powered by Jerry Wickey
Key West
800 722 2280
jerry@jerrywickey.com

Jerry's Home Page
Thursday Mar 28, 2024
6:39 am


Create your own discussion page online instantly.   To customize contact jerry@jerrywickey.net
Its free, easy and fun!



Share

Tweet

Status

Study Abiogenesis, Protein Evolution and the transition from RNA to DNA protein synthesis

57 comments
6 people Like this
4 subscribers
Last activity more than a year ago
3445 page views   284 mobile   2140 search bots

refresh page
for posting privileges contact administrator@mykeywest.us

This discussion is hosted in Socratic form. Socratic method drives conversation inexorably toward rapid and definitive resolution.   Learn more...

Socratic Method is one of the oldest and most respected forms of productive debate. There are many unproductive methods. All of which should be avoided. Socratic method is a very old and respected means to quickly and definitively resolve difficult issues by adhering to rules of conversation which are carefully designed to keep the discussion on track and drive it toward rapid and unreserved conclusion. Conclusion is reached when after carefully selecting questions designed to spotlight an affirmation's error, no one involved in the conversation is any longer willing to dispute the rationality of the affirmation.

Wikipedia on Socratic Method
SocraticMethod.net

In this way, conclusion is forced upon those who remain in disagreement, but have no rational reason for their disagreement. One remaining in disagreement is forced to admit "I still disagree, but fail to provide a reason for my disagreement which others perceive as rational." The irrationality of his or her position becomes obvious to those involved in the conversation.

For this reason Socratic Method is very unpopular with politicians who often desire to remain uncommitted on some issues.

How do I comment in Socratic Method if I disagree?

Do not pose an alternate position or attempt to show that there is a better way to handle the issue. This is the error most make in debate. Nothing ever ends up resolved because both sides continue supporting their respective and opposing views and neither view is refuted. Neither party has any reason to concede. Neither party finds it intellectually embarrassing to continue supporting their original position.

First, make sure you disagree. An argument is not won with fancy words, but by discovering the winning side before choosing your position. Is your position winnable? If not, accept it and change your mind, otherwise Socratic Method will reveal your irrationality to others. Once you've answered that, list the assumptions upon which the affirmed statement rests, and which if shown to be false, make the affirmed statement's error obvious to others.

Restate that assumption in language and terminology which make the affirmation's reliance upon the assumption obvious and ask those affirming if they agree with the assumption.

If the assumption is specious, wait to point out the assumption's flaw in your second question after those affirming answer their agreement with the assumption. Post "Considering that you agree with that particular assumption, do you also agree with its obviously erroneous implication, thus.....?

If you have difficulty finding an erroneous assumption or an error of conclusion implied by assumptions made in the affirmation, double check that you still disagree. You may find, to your surprise that you agreed with the statement all along. You just didn't think about it carefully enough at first.







Tom and Jerry are discussing one of the most hotly debated questions in the history of man.  The modern age is not the first time that man has considered the notion that our origin may not have anything to do with divine intervention.  "Everything has a natural explanation.  The moon is not a god, but a great rock, and the sun a hot rock." --Anaxagoras of Clazomenae 500BC

The ancients considered that the amazing phenomena of nature might not be the direct products of Zeus nor any other god.  However, the immense complexity of biology seemed to defy explanation until Charles Darwin observed that members of each species differ from one another.  And suggested that if these differences are compounded, they could lead to speciation.  He further proposed that some variations help an organism survive and that survival allowed these organisms greater opportunity to procreate which propagated that particular advantage until it permeated the species.

This became a very very popular explanation for the diversity of life on earth and remains so today at nearly a cult status.  The "enthusiasm" of some proponents is due in part and in response to similar "enthusiasm" of opponents.  Some proponents claim that harm will come to society if people are allowed to believe that God may have intervened, besides opponents are poopy heads.  While opponents believe that claiming God did not create life is blasphemy and proponents are going to hell.  Little exaggeration on either side.

Tom and Jerry, that is their real names, want to make a clean sweep of this mess and maybe learn something themselves along the way.  

Tom believes that diverse life on earth can be entirely explained by natural processes, while Jerry believes that certain mathematical road blocks to the movement of information from emergent processes precludes an entirely natural explanation.

To get things started, Jerry is making the first posts and is assuming Tom affirms the statement: "Diverse life on earth can be entirely explained by natural processes."

Jerry welcomes Tom taking the refuter position instead.  Tom, Just let me know, and I will post my own affirmation which you can refute logically and rationally.  Or you can also restate your affirmation if you wish.  Socratic method does not provide for two separate positions to be evaluated side by side.  Like a court of law, one issue at a time.

 

email link to a friend
tweet
status


Share this discussion with your friends   



Know an expert on this subject? invite them

Subscribe to be notified of posts
Recommend this discussion to a friend

Their email
Your name
this discussion with a friend.


To prevent web bots reckless use of email, please delete the word that does not belong.

to receive emails when
new comments are posted.
Your email

Email addresses are never shared with anyone


Post a new Socratic Query
This discussion is restricted. Please enter the password.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         March 28, 6am

   

57 Posts

              1    1  
Socratic Query #1
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Does your position include that natural processes account for not only the evolution of life, but also its origin from prebiotic compounds?


Respond to this query     Click to See all 8 responses Hide

This discussion is restricted. Please enter the password.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         March 28, 6am

   
              1    0  
Response #1 to Q1
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Playing the opponent as well. This isn't really a response as much as just to get things started and show off what a response looks like on the page. Though, this suggestion might help you respond.

May I suggest an MIT study, science.1060786 18 May 18 2001: Vol. 292. no. 5520, pp. 1319 - 1325 DOI: 10.1126

This seems to be the best that science has to offer attempting exposition of abiogenesis, that I can find, but it's not very promising. It concludes "Our shortest construct retaining activity was 165 nucleotides...current understanding of prebiotic chemistry argues against the emergence of meaningful amounts of RNA molecules even a tenth this length..."


              0    0  
Response #2 to Q1
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

Yes, this is my position. I do not claim science has found the answer but I think we will figure it out eventually. My position is based primarily on Richard Dawkins words but his works are sometimes tricky to differentiate well-supported science and his hypothesizing.

Also, until this idea is proven to be well supported or not it seems a fair, logical conclusion. I see the steps from prebiotic systems to life as no different than the evolution of a part of one species to another species. We just have not figured it out yet.

Lastly, I am completely out of my element in discussing this topics in any real depth. I just have not done enough reading.


              0    0  
Response #3 to Q1
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Fair enough.

Since i don't believe science has proven evolution nor abiogensis to any degree of rigor while most disagree. This is the perfect opportunity to find a degree of rigor that is acceptable. This was the subject of my second inquiry below. I will clarify below.


              0    0  
Response #4 to Q1
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

"don't believe [science has] proven evolution... to any degree" What is problematic with the support for:
- Dna changes over time (random forces driving change)
- changes (good, bad, and neutral) accumulate over time with natural selection promoting good changes (non-random forces retaining some changes)
- cumulative changes create new species

Discoveries about our shared genetic history and the fossil record support evolution:
- Identical mutations in closely related great apes and humans
- genetic instructions in chickens to build lizard-like tails and scaly skin
- not a single fossil found out of order from what evolutionary theory dictates
- fossils like Tiktalik found right where predicted

how are these not considered to support evolution "to any degree?"


              0    0  
Response #5 to Q1
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Every theory needs not only support but consistency as well. For instance: we find fire engines at every house fire. We might propose that fire engines are some how the cause of house fires. Also, fire engines are driven by humans, the exact same species which inhabit the burning houses. This connection further supports the theory.

Of course with just a little more information, we find that the theory is completely wrong. If we avoid the tough questions, we can support many erroneous theories. The tough questions for evolution are abiogenesis, protein domain evolution and RNA to DNA protein transition. Science's complete failure to provide even one single plausible hypothesis for any of these would be sufficient to kill a theory in any other field of study.


              0    0  
Response #6 to Q1
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

abiogenesis and evolution are 2 seperate theories. evolutionary theory is silent on the move from nonlife to life. it is not dependant on it. The light definition of evolution I gave is clear in speaking about the cause of and increase in the number of specis on earth.

Kenneth Miller's book, "Only a Theory" probvides some indication on the current thinking of the RNA to DNA transition.

Maybe we need to back up a bit. we seem to have different defintions of evolution. what is yours and how do you come by it?


              0    0  
Response #7 to Q1
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

This query kinda got away from us. We both kept going beyond the scope of the query, after the query had been answered to both our satisfaction.

I think we closed this query in your first answer, when you confirmed your position to be that the diversity of life and the beginning of life both occurred with out any extra natural intervention.

If you would like to use the many books which support evolution or any other arguments posed in this query, in later arguments, I don't object, but if you agree the above is your position we can close this first query.

I will wait for your agreement to respond in the other two queries, as I intend to draw on your claim in this one.


Hide all but last response
              1    0  
Response #8 to Q1
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

ok cool. this one is closed.




              1    0  
Socratic Query #2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Do you claim that the molecular mechanisms which account for the alteration of DNA to the point of speciation is already understood or do you claim that we do not need to understand something before we claim it as undeniable?


Respond to this query     Click to See all 12 responses Hide

This discussion is restricted. Please enter the password.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         March 28, 6am

   
              1    0  
Response #1 to Q2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

We all agree that Newton's claim of gravity extending without limit is proven satisfactorily. We all agree that the hypothesis that cancer has a viral cause is not nearly proven yet.

On a scale of one to ten, how proven do you rank evolution?


              0    0  
Response #2 to Q2
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

to the best of my knowledge, human papilloma virus causes cancer in 50% of the women infected. (statistics from memory and recently reported by the Daily Show w Jon Stewart) - so I could be off-base here with the numbers.

your cancer analogy is ill-fitting since "cancer" is a term for a host of tumor-producing diseases, some caused by virus as indicated above and some with different causes (such as cumulative genetic damage, chemical exposure, or other causes)

i rank evolution as a 10. the best quote i have read about this is (paraphrased here) "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky. some hypotheses still require support but from all I have read, the theory is sound.


              0    0  
Response #3 to Q2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

We have cleared two things up.

Regardless of the fact that abiogenesis and evolution proper are two different things, your claim is that

1) natural selection of random variations certainly do produce diverse species and

2) that while the process of abiogenesis may not be known, it certainly did take place with out extra natural intervention. and

3) the level of certainty for these two facts are on the same level as our confidence in the current understanding of gravity.

If you agree with this, we can close this query as well and I will post my fourth query which is built upon this agreement.


              0    0  
Response #4 to Q2
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

i disagree with #3. i have no idea how well or poorly the theory of abiogenesis is supported.


              0    0  
Response #5 to Q2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

OK I see we are not as close to closing this query.

So let's clarify:

Do you agree that the fact that abiogenesis did take place is reasonably certain, but we don't know what that process might have been?


              0    0  
Response #6 to Q2
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

I am uncomfortable with the statement. How about this: Given the observational, verifiable level of data (whatever that may be) abiogenesis is the best scientific theory for the origin of life.

This seems to fit the definition of a scientific statement better.


              0    0  
Response #7 to Q2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

I can't agree that just because there are no better theories that the best theory must be valid. And this is pretty much the subject of query 3. ( I like that all posts are identifiable now. That was a good idea Tom)

How about this?

Do you agree that the definition of abiogenesis is some unknown process by which pre-biotic compounds found an arraignment which endowed self replication with out the aid of preexisting biological mechanisms nor extra natural intervention?

And do you agree that no scientifically credible abiogenic process has yet been discovered?

If we find agreement here, I have one more question which may close this query, query 2


              0    0  
Response #8 to Q2
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

this is all that makes sense to me, "the definition of abiogenesis is some unknown process by which pre-biotic compounds found an arraignment which endowed self replication with out the aid of preexisting biological mechanisms"

"...nor extra natural intervention" is not necessary since science cannot test the supernatual.


              0    0  
Response #9 to Q2
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

I clicked submit before I finshed my thought. Doh!

That science requires a better supported theory to replace an new is just the way it works. when there is an observed phenomenon, hypotheses are grouped to explain the phenonmenon. if there are no competing theories, the only one present is referred to as the "best supported theory" not "valid"


              0    0  
Response #10 to Q2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

So, Would you agree:

that "evolution" is proven to some reasonable standard, but that "abiogenesis" has not yet been proven to a reasonable standard?


              0    0  
Response #11 to Q2
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

evolution is one of if not the best supported theories in science. I have no idea how well the theory of abiogenesis is supported.


Hide all but last response
              0    0  
Response #12 to Q2
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

OK so if we bring this back to this query, you claim that "evolution" (natural selection of random variations) is well proven, but abiogenesis may be or may not be well proven.

You are doing the right thing by being very careful about these distinctions. It is very easy to believe something so long as one doesn't think about it carefully. Evolution is very complex and people are very tempted to take the word of others instead of thinking. But as we will see, a careful disambiguation leads to surprising understanding.




              0    0  
Socratic Query #3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

I am adding a third thread of concurrent questions.

If you were to find that abiogenesis were found to be impossible or find that protein domain evolution (the many modern protein domains each arising de novo from similar nucleotide sequences or random sequences of nucleotides) to be impossible, would you concede that evolution is not a sufficient explanation for modern diverse life?


Respond to this query     Click to See all 23 responses Hide

This discussion is restricted. Please enter the password.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         March 28, 6am

   
              0    0  
Response #1 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

no, i would not. my response about abiogenesis is above. but on a higher level, it is not enough to find hypotheses in a theory incorrect. a better supported theory must be presented in its place.

I am not saying evolution is not falsifiable. the very definition of a scientific theory is that there must be tests run on hypothesis that could invalidate the ideap proposed. If there are enough of them demonstrating the many hypotheses supporting evolution are false, then evolution would be rejected as a theory. the thing that would need to happen is a new, better supported theory would need to be presented.

BTW, this is 1 reason why ID fails as scientific theory. science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.


              0    0  
Response #2 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

This query is not close to being closed yet.

While your response suggests it, I presume you do not claim that all a theory requires to be held valid is merely the lack of a better theory.

I will rephrase the question.

If a theory describing a phenomenon requires a process which turns out proven to be impossible, is the theory still a valid theory?

Or must it be abandoned in search of another?

I am not suggesting that abiogenesis has already been proven impossible, I am asking if you would abandon evolution if the scientific community determines that abiogenesis is impossible. (evolution and abiogenesis are different things)

In other words, do phenomena exist for which we have no theory?


              0    0  
Response #3 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

i thought you suggested the first query was closed and i was agreeing to that. maybe i dont understand the process or maybe the response i gave posted to the wrong line?


              0    0  
Response #4 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

no problem.

There are currently 3 Socratic Queries and indented under each there are Responses

The first query is above: and copied here
1) natural selection of random variations certainly do produce diverse species and
2) that while the process of abiogenesis may not be known, it certainly did take place with out extra natural intervention. and
3) the level of certainty for these two facts are on the same level as our confidence in the current understanding of gravity.
To Tom wrote yesterday
ok cool. this one is closed.

Now I intend to build on our agreement on that point further queries point by point.

It may not seem like its leading anywhere, but I am playing the role of the refuter so I should have a point by point plan leading toward agreement. If I don't then I won't be able to make my point.

This query poses a hypothetical question in its Socratic Query header. See above


              0    0  
Response #5 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

Hypotheses come before theories. It would be better to say that "Phenomena exist for which we have no well-supported hypotheses." Evolution is built from a huge collection of hypotheses. the more well-supported hypotheses a theory has, the stronger the theory. Evolution is one of the strongest theories we have.

To replace an existing theory, it is not enough to say some of the hypotheses are not well-supported. a new, better supported theory must also be put forth.

If a hypothesis is proven poorly supported, it must be abandoned and an new hyopthesis needs to be researched.

Demonstraing something is scientifically "impossible" is a tricky statement. it use to be impossible for man to fly. then, we figured out how the laws of nature governing flight. what do you mean by "impossible"?


              0    0  
Response #6 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

While flying might have been thought impossible by many, no thinkers through out history declared it so. They held the possibility open. From Da Vinci all the way back to stories of Icarus

On the other hand we can know with great certainty that aeronautical flight controls are impossible in space.

To keep this query on track, let us first agree on our definition of the collection of hypothesis which we include in "evolution" That way neither of can wiggle out of something with. "but I wasn't talking about that, it was something else"

Can we agree that "evolution" is confined to the theory that natural selection acts on random variations favoring only those variations which increase self reproduction?

So that from now on, "evolution" includes any group of notions, by what ever designation, which support this theory.


              0    0  
Response #7 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

Heres a definition of evolutionary theory I am comfortable with:
- evolution: organisms change through time

- decent with modification: evolution proceeds through the branching of common decent

- Either or both: gradualism (slow, steady change) or punctuated equilibrium (long periods of calm with brief periods of rapid change)just which or both is right is unsettled in the scientific community.

- Multiplication: evolution produces increasing numbers of new species

- natural selection: populations tend to increase geometrically; the environment limits the population it can support; the result is a struggle for survival; there is variation in every species; in the struggle for survival, individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals less well adpated

* paraphrasing from Ernst Mayr


              0    0  
Response #8 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

These are all observations. "evolution produces" "populations tend to" A theory on the other hand attempts explanation of the process.

So to bring it back to the question of response 6, can we agree that the theory of evolution is that the forces of nature act to select for random variations of organisms which endow greater reproductive ability.

If we can agree what a theory is we can bring it back round to closing the subject of this query.


              0    0  
Response #9 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

I'm not sure how to respond to you dismissing the definition. I think it is a fair one. It describes all of the things that occur in evolution. I had to paraphrase somewhat to get it to fit in the limited number of words. What I was aiming for was a more complete definition over what you had offered.


              0    0  
Response #10 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

We are making progress. In Q1 we established that you claim diverse life today arose by natural means entirely requiring no extra natural involvement.

We are close to establishing your definition of the theory regarding how that happened without extra natural involvement.

We still need to close Q2 where we establish your criteria for a "good" theory

When we establish that, I intend to show that the theory you describe in Q3 does not satisfy your own criteria from Q2.

So you have a heads up. Find a description of evolution and criteria for "good" theory that are consistent.

Work it one question at a time. We can stay on Q3 until we have it worked out to your satisfaction. That is what Socratic method is all about. Working toward resolution to the satisfaction of the afirmer.


              0    0  
Response #11 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

So, I am still content that my paraphrased defintion of evolution is sound. To the best of my knowledge, the elements in the defintion have predictable, verifiable results supporting the theory and no other theory have more support therfore qualifying for supplanting the theory.

I am concerned with your use of "proven" or "good" as descriptor of how well supported a theory is. These are irrelevant terms with regard to judging a scientific theory.


              0    0  
Response #12 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

OK. Well let's nail down the theory as you believe it to be.

In your response 7 you rehearse 5 statements. Four of them are just more detailed versions of the first "- evolution: organisms change through time"

Do you agree that this is merely an observation, not an explanation for how or which natural forces cause the observations?

If we agree on this, we can move on to the 5th and to "proven" or "good"


              0    0  
Response #13 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

Dictionary definition of a scientific theory: A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

So, yes, a theory is comprised of observations but other things as well.

"Organisms change through time" is not an apt substitue for Mayr's definition because it is incomplete. I am changing through time (aging). This is not a replacement for a full theory of evolution. the other elements of the definition explain what else is happening besides an organism changing. "how" is explained elsewhere


              0    0  
Response #14 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Then its the "how" that we need.

Everyone knows that different animals lived at different times. That is an observation.

Claiming that the animals we see today came from the animals of which only fossils still exist today with out providing some explanation how that came to be is at issue.

Do you claim the explanation is unavailable is"elsewhere" or do you claim there is enough of that explanation to qualify the explanation as a well supported theory. If so, please provide that part; the "how"


              0    0  
Response #15 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

in 146 words? yikes. by "elsewhere" i meant found in the details of evolutionary theory. we were trying to settle on a definition of evolution. the theory explains the over-all relation of the concepts, hypothesis, etc.

animals living at different times is not an observation. it is a fact. using the terms precisely is important.

if you are asking for evidence of speciation, here's one: evolution predicts evidence of relationship between species is identical mutation in separate, closely related species. such a mutation is found in humans and our closest related great apes. a retrovirus created a neutral mutation before homo sapiens and the great apes split off from each other.

For more, see Ken Miller's book "Only a Theory."

other evidence: Whales and dolphins can be born with vestigial legs, chicken have genes for teeth. these are evidence of past genetic relatives.


              0    0  
Response #16 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

-No worries. The word limit keeps us on one subject at a time. There is no limit to how many bites we divide the broader subject into.

-Not "animals living at different times is not an observation," but "animals of which only fossils still exist today"

-I am actually not interested in supporting evidence right now. First I want to know exactly what we are supporting.

how about the second paragraph of our discussion page:

"...members of each species differ from one another... these differences are compounded... lead to speciation... some variations help an organism survive... allowing fit organisms greater procreation... until it permeated the species."

Now that's a theory. If you agree with this as the theory you support for the explanation of the life's diversity we observe today, then I have one more question before closing this query and move to supporting ( truncated for length...)


              0    0  
Response #17 to Q3
   tom   wrote more than a year ago

i guess thats ok but i am not sure you dont want to just go with an accepted theory of evolution in stead of trying to make up a new one.


              0    0  
Response #18 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

I would be glad to. Can you provide a concise definition which is to your liking?


              0    0  
Response #19 to Q3
   Tom       wrote more than a year ago

LOL. I did!


              0    0  
Response #20 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

OK. So is it the fifth?

"there is variation in every species; in the struggle for survival, individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals less well adpated "

Because the other four are merely observations which are in need of explanation. The fifth begins to provide some explanation for the observations.

Of course that statement doesn't include supporting evidence for each statement, but we can get to that. Are you satisfied with this as THE theory?


              0    0  
Response #21 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

I am not sure where to go from here. I am happiest with the definition of evolution I provided in my response #7. It is a good paraphrase of Ernst Mayr's definition of evolution. It was used in a book by Michael Schermer I am fond of. it addresses each of the largest pieces of evolutionary theory.


              0    0  
Response #22 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

In my first query, we established that your position is that the diversity of life observed today as well as the initiation of that life from non life occurred without any supernatural help.

In the second, you state "evolution is one of if not the best supported theories in science. I have no idea how well the theory of abiogenesis is supported."

The third is not yet closed. I am trying to disambiguate just how proven you believe it is.

If you are satisfied with the observations you made in response 7 of Q3, for the best way to explain evolution, I will move onto establishing your position on just how "proven" a conjecture must be to be "one of, if not the best supported theories"

Jerry


Hide all but last response
              0    0  
Response #23 to Q3
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

Ok




              0    0  
Socratic Query #4
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

to the best of my knowledge, human papilloma virus causes cancer in 50% of the women infected. (statistics from memory and recently reported by the Daily Show w Jon Stewart) - so I could be off-base here with the numbers.

your cancer analogy is ill-fitting since


Respond to this query     Click to See all 4 responses Hide

This discussion is restricted. Please enter the password.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         March 28, 6am

   
              0    0  
Response #1 to Q4
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

To clarify, you claim that evolution is well proven because one of many kinds of cancer shows shows a inconclusive relationship with a virus? or do you claim that evolution is proven because my cancer analogy is faulty?

Let's forget cancer and address the subject of query 2 "conclusive proof" in response 2 you claim evolution is 100% proven. So what is your definition of proven?

Is something proven when there is no better explanation?

or when the hypothesis fits the evidence and when none of the processes which the hypothesis relies upon is shown to be improbably or implausible?


              0    0  
Response #2 to Q4
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

forgetting cancer analogy.

I should have caught this earlier. "Proven" is not a term we should be using. It can imply "never refutable." Any scientific theory can be refuted by using the scientific method to disprove the predicted observation of the supporting hypotheses of the theory.

"Well supported" is the right term. A theory is well supported when the predicted observation of the hypotheses are validated through repeatable testing.

"Improbable" and "implausible" are irrelevant terms. They may provide an indication of how hard it is for something to occur, not whether a hypothesis is supported or disproven.


              0    0  
Response #3 to Q4
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Well supported is a very good description.

So with your consent, lets fold this into Query 2 then to close both by establishing that it is your position that the diverse species we observe today are the result of "evolution" acting on organisms because the predicted observations of the various hypotheses for the various mechanisms required of evolution are observed.

That is to say that theory of evolution is as well supported as the theory of gravity or the theory atoms?

Is this your posistion?


Hide all but last response
              0    0  
Response #4 to Q4
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

yeah, we can fold this one in. Given the sentence fragment and how the first sentence is a duplicate of another post in another query, I think this was an errant entry anyway.




              0    0  
Socratic Query #5
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

This should be the final Query.

Up to this point, I understand your position to be that
1) both the origin and diversity of life occurred without any extra natural exception
2) and that the explanation for this observation is well understood
3) the explanation being that living things change over time (in detail above)

Correct me if I am wrong.

How do you determine if a theory is well supported to your own satisfaction?

Can you suggest another well supported but unrelated scientific theory which we can explore to test the efficacy of your determination of "well supported?"


Respond to this query     Click to See all 5 responses Hide

This discussion is restricted. Please enter the password.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         March 28, 6am

   
              0    0  
Response #1 to Q5
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Haven't heard your response yet. How about our old friend gravity?

You believe that gravity is a very well supported theory and you believe that evolution is a very well supported theory. Shall we explore exactly what it is about the theory of gravity that qualifies it as "well qualified" to your satisfaction and compare that to evolution.


              0    0  
Response #2 to Q5
   tom   wrote more than a year ago

I haven't responded because this is difficult. (And because I am busy with work.) My hobby is reading evolution science. I have read that evolution is as well supported as the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory and others. I accept these statements as valid but have done no reading about them. I can make reasonable guesses as to why these are thought well supported but I cannot defend them with any serious rigor. I can discuss the some of the elements in evolution that were predicted and found to be correct through the fossil record or that are predicted then found repeatable in the lab.

Focusing on why evolution is well supported, would seem a worthwhile effort. Discussing these other theories seems like a potential waste of time or, worse yet serve as creating straw men for you to knock down that I cannot defend.


              0    0  
Response #3 to Q5
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

No problem on the time issue. Take as much as you need.

To clarify:

Are you saying that you believe that evolution is well supported based solely upon others, but don't understand why or how it is well supported yourself?

And: I am not suggesting focusing on gravity, but focusing on the criteria you yourself use to determine the level of support any theory has. Gravity just happens to be a theory on which no one disagrees. So we can clearly explore your criteria. We won't be getting into the Higgs boson as a carrier of gravity, rather what it is about the theory that makes you feel it is well supported.

Remember Socratic method is all about restating to the satisfaction of the affirmer. That would be you.


              0    0  
Response #4 to Q5
   Tom   wrote more than a year ago

No, I was saying I cannot defend any other scientific theory as well as I can defend evolution.

I'm not sure about your comment about dependency on others. I am not performing experiments myself , so yes, I am dependant on others. What I do is, as a hobby, educate myself on advances in the field, referring to a variety of sources, books, articles, columns, TV, etc. to see what's going on. from this education and as a nonscientist, I am in agreement that the theory fits the definition of well supported.


Hide all but last response
              0    0  
Response #5 to Q5
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

That makes gravity an even better analogous subject.

Think about it. Something convinces you that gravity is well supported. It isn't experimental, but something else. You are also convinced of evolutions support and evidently with even more rigor.

If we find what criteria you use to declare gravity as well supported and compare that not to the facts or observations, but the criteria you use to declare evolution the same, we will know if you really have carefully considered evolution.

We can proceed in mutual agreement, if you wish to explore your own criteria for accepting something as well supported using gravity as a test case.