Why accept consensus as reality?

Faith & Science Conversation
522

And here you consider that applying metaphysics to a cell arising natural as incontrovertible science while life coming from life is what is observed in nature. And the evidence shows a cell doesn’t arise naturally.

So because you really, really believe it then you call it science? Or do you have evidence?

523

We have better than six sigma evidence.

524

As I understand it, the evidence is that the development of chloroquine resistance is a natural random change of 2 nucleic acids in 1 out of 10^20 which roughly corresponds to the 10^9 for a single nucleic change needed for other resistance changes.

Natural selection acts on maintaining a beneficial random change. It has no cause on a random change initially happening - probably why it is called random.

That was my question to you -

The rate of any changes are very high and very deleterious. But what is the rate of random evolutionary changes? That which is additive AND beneficial for natural selection to act positively on.

You said you have not seen any scientific tests showing Behe’s point.
I was wondering why you didn’t consider this point but it seems you may be unaware of this point he makes. Which of Behe’s points were you thinking of?

525

I used to be a YEC, and then an OEC embracing ID (I still believe in lowercase “id” because “luck” is not in my working vocabulary). I became an “evolutionary providentialist” after being introduced to neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution in my early geezerhood, maybe four years ago. The neutral theory of evolution wasn’t a thing when I was in seventh grade, and it wasn’t mentioned in the two university biology classes I took post-baccalaureate to finish the premed curriculum. The point is, neutral drift can and does produce complexity. If you are unfamiliar with it you should check it out.

526

Most mutations are neutral, with neither benefit or deleterious effect. As to Behe’s points, I’ll let you chose.

1 Like
527

(I would also be interested to see if you have any reply over here, as well.)

528

That was a factor in convincing me of the validity of evolutionary science too.
 

Another was a comment by a Christian molecular biologist:

…the most common mutations, transitions, are not really ‘copying errors,’ because the keto-enol transition of the base is driving them and the polymerase is working correctly. So if you’d like, that can be seen as providence more than chance.

I did.

529

How do you apply philosophy to a cell? I know of no cell that arose supernaturally. What do you know?

I don’t believe. I know. I have all the evidence possible and all the reason (necessary).

530

How do you deny physical evidence based on your belief that everything must be natural in spite of the empirical evidence is that it is not a natural event?
Why do you introduce a metaphysical ability on to nature? How is that science?

Believe what you want but just be honest with the actual empirical evidence. Your belief does not elucidate our scientific knowledge.

If one starts with A as their dogma then one needs exactly 0 evidence or logic to arrive at the conclusion that A is true.

531

I don’t do beliefs, apart from that I believe that everyone deserves universal social justice. There is no empirical evidence of the supernatural or the need for it. Nothing about nature requires it. I am completely honest about the limits of empiricism. Beyond that, all we need is rationality. The greatest single fact is eternal nature: rationality from empiricism. Nature goes beyond our rationality even in its strangeness, as Haldane rightly said.

532
  • There are at least two kinds of “atoms”.
    • Those that the majority of Americans learn about in school: better known as “Dalton’s atoms”.
    • The other kind are the ones that are true atoms, the “un-cuttables” first described by Democritus, i.e. indivisible things that move through space. Nobody has ever seen the latter. They have been and still are–by some–assumed to exist, without evidence.
      • By my understanding of your words, belief in those “atoms” is a “faith statement”.
  • I suspect you believe in the former, but have little to no idea about the latter. Sound about right to you?
1 Like
533

Your if/then creates a false dichotomy. It’s clear, but it’s a cheat, because it’s based on a false premise.

1 Like
534

You make a statement but give no reason that the premise is false.

You claim a false dichotomy. Shall I take that to mean that you consider a consensus built on naturalism to be a false dichotomy?

My OP also clearly defined my use of the word.

535

Calling your belief a “fact” doesn’t mean you don’t do beliefs.
But the real problem is when one then bastardizes actual empirical science with their dogma. One should at least be honest enough with themselves to not pretend their belief is empirical evidence.

The logical proof of BGV theorem strongly indicates that the expanding universe(s) cannot be infinitely old. Play the starship traveling through space backwards would require it to eventually travel faster than the speed of light.

536

As Will Rogers said “We’re all ignorant just in different subjects”. However, it seems that I am not as ignorant on elementary particles as you suspected. Just never heard them referred to as atoms. They also are hardly unevidenced nor counter indicated as a natural arising of a cell.
First is seems that the electron is an elementary particle, second the collider is evidence of elementary particles. The evidence is newer and on the cusp of our reaching to the small. It would not be too shocking if we will later gain new evidence that shows our current understanding may be quite skewed; however, the evidence of detecting particles from collisions is actual evidence even if we are misunderstanding it.

I also am not ignorant that you skipped my main question for my sidebar comment. I’m not sure what you’re suspecting my question is asking for besides evidence of life arising naturally. And I still do not see the analogies you gave as logically connected to my question. If we had the same “evidence” proffered for elementary particles as we do for a natural initial cell formation (i.e. “Because everything must be natural”) then I would not accept either.
We don’t.
I don’t accept the negatively evidenced one.
For that very reason and none other.

537

You mean over the past two years?

538

As I understand it, the concept of most mutations being neutral drift is based on the notion of an extremely high percentage of junk DNA . Changes to unused DNA is neutral.
However, level of junk DNA is diminishing. The Encode project has been finding more and more useful DNA. Not to mention the layers of epigenetics above the DNA such as multipurpose proteins with 20 switches to turn on and off.

Our increasing understanding of the level of functional DNA also increases our determination of more mutations being deleterious.

Also a “slightly” deleterious mutation may eventually be more dangerous as they build up without natural selection acting.

It seems the evidence points toward our current genetic devolution.

539

I do not.

It is a long thread here. But I think you misunderstand my desire for evidence and logic as a means to support some religious notion.
As I addressed in an earlier post, I do not seek support for any religious notion. Dogma is not part of the empirical scientific method whether it be a belief in a Creator or belief of the supernatural nature of the naturalists.
We may infer any metaphysical concepts based on the empirical evidence; however, the evidence should never be ignored nor mischaracterized because of any belief.
Dogma is not science.

540

If you think an elementary particle and a dimensionless point of mass are the same thing or even the same size, you don’t know what the atom that I spoke of is. It has no dimensions, but it has a variable mass and moves at a constant speed through space.

The electron you mention consists of many of the atoms that I mentioned. An electron has parts; an atom of the kind that I speak of has no parts.

  • I regret getting involved in a thread where you’re responding to more than person.
    • Your main question was initially addressed to Klax, to wit:
      • “So again I’ll ask. What is the evidence for the cell arising naturally?”
    • I responded to that question as follows: " There isn’t a technologically-advanced means to see a set of points of mass gathering together and moving in orderly fashion, like a flock of bird, and forming sets that are larger than single points but smaller than the constituent parts of atoms, then forming atoms which combine to form molecules, and so on. So, the evidence you want appears–but really “only appears”–to be non-existent."
    • Your response to my response included four questions marks.
      • The first followed this question: So on what basis do you accept that a cell arises naturally if it is not evidentiary?
      • The second followed this question: Would you claim this to be science?
      • The third followed this question: Claiming such when the empirical evidence shows it doesn’t happen naturally is an infringement on the scientific method based on a faith. No?
      • And the fourth followed this question: Atoms forming molecules happens is quite evidentially based. How do you think that equates to a cell arising naturally?
  • I responded to the last with:
    • "There are at least two kinds of “atoms.
      • Those that the majority of Americans learn about in school: better known as “Dalton’s atoms”.
      • The other kind are the ones that are true atoms, the “un-cuttables” first described by Democritus, i.e. indivisible things that move through space. Nobody has ever seen the latter. They have been and still are–by some–assumed to exist, without evidence.
    • I suspect you believe in the former, but have little to no idea about the latter. Sound about right to you?"
  • And now you grouse that I “skipped your main question for your sidebar comment”
  • What do you want from me?
    • Your main question was, as I understand it: “What is the evidence for the cell arising naturally?”
    • I responded to that question with: “So, the evidence you want appears–but really “only appears”–to be non-existent.” Why? Because the atoms that I am talking about cannot and never will be detected by any means you could possibly think of. So if the evidence for an event exists but can never be detected, how do you propose to resolve the dilemma of “natural but invisible evidence for an event”? I resolve it by thanking God and moving on. What more do you want?
1 Like
541

That seems like word salad with no real point except obfuscation.