Searching for GOD...

[floo]

It is my choice to worship one who suffered and died to save us from sin and death.

An opinion, NOT a fact.

[Alan Burns]

An interesting snippet from one of the major proponents of evolutionary biology:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”—Mayr, Ernst (renowned evolutionary biologist)

[Alan Burns]

we cannot choose to believe things that we don't believe though so the above makes no sense; neither can we choose to want things that we don't want.  All these freedoms are illusory, so this 'divine attribute' must also be illusory.

I think you do not see the difference between a consciously derived "want" and a physical reaction.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not have all the references at hand, but here is one to be going on with:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”—Mayr, Ernst (renowned evolutionary biologist)

Why are you citing Mayr who was a proponent of evolution? And why highlight a word which explains pretty much any scientific conclusion?

[Alan Burns]

Look up the Lederberg Experiment performed in 1952, Alan, which is clear evidence for the undirected nature of mutations.

The Lederberg experiment shows that random mutations can improve the survival of simple bacteria using natural selection.  This process can be used to confirm one of my earlier comments that random mutations and natural selection can perform fine tuning on things which are already complex, but it does not show that random mutations and natural selection are a sufficient means of generating the staggering complexity we see in human beings.

[Shaker]

Why are you citing Mayr who was a proponent of evolution? And why highlight a word which explains pretty much any scientific conclusion?

... not coincidentally Mayr's What Evolution Is - one of his few non-technical works - is a book (there are plenty of others) that AB sorely needs to read, learn and inwardly digest.

The irony of AB quoting Mayr - one of the handful of the greatest architects of modern evolutionary biology - will be lost on him, I'm sure. The highlighted word can only be taken issue with by somebody uncomfortable with provisional and revisable conclusions, who craves cast-iron absolute certainty of the sort AB thinks he has.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not have all the references at hand, but here is one to be going on with:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”—Mayr, Ernst (renowned evolutionary biologist)

All science is tentative. That's why it requires an open mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

All science is tentative. That's why it requires an open mind.

What it doesn't need is romantic sloganizing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What it doesn't need is romantic sloganizing.

And nor does it need dressing in a feather boa and serenaded with a chorus of "I Am What I Am".

Can you think of anyone who does any of these things?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

All science is tentative. That's why it requires an open mind.

Mayr was pointing out that evolutionary biology can't be verified by experiment in the same way as physics and chemistry, which is why he used the word "tentative".

[torridon]

I think you do not see the difference between a consciously derived "want" and a physical reaction.

Wants don't spring out of thin air, they derive from previous events. What we want in the present moment is a consequence of the moments that have gone before, which is why we cannot choose what to want.  Whether we are conscious or not of the want is ultimately irrelevant. We can neither choose what to want nor what to believe. Freedom is illusory.

[torridon]

Mayr was pointing out that evolutionary biology can't be verified by experiment in the same way as physics and chemistry, which is why he used the word "tentative".

All scientific theory is tentative, and therein lies its strength, not its weakness.  It is spurious claims of certainty that are a barrier to learning.

[Shaker]

Mayr was pointing out that evolutionary biology can't be verified by experiment in the same way as physics and chemistry, which is why he used the word "tentative".

Except it can, has been and is. The Lenski experiment, for example.

For somebody who insists that they really do understand evolution, your ignorance of the subject is shocking.

[Nearly Sane]

Mayr was pointing out that evolutionary biology can't be verified by experiment in the same way as physics and chemistry, which is why he used the word "tentative".

just to note, Alan, what you were asked for were names of people who were in the group you described as

'There are some biologists and other highly qualified scientist who have the courage to challenge the assumptions used in postulating the capabilities of unguided evolution to generate highly complex organs.  And it is apparent that scientists who do stick their head above the parapet to voice such opinions often get ridiculed by their peers.'

Mayr was one of the greatest proponents of evolution by natural selection of the last century, so in quoting him you are wrong and if you don't retract it as an example would be lying. So kindly admit you were incorrect here.


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ernst-Mayr

[Alan Burns]

Except it can, has been and is. The Lenski experiment, for example.

For somebody who insists that they really do understand evolution, your ignorance of the subject is shocking.

I have already pointed out the substantial difference between the observed effectiveness of evolutionary biology on relatively simple organisms such as bacteria, and the extrapolated assumptions that are used to apply the same logic to the incremental development of highly complex organs.  The latter requiring a considerable degree of personal optimism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Mayr was pointing out that evolutionary biology can't be verified by experiment in the same way as physics and chemistry, which is why he used the word "tentative".

No he wasn't, and yes it can be - for example with evolutionary game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory), and with evolutionary medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine). Tentativeness moreover is a characteristic of all science - your source saying it and you highlighting it does not distinguish evolutionary theory from any other branch of science. It's a null point for your purposes. It also incidentally tells you nothing about an alternative conjecture you have that has no coherent definition, no cogent logic and no evidence of any kind to support it.

Incidentally, back in 20863 I corrected a series of wrong statements you made in 20849. I see that, as ever, you've just ignored the corrections and carried on with more wrong or misleading statements.

Why do you do that?

[Alan Burns]

just to note, Alan, what you were asked for were names of people who were in the group you described as

'There are some biologists and other highly qualified scientist who have the courage to challenge the assumptions used in postulating the capabilities of unguided evolution to generate highly complex organs.  And it is apparent that scientists who do stick their head above the parapet to voice such opinions often get ridiculed by their peers.'

Mayr was one of the greatest proponents of evolution by natural selection of the last century, so in quoting him you are wrong and if you don't retract it as an example would be lying. So kindly admit you were incorrect here.


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ernst-Mayr

Yes, Mayr was not one of the scientists I was originally speaking of, but in searching for the references I came across this interesting quote from Mayr which I wished to share.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, Mayr was not one of the scientists I was originally speaking of, but in searching for the references I came across this interesting quote from Mayr which I wished to share.

which then reads as if you cherry picked it and used it to misrepresent Mayr. I suggest you edit the post where you introduced this canard, else it looks as if you are lying about Mayr.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have already pointed out the substantial difference between the observed effectiveness of evolutionary biology on relatively simple organisms such as bacteria, and...

You've tried this cheat before - "pointing out" and "asserting" are not the same thing. To point out something you need to establish it as true in the first place. I can point out that there's a computer in front of me; I can't point out that there's a dragon in my garage.

...the extrapolated assumptions that are used to apply the same logic to the incremental development of highly complex organs.  The latter requiring a considerable degree of personal optimism.

No, it requires evidence - of which there is a great deal. The only significant difference between micro and macro is time - we can't be there to watch evolution happen over billions of years. What we can do though is to examine evidence from multiple and congruent sources (the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA etc) to establish beyond reasonable doubt that evolutionary theory is correct.

Your alternative of personal incredulity and a reason- and evidence-free conjecture does you no favours.

[Alan Burns]

which then reads as if you cherry picked it and used it to misrepresent Mayr. I suggest you edit the post where you introduced this canard, else it looks as if you are lying about Mayr.

edited 

[Nearly Sane]

edited 

thanks

[Shaker]

Despite his much vaunted claims to the contrary it's becoming increasingly likely that AB's knowledge of evolutionary theory is on a par with his knowledge of the Bible: http://tinyurl.com/ya4nqt8r

[Alan Burns]

Incidentally, back in 20863 I corrected a series of wrong statements you made in 20849. I see that, as ever, you've just ignored the corrections and carried on with more wrong or misleading statements.

Why do you do that?

I see your reply as just a disagreement about realistic probabilities of the evolutionary process relying on totally random mutations (coupled with natural selection, of course).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I see your reply as just a disagreement about realistic probabilities of the evolutionary process relying on totally random mutations (coupled with natural selection, of course).

No, you don't "see" that at all - or at least you wouldn't if you'd bothered to read and comprehend that part of the rebuttal. If you roll six dice and get six sixes you might think that to be "rare" because it's roughly a 1/46,000 event. If you roll the dice a billion times though it'll happen quite a lot (roughly 21,000 times in fact). Thus it would be a commonplace.

In other words, the simple logic involved isn't just "a disagreement" at all.

Do you understand it now? 

Oh, and should we also ignore the various other mistakes you made that I corrected?

[Shaker]

Disagreement implies (difference of) opinion - a typical ploy:

http://tinyurl.com/yarzynwg