Question Evolution!

I think you need to look at how those answers actually answer the questions asked.Which one's do you think are wrong?Abe: what's with the call for suspension?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

You understood that correctly. I would define the following like this, perhaps examples are better than my attempts to explain it;Law:100% of the recorded induction is always confirming evidence.Theory:NOT 100% of the recorded induction is always confirming evidence.Because of the power of deductive reasoning, of course a law can still be falsified. It would only take one man to fly like superman to disprove a law, whereas a theory can not inherently provide such a sound induction simply because we don't have the ability to lay our hands on the evidence in such an equivalent way.That's all I mean by operational and historical really, that for logical reasons we are sometimes ignorant.For example if you posit that the planet once had the conditions x,y,z,p and y, you can evidence it, but not by any fault of your own, such evidence lacks quality.What then am I saying? That we can know nothing? No, I admit evolution is not a pseudo-science, from what I am learning it can explain the facts, scientifically speaking, if that is what you seek, alone. I am not saying you can't have the theory, I am only showing what logic tells us. Logically, evolution might not have happened, despite being a theory. Again, I am not saying, "evolution did not happen", I allow the possibility it did happen, it would be pretty arrogant to say that 150 years of science is wrong and I am certainly right because of what I think.I am trying, conciously, to learn more about it, after reading Modulous's response. I am attempting to speak less and read more. (I have read how gene flow can actually increase information in a divergent populus and how ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is false to modern evolutionary biologists, because of forms of phylogeny present at an embryonic stage, that were not part of the phylogenic ancestry in that species).Afterall, I have said it before, it is not detrimental to my faith if evolution did happen, it's just that I do not usually share these thoughts. I am trying very hard to be fair, but it is tough to contain mad-mikey.

Hi Chuck, Well, yeah. They are the correct answers.I know that, to you, they appear trite and dismissive. That is a fair comment. But the thing is that to those who have an understanding of the Theory of Evolution and the evidence for that theory, CMI's questions look trite. They are also quite clearly based on falsehoods and misunderstandings.Take one example; Panda's answer; "They don't."Well, that is the truth. The idea that "living fossils" remain completely unchanged is simply not true. The coelocanths of the Devonian are not the same species as today's coelocanths. They have changed; not much compared to some other groups of fish, but they have certainly not remained "unchanged", as CMI's ludicrous questions would have it. The same can be said of all the living fossil species; they have only changed a little, but they have changed. The question is founded on a falsehood.To get some perspective on this, imagine if you, as a Christian, were asked the following; "According to the Bible, Jesus could raise the dead as zombies. If that's true, why wasn't the world over-run by a zombie apocalypse? Do Christians have any evidence that zombies exist?"Now if someone asked you such a damn fool question, I can only imagine that you would give them short shrift. You would be justified in doing so. A question that does not address the real content of the Bible is not a valid criticism of the Bible, right? Well in the same way, a criticism of evolution that is based on a falsehood is not to be taken seriously.These CMI questions are trite, vague and overly general. About half of them are simply based on nonsense. They are getting dismissed out of hand because that's all that such rubbish deserves.Mutate and Survive

The antecedant, "If theory Y" then evidence P, (consequent).So if I have a theory that all balls in existence are red, then a red ball would be evidence.I am not sure what you mean, if we swap it around it would be in the following form;If there are red balls (evidence) then only red balls exist.Part of the problem is language. Logic as we talk about it, only goes from left to right.The evidence is presented as the consequent BECAUSE of the non sequitur; "there are red balls, therefore red ball theory is true".For scientific and logical reasons, because confirmation evidence is tentative, the correct place for the evidence is in the place of the consequent so that you have to continually prove your theory.So if an idiot says that only red balls exist, if he finds a red ball and says, "see, my theory is true", you can say, "no it isn't, plonker, you have just affirmed the consequent".Don't forget, I am not only talking about logic, you can use a conditional implication whatever way you want to, but because the onus is upon the person claiming a theory is true, it makes most sense to put evidence in place of the consequent.I should have explained that more.This way, the tollens can also disprove the idiot quite succinctly, so that if you show him one yellow ball, his theory is thwarted.mikey doesn't get confused, you should know that by now - he only has degrees of insanity. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

--Percy

There's a couple other details I like to mention when this come up. First, evolution does not require change. Species that reside in a consistent environment or who can maintain a consistent environment by changing their geographical location are unlikely to change significantly.Second, species that appear to change very little if at all do so in spite of a turmoil of change at the genetic level where mutations of a variety of types and influences flit into existence and are assessed by how well they perform in the environment, i.e., natural selection.--Percy

quote:

---

The antecedant, "If theory Y" then evidence P, (consequent).

---

No, Mikey. The actual argument would be:If evidence P then theory Q (conditional)
we find evidence P (antecedent)
therefore Q (consequent)Which is an actual modus ponens argument, with all the parts correctly labelled.

quote:

---

So if I have a theory that all balls in existence are red, then a red ball would be evidence.

---

That doesn't fit into modus ponens, though. Because it doesn't have the correct form.
In fact it would be better described as a failed attempt at refutation by modus tollens, and repeated weight of such failures (and no successes!) adding up to an inductive argument.

quote:

---

The evidence is presented as the consequent BECAUSE of the non sequitur; "there are red balls, therefore red ball theory is true".

---

Mikey, you are just proving that you are confused. That is not a reason to treat the evidence as the conclusion (it MUST be a premise in any sound argument using it as evidence !). It is a good reason to say that it is not a sound deductive argument, but we know that.

quote:

---

So if an idiot says that only red balls exist, if he finds a red ball and says, "see, my theory is true", you can say, "no it isn't, plonker, you have just affirmed the consequent".

---

But the consequent - according to you - is that he found a red ball. Which is true. So it isn't an error to affirm it. (In fact to formally classify his error you would need a better grasp of his reasoning. It could be that he is simply assuming that all balls must have the same colour - which is stupid but he could use it to make a logically valid but unsound argument).

quote:

---

This way, the tollens can also disprove the idiot quite succinctly, so that if you show him one yellow ball, his theory is thwarted.

---

Which comes back to my point above....

What is the problem with the answer?If someone asked me why History is taught as if it explains the origin of cultures I would answer that it isn't. There is no need for any more explanationThese are questions that are false on their face. They are an attempt at a loaded question, but they are not loaded. If you think these questions are valid how about defending the questions instead of attacking the answers. The questions assumes things that are not correct or true, there is nothing to refute. I guess this reinforces my comments about your moderation skills that I made on the other thread. Wow. Too bad this isn't an ironic statement. It should be.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with those answers. If someone asked you why you kicked little Jimmy and you hadn't kicked him at all, how else would you answer? You'd just say "But I didn't kick him!"The question is asking why something that doesn't happen happens. If it doesn't happen, how on earth are you expecting someone to explain the reason behind it happening?

Hi Mike,You and Paul are talking about two different situations.When one is creating theory, then evidence is the antecedent and theory is the consequent. The record of species change in the fossil record is one of the evidences that led to the theory of evolution. This is the situation Paul was referring to.When one is seeking specific evidence as further confirmation of a theory, or as a test of a hypothesis, then the theory or hypothesis is the antecedent and the evidence is the consequent. Neal Shubin reasoned that if our theories of evolution and geology were true that he would be most likely to find a fish/amphibian transitional in the arctic, and when he found Tiktaalik it was further confirmation of those theories. Physicists reasoned that if Einstein's theory of general relativity were true that we should find frame dragging effects, and when Gravity Probe B found those effects it was further confirmation of that theory. This is the situation you're referring to.Latin phrases like "modus ponen" will be unfamiliar to most people, or at least to me.--Percy

Which only reiterates my point that you can't correctly identify fallacies without understanding the argument being made.The reasoning you describe, for instance, is rational because the evidence is extremely unlikely UNLESS the theory is untrue. So, we have a good probabilistic argument rather than a worthless deductive argument.

That was your reply? Where was the moderation for this?You should be suspended.As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat about how to refute Pandas simple and clear answers.Chuck77 0Panda 1Embarrassed? Who cares?If you have a problem with Panda's answers, try dealing with them.You championed the thread remember?I am trying to think of a way I could more clearly answer the questions but Panda seems to have covered it.

I shall take you at your word and see where it takes us. Your misapprehension is a common one. Many people seem to think that there's some hierarchy of reliability, with LAW at the top and the lowly theory trying desperately to reach that lofty height. This is decidedly not how these words are used in science.Let's start with these definitions, courtesy of the NCSE:

quote:

---

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

​

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

---

A law generally describes one phenomenon or aspect of the real world. A theory generally encompasses a large number of different explanations into a more comprehensive understanding.One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it.You are of course free to use your own definitions, but if you do you need to be aware that you are saying things quite different from what scientists say when they use those words. Thus, if your understanding of what scientists mean by the Theory of Evolution is that it is contradicted by some empirical evidence, this is almost the exact opposite of what they mean.

WOW! Absolutely perfect.Do you mind if I use this in my signature?

They are right in that no one should be using those arguments and yet there seems to be quite a few who just haven't got the memo yet. Next time someone says "Evolution is just a theory" for example, just direct them to their own propaganda. HBD