a complete waste of resources and lives. But wait again, in the case of evolution it's taken as "fact, Fact, FACT" so it can't be a wrong and it can't be a waste. But that's only so by assumption since 'goo-to-zoo' can in no reasonable way be said to be a fact in the same sense as 'lead has a higher density than copper' is a fact. But again, one cannot assume that which is the object of proof - that's petitio principii. Ideology is thus ruling here, not science.

Jorge

[Jorge]

What Jorge doesn't (or won't) understand is that these conclusions are primarily - if not completely - based on the evidence and data at hand.

Jim

I understand quite well the standard party line that you parrot so well above, thank you.

What I emphatically state is that there is no way to go from the evidence and data at hand (the good science) to the conclusion of 'goo-to-zoo' without introducing a metaphysical assumption.

That metaphysical assumption may be materialistic Naturalism or it may be the compromising Christians' version of that assumption, a.k.a., Theistic Evolution or Progressive Evolution but it is an essential component.

IOW, there is no way to go from pure science and observations of peppered moths, finch beaks, pesticide-resistant mosquitos and so on to "all flora and fauna on earth have a single common one-celled ancestor" - no way! In stating this I'm taking into account the so-called "evidence" of molecular genetics, fossils, or anything else you care to bring to the table. The necessary 'glue' that binds together the ToE myth is ideological, not scientific. Science alone does not / cannot get you from here to there.

Jorge

[Viktor Scott]

I think you are completely correct that in these situations you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, the researchers involved are not questioning whether common ancestry is true. They are assuming that it is true, and are attempting to figure out something about how it supposedly happened.

To everyone who responds to this thread: Please indicate whether or not you agree with this.

When the rocket scientists at NASA plan space flights, do they start out by testing to see whether gravity exists?

When aeronautical engineers begin designing a new aircraft do they first test to see whether or not Bernoulli's principle and the Venturi effect are valid?

When I see posts like Jorge's OP, I am reminded anew how little he understands how science operates.

[Viktor Scott]

What I emphatically state is that there is no way to go from the evidence and data at hand (the good science) to the conclusion of 'goo-to-zoo' without introducing a metaphysical assumption.

And what metaphysical assumption is employed in adopting a Dirt-to-Dan fiat creation no more than 10,000 years ago from no data at all position?

[Viktor Scott]

WOW! Would you grant TWEB permission to send such a substantive post as that above to Nature and Science for peer-review and subsequent publication? Hey, it might even be Pulitzer material?

Jorge

I'm wondering if it is only Jorge that apparently cannot see the irony/hypocrisy in his reply to bande...

[Roy]

Here's the thing :
a group of people assume that Martians exist and then go out to find them. If they're persistent and won't take NO for an answer, they'll spend countless resources plus their lives in this quest.

But wait ... if their assumption is wrong then their quest will all be in vain - a complete waste of resources and lives.

Strike 'Martians', insert 'God'.

Roy

[wattsr1]

Like a poor marksman, you keep missing (in this case, the point).

I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging the assumption that evolution is fact, Fact, FACT. Here's the thing :
a group of people assume that Martians exist and then go out to find them. If they're persistent and won't take NO for an answer, they'll spend countless resources plus their lives in this quest.

But wait ... if their assumption is wrong then their quest will all be in vain - a complete waste of resources and lives. But wait again, in the case of evolution it's taken as "fact, Fact, FACT" so it can't be a wrong and it can't be a waste. But that's only so by assumption since 'goo-to-zoo' can in no reasonable way be said to be a fact in the same sense as 'lead has a higher density than copper' is a fact. But again, one cannot assume that which is the object of proof - that's petitio principii. Ideology is thus ruling here, not science.

Jorge

Jorge? Did you bother to read my posts?

I see that you are onto the "measuring the hardness of a material is true science" again. So, could you list me five scientific theories which you consider to be "true science" - please. My reason for saying this is that I do not consider:-

a) "3 x 2 = 6"
b) making toothpaste,
c) measuring the hardness of copper,
d) making a fast car,
e) whistling and a 'hot chick'

to be science. Point c) can be a part of science since it is about data collection. But data collection is not all of science. Point a) can be a part of science since it is mathematics and mathematics is a tool of science. But a tool of science is not all of science. Points b), d) and e) have nothing to do with science, yet, from times past and from what you have just written, to you they are science.

That makes little sense to me. So how about a short list of theories you consider to be scientific. Or don't you think theories can be scientific?

I am curious.


Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

[snip]

IOW, there is no way to go from pure science and observations of peppered moths, finch beaks, pesticide-resistant mosquitos and so on to "all flora and fauna on earth have a single common one-celled ancestor" - no way! In stating this I'm taking into account the so-called "evidence" of molecular genetics, fossils, or anything else you care to bring to the table. The necessary 'glue' that binds together the ToE myth is ideological, not scientific. Science alone does not / cannot get you from here to there.

Jorge

Jorge, can you show me where anyone has gone from "peppered moths, finch beaks, pesticide-resistant mosquitos and so on" to "all flora and fauna on earth have a single common one-celled ancestor"?

That is, can you show me which scientists have actually said, "we can demonstrate natural selection by observing peppered moths therefore all animals on earth originated from a single cell"?

This is the message which comes plainly from your post to Jim - that is, some scientists have actually written something like this.

The notion of a single universal common ancestor is perhaps the most popular idea. (And its evidence does not rely on beaks and peppered moths.) However, from time to time people do posit the idea of several "common" ancestors dating from those primeval times. That is, they ask if several forms of life may have sprung from those ancient mud pools or seas.

I have never seen any scientist write the way you imply. So how about some evidence? After all, given that you have taken into account the molecular and fossil evidence to make your claim about going from beaks and moths to goo to zoo, you have then stated that this claim is the ideological glue that holds the theory together.

Given that is is the glue, you need to provide evidence. Otherwise you are simply arguing from assumption with no evidence. And this is most certainly not what the evolutionists studying starfish are doing.

So why judge them, when so far you have offered no evidence beyond assertion?


Regards, Roland

[Soundsurfr]

WOW! Would you grant TWEB permission to send such a substantive post as that above to Nature and Science for peer-review and subsequent publication? Hey, it might even be Pulitzer material?

Jorge

Maybe they should send a few of yours instead.

[oxmixmudd]

I understand quite well the standard party line that you parrot so well above, thank you.

What I emphatically state is that there is no way to go from the evidence and data at hand (the good science) to the conclusion of 'goo-to-zoo' without introducing a metaphysical assumption.

That metaphysical assumption may be materialistic Naturalism or it may be the compromising Christians' version of that assumption, a.k.a., Theistic Evolution or Progressive Evolution but it is an essential component.

IOW, there is no way to go from pure science and observations of peppered moths, finch beaks, pesticide-resistant mosquitos and so on to "all flora and fauna on earth have a single common one-celled ancestor" - no way! In stating this I'm taking into account the so-called "evidence" of molecular genetics, fossils, or anything else you care to bring to the table. The necessary 'glue' that binds together the ToE myth is ideological, not scientific. Science alone does not / cannot get you from here to there.

Jorge

Have you ever asked yourself the question why someone who sees the vast majority of evidence as pointing to common descent, upon finding that some 7000 genes in a sea urchin (of all things) are the same as those in a human, would be expected to doubt common descent?


Jim

[Dr.GH]

Frankly, I'm tired of presenting this topic to people that willingly refuse to acknowledge it but I couldn't let this fine example - hot off the press - go by without accenting the point 'one more time'.

Here's the source :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061109/...ence_urchin_dc

and here's the only point I want to highlight, I quote :

"Comparing human genes to their counterparts in other species
can help scientists figure out why they evolved, ..."


See, it's not a question of whether sea urchins and humans have a common ancestor - that's taken as "fact, Fact, FACT!". The question, rather, is to "figure out why they evolved" [my emphasis].

The use of the word "why" is absolutely wrong. No question about it at all.

However, the scientists involved do not seem to be the source of the error. In fact, the following quote (from the news article) clearly shows that scientists did not use "why" but correctly "how."

Urchins appear to have the genetic predecessors to the adaptive immune system -- the antibodies and T-cells that can change and respond to new germs, the study showed.

"They are probably acting in a different way but it was a real surprise to find them," Rast said. "If we can understand how they are acting in a sea urchin, it will help us understand how the system emerged in vertebrates." emp. added