Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 151 of 255 (293583)
03-09-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
03-09-2006 10:18 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
I answered you. I think I AM defending it by repeating it. Bringing it to general attention again after somebody's attempt to bury it under what they consider to be contrary evidence.
But I will stay out of this now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 10:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:13 AM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 255 (293584)
03-09-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by nator
03-09-2006 10:11 AM


Re: molecular?
A "prediction" in science is simply a "logical consequence" of the theory.
That kind of prediction doesn't have the convincingness of a real prediction. It really shouldn't be called a "prediction."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 03-09-2006 10:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by nator, posted 03-09-2006 1:16 PM robinrohan has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 255 (293585)
03-09-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 9:50 AM


beware the ideas of mark's
If you are able to tell the result of something, before it happens using a theory, its called prediction. You predict the way something is going to turn out.
quote:
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, 1965
To translate. If ToE is true and if Evolution happened then we should see congruence. The theory predicts this congruence, before the congruence is tested. This is a prediction.
It is also a falsification test. If it turned out some other way, ToE would be in serious trouble.
I think this line of thinking - what makes a scientific prediction a prediction - would make an intereting topic if you want to discuss it further?


I don't agree with the subtitle so much, but the pun came to me and I had to use it. Sorry.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 09-March-2006 03:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 9:50 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by AdminJar, posted 03-09-2006 10:35 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:37 AM Modulous has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 255 (293587)
03-09-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Modulous
03-09-2006 10:29 AM


Re: beware the ideas of mark's
I think that is a very important concept and also central to several currently active threads. If you will propose such a topic I'll see that it gets promoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2006 10:29 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:01 PM AdminJar has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 155 of 255 (293589)
03-09-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 9:50 AM


Re: molecular?
Hi Robin,
You can't "predict" something that you've already found or that you don't know about. All you can say is, if evolution is true, this would likely be the case.
Think about this statement for a minute . When was DNA discovered? When were reliable sequencing techniques developed? Well after the theory of evolution was established.
That the molecular phylogenies would match up to those drawn up by analysing fossils was a clear prediction, once the techniques were in place. The experiments were then done to test that prediction. Nothing ad hoc about it - just in the past.
As a matter of interest (and to keep on topic) do you see a problem with this reasoning? Or do you feel that it has been badly explained in this and other posts?
Edit: Oh Bum! Mod has just beaten me to it! In a much more effective way.
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-03-2006 03:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 9:50 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:41 AM Ooook! has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 156 of 255 (293590)
03-09-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Modulous
03-09-2006 10:29 AM


Re: beware the ideas of marks
If ToE is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it. So for instance congruence is predicted. But you already see the consistency of the phylogenetic tree. You are working with something that already has a certain logical direction to it. So you confirm that logical direction with a separate test from another angle and think you've supported the ToE. Well in a sense you have, but if the congruence isn't the result of genetic descent you won't have a way of finding that out by this test.
This is not like REAL science of the sort Robin gave an example of where when something is predicted to happen based on a particular theory it actually does or doesn't happen and you can know for sure from the result that the theory was correct or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2006 10:29 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2006 10:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 161 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 10:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by nator, posted 03-09-2006 1:21 PM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 255 (293591)
03-09-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Ooook!
03-09-2006 10:36 AM


Re: molecular?
As a matter of interest (and to keep on topic) do you see a problem with this reasoning? Or do you feel that it has been badly explained in this and other posts?
There's no problem with it except that it overstates the case for the convincingness of the evidence. The evidence is very indirect except for fossils.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 10:36 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 10:47 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:49 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 164 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2006 10:57 AM robinrohan has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 158 of 255 (293592)
03-09-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 10:41 AM


Re: molecular?
The evidence is very indirect except for fossils.
This is quite an interesting statement. I view both types of evidence as extremely direct tests for change over time.
Can you explain why you think that fossils - and the predictions borne out by them - are direct but sequences of DNA are indirect? Maybe I've missed it somewhere upthread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:41 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:55 AM Ooook! has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 159 of 255 (293594)
03-09-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:37 AM


Re: beware the ideas of marks
This is not like REAL science of the sort Robin gave an example of where when something is predicted to happen based on a particular theory it actually does or doesn't happen and you can know for sure from the result that the theory was correct or not.
This doesn't sound like real science, it sounds like the sort of shoddy scientism that is all too prevalent.
You can't know for sure whether any scientific theory is correct or not, but you can confirm it and exclude alternative possibilities to such an extent that it is taken as highly reliable and useful.
Other than in a simple matter of degree I'm not sure what distinction can be drawn between a prediction of something like the motion of celestial bodies and predictions of patterns of genetic relatedness.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:37 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 255 (293595)
03-09-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 10:41 AM


Re: molecular?
Fossil evidence is ALSO indirect. All these preserved dead things, that appear to have been laid down in a particular order. What's direct evidence about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:41 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 10:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:57 AM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 161 of 255 (293598)
03-09-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:37 AM


Re: beware the ideas of marks
Faith writes:
If ToE is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified.
Well, of course you can verify it.
But...and this is what you fail to address. More impostantly, it can falsify a theory.
If you make a prediction and then what you find does NOT match what was predicted, then there is reason to believe that the prdiction, and the theory, are wrong.
This is very, very important. Falsification, finding out what doesn't fit, is how progress is made.
Does that make sense to you and do you agree with that?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:37 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 255 (293601)
03-09-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Ooook!
03-09-2006 10:47 AM


Re: molecular?
Can you explain why you think that fossils - and the predictions borne out by them - are direct but sequences of DNA are indirect? Maybe I've missed it somewhere upthread
Fossils are real snapshots or sculptures of the past. DNA/ morphology is about TODAY'S species (with perhaps the odd exception).
So it's indirect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 10:47 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 11:17 AM robinrohan has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 163 of 255 (293602)
03-09-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:49 AM


On Order
Fossil evidence is ALSO indirect. All these preserved dead things, that appear to have been laid down in a particular order. What's direct evidence about that?
What is direct evidence is that all those dead things ARE laid down in a particular order.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:57 AM jar has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 164 of 255 (293604)
03-09-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 10:41 AM


Re: molecular?
I'd suggest that if anything molecular evidence is considerably more direct. We can have much greater confidence in the provenance of genetic sequences, indeed it is quite possible for anyone to extract DNA from an organism and analyse it genetically, whereas not everyone can go out and dig up a virtually identical fossil to some specific 'transitional'.
And if you don't need to collect the data yourself then it is even easier since almost all gnetic information used in the published literature is deposited on online databases like Genbank from which anyone can get vast numbers of sequences. Even entire genomes can be downloaded by anyone. There are similarly a large number of freely available tools to allow exactly the same anlayses as are performed in the vast majority of papers to be conducted on a personal computer.
So anyone anywhere with access to a computer with an internet connection can perform their own investigations of the genetic evidence for common descent and evolution.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:41 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 255 (293605)
03-09-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by jar
03-09-2006 10:56 AM


Re: On Order
It's not direct evidence unless you KNOW why they are in that order. It is merely suggestive evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 10:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 11:02 AM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024