Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2014 4:04 AM
72 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Mr Jack, PaulK (4 members, 68 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Post Volume:
Total: 738,094 Year: 23,935/28,606 Month: 1,236/1,786 Week: 98/423 Day: 8/90 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
Larni
Member
Posts: 3756
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 46 of 235 (646886)
01-07-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
01-07-2012 4:24 AM


Re: What is this?
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.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4399
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 47 of 235 (646891)
01-07-2012 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:08 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:08 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 01-07-2012 7:57 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 01-07-2012 11:14 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 01-07-2012 12:20 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 3:53 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 48 of 235 (646892)
01-07-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
01-07-2012 4:24 AM


Re: What is this?
Hi Chuck,

These are your answers?

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;

10.How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 01-07-2012 8:05 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4399
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 235 (646893)
01-07-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
01-07-2012 4:15 AM


Re: 6 answers
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2012 4:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2012 8:07 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-07-2012 8:42 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13284
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 50 of 235 (646894)
01-07-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 7:33 AM


Re: The tentativity of science
mike the wiz writes:

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).



--Percy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13284
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 51 of 235 (646895)
01-07-2012 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Granny Magda
01-07-2012 7:40 AM


Re: What is this?
Granny Magda writes:

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2012 7:40 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 52 of 235 (646896)
01-07-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 7:45 AM


Re: 6 answers
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....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 7:45 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 3:51 PM PaulK has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4560
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 53 of 235 (646898)
01-07-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
01-07-2012 4:24 AM


Re: What is this?
These are your answers?

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 explanation

These 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.

As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat how to refute any of those question.

The questions assumes things that are not correct or true, there is nothing to refute.

Where is the moderation for this?!

He should be suspended.

I guess this reinforces my comments about your moderation skills that I made on the other thread.


Embarrassed?...You should be

Wow. Too bad this isn't an ironic statement. It should be.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 54 of 235 (646902)
01-07-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
01-07-2012 4:24 AM


Re: What is this?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13284
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 55 of 235 (646903)
01-07-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 7:45 AM


Re: 6 answers
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 7:45 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2012 9:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 56 of 235 (646920)
01-07-2012 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
01-07-2012 8:42 AM


Re: 6 answers
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 01-07-2012 8:42 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(3)
Message 57 of 235 (646925)
01-07-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
01-07-2012 4:24 AM


Poor form
These are your answers? Where is the moderation for this?!

He should be suspended.

As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat how to refute any of those question.

Creationism 1

Panda 0

Quality?...not even close

Embarrassed?...You should be

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 0

Panda 1

Embarrassed? 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 could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 5:48 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 58 of 235 (646934)
01-07-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 7:33 AM


Law versus theory
I am trying, conciously, to learn more about it,....

I shall take you at your word and see where it takes us.

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.

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.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-07-2012 11:33 AM subbie has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 485
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 59 of 235 (646936)
01-07-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by subbie
01-07-2012 11:14 AM


Re: Law versus theory
subbie writes:

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.

WOW! Absolutely perfect.

Do you mind if I use this in my signature?


Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 01-07-2012 11:14 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by subbie, posted 01-07-2012 11:40 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 651
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 60 of 235 (646937)
01-07-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
01-06-2012 11:36 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2012 11:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014