Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

So, I note that you still have not answered our requests. Still not a single reference to an evolutionary biologist claiming scientific conclusions are absolute truth, and this leads to the obvious conclusion that you just made it all up. The Theory of Evolution is about far more than just common ancestors. It explains the mechanisms and processes of biological evolution that we have observed in the field and laboratory. The observations of the processes of reproduction, genetic variability, natural selection, and descent with modification, along with millions of fossils are facts. Those observations of the processes of evolution in hundreds of thousands of species, so far, are facts. The theory explains all that data in a way that is consistent with everything we also know about chemistry and physics.

This has been explained to you before. The theory of evolution, expressed simply, is descent with modification and natural selection. The fact that evolution has occurred is the evidence of fossils, morphology, homologous structures, comparative embryology, genetics, and the simple fact that all existing life descended from prior life which in turn descended from prior life and so on ad infinitum back to the beginnings of life. A fact doesn't mean 100% certainty in science. A fact is an observation or a piece of information with a direct connection to reality. Remember that observations have error bars. There's no certainty. It is that connection to reality that provides the confidence we have in these facts, but that confidence level never reaches 100%. Tentativity again.Stephen Jay Gould provided this informal definition of fact (Evolution as Fact and Theory):

Stephen Jay Gould:

---

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

---

It was never said that the theory of evolution is both theory and fact. What was said was that evolution is both theory and fact. There is the fact of evolution that is a conclusion based upon a large body of evidence from the natural world, and then there is the theory of evolution, which is a framework of understanding for interpreting that evidence.--Percy

You again misunderstand the distinction, even though you're replying to a message that explained it pretty clearly. No one thinks any theory is a fact, and that includes the theory of evolution. Theories are built from facts, but they are not themselves fact.--Percy

In other words you lied.
In the words of Queen Elizabeth II(through Billy Connolly).
"Go away itchy ass"

Whatever explanations there are for evolution from common ancesters, is besides the point. I can also talk about how individuals grow after birth. But what does it add?I get that you have trouble sticking to the point. But that is really your problem.

Not true. You should ask around.

Your dice example. That is the point of the example no? You are showing us how science can produce 100% knowledge, AKA absolute truth. If that wasn't the point I can't imagine why you said it.Unpacking this, all you have done here is:a) Make a bunch of observations of dice,b) use those observations to conclude that you have "100%" knowledge.I don't think that's a useful way to approach knowledge. It's illogical and impractical. It ignores too many confounding factors. For instance, how many observations should you make? Is ten enough? A thousand? A trillion? How do you determine that? How would you know if you had insufficient observations? You wouldn't and you can't, not unless you can observe all space and time, which you can't. You are essentially discounting the theoretical possibility that there exists a falsifying observation that you haven't thought of. How exactly is anyone supposed to correct for a confounding variable that they can't even comprehend or simply haven't thought of? You can't. The approach you use in your dice analogy. And yes, it is broken. All you are doing is coming to an arbitrary conclusion based on an incomplete sampling of data and then treating that as absolute fact. There are multiple problems with this approach:You can't observe the whole of space, so you cannot possibly know, with 100% certainty, that you have collected all the relevant data. For all you know, there could be an as yet unobserved falsification out there. This matters because science does seek to create explanations which apply equally to the entire universe, not just our local area.The same with the past and, even more so, the future. You cannot possibly know, with 100% certainty, that your observations would have been the same in the distant past (particularly the very early universe) and you cannot possibly know if your claim will continue to hold true in the future. This matters because science does seek to create explanations which apply equally to the past and the future.How do you know your observations were accurate? For all you know there could be some confounder that you have failed to even imagine, let alone correct for.How do you know that the universe itself is even real? How do we know that we're not living in matrix/a brain in a jar/ being tricked by a demon, etcetera? To be clear, I'm not saying that I think we are in the Matrix, or that this is a big concern, but it is still a proposition which cannot be 100% disproved, thus it creates a little window of doubt.For these and other reasons, the approach you outline does not work. You are claiming 100% certainty, but you cannot demonstrate it. That creates a system prone to producing false positives, a broken system.I am extremely confident that your example with rolling a die would hold true wherever and whenever you tested it, but if I am to remain intellectually honest, I have no choice but to concede the above points and accept that my conclusions, however well supported they may appear to be, must always contain that tiny element of doubt, hence, tentativity. Oh Lord the irony.I wasn't calling you illiterate. I said you were scientifically illiterate an entirely different thing.For the record, I have no interest in attacking you over trivial linguistic errors. It's petty, it's childish and it doesn't address the actual argument. Harping on spelling errors and obvious typos is a child's way of arguing.I did call you scientifically illiterate though and I stand by that. This conversation would go a lot easier if you did a bit of basic reading up on the scientific method and the philosophy of science. The way you speak, it's as if you never encountered these concepts before. Similarly, when you talk about natural history, you throw out schoolboy howlers and bizarre falsehoods. You don't really seem to know much about the natural world. And when you talk about evolution, you betray numerous misunderstandings of how the ToE is even supposed to work, misunderstandings that could be avoided by familiarising yourself with the basics of the topic. I know this is not exactly flattering, but given the stuff you come out with, I can't reach any other conclusion. If you don't want your views to be misrepresented, you might try outlining them properly, rather than relying on low-content, low-effort one or two sentence posts. How is anyone supposed to know what you think, you barely say anything!Go take a look at your recent posts. Hit that link on the left hand side, the one that says "sensei posts only" and take a look at what you post. The vast majority of it is one, two or maybe as many as three lines of text. Maybe five whole sentences, but usually less, including the spectacular Message 1030, a message which contains literally nothing!. And to make it worse, a large part of what you do post is just you kvetching, sneering and bitching about spelling errors or other trivial crap. Assuming that you have a point to make, how do you expect to make it carrying on like this? I know you can do better because on rare occasions you have actually put in the effort. Speaking of which; If my characterisation of your position is wrong, then, as Percy and Tangle have suggested, this is your opportunity to lay out your position in enough detail that it can't be misunderstood.What is your understanding of how the scientific method functions?What is your understanding of the role of tentativity in science?Lay it out for us dude. The only person standing the way of you getting your point across is you.Mutate and Survive

Oh I agree, here's what I actually said:I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here, could you explain? Well, there were 2 points I was addressing:1. I noted that you still have not answered our requests. Still not a single reference to an evolutionary biologist claiming scientific conclusions are absolute truth, and this leads to the obvious conclusion that you just made it all up.2. It looks to me like I was sticking to the points by continuing to ask for your references and directly answering your question.

Here's what Bing's AI 'thinks'

Bing:

---

Tentativeness is one of the characteristics of scientific inquiry, meaning that scientific ideas are subject to change based on new evidence and observations. Tentativeness applies to all science, but not to the same degree or in the same way. Some scientific ideas are more tentative than others, depending on the amount and quality of evidence supporting them, the level of consensus among scientists, and the nature of the phenomena being studied. For example, some basic facts and laws of physics are very well-established and unlikely to change, while some hypotheses and models in fields like astronomy, biology, or climate science may be more provisional and open to revision. Tentativeness also applies to both data and models, as data can be affected by measurement errors, biases, or limitations of instruments, and models can be incomplete, inaccurate, or oversimplified. Therefore, scientists always try to improve their data collection and analysis methods, and test their models against new observations and experiments. Tentativeness does not mean that scientific ideas are unreliable or untrustworthy; rather, it means that science is a dynamic and ongoing process of seeking the best possible explanations for natural phenomena. You can learn more about tentativeness in science from these web sources: Understanding Science, Ars Technica, and Chem LibreTexts.

---

Obviously I meant no one in science or here in this thread discussing this with you, not the general public. I'm well aware that the general public has a poor understanding of most science, not much unlike yourself.Again, no one in science confuses theory with fact. They are two different things. Facts are gathered through observations of the natural world. Theories are models of the real world built upon those facts but are not themselves fact. And nothing is 100% certain, including facts.Insisting that scientists and those familiar with science think theories are facts expressing absolute truths is as absurd as insisting they think the moon is made of green cheese.Both I and someone else have noted the brevity of your responses, so brief that all we can tell is that you disagree. The reasons and rationale are completely absent. You haven't demonstrated any ability to construct an argument. In response to explanations you just repeat your earlier objections like a broken record.--Percy

ChatGPT had this to say about your response:

ChatGPT:

---

In essence, the response seems to be missing the main point of the initial argument, which is to emphasize the significance of the Theory of Evolution in explaining observed biological processes and phenomena, not just common ancestry. The response does not directly address or engage with the points made in the initial argument.

---

--Percy

Well, if you make statements like, NOTHING is 100% certain and NOBODY here confuses thinks common ancestry is proven fact, then yeah, I don't have much to say, other than that you are wrong, but you can believe whatever you like.

First, my response was an inquiry on Granny Magda's post Message 1 where they are referring to at least two different definitions of evolution that were not stated, but that very strong determinations were made.Secondly, even in these forums, many various definitions are given. For example, Tangle in Message 19 said: "Evolution - ie the observation that organisms change over time - is often called a fact now because we've got so much knowledge about it." nmw in Message 28 recently said much the same thing. But that is a definition that I would suppose most people, including myself and sensei, would not have a problem with and would agree that that observation is true. But that is not where the disagreement is.Tangle in Message 19 then gave another term. "But Universal Common Descent - a projection from the ToE - is still regarded as a hypothesis - although a strong one. There is less certainty about it" So this UCD, which is not "evolution" but is linked to it, is probably closer to what is being debated. And as both Tangle and nwr indicated, terms on this subject are rather interchangeable. But unfortunately, they have to be made clear in this instance.Thirdly, the "evolution" they are referring to is merely what has been observed, which is (as much as can be) a fact. But the question that is being pondered relates to the mechanism of what produced what is observed. Though often described by the same word "evolution", the observation and what produced the observation are totally different things.Thus bringing me back to my original question related to Granny Magda's post. They referred to two different definitions of evolution without specifically stating what they were. I am merely asking for clarification, or what exactly are they talking about.

About this response ChatGPT says the following:

ChatGPT:

---

The response appears to be expressing frustration or disagreement with the initial argument. It points out that the statement about "nothing is 100% certain" and "nobody here confuses thinks common ancestry is proven fact" is seen as incorrect by the responder. However, the response doesn't engage directly with the points made in the initial argument but instead suggests a difference of opinion.

​

In essence, the response is indicating a disagreement with the initial argument but doesn't provide specific counterarguments or explanations for why the initial argument is perceived as incorrect. It appears to express a difference in beliefs or perspectives on the topic of scientific certainty and the status of common ancestry in evolutionary theory.

---

ChatGPT is saying what others keep saying, that you're not engaging with what people say and are providing no reasons for why you think as you do. You just do.--Percy

Do you really think a difference of pedantic trivialities in word usage justifies the lie there are other definitions of evolution?There is only the one. Part of the fun is you get to choose which form of the definition you like best, as long as it conforms to the modern synthesis.You do know about the modern synthesis? The Theory Of Evolution (TOE). The only definition of evolution that, in reality, actually exists. Go read that. That's what we're talking about.There is only the one.Unless you have some other, less trivially-based alternative you would care to share.