Complex Molecules and Organs 6

An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion)
electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical
connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will
operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is
another engineering marvel (e).

 d.	“The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve
cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten
thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes
contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total
number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a
thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific
connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.”
Denton, pp. 330–331.

“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ...”
Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol.
233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e.	Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical
Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Complex Molecules and Organs 6
> 
> An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion)
> electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical
> connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will
> operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is
> another engineering marvel (e).

It really is fantastic that you keep posting these snippets that 
illustrate just how marvellous evolution is!

Oh, just to clarify: evolution by common descent is now a well 
established fact. Not just an idea, not one of several competing 
hypotheses - established fact.

regards, Ian

In article <uuydnbdssphtQP7VRVnyvAA@posted.plusnet>,
 Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
> Oh, just to clarify: evolution by common descent is now a well 
> established fact. Not just an idea, not one of several competing 
> hypotheses - established fact.

Don't overplay your hand!

Scientific theories remain theories, no matter how well established they 
become. Natural science cannot prove anything (the concept of proof 
belongs to the domains of mathematics and logic), and the facts it deals 
with are the data, never the interpretation of them.

Of course, everyone assumes that evolution by common descent is true, 
and that isn't going to change any time soon. That is, I believe, what 
you were trying to say.

Alwyn

Alwyn wrote:
> In article <uuydnbdssphtQP7VRVnyvAA@posted.plusnet>,
>  Ian Smith  wrote:
>> Oh, just to clarify: evolution by common descent is now a well 
>> established fact. Not just an idea, not one of several competing 
>> hypotheses - established fact.
> 
> Don't overplay your hand!
> 
> Scientific theories remain theories, no matter how well established they 
> become. Natural science cannot prove anything (the concept of proof 
> belongs to the domains of mathematics and logic), and the facts it deals 
> with are the data, never the interpretation of them.
> 
> Of course, everyone assumes that evolution by common descent is true, 
> and that isn't going to change any time soon. That is, I believe, what 
> you were trying to say.
>
Alwyn,

These are points that I've made myself previously in this newsgroup.

Firstly, I avoid the word "proof" either in connection with 
evolution or in my requests for evidence from the theists, for the 
reason you outline above.

Secondly, your use of the word 'theory' above, in this context, is 
erroneous. In a scientific context it is taken to mean "a statement 
of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of 
something known or observed.".

Evolution is now supported by so many threads of interlocking 
science that it is considered as being established beyond any doubt. 
The removal of evolution as an explanation would leave us with a 
near infinite amount of evidence that could no longer be explainable 
by any means at all.

Most of us may well understand what a scientific theory is, but to a 
creationist the word 'theory' when used with 'evolution' is 
dishonestly portrayed to mean "A really outlandish idea that Darwin 
and his mates thought up after a long night on the ale which 
contradicts what the bible says and can therefore be legitimately 
dismissed, because it was only a bit of a theory."

We need therefore to be absolutely clear as the standing that 
evolution has within science.

A good summary of the position (and on the use of the word 'theory' 
in scientific terms) is given here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

in which is quoted:

"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that 
nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% 
certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, 
since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp 
line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, 
but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of 
probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we 
only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high 
that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act 
accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, 
evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as 
voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well 
established fact of science concerning the existence of things that 
cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar 
gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for 
evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have 
my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to 
lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will 
grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or 
rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or 
reading these words."

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School 
Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution 
versus Creationism op cit.

Bearing in mind that this was written in 1959, before the mapping of 
the various genomes that has absolutely nailed evolution into place 
- you can see that I'm not overplaying my hand one bit.

regards, Ian

In article <lMmdndWC8s7tBvnVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
 Ian Smith  wrote:

> Alwyn wrote:
> > In article <uuydnbdssphtQP7VRVnyvAA@posted.plusnet>,
> >  Ian Smith  wrote:
> >> Oh, just to clarify: evolution by common descent is now a well 
> >> established fact. Not just an idea, not one of several competing 
> >> hypotheses - established fact.
> > 
> > Don't overplay your hand!
> > 
> > Scientific theories remain theories, no matter how well established they 
> > become. Natural science cannot prove anything (the concept of proof 
> > belongs to the domains of mathematics and logic), and the facts it deals 
> > with are the data, never the interpretation of them.
> > 
> > Of course, everyone assumes that evolution by common descent is true, 
> > and that isn't going to change any time soon. That is, I believe, what 
> > you were trying to say.
> >
> Alwyn,
> 
> These are points that I've made myself previously in this newsgroup.

<snip>

> Secondly, your use of the word 'theory' above, in this context, is 
> erroneous. In a scientific context it is taken to mean "a statement 
> of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of 
> something known or observed.".

I fail to see how I used the word erroneously. Are you saying that what 
is generally referred to as 'the theory of evolution' is not really a 
theory as understood in science? If not, how is my usage erroneous?

Alwyn

Alwyn wrote:
> In article <lMmdndWC8s7tBvnVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
>  Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
>> Alwyn wrote:
>>> In article <uuydnbdssphtQP7VRVnyvAA@posted.plusnet>,
>>>  Ian Smith  wrote:
>>>> Oh, just to clarify: evolution by common descent is now a well 
>>>> established fact. Not just an idea, not one of several competing 
>>>> hypotheses - established fact.
>>> Don't overplay your hand!
>>>
>>> Scientific theories remain theories, no matter how well established they 
>>> become. Natural science cannot prove anything (the concept of proof 
>>> belongs to the domains of mathematics and logic), and the facts it deals 
>>> with are the data, never the interpretation of them.
>>>
>>> Of course, everyone assumes that evolution by common descent is true, 
>>> and that isn't going to change any time soon. That is, I believe, what 
>>> you were trying to say.
>>>
>> Alwyn,
>>
>> These are points that I've made myself previously in this newsgroup.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Secondly, your use of the word 'theory' above, in this context, is 
>> erroneous. In a scientific context it is taken to mean "a statement 
>> of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of 
>> something known or observed.".
> 
> I fail to see how I used the word erroneously. Are you saying that what 
> is generally referred to as 'the theory of evolution' is not really a 
> theory as understood in science? If not, how is my usage erroneous?

Alwyn,

You said: Scientific theories remain theories.

If I substitute the scientific meaning then this reads "Scientific 
statements of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or 
causes of something known or observed remain statements of what are 
held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something 
known or observed." Which is meaningless. Your usage implies that 
you are trying say "Scientific speculative views remain speculative 
views" which does mean something in that it implies emphasis, but 
clearly doesn't relate to the use of the word 'theory' in a 
scientific context.

 > I fail to see how I used the word erroneously. Are you saying 
that > what is generally referred to as 'the theory of evolution' is 
not > really a theory as understood in science?

No, I'm saying that it is a Scientific theory as in a "statement of 
what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of 
something known or observed" and not a "speculative view".

Your comment "Scientific theories remain theories" could have come 
directly from a creationist website.

regards, Ian

In article <MbmdncgCv_xxRvnVRVnyvgA@posted.plusnet>,
 Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
> Your comment "Scientific theories remain theories" could have come 
> directly from a creationist website.

But it is trivially true!

My point is that all science is provisional, awaiting falsification, a 
paradigm shift or whatever it is that accounts for progress. I objected 
because you implied with the word 'fact' that evolution as we currently 
understand it is somehow set in stone for ever and ever. It isn't.

Alwyn

Alwyn wrote:
> In article <MbmdncgCv_xxRvnVRVnyvgA@posted.plusnet>,
>  Ian Smith  wrote:
>> Your comment "Scientific theories remain theories" could have come 
>> directly from a creationist website.
> 
> But it is trivially true!
> 
> My point is that all science is provisional, awaiting falsification, a 
> paradigm shift or whatever it is that accounts for progress. I objected 
> because you implied with the word 'fact' that evolution as we currently 
> understand it is somehow set in stone for ever and ever. It isn't.

The link I provided explains why evolution is both a fact a theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

This topic is highly politicised and you need to be careful not to 
carelessly throw ammunition to the creationists.

regards, Ian

In article <bcydnZGF1ssPZ_jVnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
 Ian Smith  wrote:

> Alwyn wrote:
> > In article <MbmdncgCv_xxRvnVRVnyvgA@posted.plusnet>,
> >  Ian Smith  wrote:
> >> Your comment "Scientific theories remain theories" could have come 
> >> directly from a creationist website.
> > 
> > But it is trivially true!
> > 
> > My point is that all science is provisional, awaiting falsification, a 
> > paradigm shift or whatever it is that accounts for progress. I objected 
> > because you implied with the word 'fact' that evolution as we currently 
> > understand it is somehow set in stone for ever and ever. It isn't.
> 
> The link I provided explains why evolution is both a fact a theory:
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

OK, but I still think that scientists would do well to confine the use 
of 'fact' to observations rather than interpretations thereof, however 
convinced they are of their truth.

> This topic is highly politicised and you need to be careful not to 
> carelessly throw ammunition to the creationists.

Well, I know there is some politicking over the issue in the USA, but I 
strongly doubt whether any 'ammunition' I might inadvertently throw in 
the direction of the creationist camp would have any effect on the 
outcome, which is in any case predetermined by the First Amendment to 
the US Constitution.

Alwyn

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-0DFBB2.00162827062008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <uuydnbdssphtQP7VRVnyvAA@posted.plusnet>,
> Ian Smith  wrote:
>>
>> Oh, just to clarify: evolution by common descent is now a well
>> established fact. Not just an idea, not one of several competing
>> hypotheses - established fact.
>
> Don't overplay your hand!
>
> Scientific theories remain theories, no matter how well established they
> become. Natural science cannot prove anything (the concept of proof
> belongs to the domains of mathematics and logic), and the facts it deals
> with are the data, never the interpretation of them.
>

That is certainly literally true as long as one defines the word 'proof' in 
that way.  (Actually even that sort of proof arises from axioms, and various 
discoveries are showing that both logic and axioms are questionable.  It can 
be conclusively logically proved that the Aspect Experiment can not possibly 
show the result it does.)

However if one defines proof as loosely as in the legal sense, then almost 
anything goes, but of course in that sense the word 'proof' is almost devoid 
of meaning.

Mid way between is another definition of proof.  That is, while a theory is 
not proved, in fact there is no other reasonable explanation.

It could be that it is sensible to talk about a falsified theory (aether, 
phlogiston, 8 million year old Earth), an extended theory (f=ma) a proved 
theory (natural selection, expanding universe), a theory under test 
(string).


> Of course, everyone assumes that evolution by common descent is true,
> and that isn't going to change any time soon. That is, I believe, what
> you were trying to say.
>
> Alwyn