Truth with a capital “T” is not part of science. All conclusions in science are tentative and are never seen as being 100% proven or true. The scientific approach understands that humans are fallible and that we can never attain Truth with a capital “T”. Truth is left to metaphysical and ontological philosophies, not to the methodological philosophy of science.
However, science is pragmatic. In our day to day lives we make conclusions all of the time without needing 100% proof, and science does the same. We all act as if microorganisms cause infectious diseases because we have mountains of evidence pointing in that direction. We don’t reject Germ Theory because we can’t prove anything 100%. Germ Theory works and it explains the evidence, so we continue to use Germ Theory until someone shows it is wrong or the theory fails to explain observations.
And when evidence comes along that doesn’t fit in with the existing theory – like evidence that protein molecules (prions), not just microorganisms, can cause infectious disease – we modify or replace the theory. We don’t just force-fit the evidence into our existing worldview, despite claims to the contrary in this thread.
Scientists are often arrogant, but competent ones are ultimately humble where it matters: all of our ideas, no matter how clever, have to pass the test of conforming to objective data. Most of them don’t.
Exactly. Another good example is the luminiferous aether which was though to be the medium in which light propagated. Many experiments later (e.g. Michelson-Morley experiment) and the evidence didn’t support the existence of the aether. This set the stage for Einstein and his ideas. If @RichardG is correct, if you believe in the luminiferous aether then the results should magically fit those beliefs.
Most of ‘our’ ideas don’t, or most scientists don’t? Either way it’s a remarkable assertion.
It’s curious how there is a sense in your statement in which the expectation that ideas have to conform or correspond to empirical data is based on some kind of objective apriori understanding or data.
You have made it quite clear what you think of me. I have asked that you tone it down. You are still hyper critical. I cannot interact with you as it is. The only reason for not putting you on ignore is to monitor the level of hate.
I admit that I did not think of the possibility that God would add ‘junk’ to the genome just to confuse the scientists that would study nature thousands of years after creation.
It would be weird if God would try to lead honest students astray by adding clues and apparent evidence that point to creation through evolution, although evolution did not happen. That is of course just my viewpoint, I cannot fully know what the almighty God would think about playing such subterfuge games with humans that search truth. Although I do not know this, I think that the Father of lies is someone else than God, which means that we need to find some other explanation than subterfuge to explain the apparent evidence for evolution.
Fair enough. My only point was I am not sure what we should expect if we invoke design. We can’t compare what God would do with what evolution predicts scientifically because we can’t scientifically know how an omnipotent Deity would choose to create life. We can offer best guesses based on human designs but that is about it. I am more of a “whatever the evidence says is exactly how God created life.” All scientific evidence–whatever it says, is just evidence to me of God’s ordered nature and the constant creative work of the Son through whom all things are made and upheld. The fact that the universe is comprehensible is practically a miracle to me. I was convinced of evolution as a young Christian long ago when reading Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. It was the discussion of elephants that did it for me. I couldn’t make sense of a Designer who designed elephants the way the fossil record shows them. Evolution explained it perfectly to me. I am just not sure my objection was entirely scientific. More rational than anything. I am sure we could get really wild and imagine God allowing angels to create things that would evolve and use that to explain the patterns we see (e.g elephants). Either way, with my limited biology knowledge, it seems evolution is very well evidenced and is something Christians should embrace and incorporate into their theology. My whole understanding of God has changed though. Creation is ongoing and happens every instant as God sustains and upholds all things. Evolution is God the creator/designer in action to me. He designed and upholds a system that evolves. He designed and upholds every law, every instance of randomness and so on.
This may be an inconsistency but I am not sure. A designer could make designed things in an order that doesn’t follow any pattern or reason I can understand. So I can see how someone could argue some of “the complex functional systems in living things are evidence for the intelligence of a designer” while also professing we can’t know exactly how or why or the exact extent said designer would choose for everything. I mean, you only really need to find one irreducibly complex system to invoke design do you not? You don’t have to understand the whole picture. I think your objection over-reaches. But I don’t subscribe to intelligent design for living systems though I feel very strongly the underlying laws of the universe are fine-tuned.
That is the money-maker. I can’t see anything to disagree with. This is also why I subscribe to fine-tuning. The space of possible patterns (values for underlying constants) seems vast to me. Yet here we are, discussing an ordered and comprehensible universe. Maybe the conclusion is not science proper in its most germane sense, but where the methodological limits of science end, rationality continues for me.
Including human design only makes matters worse for the ID/creationist explanations because humans regularly design organisms in ways that differ greatly from the patterns we see in nature. For example, we humans regularly take exact or slightly altered genes from one species and insert it into the genome of a very distantly related species, such as putting fluorescent protein genes from jellyfish and putting them in mice and vertebrate fish. We also take exact copies of human genes and put them in mice, mainly for research purposes (same is true for jellyfish fluorescent proteins).
In the end, it boils down to parsimony. When observations are consistent with a known natural cause then we go with the natural cause without invoking a supernatural explanation that just happens to mimic the natural process for no discernable reason. To use a different example, we don’t throw out fingerprint and DNA evidence at a crime scene because someone proposes God could have planted those items at the crime scene. “Well, God could have done it that way” can apply to every single observation in nature which is partly why it fails as a scientific explanation.
Biologists suspect 90% of the human genome lacks selectable function because 90% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. That is, there is no evidence of selection against deleterious mutations in this DNA. We expect deleterious mutations to occur within functional DNA, so lack of evidence for deleterious mutations is strong evidence for a lack of function.
On the flip side, there is DNA that is strongly suspected of having function, but the specific function of this DNA is not currently known. The evidence for this function is sequence conservation, or a lack of neutral drift. Also, there could be a small percentage of human DNA that has recently acquired function and wouldn’t show strong evidence of sequence conservation, but there is no expectation that this extends to 90% of the human genome.
If someone is going to argue that most of the human genome is functional, these are the types of evidence that they are going to have to tackle.
That can depend on the branch of science. I remember readings in glaciology class from before anyone knew enough about glaciers to even have it as a field of study, and it was a theme that they had a lot of data and were barely fumbling towards any theory.
Oh – that chart leaves out a possibility after “analyze results”: “WTF???” That wasn’t uncommon in astronomy and still pertains in astronomy and cosmology.
Or the genes from fireflies and putting them in tobacco – our whole botany class got a laugh out of that, but it was in pursuit of linking those genes to tobacco’s response to attack by insects or disease, so the moment there was damage to a crop it would show up at night as blinking light.
What is often called ‘junk’ or ‘non-functional’ DNA includes many different kinds of genetic material that have no known biological functions. Part of the ‘non-functional DNA’ might be somehow useful for the individual but some of it is just neutral signs of past events: remains of ancient infections (genetic material originating from viruses), neutral mutations, etc. As far as I know, it can be removed from the genome without any noticeable effects to the individual or future offspring. If the remains of past events do not have a positive or negative effect on fitness, such signs of the past can remain in the genome for a very long time.
Because ‘non-functional DNA’ does not have known biological functions and does not have noticeable effects on fitness, mutations can change these parts quite freely. That makes this material useful for genetic analyses of ancestry. The presence of shared rare mutations etc. suggest that the organisms have common ancestors while the lack of such shared material hints that there are no recent common ancestors. Results obtained with one set of DNA or methods can then be compared with the results obtained with different material or methods to see if the signals of the past are consistent. If the signals are consistent, then the most probable explanation is that the material has revealed something of the ancestry (shared past) of the organisms.
that’s funny because what you are in fact stating is that you do not believe in eyewitness evidence?
Why is my point event relevant you may ask?
Well take the following:
The apostle Peter was an eyewitness to Christs ministry and the fact that Christ clearly walked the earth and engaged with a large number of his followers for at least 6 weeks after the crucifixion
Matthew and Mark were likely also eyewitnesses
Given Luke knew at least 1 and possibly all three of the above, as well as the apostle Paul…
We know that there are direct links between Luke, Paul and first century church fathers…so we know historically that all of these men existed. That is 100% proven as there are no gaps in the record between Christ and the current day (in terms of religious fathers).
So if you wish to make the claim that 3 eyewitnesses to Christ walking the earth after the crucifixion is fake, and given those same men experienced his trial and crucifixion…and there are numerous writers who attest to the existence of the apostles…
huge huge problems with your claim “there is no historical record” there.
I would suggest that if you really believe what you claim above…
out the window goes our entire justice system amigo!!!
Its rather telling that a man of science refuses to entertain the idea of “balance of probabilities” however given the issues this forum has with the eyewitness accounts of Noah and his offspring regarding the flood, the fact that both Christ and the Apostle Peter also recount that event in the New Testament…obviously its untenable for you to entertain the idea eyewitness is historical evidence. Trouble is, throw that out and what Bible do we follow as the whole lot becomes a blank canvas…you believe in fairytales right? You have just given yourself license to write your own
There is also the DNA that is known to be junk because it has been identified. Viral insertions, for example, or long repetitive elements. There are also DNA sections - including genes - that are missing in some members of a species without their lack having any observable effect.
There are functional viral insertions, transposons, and repetitive elements. However, function in these elements is a small fraction of the whole.
This is a tough one because you can remove functional elements and the change may not be immediately observable. Competitive assays may be one way of determining a change in fitness, but this is difficult for species with smaller populations and longer generation times. No method is foolproof, but from my limited knowledge on the subject sequence conservation seems to be the most reliable indicator.
