Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Two Types of "Science": Biology and Evolution

Consider these two biological approaches:
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

How birds got their beaks
Analyze these for yourself, before reading my own analysis; I'm hoping for reasoned discussion of these two items.

My analysis:
The first item describes the discovery of an actual, existing physical phenomenon which is verifiable by others who have the capability of replicating the experimental process by which the physical characteristic was determined to exist. When it is replicated without falsification, then it can be considered objective knowledge, contingently held. This is responsible scientific discovery in the realm of modern biology.

The second item describes a laboratory-forced corruption of genetics in a chicken, the results of which are filled beyond their rational capacity with the inference of similarity to alligator characteristics. The fact that it took a forced corruption of genetics, coupled with the fatuous comparison to the picture of an alligator skull, brings to the surface the following questions:
a) What proof is there that such a devolved being actually existed which had those corrupted genetics?

b) Which other creatures that are not presented or considered here do the corrupted genetic chick resemble?

c) Why are the vast differences between the corrupted genetic chick skull and the alligator skull not considered significant evidence against the validity comparison?

c) Why is it thought that lining up skulls is a presentation of any actual, fact-based linkage by descent?

d) Why is this human manipulation not considered "intelligent design", which produces a new, artificial creature with arbitrarily, but coincidentally, similar features in some small respect but not all respects?

e) If they totally change the DNA in chickens to match the DNA in alligators thus resulting in an alligator, does that produce objective knowledge of descent?
I think that these science and logic-based questions will not be asked of the evolutionary claimants, primarily because that is not how evolutionary "science" works. Evolutionary science makes up its own standards, which do not include the necessity of objective replication of hypotheses. In this case, the hypothesis is that birds descended from reptiles, and that is shown by corrupting bird genetics and looking for bone structure similarities to some reptile, somewhere.

Even if reptile genetics were corrupted to match those of a bird, that would not prove descent; it would only demonstrate the wide application of the coding which is available to all life.

And it certainly would produce no knowledge regarding the creation of DNA, complete with meaningful and necessary coding.

2 comments:

Rikalonius said...

I still have to read this, but I was compelled to type something I've said in the past. "If a living cell is every created in a lab it will be greatest proof of intelligent design there is."

These scientismist want you to believe what they've spend a hundred and fifty years and billions of dollars to recreate in a laboratory happened by chance in the wild... repeatedly.

Russell (106) said...

First article buries the concept of 'Deep Time' and random mutations.

The True Believers won't admit it, but the ideas will gain less traction, before quietly disappearing, and to be only used as proof that science is self-correcting.

Also, biology goes from a building without an architect and builder to a programmed and programmable system without a system architect, programmer, database designer, network engineer, and with no purpose. The entities, they compound.

Second article is Just So stories contacted in a lab. "We'll jimmy up some new genetic code, which tweaks the animal to look different. We'll declare the new code to be similar to what we suppose old code looked like, but since we don't have examples of the old code, we'll call the new old, and the old just like the new. QED."

@Rikalonius
Yup.