Quote

But not that species.
Yes, but that means little. There must have been a first instance of pathenogenesis in all of the other species that do it--so what if this is the first in this one? There's a beginning to everything that's not eternal, and to my knowledge, lizards are not eternal.

EXACTLY. 

What does this mean when we experience something outside of the expected?  The term "supernatural" is defined as "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural."  Now, a species of lizard that has never reproduced by parthenogenesis has reproduced by parthenogenesis.  I think that is pretty clearly 'beyond what is natural.'

But see, we can easily claim that this is just the first occurrence (or observation) of a natural event.  But then, what could ever be supernatural?  What it boils down to is, when something beyond what is natural occurs, that does not lead most people to invoke the supernatural, it leads them to make up a new natural explanation.

As you note, there must have been a first instance of parthenogenesis in other species.  There must have been a first instance of EVERYTHING though too, right?  So, when a new event happens, how can we distinguish between whether it is a natural event happening for the first time, or a supernatural event?

Quote

Is incentive actually a good reason to believe that something is natural?  People are dying all the time, right?  Don't they have good incentive to develop a means of self-resurrection?

Incentive for the species to genetically develop a defense, I mean. Like the incentive given by herbavores to certain plants, to develop poisons and such to discourage their would-be devourers. Now, I'm no expert on evolutionary crap, but the komodo lizard seems to have had plenty of time and plenty of incentive to develop a safeguard akin to that of its kin--one against lack of fertilization.

But the point is, just having the incentive to do something is not good reason to believe that it will actually happen.  Interestingly enough, you fall back on evolutionary "crap," another example of a naturalistic explanation which cannot be confirmed or disproven.

Quote

Self-resurrection is a bit of an absurdity, don't you think? I mean, when something is dead, it can't do anything, let alone bring itself back to life. That's why it's dead.

I don't know.  Don't you think that parthenogenesis sounds like a bit of an absurdity?  At least, wouldn't it have to people thousands of years ago?  So, who is to say in a few thousand years that self-resurrection won't be considered part of the natural order?

Quote

But who is to say it wouldn't just be the first observation of a natural process?  I'm still wondering, is there any way to prove that a naturalistic explanation is false?  Is it falsifiable?

I think it's a bit rich for someone to level ask if naturalistic explanations are falsifyable. I mean, that's the entire point of naturalistic explanations. They can be examined.

Examined, maybe (although I don't think in all cases).  But falsified?

Quote

Is there any way can replicate parthenogenesis? Is there a way to confirm an occurrence like this apart from continued observation?

-_-' Replication was not meant to be applied specifically to parthenogenesis, nor to every. single. process. out there. It's an example of a means by which we can confirm a natural process. One of the better ones, because if we can make something happen again, even if it's just by arranging the circumstances to our liking, we can prove that it happens as we say it does, or close to it.

Right, and yet there are naturalistic explanations which do not fit this bill.

Quote

And I would say continued observation is another good way to confirm it. If komodo dragons were to do this on a relatively regular basis, I'd say that's a big help to the naturalist's explanation.

Agreed, I think continued observation is the real proof, if you will.  Of course, that means we've come full circle.  Continous observation has shown that komodo dragons do not reproduce by parthenogenesis.  We have ONE instance on record that contradicts that observation.  ONE instance that is beyond what is natural.  But the first reaction is to claim that it is just a new natural process we haven't observed before.  Could very possibly be true, but note that a supernatural explanation would never even be considered, even in an instance where ONE event goes against a history of observation.  I wonder, what if we never observe a komodo dragon reproducing by parthenogenesis ever again.....?

Quote

Please note that, as I am no expert in matters of evolution (be it micro or macro), so also am I no expert on parthenogenesis. If you want to know how that process was confirmed/studied/whatever, and in turn how this instance could be confirmed, ask someone who does know, or look to another source.

Well, it doesn't much matter to me.   My worldview allows for the occurence of supernatural events, so if it is supernatural or natural, it doesn't affect me all that much.  But for someone who claims to be honestly looking for evidence of the supernatural, it would be silly to disregard instances that go against the natural order of events.

By definition we do.  How do you define 'natural?'

Quote

What it boils down to is us, rational beings, trying to figure out which is which in a given situation. We can be right, we can be wrong, but in the end it doesn't matter--'cause it doesn't change what the lizard's virgin birth actually is (whatever that may be). When something occurs that goes beyond what we percieve as "natural," we are inclined to figure out just what the flip happened. As a society, I think we've grown beyond simply deciding that it's a case for the ghostbusters, just because it doesn't fall into our current, probably flawed understanding.

So, when something unexpected happens we assume that it is natural, but just doesn't fall into our current, flawed understanding?

Quote

As you note, there must have been a first instance of parthenogenesis in other species.  There must have been a first instance of EVERYTHING though too, right?  So, when a new event happens, how can we distinguish between whether it is a natural event happening for the first time, or a supernatural event?

By actually looking to find out. Ya dig it?

You have repeatedly asserted this, but have not yet provided a method for distinguishing between the two.

Quote

But the point is, just having the incentive to do something is not good reason to believe that it will actually happen.  Interestingly enough, you fall back on evolutionary "crap," another example of a naturalistic explanation which cannot be confirmed or disproven.
 
As I recall, even Johnny admits that microevolution occurs, which is what I cited as a possibility. Incentive was brought up because, from what I can discern, it factors into evolution. And this being a half-baked naturalistic idea just thrown into the mix by some uneducated nitwit (which is to say, moi), I think it's a bit weird that even this seems a bit more plausible than the assumption that something "beyond what is natural" has occurred.

Why do you think it is more plausible?  Would a supernatural explanation ever be more plausible than a naturalistic one?

Quote

I don't know.  Don't you think that parthenogenesis sounds like a bit of an absurdity?  At least, wouldn't it have to people thousands of years ago?  So, who is to say in a few thousand years that self-resurrection won't be considered part of the natural order?

I think it's safe to say that in a few thousand years, the dead will still be dead, and the dying will still die for good. How can I assume this? Because it's been that way since life began. Without. Flippin'. Fail.

And since life began no komodo dragons ever reproduced by means of parthenogenesis, without flippin' fail...until now.  But now you believe that this is possible.  What is the difference here?

Quote

I think it's a bit rich for someone to level ask if naturalistic explanations are falsifyable. I mean, that's the entire point of naturalistic explanations. They can be examined.

Examined, maybe (although I don't think in all cases).  But falsified?

Hm. My statement seems to have been inadvertently hacked in two where the word "level" meets "ask." I meant to say that I thought it a bit rich for someone arguing for supernaturalism to ask if naturalistic explanations could be falsified. The implication was that the supernatural is in and of itself unfalsifyable because it is beyond the natural (the percievable, in other words), and can not be examined except for the "ripples" its contact with nature causes.

The reality we see is that naturalistic explanations have become (in some cases) no different than what you perceive a supernatural one to be.  That is, unverifiable and taken on faith.  Our friend Copernicus approached this point in his thread about his faith in science (which unfortunately, part of was lost in the forum transfer).  What I think it boils down to is whether you are going to put your faith in nature---that eventually natural processes will be able to explain everything that ever happens---or some higher power outside of nature.

Quote

The first and most important step toward falsification is examination. If it cannot be examined, it cannot be falsified. Now, admittedly, not all examinables can be falsified, per se, but they can at least be determined likely, unlikely, etc. A natural claim is by nature within the realm of human perception, and therefore has a distinct advantage over claims of the supernatural: it's close enough to look at.

What examination of the lizard leads you to the conclusion that this first ever recorded event of parthenogenesis is the result of a natural process?  What makes this event likely to be natural?

Quote

Is there any way can replicate parthenogenesis? Is there a way to confirm an occurrence like this apart from continued observation?

-_-' Replication was not meant to be applied specifically to parthenogenesis, nor to every. single. process. out there. It's an example of a means by which we can confirm a natural process. One of the better ones, because if we can make something happen again, even if it's just by arranging the circumstances to our liking, we can prove that it happens as we say it does, or close to it.....

...Did I say that this was a requirement? I merely said it was one of the better ways.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were suggesting such a thing.  But this means we need other ways....

Quote

Agreed, I think continued observation is the real proof, if you will.  Of course, that means we've come full circle.  Continous observation has shown that komodo dragons do not reproduce by parthenogenesis.  We have ONE instance on record that contradicts that observation.  ONE instance that is beyond what is natural.  But the first reaction is to claim that it is just a new natural process we haven't observed before.  Could very possibly be true, but note that a supernatural explanation would never even be considered, even in an instance where ONE event goes against a history of observation.  I wonder, what if we never observe a komodo dragon reproducing by parthenogenesis ever again.....?
 
Barring the extinction of the species, I'd say that would put this event in a list of unexplained oddities. I don't think there can be any actual supernatural explanation, however, because there is no reason for there to be one--not because it's more likely natural! but because there's nothing pointing us in that direction--no revelation, no sign, nothing except the virgin birth itself. We have the effect, but if there's some external cause... it hasn't revealed itself.

Isn't an event that breaks the natural order of things a sign unto itself?  Isn't that the point?  Is it your expectation that God would have "This is a miracle" tattooed on the baby lizard if this event were in fact supernaturally induced?

Quote

Once you boil that down and mash it into your potatoes, you get a bit of a dilemma: either you confirm the event to be natural, or relegate it to an uncertain position in which there's a 50/50 chance between natural and supernatural, but no way at all to know for sure.

That considered, I think the only right thing to do is to start with natural explanations. Simply put, they are the only ones we have.

And yet, natural explanations didn't account for parthenogenesis occuring in this lizard.....until we changed what we considered natural to include parthenogenesis in this type of lizard.  (Hmm...didn't you say above that no human being gets to determine what is natural?)

Quote

Well, it doesn't much matter to me. Smile  My worldview allows for the occurence of supernatural events, so if it is supernatural or natural, it doesn't affect me all that much.  But for someone who claims to be honestly looking for evidence of the supernatural, it would be silly to disregard instances that go against the natural order of events.

That go against our perception of the natural order of events. 'Cause, y'know, it's not chissled in stone--it's printed in ink, on paper.

This seems to fly in the face of your assertion earlier that no human being gets to determine what is natural.  If the definition of what is natural is constantly being altered and tweaked, then how can we ever be truly sure of what is natural?

What is the difference when it all shakes out?  Parthenogenesis was not labeled natural a few weeks ago....but now it is labeled natural.  A few weeks ago we all BELIEVED it was unnatural even if it wasn't so.

I don't think I've given the impression that I think that would be a good way to proceed.

Of course, plausibity falls into the realm of subjectivity too, doesn't it?  I would wager that there are plenty of people who would ALWAYS consider a natural explanation more plausible than a supernatural one, no matter how unnatural it seems.

I am not sure you've answered the concern.  If everything else can change, why couldn't life and death?  (Although I do agree that mastery over life and death would be the ultimate)

And that is the real question.  Is there EVER a point where we would decide that NO natural explanations are valid?  I'm pretty sure there isn't.  If all else fails, we could always fall back on---'well, that is the FIRST instance of a natural process that we've never observed before'

Ah, but can you come to a conclusion that is involves no presumption or assumption?  Can you state as an objective fact that a certain questionable event is the result of natural processes?  We accept many things as factual that we cannot PROVE how they operate.

I am not saying that I think this event is likely supernatural.  But you stated that the first step in falsification is examination.  If we've proven this parthenogenesis to be a natural event, there must have been some examination that led up to that, right?  I'm assuming by your earlier comment that you are putting your trust (faith?) in the scientists who studied this, and trusting in their analysis.  Perhaps that is wise....

But in reality, naturalists don't expect anything to fall outside the bounds of nature, do they?  If something does fall outside those bounds, they move the bounds to include the event.

I feel some animosity coming from your keyboard over there.  I hope I haven't ticked you off somewhere along the line; that wasn't my intent.  Communication over this medium is imperfect and sometimes difficult.  Apologies if you've been offended.

I think I do know what you meant, but I fail to see how it makes any difference.  If what we define as 'natural' is always changing, then what is TRULY 'natural' is never really known, is it?

What is the difference when it all shakes out?  Parthenogenesis was not labeled natural a few weeks ago....but now it is labeled natural.  A few weeks ago we all BELIEVED it was unnatural even if it wasn't so.

Small correction: Parthenogenesis has been labelled a natural occurrence for quite some time. I'm sure you simply meant the komodo version of it.

I don't suppose for an instant that everyone believed the komodo's virgin birth was unnatural. Given that the more learned people are used to the idea of parthenogenesis by now, I guess only a few people would've even considered that possibility up front. Since there was a ready-made possibility right there on the table already, I think the first thing that would've popped into a scientist's mind was prob'ly "Wow! A new case of parthenogenesis, in a species that's never been known to do it before! I must look into this..." (Now, the first observed occurence of parthenogenesis ever was probably a different story. Methinks there were quite a few more amazed faces that time.)

I don't think I've given the impression that I think that would be a good way to proceed.

Then the only other option is a balance, no? Thing is, that involves running through the natural possibilities. I guess you just have to keep your thoughts in check while you do it.

Of course, plausibity falls into the realm of subjectivity too, doesn't it?  I would wager that there are plenty of people who would ALWAYS consider a natural explanation more plausible than a supernatural one, no matter how unnatural it seems.

Of course there are. There are people out there so against the idea of the supernatural that they'd probably take power drills to their temples if they found themselves cornered into accepting it. The only solutions is to do things with a healthy dose of skepticism and a reasonably open mind.

I am not sure you've answered the concern.  If everything else can change, why couldn't life and death?  (Although I do agree that mastery over life and death would be the ultimate)

Self-resurrection. Rare, can you even imagine how such a thing could possibly happen? How could a dead, thoroughly unconscious being willfully resurrect itself, given that it's dead and therefore incapable of willing anything?

And that is the real question.  Is there EVER a point where we would decide that NO natural explanations are valid?  I'm pretty sure there isn't.  If all else fails, we could always fall back on---'well, that is the FIRST instance of a natural process that we've never observed before'

Well, if we come to a point where we're just grasping at straws, we know something's wrong. If you're going to be honest about it, you have to stop there. You have to admit that you've lost. You have to admit that now it's all uncertain hypothesis. You have to admit that, for all you know, it could just as easily be the Ghost of Christmas Past, working his magic on the Scrooges of the world.

Then again, you could just ignore that as make an a$$ of yourself.  Smile

Ah, but can you come to a conclusion that is involves no presumption or assumption?  Can you state as an objective fact that a certain questionable event is the result of natural processes?  We accept many things as factual that we cannot PROVE how they operate.

Certainty is hard to come by. I suppose the big thing is whether or not we have the guts to recognize when we've hit a dead end and have to take something on a certain degree of faith if we're going to reach a certain conclusion, and whether we have the brains to tell whether or not that faith is reasonable. And of course, there will always be diverse opinions. That is the bane and the blessing of intelligent society.

I am not saying that I think this event is likely supernatural.  But you stated that the first step in falsification is examination.  If we've proven this parthenogenesis to be a natural event, there must have been some examination that led up to that, right?  I'm assuming by your earlier comment that you are putting your trust (faith?) in the scientists who studied this, and trusting in their analysis.  Perhaps that is wise....

Well, in regards to parthenogenesis in general, yes, I'm taking the scientists on their word. Now, if a reasonable case could be made against that word, I would definitely reconsider, but given that no case has been brought to my attention, and also given that these people know about a billion times as much as I do when it comes to their thing... yeah, I give them a fair amount of credit.

But in reality, naturalists don't expect anything to fall outside the bounds of nature, do they?  If something does fall outside those bounds, they move the bounds to include the event.

Ayup. Which is why they need to be hit over the head with the supernatural for it to phase them. The neon lights have to be flashing bright red and gold. The sun has to hang motionless in the sky, the moon needs to start dancing the funky chicken, the ozone layer needs to stand up and shout at the world, "GET THAT $^%^ING CARBON DIOXIDE OUTTA MY FACE!!!"

I think I do know what you meant, but I fail to see how it makes any difference.  If what we define as 'natural' is always changing, then what is TRULY 'natural' is never really known, is it?

Yup, that's the curse of perception. What we know is all we know, and that's the Law and all the Prophets to us, someone give me an Amen. The world may well be 6,000 years old, but if we "know" that it's many billion years old, then it might as well be, for all the good it does us. There may be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent supreme being out there making the world spin and all that jazz, but if we "know" that the universe arose from a combination of random chance, natural processes, and good ol' Lady Luck, then there might as well not be a God--at least until we're standing in line for judgment, scratching our heads and wondering how we could've been so terribly wrong.

That is why I reject full-force naturalism, and that is why I am also unwilling to go too far into the other side of supposition. And that, incidently, is also why I'm so wary of making any decisions yet. We have to be extremely careful about what we "know." At least, if we care about being right...

As my tagline says:
"Do keep ever present in your thoughts, my friend, that an illusion can kill you if you believe in it."

So, if we observe parthenogenesis in humans we shouldn't be amazed or surprised because we should be used to the idea in other species?
Of course we should be amazed and surprised! Just how far apart are humans from lizards, again...?

Then the only other option is a balance, no? Thing is, that involves running through the natural possibilities. I guess you just have to keep your thoughts in check while you do it.

Yes.  But keep in mind that thoughts can run rampant to both extremes.

...That's what I said...

And that is kind of the point of the thread.  Maybe there are people who are too quick to invoke the supernatural to explain an event--but on the other hand, there are plenty of people who use nature the same way.  I think we need to be skeptical of both.

How skeptical?

Thousands of years ago, would they have been able to imagine that you could talk to someone on the other side of the world instantaneously?  Would they have been able to imagine that doctors could give someone an artificial heart?  I don't see how not being able to imagine something means that it isn't possible.  That again gets at the point.  If naturalists come across something they couldn't ever have imagined, they just attribute it to natural processes anyways.

What I'm trying to point out is the illogic of it. Willfully self-resurrecting yourself--and it must be willful to some degree, it's self-resurrection--when your will, your consciousness, is the big thing that's gone for good when you die?

Try getting a naturalist to admit they have an uncertain hypothesis.  Ok, ok, it has happened.  But it certainly won't happen if the alternative is something supernatural.

It's unlikely, but some naturalists may be a bit more flexible than that.

Is there anything you are certain of?

Cogito, ergo sum.

Sometimes it's hard to make a case against a position when the only people whose opinion is considered legitimate are the people who hold that position.
Yes. Lucky for me, I don't think like that.

But in reality, naturalists don't expect anything to fall outside the bounds of nature, do they?  If something does fall outside those bounds, they move the bounds to include the event.

Ayup. Which is why they need to be hit over the head with the supernatural for it to phase them. The neon lights have to be flashing bright red and gold. The sun has to hang motionless in the sky, the moon needs to start dancing the funky chicken, the ozone layer needs to stand up and shout at the world, "GET THAT $^%^ING CARBON DIOXIDE OUTTA MY FACE!!!"

Of course, I think we both agree that a resurrection of a dead person would be the ultimate example.

Well, shoot, yeah, but what fun would that be?!

Nice.  Of course, if you can never really know anything, it seems as if you will be sitting on the fence for a long time....

If it comes to that, so be it.

This was addressed to Deep Thought, but he may not be participating much in the near future.  And I don't recall getting any response to my last post.  As long as the subject is still under discussion, I'll just interject a few comments

But can you see the naturalistic 'escape hatch' already?  You yourself said there must have been some amazed faces at the first observed occurence of parthenogenesis.  Miraculous?  No, of course not, we just consider that the first observed occurrence.  Then, it is observed in another species, going against everything that has even been observed in that species. Miracle?  Nope.  Just the first observation.  Is it such a stretch to apply this to humans as well?  It was amazing and unexpected when it first happened in non-human species, but no one considered that supernatural.

But at the time of the alleged discovery, there should have been very little surprise at all.  The virgin birth had not been prophesied, and maybe that aspect would have seemed surprising, given all the other details in Isaiah's vision.  However, minions of the empire were well acquainted with virgin births caused by divinities.  Not only were such occurrences widely given credence, but Augustus, the emperor at the time of Jesus' birth, had himself been the progeny of a virgin mother and divine father.  What a coincidence!  Another virgin birth!  This was surely a sign of divine intervention.  The people back then had not been informed of the impossibility of such births, and they fully expected such things from a god.

...Just pointing out that theists are often accused of disregarding other options, whereas no one seems to begrudge a naturalist for doing the same thing.  Hoping for some consistency.

But the naturalist has no real choice in the matter.  If a naturalist were to give credence to supernatural causes, then he or she would cease to be a naturalist.  That's what naturalists do.  They assume natural causes, presumably because they've given some thought to the track record of supernatural explanations.

As I said above, sure we should be skeptical of those people who think that naturalism can't explain anything, but we should be just as skeptical of those who claim naturalism can explain EVERYthing.  There are plenty who use the old 'goddidit' explanation, but how is it any different to claim 'naturedidit?'

Well, we should be skeptical of supernatural explanations, since they have been around a lot longer than natural ones,

and it is hard to think of any other type of explanation that seems to fail so often and so spectacularly.

On the other hand, naturalism seems to have been rather more successful.  We know of no phenomena that seem MORE likely to have a supernatural explanation than a natural one, but we can't begin to count the phenomena that we know have natural explanations.  So the odds seem rather stacked against supernaturalism.