My mate tells me that all our modern scientific advances -- medical, technological, etc. -- are part of the same science which brings us evolutionary theory, are connected with it, are to some degree an outgrowth of it.

I don't know enough about the sciences to objectively analyze or evaluate this statement myself. Could someone with more knowledge please tell me -- whether you agree or disagree -- what facts or evidences would prompt a statement like this? Can anyone here provide an objective, informed evaluation of this statement?

Thanks
Nico

Dear Nico,

Your first sentence, in part, is well said. But the subject line of your post, and the last phrase of that sentence, is where the matter goes astray.

The modern advances that have made today so much different from the past come largely as the result of the scientific endeavor -- medicine, space technology, aviation and ground transit/transport, building technology, infrastructure as a whole, agriculture, and a host of other things ... including paleontological discovery and understanding. Within that last item is where the theory of biological evolution resides.

The theory of evolution does not derive though from either the basic research or the technological application of learning from that research, in any of those other areas, other than perhaps coincidentally.

In other words, though they all fit under the rubric of science, biological evolutionary theory is only one of the branches of the tree, not its root. Any connections are essentially, if not entirely, tangential, not derivative.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Norm

Science is more of a net than a tree, pieces separate and then come back together and separate again.

Furthermore scientists are humans engaged in a huge team sport. The motives of the players vary widely.

There are some very simple concepts that have become standard, and whose application has led directly to evolutionary theory.

(a) Reproducible experiments with measurable results. For example a geologist must describe exactly where the rock was found, how it was measured, and what the measurements were. If you go to the same place, you can find similar rock and get similar measurements.

(b) Built models that predict. If you find a rock with the following characteristics anywhere in the world, you will find it has the following other characteristics.

(c) Test. Try to find out when the model gives wrong results.

(d) Fix. Examine why it gives the wrong answers, and propose a better model for testing.

NOTE: The sole measure of a scientific theory is whether it successfully predicts the results of activities.

These approach has given us more food, better medical care, computers, communications, etc. They have also give us deep insight into biology and history - the theory of evolution.

In turn the concepts of evolution - mutation and selection - is foundational to understanding disease control .i.e. modern medicine.

Unfortunately ignorant Christian's see evolution as a threat to their overly constrained belief-systems, and end up denegrating science and scientists to preserve their belief-systems.

Belief-systems which, by the way, have completely failed to produce valid predictions of the future or of the behavior of the world around us.

I was reminded of this as I read an article about how Christian groups are getting into the 'vaccines cause autism" - of course, on the side that lacks scientific evidence.

You don't have to be irrational to belong to an organized christian denomination, but it certainly helps.

/Bevin

Bevin has fleshed out the bones of my reply quite nicely. Thanks, Bevin.

His closing remarks however - the last two sentences - are a little casual and overgeneralized, though the note of frustration is understandable. It's at the line, but not over. Since we are still getting our wings in this forum, I will use this opportunity to make a comment to all on how the rules are applied to specific items like this one.

Had Bevin used this as a springboard for further such statements, those sentences, and any in that vein that followed it, would have been deleted had it moved further into denigrating those so labeled. The rest of his post however would not have been affected, nor would his status as a posting member - he is already establishing the general tenor of his posts well.

That said, please note: I simply want to use this as an example of where this line is in this regard. This kind of post will be a rare exception; it's unlikely that you'll see many more of them. We don't plan on making many of them nor foresee the need, though we do serve notice that we will if events urge us sufficiently. This reply is being made in my function as a moderator and spokesperson for this forum.

Please don't consider this as a hand slap, Bevin (or anyone else). We just want to avoid misunderstandings for everyone.
The increasing activity here is gratifying to those of us who are working to make it happen.

I invite all to continue reading and posting actively.

Regards,
Norm

My 2 cents: The penultimate sentence is fine. It's only the final one that might be "questionable".

But I'm not the mod here ...

As one on Autism/Asperger's listservs, I see arguments on all sides of the issue. I do not think it is as cut and dried as either side makes it out to be. I was ready to respond to the penultimate sentence when I moved on to Norm's answer and realized he had dealt with it well. There is enough question dealing with the issue that even though I tend to believe that at least IN MY FAMILY there is no correlation between autism and vaccinations, there does seem to be some correlation. I don't know enough to go into arguments, just to say that I appreciate how Norm dealt with the sentence in question.

M

"Who's on first?" Did I miss a turn here?

Taken literally, I think my penultimate sentence was the "increasing activity here is gratifying" one, and the last sentence was, "I invite all to continue reading and posting actively." Correct me if that's wrong. If that's right, I'm having trouble understanding what you're objecting to and what the nature of of your objection is. Why would you question my sincerity about whether or not I intended folks to feel welcome here? But I'm not so sure that's really what you have in mind. That doesn't make sense.

It seems you're not happy with this clarification of mine; I'm fairly sure of that. And using conjecture, I could create several scenarios that might explain why; but rather than fall back on suppositions, I think I should defer making a reply or comment until I am more certain what you have in mind.

Try again and help out this old gray head. I'm perfectly willing to talk about my clarification post further. I just don't want to make a fool of myself and respond to something you may not even have had in mind.

Regards,
Norm

Norm, I was not objecting to your post at all. Nor was I questioning your sincerity. I was wondering why you'd read it that way when I noticed from your post that you thought I was referring to YOUR previous post. When I talked about the penultimate and final sentences I was referring to Bevin's post, not yours. I'm sorry that wasn't clear and for causing you any problems.

I think they were refering to the penultimate sentence in my original posting. (Aside: actually, when I wrote my original reply, I had completely missed the fact I was replying in the Origins forum).

Back to the original line of thought...

Nico's question very nicely illustrates another method of deciding between two competing theories, when one has insufficient time to deeply investigate them,

She is clearly going to measure the answers she gets by asking herself a variety of questions:

(a) Has the person replying got a track record of telling me things that are true

(b) Has the reply provided explanations and simplifications that can be tested

(c) Is the reply phrased in a credible manner

Unfortunately many groups have mastered the art of (c), while selling the most outrageous bill of goods. Anyone watching info-mercials on TV can vouch for this.

The big problem with (a) is that people and organizations can, and do, make mistakes. Furthermore when they pride themselves on their accuracy, and have reason to believe in it, this can result in tremendous mistakes before people finally recognize the truth - The N-Rays fiasco truely demonstrates this http://www.rexresearch.com/blondlot/nrays.htm (and I deliberately chose an example from Science - but could have just as easily chosen a religious one).

So that just leaves (b) - the best replies are a guide to studying the topic for oneself. And often the study is just not worth the time - you are better off using (a) or (c) and coping with the resultant errors.

Errors, after all, are a fact of life - and death.

/Bevin

I'm sure glad I asked first; I was pretty close to smearing egg facial all over myself. I see now where I was mistaken -- I was reading the topic in flat mode rather than threaded. In threaded, I (probably? I hope) would have caught who Nico was actually replying to. Big oops! Thanks both (Nico, with an assist from Bevin) for pointing me in the right direction.

There's a lesson in that one for me: assumptions come in lots of varieties, and they do trip one up. This also shows yet another reason to minimize that kind of (initial) post from me. Sorry, guys. I'll learn.

Keep at it. You two are doing good work.

Regards,
Norm