alt.education

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:25:19 -0500, Larry Hewitt wrote:

> "racqueteer" wrote in message
> news:47cac9b2$0$22837$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:06:17 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>> racqueteer wrote:
>>>>> Like the theories of general and special relativity, or the germ
>>>>> theory of disease. Maybe you should try disbelieving the germ
>>>>> theory of disease.
>>>>
>>>>These three theories aren't in the same category, one (germs and
>>>>disease) having been pretty much validated. Still, we are fairly
>>>>confident about general and special relativity as well.
>>>
>>> I think that they all have been validated.
>>
>> To some degree. I indicated that we are quite confident in relativity
>> theory as well. I believe, however, that there remain some (small)
>> issues with aspects of relativity, though I'm not certain that is the
>> case. Be that as it may, I still feel that our level of confidence in
>> the three theories is not the same (it would be unusual if it were).
>>
>>>>A far better comparison would be to string theory,
>>>
>>> The terminology isn't even the same.
>>
>> Oh yeah, let's DO emphasize "terminology"; it avoids dealing with the
>> point itself. C'mon, Bob, I've never known you to argue just for the
>> sake of arguing. Do you take issue with the POINT I'm trying to make?
>>
>>
> But, in fact, precise terminology is _vital_ in science to thoroughly
> describe observations and predictions.
>
> Sloppy terminology introduces vagaries that can cause
> misinterpretations, errors, and (occasionally catastrophic) failures.
>
>>> The other theories mentioned are
>>> THE germ theory of disease, THE General Theory of Relativity, THE
>>> Theory of Evolution, because there is one single theory on each of
>>> those topics that has been well accepted. There is nothing called THE
>>> string theory.
>>
>> Ah, so having "THE" in the name is what is important? Give me a break,
>> Bob. Have you gotten so wrapped up in arguing with the halfwits who
>> seem to gravitate here, that you're going to adopt their tactics?
>>
>>
> Actually, "the" is precise and necessary in this context.
>
> Misuse in the context of string theory, as Bob noted, leads to confusion
> because there are more than one theory.

So I guess the point you are both attempting to make is that multiple
competing theories are unlikely to enjoy the same degree of confidence as
a single theory? With that I would agree. Bob prefers to call them
hypotheses (which neatly sidesteps my argument without really addressing
it). The point I continue to try to make is that all theories are not
equal, and that because something has become "theory" does not
automatically mean it is "right", "correct", or "true" in the sense that
the layman understands these terms.

>> If you want to be technical, then the Theory of Evolution didn't really
>> address macroevolution, and while there is increasing evidence and
>> DIRECT testing that implies that it, too, approaches the surety that we
>> have in evolution as a process, no such equivalent evidence has been
>> forthcoming with regard to oogenesis (and may NEVER be).
>>
>>
> And this is an example of sloppy terminology.
>
> The definition of "macroevolution" is, in fact, vague with different
> camps imposing different conditions on what describes macroevolution.

Just as the term "evolution" is similarly vague. The process of
evolution is directly observable, and has moved from theory to fact
(anything that is directly observable becomes data and is, imo,
factual). Some are content to mean process when they use the term.
Scientists generally will claim that this is THEIR usage. Still, others,
like yourself, consider that linking observable changes over time
together and concluding that everything comes from a single, single-
celled organism in a primordial pool to be an equally valid aspect of
evolution. Thus they claim that this stitching together deserves no
distinction in terminology (there is no "macroevolution", it's all an
invention of Creationists). I'm sorry, but I don't accept that there is
no distinction between the direct observation of selection for a trait
for a single organism and the assumption that this means that everything
came from a single organism at some point in the far distant past. I
think these are sufficiently different as to preclude them being lumped
together as if they were precisely the same.


> And to dispute your assertioin, most biologists consider macroevolution
> to be either an artificail construct of creationists, or a description
> of microevolution over time.

If they don't see that there is a difference in the degree of confidence
one is entitled to have in each, then I would have to question their
logic.

> Thus it is either nonsense or a part of the theory of evolution.

We disagree.

>> Science is not FACT; it is instead a set of models that attempt to
>
> Science is indeed fact. Observable, repeatable, predictable fact.

And I submit that MOST scientists would disagree with you on this point.
The only facts are data. EXPLAINING the data is another kettle of fish
entirely. Observations are repeatable, hopefully, but observations are
not explanations, and explanations are not "fact", but models that vary
in how well they fit reality. The GOAL is for the model to so closely
approximate reality as to be indiscernible, but there is NEVER the
presumption that the explanation is, in fact, "fact". Facts cannot be
falsified, but the models scientists create must be CONTINUALLY tested
for falsification - Something that would not be be necessary if science
were "fact".

> Models are not science, they are theories, a tool of science.
>
> They are not the same thing.

Now who is being sloppy about terminology? Science is not monolithic, it
is a PROCESS by which observations are made and an attempt is made to
explain those observations. The attempt at explanation IS the model, so
it is most certainly a part of "science". As a matter of fact, the
formation of models to explain observations is the ESSENCE of what
science is.

>> describe the world around us. Those models are subject to change, and
>> have routinely done so in the past. Some of our models are very good,
>> and may, in fact, approach being "true". Our model for the
>> evolutionary process is one of these, as is germ theory. Other models
>> have been incomplete or even flawed. Science demands that models be
>> continually tested,
>
> And as you note here, science is not modelling, but testing the models.

Please. The whole point of science is to develop explanations/models.
Testing those models in an attempt to falsify them is a part of the
process, but it certainly not the whole of "science" with model
construction somehow absent. So science most certainly IS modeling, AND
testing, AND observing, AND the collection of data, but the entire
purpose is for the creation of models that approach reality.

>>the presumption being that they may NOT be completely correct,
>> and modified where required, in an effort to make the models USEFUL.
>> This is not an indictment of science, it is the NATURE of science.
>>
>> One then looks at the evidence, looks at the model, and mentally, if
>> not formally, ascribes some level of confidence to the model. We don't
>> all agree as to that level of confidence, obviously, since scientists
>> routinely disagree with one another. As the model is tested, and
>> remains nonfalsified, our level of confidence in the model rises.
>>
>> I have great confidence in the evolution model of change of organisms
>> over time. I have less confidence in the extrapolation of that model
>> to include the development of every organism that has ever lived from a
>> single, single-celled organism in a primordial pool. I personally
>> think that this is a considerable stretch, and is nowhere NEAR at the
>> same
>
> But it is a far greater stretch to imagine that multiple simultaneous,
> or nearly simultaneous, apperances of basic life forms occurred, each
> giving rise to life forms similar in structure and biochemistry.

Each scientist looks at the evidence and makes a decision as to the
degree of confidence he has in this or that explanation/model.
Scientists don't always agree. Imo, it isn't unreasonable to be
skeptical about explanations. You are skeptical of explanations other
than the full range of implications inherent in evolutionary theory. You
have your reasons. That's fine. If you purport, otoh, that what you
believe to be correct is, in fact, indisputably correct, then I have to
take issue with you.

> Unless, of course, one subscribes to an LGM theory

Or GOD theory. I agree that there is no clear evidence for either. This
comes into ones decision-making process in evaluating the competing
models. Based upon the scientific process, and applying Occam's Razor,
the best model is the one you you suggest. That doesn't mean that it is
literally correct, only that it is likely - imo, of course.

> And to be fully accurate, the theory of evolutoin does not address the
> beginnings of life, but what happened once life began.

Yet it commonly comes up as an extension.

>> level of confidence (or shouldn't be anyway). Going one step further
>> to assert that this single, single-celled organism developed
>> spontaneously from non-living material is even more of a stretch, imo,
>> of course.
>>
>>
> Again, the only alternative is a belief in an LGM theory, which creates
> a conundrum --- how did the LGM get their start?

Conundrums are not unknown in the history of science. The fact that we
are unable to answer questions is not sufficient to falsify a model.
Only if the questions stem from direct observation and contradict the
model is the model falsified. It does go to a determination of the
degree of confidence one has in the model, however.

>> Again, imo, I believe science requires some testable way of attempting
>> to falsify the model, and I'm not sure how one does that for
>> macroevolution or oogenesis.
>
> Well, considering that macroevolution is , at best microevolution over
> time, its testing and negatability is moot.

We disagree. Taking the directly observable and extrapolating, indeed
extrapolating from data in general, is fraught with danger. A trivial
example can be seen if we plot weight vs age for a newborn over, say, a
year. We get a fairly linear relationship with a positive slope. Would
we be correct in extrapolating that data, taken over a small time slice,
to the life of the child? Certainly not, because that apparent direct
linear relationship later becomes unrelated. The data doesn't really
show a direct causal relationship, but instead represents a juxtaposition
of variables that coincidentally appear to be related. There is ALWAYS a
danger in extrapolation!

> And I do not understand why you want to test oogenesis --- it is not a
> theory but is an observed phenomenon, observed millions (billions?) of
> times a day.

Somewhere along the way, I apparently picked up an incorrect piece of
terminology. My apologies.

>>There is a fundamental problem that, again imo, must be
>> resolved. While mutation of EXISTING genes (or turning them on or off)
>> seems, based on recent evidence, to be capable of producing
>> morphological change sufficient to result in "new organisms", doesn't
>> that mean that our original single-celled organism had to possess all
>> the dna and gene structure of present-day organisms (you can't mutate
>> what isn't there)?
>
> No, it doesn't.

Well, you certainly can't mutate what isn't there, so there must be some
other mechanism you are going to describe?

> In fact, the evolution of DNA, RNA and, in fact, all aspects of cell
> structure, is part of the theory.
>
> Only creationists assume that life appeared miraculously in its modern
> form.

Actually, I think the more accurate statement would be Literal
Interpreters (Fundamentalists?). I don't see Creationists as necessarily
requiring such a stance. All Creationists are not interchangeable.

> Look into rna viruses and prions, for ex. Very simple forms of life
> based on entirely different modes of reproduction than dna.

Ok, but how did they get into that primordial pool? Are you asserting
that prions and/or viruses were involved at the very beginnings?

>> If not, then one needs to demonstrate a case where NEW genetic
>> information is generated from one generation to another.
>
> In fact, this has been done and it occurs daily.
>
> It is extremely common, for ex., for viral dna or rna to invade and
> merge with cell dna and alter the function of a cell, causing various
> diseases or even permanent changes leading to cancer.

Not nearly the same thing. First of all, you are involving multiple
organisms, some of which are hard to class as "living". If you read what
I wrote, I am asking about a more or less spontaneous creation of new
genetic information within a single organism. And even if that were not
an issue, what you are describing is a simple rearrangement of EXISTING
genetic material, which is, again, not what I asked.

> It is not unreasonable to extrapolate this to conclude that some of
> these "mergers" were viable and reproducible --- it is in fact done
> routinely in the lab.

That's not the argument, however.

> To my
>> knowledge, admittedly likely to be incomplete, this has not been
>> demonstrated.
>
> It has, in fact , been demonstrated. Both in the field --- for ex AIDS,
> an rna retrovirus that integrates its genetic material into host cells'
> nuclei and then replicates itself as part of the cell's dna, or ovarian
> cancer which now has a vaccine for the hpv virus which causes it --- and
> in the lab.

Again, this is not the same thing. NEW genetic information, generated in
a single generation, without tacking on EXISTING genetic information to
make a longer chain. The single ancestor argument requires that either
entirely new genetic information was generated in a single generation (at
some point), OR that all the information was already present and changed
through mutation or variable expression of that information.

> Examine the mule, the offspring of a horse and a donkey. Its dna is a
> mixture of both parents.

Yep, no NEW dna at all.

> But two different organisms are not required. Errors in dna
> transcription can result in extra genes or parts of genes--- even new
> chromosomes --- that may be viable.

Ok, and closer to the point, but this still seems to involve the same
genetic material, merely rearranged.

> Genes can also jump from one chromosome to another and their function
> can be dependent on their location ( for ex, active on one site,
> inactive at another, expressed at different times depending on
> locations, and so on.)

But all the same material. Nothing actually "new".

>>I don't see how
>> macroevolution can be accepted to the same degree of confidence enjoyed
>> by the process of evolution.
>>
> Perhaps this is because macroevolution is, at best, a vague concept ( a
> demonstraton of the need to use precise terminology), or at worst a
> device to attempt to refute evolution.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Of course taking that position requires one to overlook that there is a
difference in the degree of confidence one is entitled to have between
directly observable data and the extrapolation of that data to situations
that are not directly observable. You want me to accept these as being
equivalent, and they are not. You don't think a distinction between the
two is justified, but I most certainly think it is. You claim that
macroevolution is a vague concept, but its definition is absolutely clear
to you as it is to me. There is nothing "vague" about it. It simply
recognizes that there is a difference between the observable evolutionary
process for individual organisms and the assumption that because
individuals change that necessarily means that everything is derived from
a single ancestor. You prefer to ignore the distinction, and I feel the
distinction is necessary in order to AVOID "vagueness" or imprecision.

>> Look, Bob, I'm willing to be convinced, but my requirements are pretty
>> high (as, I believe, they SHOULD be). In the meantime, I see no reason
>> to blindly accept a model as reality.
>
> Few of us have the education and experience to determine the validity of
> modern theories.

While that is certainly true, my education and experience is well above
the norm, and I'm unwilling to simply accept what I should or should not
believe. Further, understanding the limitations inherent in "science", I
am reluctant to accept scientific pronouncements as "fact".

> Few, for example, understand quantum mechanics theory but we are more
> than ready to accept it when we turn on a light, nuke dinner, get an
> mri, or chat on the 'net.

Actually, there is no element of "accepting" quantum mechanics involved
in any of these activities. The theory of HOW something works is pretty
much irrelevant to most of us.

> And much the same can be said for evolution as we accept the products of
> the genetic lab in everything from identifying disease to creation of
> medicines to commercial products to solving crimes and determining
> parenthood that result from the application of the theory.

None of which address the problems inherent in the assumption of
macroevolution. Nor is evolution irrelevant to a large percentage of the
population since aspects of it are in conflict with their firmly-held
beliefs. Are they "right" to believe? They think so. Others feel
otherwise, some aggressively. I don't happen to think that evolution
proves that those who are religious are wrong in their beliefs. I think
there's plenty of room for sufficient doubt as to not put science and
religion in conflict. That may change at some point in the future, but
for now, I think they can coexist quite well. There are a relatively
small handful of Fundamentalists/Literalists for whom science is the
enemy because their rigid set of beliefs are clearly contradicted by
observable evidence. Most are not so rigid, and I think it's foolish to
provoke an outright war between science and religion by EITHER side being
unjustifiably inflexible. Imo, the assertion that all life sprang from a
single, single-celled organism, or that life was generated spontaneously
from non-life is a gigantic leap of faith, and certainly should not be
claimed as "fact". What one privately believes is up to that
individual. I really don't think that anyone benefits from taking a
hardened position where one is really not justified solely on the basis
of logic or direct evidence.

There are many who would cheerfully wield "science" as a club to beat
sense into those who are stupid enough to believe in GOD. I'm not sure
why it's so important to them; isn't it enough to know that THEY'RE
"right" and the religious folks are "wrong"? Is it really THAT important
to try to PROVE them wrong (and I'm not sure even science is equipped to
prove that GOD doesn't exist)? Wouldn't it be preferable to do the
science and let the chips simply fall where they may without pushing them
around to construct some specific edifice?