Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 11:42 AM
400 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, halibut, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tangle (10 members, 390 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,890 Year: 27,496/21,208 Month: 1,409/1,714 Week: 252/365 Day: 21/73 Hour: 4/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Abductive Reasoning In Science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 106 of 120 (673297)
09-18-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 12:57 PM


quote:

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).

Actually, evolution itself doesn't claim this. But it is (more or less) what we infer from the evidence. (There are some significant complications at the very root of the tree, but I don't think that they are important now).

quote:

However, there's never any predictable observation of any (or over 99.99%) living organisms can actually evolve from a SINGLE CELL!!!

Evidence that something HAS happened is evidence that it could.

quote:

A scientific theory is a speculation that something will repeat by following a set of rules.

Well, we'll go with that for now, but the outcome of the rules are not always predictable even in quite simple physical systems (see Chaos theory).

quote:

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.

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.

So there you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 12:57 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:22 PM PaulK has responded

    
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 167 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 108 of 120 (673304)
09-18-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 1:22 PM


quote:

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.


Of course we are not talking about just A plant. We are talking about ALL earthly life. We may not have the genetic data for every known species, but we do have the data used for taxonomy.

So the fallacy is yours, as shown by your dismissal of evidence you can't even understand.

quote:

"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'.


Of course the fallacy is yours. You claimed that there was no evidence that it could happen. My point is that we have evidence that it did happen - which is evidence that it could happen.

And it is certainly not fallacious to say that evidence that something did happen is evidence that it happened. Indeed to claim otherwise - as you do - is to reject all logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:22 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:42 PM PaulK has responded

    
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 167 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 110 of 120 (673306)
09-18-2012 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 1:42 PM


quote:

show me then!

I've already told you what that evidence is. For instance we might point out the eukaryotic cell - ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell. There are single celled eukaryotes, too. Or another, aside from minor variations, the genetic code is the same in ALL DNA-based life. And there is more, much more uniting all life. Taxonomy and genetics speak to the truth of common ancestry of all life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:42 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:49 PM PaulK has responded

    
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 167 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 112 of 120 (673308)
09-18-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 1:49 PM


quote:

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!


Except, of course I told you that these were examples of the EVIDENCE not proof in themselves. So your "fallacy" is simply your own invention.

Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ? Or are you going to simply go on with your refusal to even understand the evidence and the arguments ? Because I have better things to do than with my time trying to spoon feed you arguments and facts that you can't be bothered to listen to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:49 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 2:50 PM PaulK has responded

    
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 167 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 114 of 120 (673330)
09-18-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 2:50 PM


quote:

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.

There is really no need to ask anyone. Of course the silly statement that you made up is a fallacy. That is why you made it up.

quote:

It is because the whole discussion is completely meaningless because you failed to realize that it is a fallacy!

Of course that is not true. You can't even present my objections to your misrepresentations honestly.

quote:

That's question for yourself to answer! On the other hand, the discussion continue if you honestly keep throwing fallacies after fallacies.

By which you mean "fallacies" like the Law of Identity, one of the basic axioms of logic...

And I think that says it all. If all you are going to do is invent "fallacies" to avoid honest discussion there is no point in talking to you. I leave you to your false and anti-Christian faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 2:50 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 3:55 PM PaulK has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 115 of 120 (673331)
09-18-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 2:50 PM


Do you understand what this thread's about?
Hawkins writes:

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!

Perhaps he knows the difference between abductive reasoning and deductive proofs. Perhaps he understands science, and the subject of this thread.

Do you understand why it is wrong to ask for deductive proofs of scientific theories? Do you understand the subject of this thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 2:50 PM Hawkins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 3:51 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 167 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 yet responded

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 167 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 118 of 120 (673371)
09-18-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 3:55 PM


Look Hawkins, I get it. No matter what I say you won't bother to read it, you'll just misrepresent it to invent some "fallacy".

That doesn't make you right, it makes you a waste of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 3:55 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 120 (673414)
09-19-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 1:49 PM


Proof and Fallacy
You keep on using the words "proof" and "fallacy". This thread is about abductive reasoning.

Do you even know what abductive reasoning is....?

Perhaps you could tell us what you think it is? Then it might become more obvious to the rest of us why you think demands of proof and talk of fallacies are relevant here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 1:49 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10069
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 120 of 120 (673501)
09-19-2012 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Hawkins
09-18-2012 3:55 PM


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.

The idea that all life evolved from a single organism is common descent. Common descent is not required to be correct for evolution to be correct and there could be several lines of evolution at the root of the tree.

There are other problems with your position. For example you attempt to outline steps required in the proof, but of course there are alternative lines of evidence that don't include your requirements.

The main issue with your post, though, is that it is off topic. There are threads open in which your ideas would be on topic, and I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss your points in detail in one of them.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Hawkins, posted 09-18-2012 3:55 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

    
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017