Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[nygreenguy]

Under these circumstances, you will express whatever variants exist within the genome. What you won't get from dog breeding exercises is a cat. The Maltese dog variant is contained in the root stock of domesticated dogs, just as the Mastiff dog variant is. Let them all breed together for a few generations and they will revert to type, proving that no mutations are involved.

Not true. A lot of "early" agriculture experimentation was done by placing a radioactive source in the ground and planting around it and see what new stuff we could get. The radiation create or modifies traits in a new way just like evolution does. In fact a large amount of the food varieties we eat today come from mutants made this way.

[Starboard Tack]

Under these circumstances, you will express whatever variants exist within the genome. What you won't get from dog breeding exercises is a cat. The Maltese dog variant is contained in the root stock of domesticated dogs, just as the Mastiff dog variant is. Let them all breed together for a few generations and they will revert to type, proving that no mutations are involved.

Not true. A lot of "early" agriculture experimentation was done by placing a radioactive source in the ground and planting around it and see what new stuff we could get. The radiation create or modifies traits in a new way just like evolution does. In fact a large amount of the food varieties we eat today come from mutants made this way.

If you are saying that Maltese dogs are mutants, I would tend to agree with you. I'd throw my wife's Pug into that class as well. If you are saying that forced mutations result in new variants of existing species, I also agree. If you are saying that if I expose my wife's Pug to radiation I will get a cat, I disagree. I think I'll get an inert Pug that glows in the dark.

My point was that dog breeding has nothing to do with evolution, but simply the expression by an intelligent agent of whatever weird trait the breeder thinks is cool out of a genome that has the pre-existing capability to produce that trait. Take a pack of pure bred dogs and let them breed as they will. In about 10 generations the offspring will all look the same.

[McCulloch]

Take a pack of pure bred dogs and let them breed as they will. In about 10 generations the offspring will all look the same.

This is an important principle in the evolutionary process. Without the genetic isolation of a population affected by a genetic change, the change would be lost or diluted. This isolation can come about in different ways, geographic, temporal or behavioral.

[nygreenguy]

My point was that dog breeding has nothing to do with evolution, but simply the expression by an intelligent agent of whatever weird trait the breeder thinks is cool out of a genome that has the pre-existing capability to produce that trait. Take a pack of pure bred dogs and let them breed as they will. In about 10 generations the offspring will all look the same.

I was making the point that new traits can come about through artificial selection. While your statement focused on dog, the underlying argument was that new traits do not come through artificial selection.

While the methods I mention do involve human intervention, the process is totally natural (mutations leading to new traits)

[100%atheist]

Ratio of proton to electron charge

I challenge you to describe in detail what you mean.

PS: And might you not copypaste apologetic websites.
Goodluck.

I don't think that copy and pasting will be needed. Just junior high school chemistry.

If the proton charge was not precisely the inverse of the electron charge, you would have no atoms. Life is hard to imagine without atoms.

How about Qp=-2*Qe ?
Can you show the atoms can't exist under such conditions? Also, you probably know from your high-school chemistry course that atoms can exist in an ionized state. And in addition, though life is hard to imagine without atoms, can you prove that it is impossible without atoms? Conscious plasma maybe?

[100%atheist]

I'm afraid I'm getting lost in the weeds here, and really would like to understand your position better, as well as better articulate my own. Tell me if we can agree on the following parameters of the evolutionary model:

1. The driver of all evolution must be changes in the information stored in the genome. These changes can derive from multiple sources, but are unguided, random events.

Disagree. The driver of evolution is natural selection. Mutations bring about the traits which can be selected.

Which comes first? The mutation or the natural selection? Clearly the mutation so why would that not be the driver since it is the cause of the thing naturally selected?

I recently watched a NOVA movie about dogs and selection, natural and otherwise. It has been experimentally shown that genetic mutations are forced by the environmental conditions and can easily be accelerated by directed breeding to the point that the genetic differences start to appear in 3rd-to-8th generation. Even Darwin pointed out that mutations are much more rare under natural condition than under artificial conditions. This means that mutation are NOT unguided and that they are not primary cause of evolution.

If you are arguing that artificial conditions and intelligent intervention are needed to explain the diversity of life, then you need to change your name. May I suggest 50% atheist?

Breeding dogs has zero to do with evolution, and involves an intelligent designer not breeding the offspring that don't possess the desired characteristics. Under these circumstances, you will express whatever variants exist within the genome. What you won't get from dog breeding exercises is a cat. The Maltese dog variant is contained in the root stock of domesticated dogs, just as the Mastiff dog variant is. Let them all breed together for a few generations and they will revert to type, proving that no mutations are involved.

My point was that mutations are guided and accelerated by environmental conditions, natural or designed. No change in environmental conditions (which doesn't really occur in nature) would in an ideal case mean no stable mutations. This means that mutation is not a primary driver of evolution though it is the primary mechanism of evolution. I think biologists here can correct me on this if I am mistaken.

The Maltese dog variant is contained in the root stock of domesticated dogs, just as the Mastiff dog variant is. Let them all breed together for a few generations and they will revert to type, proving that no mutations are involved.

It would be interesting if it is true. Can you provide evidence for this?
My understanding tells me, that the result of letting them to bread together will result in new dog, which will be very much different from the original dog/wolf.

You can't make cat out of dog just because cat already exists. If you want to make a cat you need to start with some cat ancestor.

[Starboard Tack]

My point was that dog breeding has nothing to do with evolution, but simply the expression by an intelligent agent of whatever weird trait the breeder thinks is cool out of a genome that has the pre-existing capability to produce that trait. Take a pack of pure bred dogs and let them breed as they will. In about 10 generations the offspring will all look the same.

I was making the point that new traits can come about through artificial selection. While your statement focused on dog, the underlying argument was that new traits do not come through artificial selection.

While the methods I mention do involve human intervention, the process is totally natural (mutations leading to new traits)

I agree that mutations lead to new traits. We would disagree (I assume) that these changes result in overall improvement rather than extinction.

[Starboard Tack]

I'm afraid I'm getting lost in the weeds here, and really would like to understand your position better, as well as better articulate my own. Tell me if we can agree on the following parameters of the evolutionary model:

1. The driver of all evolution must be changes in the information stored in the genome. These changes can derive from multiple sources, but are unguided, random events.

Disagree. The driver of evolution is natural selection. Mutations bring about the traits which can be selected.

Which comes first? The mutation or the natural selection? Clearly the mutation so why would that not be the driver since it is the cause of the thing naturally selected?

I recently watched a NOVA movie about dogs and selection, natural and otherwise. It has been experimentally shown that genetic mutations are forced by the environmental conditions and can easily be accelerated by directed breeding to the point that the genetic differences start to appear in 3rd-to-8th generation. Even Darwin pointed out that mutations are much more rare under natural condition than under artificial conditions. This means that mutation are NOT unguided and that they are not primary cause of evolution.

If you are arguing that artificial conditions and intelligent intervention are needed to explain the diversity of life, then you need to change your name. May I suggest 50% atheist?

Breeding dogs has zero to do with evolution, and involves an intelligent designer not breeding the offspring that don't possess the desired characteristics. Under these circumstances, you will express whatever variants exist within the genome. What you won't get from dog breeding exercises is a cat. The Maltese dog variant is contained in the root stock of domesticated dogs, just as the Mastiff dog variant is. Let them all breed together for a few generations and they will revert to type, proving that no mutations are involved.

My point was that mutations are guided and accelerated by environmental conditions, natural or designed. No change in environmental conditions (which doesn't really occur in nature) would in an ideal case mean no stable mutations. This means that mutation is not a primary driver of evolution though it is the primary mechanism of evolution. I think biologists here can correct me on this if I am mistaken.

That is true, but also means that the stability of critters like horseshoe crabs, sharks, cyanobacteria, etc. is somewhat perplexing since they clearly have gone through significant environmental changes without changes in their genome. If evolutionary theory can figure out how to address rapid changes like the Cambiran explosion, or no changes over millenia like cyanobacteria or the malarial parasite then the theory would be considerably more coherent than it presently is.

The Maltese dog variant is contained in the root stock of domesticated dogs, just as the Mastiff dog variant is. Let them all breed together for a few generations and they will revert to type, proving that no mutations are involved.

It would be interesting if it is true. Can you provide evidence for this?
My understanding tells me, that the result of letting them to bread together will result in new dog, which will be very much different from the original dog/wolf.

Take a look at dogs in any third world country, where they are far less likely to be kept as pets. They all look alike, which is to say, they look like dingoes. You can breed a Chihuahua from a Mastiff if you want to. Just takes patience and breeding control, but the genes required for the morphology of both is contained in the wild genome.

You can't make cat out of dog just because cat already exists. If you want to make a cat you need to start with some cat ancestor.

Not according to evolutionary theory. If you want a whale, you can start with a wolf like critter, like Pakicetus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus

[Starboard Tack]

Ratio of proton to electron charge

I challenge you to describe in detail what you mean.

PS: And might you not copypaste apologetic websites.
Goodluck.

I don't think that copy and pasting will be needed. Just junior high school chemistry.

If the proton charge was not precisely the inverse of the electron charge, you would have no atoms. Life is hard to imagine without atoms.

How about Qp=-2*Qe ?
Can you show the atoms can't exist under such conditions? Also, you probably know from your high-school chemistry course that atoms can exist in an ionized state. And in addition, though life is hard to imagine without atoms, can you prove that it is impossible without atoms? Conscious plasma maybe?

Say what?

Ions still involve negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons. The fine tuning aspect of the electron/proton charge is that electrons could have been positively charged at creation, or protons negatively charged, or each with different charges, or no charges at all. Without a one to one inverse correspondence between these particles chemistry is impossible, ergo life based on chemistry is impossible. You can speculate if you wish about conscious plasma, or life inside black holes. Which you pretty much have to do if you wish to argue that there is nothing fine tuned for life in the construction of this universe. And theists are accused of believing in the unbelievable? Unbelievable.

[100%atheist]

You can breed a Chihuahua from a Mastiff if you want to. Just takes patience and breeding control, but the genes required for the morphology of both is contained in the wild genome.

Did anyone actually demonstrate it (in modern times)?

You can't make cat out of dog just because cat already exists. If you want to make a cat you need to start with some cat ancestor.

Not according to evolutionary theory. If you want a whale, you can start with a wolf like critter, like Pakicetus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus

I really don't understand. Can you explain what you mean specifically, please.