The Limits of Science

[jinx]

Learn some basic genetics, germ line cell= testicles in men and ovaries in women (gametes). The decline in fitness is in mankind (not bacteria).

There were dozens of major mass extinctions in history of this planet. The Late Permian extinction event was extraordinary in its severity -- far more severe than even the one that got the dinosaurs.

You have just illustrated blind faith. Written history goes back 4,000 BC. Mankind has 6,000 years of observations of nature/historical data. Anything before that is taken by (usually by the height of blind) faith (by atheists). Mankind has written history of Noahs flood (Genesis). The dinosaurs died in Noahs flood ~4,300 years ago (written history of the event (Genesis)).

Anyway 'The limits of science'. Well until mankind redefines the model of the atom chemistry/biology/biochemistry is limited to working with the current model of the atom, it will be interesting to see if it gets redone in our lifetime (next 80 years or so).

[tillingborn]

The dinosaurs died in Noahs flood ~4,300 years ago.

Why did Noah not take any dinosaurs on board the ark?
Were there two of every species that currently live on this planet on the ark?
Since snakes got mankind into trouble in the first place, what was Noah thinking letting so many different kinds onto his boat?

[jinx]

He did.
No.
I do not know.

Now hurry back to your Richard Dawkins books to get rid of any individual thought one may have left.

[tillingborn]

Why did Noah not take any dinosaurs on board the ark?

He did.

Why are those dinosaurs no longer with us?

Were there two of every species that currently live on this planet on the ark?

No.

How did the ones which were not on the ark survive? Or, where did they come from?

Since snakes got mankind into trouble in the first place, what was Noah thinking letting so many different kinds onto his boat?

I do not know.

If there weren't two of every beast, even though there were some dinosaurs, how many snakes do you think were on the ark?

Now hurry back to your Richard Dawkins books to get rid of any individual thought one may have left.

The thing is, I don't just read Dawkins, there is a wealth of differing opinions, ideas and theories. If I were to take any single author or book as an authority that couldn't be challenged, I would think I was being intellectually lazy. What is it about the one book you imply is a source of individual thought that makes you think so?

[jinx]

They may be.

Species? Biblical taxonomy=kinds.

I dont know.

I meant quickly get back to reading one of your atheist cult leaders books (obv Dawkins being atheist cult leader #1) in case critical thinking skills click back on.

[tillingborn]

They may be.

Do you have any reason to think there are dinosaurs anywhere on Earth? If not, is it not also true that by your reckoning there may be unicorns, pixies and flying spaghetti monsters?

Species? Biblical taxonomy=kinds.

Species, kinds, types; call them what you will. There does seem to be a lot of different creatures in the world, even amongst the ones that are known to science. There is a colossal variety in invertebrates, some of which have very specific niches. How many types of bacteria were on the ark? How did the kangeroos get all the way from Australia?

I dont know.

No, I don't suppose you do. Is that because you don't know how many species/kinds/sorts of snake there are?

I meant quickly get back to reading one of your atheist cult leaders books (obv Dawkins being atheist cult leader #1) in case critical thinking skills click back on.

Would it be a bad thing if my critical thinking skills click back on? Would uncritically accepting that a 2000 year old book is the truth improve my critical thinknig skills? Could you give an example of my poor critical thinking skills?

[Arising_uk]

Well biological fitness on the vertical axis (1 your reproducing 0 your dead) and time on the horizontal axis, and a decline in fitness each generation from sex line cell mutations.

Care to say what this means in English? What does this 'decline in fitness' actually entail?

[Hjarloprillar]

Well biological fitness on the vertical axis (1 your reproducing 0 your dead) and time on the horizontal axis, and a decline in fitness each generation from sex line cell mutations.

Care to say what this means in English? What does this 'decline in fitness' actually entail?

I'd ask that as well. Is that like Nazi eugenics?
it certainly does not apply in this real life.

I see whole families walking round riddled with genetic faults. Stoked on fast food and chemicals. Driving cars they cant comprehend.
Never having an original idea. Never questioning.
In a society made for consumers they are perfect and they reproduce like rabbits.
Maybe one will lead to the superhuman. It is not my right to define.
The world is now so insane that anything goes.
Who am i to complain?

Nikos

[jinx]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/ ... 7.abstract (click full pdf on the right if want to read it)

Is that like Nazi eugenics?

Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion
that a substantial reduction in humanfitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.

Muller (49) was well aware of the enormous social barriers to solving the mutation-accumulation problem, but he held out hope that “a rationally directed guidance of reproduction” would eventually stabilize the situation.


Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness
due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%.

What does this 'decline in fitness' actually entail?

Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be
rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels.

I might look for more...

[Arising_uk]

Well, read what I could of that paper and it appears that it means lowered fertility and some unspecified disabilities. Interestingly enough it appears to lay the blame on advances in medicine and health-care and proposes that the poorer societies will be fitter in the long run in the sense that the paper describes. So Jinx, what do you propose? We abandon healthcare, medical advances and sanitation just so we can preserve some notional gene pool.

Once again you link me to a paper that pretty much refutes what you say about the theory of evolution and actually uses the idea of natural selection to support its case!? I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the irony of you talking about this stuff when you pretty much deny the discoveries and theories of biology, geology and physics.

[jinx]

No amount of selection can curb the decline in fitness. Even killing everyone on earth and leaving only two people, those two people will still have another 200-300 new germ line cell mutations and decline in fitness. The reduction in fitness puts an upper limit on the time mankind has been on earth.

[skakos]

Anyway 'The limits of science'. Well until mankind redefines the model of the atom chemistry/biology/biochemistry is limited to working with the current model of the atom, it will be interesting to see if it gets redone in our lifetime (next 80 years or so).

It is already happening if you ask me. Theories like the theory of Threads will soon make the current atomic "planetary model" theory more than obsolete. And when that happens, we will question our selves how could our ancestors think of these ridiculous theories as correct. But that's the way it goes. Science progresses and theories change CONTINUOUSLY! This is the only Law of Science...

[skakos]

Science is a great tool. But can science ("exact science" to be exact) investigate everything? Can it investigate things which cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Can it investigate things which cannot be measured? Can it investigate things which happen only once? What do you think are limits of Science?

the limits of science. good post
Technically everything only happens once.
no matter how we are accurate Every act is original and happens one time.
does the glass fall to floor. gravity IS/
fall to floor EVERY time gravity IS
Science is what w have. there is no other method that works

how do we know this.. we get on planes made by science and trust our lives to its method.
that alone says everything.
we are self serving we dont risk life on a 'could be'

Is the most important thing in your life planes? Or love?
Is the most important thing in your life computers? Or compassion and friendship?
Is the most important thing in your life mathematics? Or things you cannot measure?

Finally, DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT LIFE IS, which you trust to science so easily?

[reasonvemotion]

tillingborn wrote:

Since snakes got mankind into trouble in the first place, what was Noah thinking letting so many different kinds onto his boat?

A high level of biodiversity is imperative to all life on this earth and snakes have a part to play in this. With hindsight it was a wise choice it would seem.

Evolutionists believe that by chance, a living organism can arise from nonliving matter.

Explain that.

[tillingborn]

tillingborn wrote:

Since snakes got mankind into trouble in the first place, what was Noah thinking letting so many different kinds onto his boat?

A high level of biodiversity is imperative to all life on this earth and snakes have a part to play in this. With hindsight it was a wise choice it would seem.

So it would seem, but it would call for a very large ark.

Evolutionists believe that by chance, a living organism can arise from nonliving matter.

Explain that.

Well, chance and a few billion years of chemistry, but I grant you, that is not a full explanation. Life is a very mysterious thing. You've probably heard of Henry Drummond, or at least his complaint about Christians appealing to a god of the gaps. His point was that there is nothing about science that proves the universe isn't the work of a god. As I have been trying to explain to others on this forum, with limited success it must be said, science is less about the underlying causes, that's metaphysics, and more about what is observable and repeatable. For all I know, science will reach a point of understanding when the only possible explanation for a given phenomenon, a gap in our knowledge, is that some god is playing silly buggers, but unless he or she pops out and says peek-a-boo, people will not stop looking for alternative explanations.
The purpose of science is not to prove there is no god, but what pisses off some scientists and none scientists for that matter, is the idea that being curious, wanting to understand and eating from the tree of knowledge is a bad thing. That and the insistence that people should be controlled, on the say so of a hypothesis for which there is no proof.