WOW! Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory - in 60 days!

[Wordwarrior]

kajukenbo...

...I don't want to beat a dead horse, but one has to wonder if you were being entirely sincere when you requested this:

Can we please close this thread before it leaves the realm of science and turns into a debate on philosophy & mythology?

[kajukenbo]

Yes Wordwarrior, I was being completely sincere and I stick by that request.

Please close this thread.

This was a discussion about SCIENCE.
Any religious opinions have no bearing on the research or the implications of the study itself.

I think I (and others) have been more than fair and understanding when addressing questions about the research or the Scientific Method in general. Even when those questions and criticisms came from an obvious "religious" point of view, we have for the most part attempted to educate and clarify how science works and why the research is just an important first step. We have all done so without directly attacking any religion or anyone's religious views but that does not mean I am somehow supportive of -or even willing to accomodate- religious opinions.

During this thread I was also introduced to a book about basic science literacy:
"Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy" by Robert M. Hazen.
[ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307454584 ]
I have the book here at my house now and I will read it once I have time.
I plan to give copies to science-illiterate friends if it is a good read.
I recommend that anyone who questions the Scientific Method (including Evolution by Natural Selection or any other concept that conflicts with some "religious view") take the time to learn something about the subject from widely-respected authorities instead of listening to the misinformed opinions of philosphical or religious leaders.
This book seems like a good starting point. Maybe pick up a copy and read it until you understand it.

We have learned something about each other and had a few good-natured laughs but that has passed. The last several comments have all been "religious" in tone. That is exactly what I wanted to avoid.
Religious opinions have no place in a science discussion. Eventually -as the centuries have proven- the science will conflict with someone's religious opinions and they will try to justifiy (or even worse: enforce) their "faith". It just goes downhill from there.

[concobar]

You know that science thing you have so much faith in? you are welcome.-The religious people who formed the foundation of scientific thought.

[Wordwarrior]

Yes Wordwarrior, I was being completely sincere and I stick by that request.

I was with you, when I thought you were motivated primarily by a desire to prevent this discussion from turning into a rancorous hate fest, but your next statement is a little more revealing about your actual motivations for closing down the discussion...

This was a discussion about SCIENCE.
Any religious opinions have no bearing on the research or the implications of the study itself.

Actually, I WAS discussing science. So were the other posters. It's true some of us are religious (or perhaps not- maybe I am the only one, I ought not to make assumptions, I suppose) but why should that disqualify us from discussing science- particularly the science relating to the yeast study that you posted? Also, just because you think religious opinions have no bearing on reasearch, that doesn't make it so. There are many scientists and physicians who would say that they do (more on this below).

I think I (and others) have been more than fair and understanding when addressing questions about the research or the Scientific Method in general. Even when those questions and criticisms came from an obvious "religious" point of view, we have for the most part attempted to educate and clarify how science works and why the research is just an important first step. We have all done so without directly attacking any religion or anyone's religious views but that does not mean I am somehow supportive of -or even willing to accomodate- religious opinions.

I am not entirely sure I believe you here. The part that I bold-faced makes the first portion of your statement highly suspect.

This book seems like a good starting point. Maybe pick up a copy and read it until you understand it.

I suspect this may be a thinly veiled jab at my intelligence, but perhaps I'm being uncharitable. You may also be assuming that I am in complete agreement with Korala's views on the Scientific Method. This is not the case. Whether you were being snarky or sincere, it is good advice (though you may actually want to read it and determine if it is a good treatment of the subject, before you recommend it to me), and I'll see if I can pick up a copy at my local library.

The last several comments have all been "religious" in tone. That is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

Which comments are you referring to? I have to admit I'm a bit confused by this. I know the weblink I posted was a creation site, but the information contained therein was thoroughly scientific in nature and not in any way a form of religious tract. I do feel that I ought to be able to express my religious beliefs freely (though I don't think it's necessary to state them, for the purpose of discussing this topic), but I don't want to cause unnecessary offense, either. If you will point out the comments that I (or others) have made that have offended you, I will try to stay on topic and keep such comments to a minimum (or, unless it is somehow germane to the discussion, eliminate them entirely).

Religious opinions have no place in a science discussion. Eventually -as the centuries have proven- the science will conflict with someone's religious opinions and they will try to justifiy (or even worse: enforce) their "faith". It just goes downhill from there.

As I stated earlier, I don't agree with the first part of your statement. As far the second part, I have to confess, this is sometimes true. What I would say to you about that, is don't paint all people of faith in the same mold. Not all of those who are religious suscribe to a "blind" faith. Many of us are science minded people who believe, as a wise man once said,

"Faith and Reason are like the shoes on your feet; you will get further with both, than you will with just one."

You see, the problem I have with some of your statements and the tone of those statements, is that you seem to offhandedly dismiss all people of faith as ignorant, superstitious troglodytes- muddying the waters of 'true' science. This is patently ridiculous- particularly since many of the great scientists of history were religious in some capacity. Please examine the following link, if you doubt me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

If you are still not convinced, see this list of contemporary scientists that have signed the Dissent from Darwin list (downloaded from the tab in the upper right hand corner) at this link: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

And this one for physicians: http://www.pssiinternational.com/about.php

Here is a quote from Philip S. Skell, in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: "I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." --Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

Philip S. Skell was Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University. He is sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry" in organic chemistry, and is widely known for the "Skell Rule", which was first applied to carbenes - the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. He said that during World War II "I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced." Professor Skell died Nov. 21, 2010.

I think you will agree, the man has very impressive scientific credentials; at the very least, he is not an idiot.

I think you also are under the impression that everyone who is skeptical of evolution through natural selection is religious. This also is untrue. I have encountered some atheists in my life (admittedly, very few of them) and there are at least two, recent notable examples- Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who wrote a book titled: What Darwin Got Wrong, which is a lengthy criticism (albeit, in many peoples opinions- including my own- not a very good one) of evolution through natural selection.

Anyway, after reading your most recent reply, I hope the Mods do NOT close the thread- unless or until the thread degenerates from discussion into a mindless exchange of insults- because I think that forum members ought to be able to openly discuss their views and exchange information, regardless of whether or not they are religious.

[koralas]

Your bias here seems to be because you do not like, or really understand, how the Scientific Method works.

I'm sorry, but what bias have I shown? I have not attempted to disqualify the Scientific Method, it is as you state the best process we have to learn just how the universe works, regardless of the system being studied. Rather, show that the methods followed have flaws that any scientist would admit to. How many experiments must succeed if trying to prove, or fail if trying to dis-prove (meaning testing the Theory and its predictions and finding they are true), before something is definitively shown to be true? Without an answer to this, scientists instead will propose the Theory as an accepted truth, thus leaving the possibility of it being disputed by future evidence.

Scientists have a bias, that bias is expressed within their Theory or opposition to another's Theory; however, that bias should never play any part in the execution of the scientific investigations being made. That isn't to say it has not happened in the past when either attempting to prove or disprove a Theory in whole or in part, but that the pursuit of true science requires that bias be left at the door of the laboratory to prevent skewing the observations performed during experimentation. It is also true that even the formulator of a particular Theory may rejoice when their Theory is proven flawed because in that process it is possible a new discovery is made that is of even more import than the original Theory predicted. As an example, Viagra was originally formulated as a drug for relieving the effects of hypertension. During the clinical studies it was found ineffective, and the scientists changed the Theory to the treatment of angina. This also was a failure and the drug was going to be binned; however, there was a peculiar side effect that was noted during the trials so the original Theory was scrapped and a completely new one written, and well the rest is history... What is funny in this example (and the reason I chose it, even though the end result it isn't of more import than the original Theory) is that while Viagra was meant to help lower blood pressure, if it is utilized for the effect the experiments found it to posses, it will result in a temporary increase in blood pressure do to the vigorous exercise it induces!

The experiment at the root of this thread shows the application of bias in an attempt to prove rapid evolutionary jumps. While I concede that this is a valid Theory, the experiment itself is flawed through application of bias. By selecting only the desirable organisms and cultivating them, you eliminate other possible paths of evolutionary progression presenting competition to the life form being studied. Further contradictory statements are found within the information published, namely the organism living/dieing as a whole, but then some cell sacrificing themselves to allow the organism to split. I have also stated that while flawed, the experiment will still likely advance our knowledge. It could be that the genetic code of those cells that "sacrificed themselves" had evolved through some as yet unknown naturalistic process and their genetic code thereby altered to give them "programming" to all die at near the same time to allow the organism to divide. This would then result in the discovery of the initial threads to bring empirical proof to macro-evolution, we will have observed cells genetic code directly change to become a specialized cell working in conjunction with others fulfilling a new purpose. In this way you can begin to show how different organs developed when the parents lacked the genetic code to build such. However, it is possible that a few cells happen to die creating a weak point in the cluster where external forces, such as currents in the liquid, created stress that cause the organism to tear apart into two separate clusters and in the process additional cells died due to the process of the forcible splitting.

Also, do not confuse falsification with falsifiability. They are not the same, though falsification is an extension of falsifiability. As I have described falsification above at length, and in my final paragraph explained falsifiability, I will paraphrase for brevity.

Falsifiability - Requires that at least one portion of a Theory be able to be tested and have a possibility of being dis-proven. If no portion of a Theory has the possibility of being tested and being dis-proven, the theory is considered to be unscientific. See Solipsism as a something that Falsifiability invalidates. Falsifiability thus tests the Theory itself as a declaration, not the predictions of the Theory.

Falsification - Requires that you concede that there is a possibility of any given hypothesis/prediction contained within a Theory to be dis-proven by future evidence. It precludes empirical evidence showing the absolute truth of a given Theory. Falsification thus requires infinite re-testing of the predictions of a Theory until one or more of the hypothesis is shown to be false.

So, you miss my point, as I have reiterated in a number of the posts. I do not attempt to invalidate the the Scientific Method, but rather emphasize that even the most die-hard scientist will concede the difference between a truth and an accepted truth, a fact and a scientific fact. Much as Krauss' statement on the discoveries of the mechanics of the universe, slim as that line of demarcation may be, it is there whether we like it or not.

[concobar]

This was a discussion about SCIENCE.
Any religious opinions have no bearing on the research or the implications of the study itself.

I think I (and others) have been more than fair and understanding when addressing questions about the research or the Scientific Method in general. Even when those questions and criticisms came from an obvious "religious" point of view, we have for the most part attempted to educate and clarify how science works and why the research is just an important first step. We have all done so without directly attacking any religion or anyone's religious views but that does not mean I am somehow supportive of -or even willing to accomodate- religious opinions.

The level of arrogance and close mindedness in the above post is amazing.
I am willing to accommodate your obviously anti-religious posts and to be tolerate of them even if I percieve most of what you and others have posted as a vain attempt to appear superior to others. The fact that you chose to do this on a RPG board is telling.

Many of the greatest scientific minds to ever live were deeply religious or at the least deists. Do you not wish to accommodate their opinions?

The difference between a direct attack and an indirect attack is the latter is somewhat more cowardly.

[redwullf]

How about those Giants, huh?

[MormonYoYoMan]

How about those Giants, huh?

We beat them up in the G-series modules, but then Lolth killed us.

[JediOre]

Setting aside some of the "heat" of the discussion, this has been an amazing thread posting.

[Dead Horse]

Hey someone mention my name?

[Arduin]

But you cannot pick and choose what scientific method you want to utilize based on the Theory you are testing, for in so doing you introduce bias in that you have already determined if you accept the premise or not. ...

You misunderstand. As one cannot conduct a live experiment when dealing with "macro-evolution" and thus "prove" it. One must look for the evidence or, lack thereof that is postulated to exist because of the theory. LACK of expected evidence falsifies... That is what I was referring to

[MormonYoYoMan]

Hey! We were discussin' giants and spider queens here!

[Arduin]

Hey! We were discussin' giants and spider queens here!

Oops.

So, any similar type of module sequence being made for C&C?

[MormonYoYoMan]

Never mind the large skeleton -- What or who stepped on the poor fellow and left that big ol' footprint?!

[TheMetal1]

So, any similar type of module sequence being made for C&C?

Well, rumor has it, that there is a reimagining of the popular G-Series from AD&D that will be produced at some time by The Trolls for C&C, instead of being titled, "Against the Giants" My sources tell me that it will be a mystery, discovery theme adventure called, "Who Stepped on the Giants." (alternate title is "Bigger Foot")

There might be a tie in with the Pulp SIEGE adventure as well, called "History's Rosetta Stone" where in an archologist in the 1920s discovers a Giants graveyard and is set upon by various forces who want to both expose this, or silence it or hoax it.

[Wordwarrior]

Hey someone mention my name?

Yer killin' me, smalls.

[MormonYoYoMan]

(Biggerfoot? I have Diet Caff-free Dew all over my monitor now!)

Will Biggerfoot be in the new Classic Monsters book?

[JediOre]

Will Biggerfoot be in the new Classic Monsters book?

William Biggerfoot is clearly going to be in the upcoming Coast to Coast Monsters Supplement book.

[MormonYoYoMan]

Sign me up for Kickstarter or Pre-Order right away!!

[Dead Horse]

My ears were definately burning there...

[Relaxo]

Rooting for the Giants to beat the Pats!