Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abductive Reasoning In Science
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 105 of 120 (673294)
09-18-2012 12:57 PM


Evolution is an implicit (if not explicit) claim that all living organisms are a result of evolution from a single cell (or whatever primitive life from).
However, there's never any predictable observation of any (or over 99.99%) living organisms can actually evolve from a SINGLE CELL!!!
There's a fallacy being always embedded with this theory with which a bubble-bursting question can always make this fallacy surface. And this bubble-bursting question is that whenever a so-called evidence is presented, you can ask,
That piece of evidence supports the evolution from what and to what.
There's a reason behind why this question cannot be answered. All you need is a much clearer concept about what science is actually about.
Here's an attempt to make things more precise.
A scientific theory is a speculation that something will repeat by following a set of rules.
A hypothesis is a suggestion on how such a repetition shall repeat but not yet proven. This can be further divided into 2 categories, 1) by observation we already know its repeating pattern but we can't yet make the set of rule behind it proven, and 2) we can't actually obtain an empirical observation to say that it actually repeats with a pattern. But based on the assumption that it can repeat that we start to develop a theory behind its repetition.
Science itself is for the confirmation of such a kind of repeating or repeatable patterns govern by a set of rules. Science is to figure out this set of rules and to confirm it repeatedly, and more importantly, predictably.
Law is when such a set of rule is confirmed repeatedly and predictably in an unmistakable manner, that is, if its prediction failed then it's considered falsified. Law however is still relative. Law is supposed to work under a paradigm, outside which it may no longer be true.
To confirm a repeating truth repeatedly and predictably, that's what science is supposed to be.
Big Bang cannot be considered proven because we can't observe how a big bang repeats. Yet a theory can still be developed under the assumption that it's something can be repeated, say in the formation of other universes.
ToE is a suggestion that the forming of a species from a single cell (or whatever primitive life form) is a repeatable process. It is however a deception to say that this is observable because what have been observed is not a process of how a species being formed from a single cell. What being usually observed is a discrete advancement of the genetic changes. Thus the empirical observations so obtained can only be used to support that genetic changes can occur. It's far from saying that species can be formed from a single cell, unless the following fallacy is to be applied,
"Because slide genetic changes can be observed such that all species must be from a single cell."
This is a fallacy inviting your faith to believe.

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 1:08 PM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 107 of 120 (673301)
09-18-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
09-18-2012 1:08 PM


So the tree structures we observe in taxonomy and genetics would qualify, correct ? And we can predict that any new lifeform discovered will fit into those trees correct ? And they do.
====================================\
That's actually where your misconception coming from.
Whatever evidence you have for a plant,
1) it can't be a proof of ALL PlANTS!!!
2) it can't be a proof of NON PLANTS such as animals
this is your fallacy applied,
Because a species of plants evolved, such that all plants must have evolved from a single cell.
----------------
Evidence that something HAS happened is evidence that it could.
====================
"that it could" means,
1) it is not science. Science is much more than just showing that "it could"
2) "it could" is almost a faith statement demanding faith to believe (it's not scientific anyway).
The fallacy you have to apply here is,
Because 'it could' such that 'it must be'.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 1:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 1:36 PM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 109 of 120 (673305)
09-18-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
09-18-2012 1:36 PM


we have evidence that it did happen
=============================
show me then!
What evidence do you have for any species evolved from a single cell.
1) show me the evidence how a human is evolved from a single cell
2) or mammals
3) or birds
4) or reptiles
5) or fishes
6) or insets
Or just compile a full list of what you have evidence of evolution from a single cell. Over 99.99% species, you don't have the evidence of how they evolved from a single cell. All you have (as said in my first post) is at best the "evidence" of discrete advancements to qualify a genetic change.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 1:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 1:47 PM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 111 of 120 (673307)
09-18-2012 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by PaulK
09-18-2012 1:47 PM


ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell. There are single celled eukaryotes, too
======
Jesus Christ. Answer me!
Such that all of human must have been evolved from a single cell? You call that a justified proof? It's a joke.
"Because ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell such that they must have been evolved from a single cell".
It is the exact statement showing where your fallacy is!
Whatever you found in common to living organism won't justify the conclusion that they must be from a single cell! To debate with your kind is just like debating with a log.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 1:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 2:03 PM Hawkins has replied
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 09-19-2012 7:51 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 113 of 120 (673316)
09-18-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
09-18-2012 2:03 PM


Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ?
=====================================
My only question for you is that is this is a fallacy or not. If you are not sure, please ask your peer evolutionists or any scientists to make sure.
It is because the whole discussion is completely meaningless because you failed to realize that it is a fallacy!
"Because ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell such that they must have been evolved from a single cell"
.
.
.
Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ? That's question for yourself to answer! On the other hand, the discussion continue if you honestly keep throwing fallacies after fallacies.
The first and foremost answer honestly that where the above highlighted statement is a fallacy or not, YES or NO!
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 2:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 3:18 PM Hawkins has replied
 Message 115 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2012 3:19 PM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 116 of 120 (673341)
09-18-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by bluegenes
09-18-2012 3:19 PM


Re: Do you understand what this thread's about?
Do you understand why it is wrong to ask for deductive proofs of scientific theories? Do you understand the subject of this thread?
========================================
Do you know the reason why I made my first post? It's because I saw misconceptions. I already said I was trying to correct some misconceptions which I think will be beneficial to the discussion itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2012 3:19 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 117 of 120 (673343)
09-18-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
09-18-2012 3:18 PM


Of course that is not true. You can't even present my objections to your misrepresentations honestly.
=================
On the other hand, you misinterpret my meaning in the first place. I said there's no evidence to justify that things are evolved from a single cell. Anything you can present is related to a fallacy which I exposed.
For things to be evolved from a single cell, you need to first define how many stages does this species need to be evolved from a single cell to its current state in order to address which piece of evidence is in support of what stage of the evolution. Such as what evidenced how every organs are formed in the stage of organ forming and so forth. That's what my original post would like to say, whether it's abductive or deductive.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 3:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2012 4:47 PM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2012 5:14 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024