Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 305 (428467)
10-16-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Medis
10-16-2007 12:32 PM


As far as I understand from your post you're saying science uses inductive logic, not deductive logic, to prove theories. A quick look at wikipedia...:
...and suddenly deductive logic seems to be the way of reasoning.
So which is it?
Just to clear this up.
Deduction tells us how to get from the theory to its predictions.
Induction tells us that confirmation (so far) of the predictions (provisionally) confirms the theory.
Deduction is logical reasoning, induction is empirical reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Medis, posted 10-16-2007 12:32 PM Medis has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 305 (428504)
10-16-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Medis
10-16-2007 12:32 PM


So you're saying the fossil record is in fact NOT the largest body of proof of evolution?
No, I'd say the vast network of phylogenetic relationships we've developed with genetic tools is larger. The fossil record shouldn't be dismissed however, particularly in so far as it can corroborate the relationships we develop phylogenetically.
But by that logic wouldn't most of, say research into cellular biology be irrelevant as it is done artificially in labs?
Obviously, in the controlled lab setting we can create nearly every possible condition, including the conditions found in nature. Your objection here is somewhat spurious.
I mean you can observe fossils in nature, but you can't bring them into a lab and run numerous tests on them.
Whyever not? Once you've excavated the fossil from its bed, I assure you you can take it wherever you would like and do whatever you want to it. Indeed, tests run in labs are regularly done on excavated fossils. Who's going to stop you? The fossil police?
Because you'd be able to test it again and again under all sorts of conditions, thereby being able to observe whether or not the theory holds true in "extreme" conditions.
We're trying to tell you that behavior at "extreme" conditions may very well be interesting, but that data isn't privileged over the data developed under more mundane conditions. The behavior of water at 2000 degrees at 200 atm may be very interesting, but we don't need that evidence to substantiate the atomic theory of matter or the kinetic theory of gases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Medis, posted 10-16-2007 12:32 PM Medis has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 123 of 305 (428627)
10-17-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chiroptera
10-16-2007 10:30 AM


quote:
Basically, one says, "If this theory is accurate, then we should be able to see this particular phenomenon."
Unless a theory is vindicated on the ground and its manifest environmental surrounds [except where such is not possible, which is limited to .o1% of instances] - there is no reason to sanction it. If some sectors say modern humans are 100K years old, and gradually became as of today's humans, fossil imprints, lab testings or academic positations serve no evidence here: these are generic to any other premise, and subject to manipulation and exploitation.
Instead, graduated imprints of populations in kind, and corresponding mental prowess outputs - commonly and pervasively across the entire planet - becomes encumbent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2007 10:30 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2007 8:20 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 124 of 305 (428630)
10-17-2007 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
04-16-2007 8:26 PM


Re: Copy Errors and Creationist PRATTS on useless information
quote:
This limited number of bonding sequences is also not affected by copy errors, so this would be part of NI.
The numbers of such sequences in any strand of DNA would be changed by any copy error, so this is NOT part of NI.
Lol! This negates the ubsurdity of retrovirus residues in dna transmissions, and by default, speciation itself. Selective logic makes casino science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2007 8:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 125 of 305 (428631)
10-17-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 9:28 AM


quote:
We can, do, and have put evolution to the test in the laboratory setting and, indeed, in any setting you could probably care to name.
There's nothing about evolution that makes it unsuitable for laboratory analysis. Indeed, most of the genetic tools and computers we use to tease out evolutionary relationships are too sensitive to be used anywhere else.
I'll settle for a recalled 'name' of a human, pre-6000. Its a reasonable ask, when speech is posited by ToE followers as being 10s of 1000s of years older. I don't even need TWO names - just a oner, and I'll hail you forever. Take your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 9:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Wounded King, posted 10-17-2007 4:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 127 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2007 4:41 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2007 9:26 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 126 of 305 (428645)
10-17-2007 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by IamJoseph
10-17-2007 2:25 AM


Is it just me or do other people see this as a complete non sequitur.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2007 2:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2007 8:15 AM Wounded King has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 127 of 305 (428646)
10-17-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by IamJoseph
10-17-2007 2:25 AM


Name of someone pre 6000 years ago
I'll settle for a recalled 'name' of a human, pre-6000.
Frank.
Prove me wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2007 2:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 128 of 305 (428666)
10-17-2007 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Medis
10-16-2007 12:32 PM


Annafan writes:
But if you're consistent, you SHOULD reject all those things?
I guess it depends on what you believe those theories are based on. If you believe they are based on the same way of reasoning as evolution, and you reject evolution, then, yes, in order to be consistent you'd need to reject those theories.
So the conclusion is you indeed reject them because, just like (macro)evolution, you argue they can not be tested in the lab.
Did you ever take the time to systematically evaluate all scientific knowledge, to be sure that you only accepted science entirely based on laboratory experiments? Or is there maybe another reason why you single out evolutionary theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Medis, posted 10-16-2007 12:32 PM Medis has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 305 (428670)
10-17-2007 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Wounded King
10-17-2007 4:27 AM


I don't know. How can you tell?

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Wounded King, posted 10-17-2007 4:27 AM Wounded King has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 305 (428672)
10-17-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by IamJoseph
10-17-2007 2:04 AM


...there is no reason to sanction it.
We are not discussing whether the theory of evolution should be "sanctioned", whatever you mean by the word. This thread is about what science is, how it operates, and whether the scientists using and studying the theory of evolution are acting according to accepted scientific procedures.
I will also warn you that this thread isn't what you think science should be. This thread is what science actually is according to the people who work within it and the people who study its methods and procedures, and whether the theory of evolution counts as science according to these criteria.
This thread actually is about a topic that may be useful to some people. Please don't muck it up with your nonsense.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed last paragraph.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2007 2:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 305 (428679)
10-17-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by IamJoseph
10-17-2007 2:25 AM


Unless a theory is vindicated on the ground and its manifest environmental surrounds [except where such is not possible, which is limited to .o1% of instances] - there is no reason to sanction it. If some sectors say modern humans are 100K years old, and gradually became as of today's humans, fossil imprints, lab testings or academic positations serve no evidence here: these are generic to any other premise, and subject to manipulation and exploitation.
Instead, graduated imprints of populations in kind, and corresponding mental prowess outputs - commonly and pervasively across the entire planet - becomes encumbent.
And so IamJoseph's long, hopeles struggle against the English language continues.
What you seem to be saying is that even if all the evidence is completely consistent with the theory, that's still no reason to accept it.
Well done, you've just abolished the whole of science.
Lol! This negates the ubsurdity of retrovirus residues in dna transmissions, and by default, speciation itself. Selective logic makes casino science.
OK, come clean, that doesn't mean anything, does it?
Are you familiar with the term "word salad"?
I'll settle for a recalled 'name' of a human, pre-6000. Its a reasonable ask, when speech is posited by ToE followers as being 10s of 1000s of years older. I don't even need TWO names - just a oner, and I'll hail you forever. Take your time.
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that predicts that we should be able to supply the name of a human living "pre-6000".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2007 2:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 132 of 305 (428681)
10-17-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 9:28 AM


We can, do, and have put evolution to the test in the laboratory setting and, indeed, in any setting you could probably care to name.
There's nothing about evolution that makes it unsuitable for laboratory analysis. Indeed, most of the genetic tools and computers we use to tease out evolutionary relationships are too sensitive to be used anywhere else.
Y ... e ... s ... but these are observations rather than experiments, aren't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 9:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 133 of 305 (428743)
10-17-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Chiroptera
10-16-2007 12:40 PM


Chiroptera writes:
In fact, remember that Darwin figured out the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution was quickly accepted long before the fossil record yielded clear transitionals indicating the lineages of known taxa.
Oh. I always thought the theory of evolution was thought up BEFORE Darwin and that Darwin was only the guy trying to explain how it happened. (Using natural selection) In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that evolution was around before Darwin, and that his father even wrote poems about it.
crashfrog writes:
Obviously, in the controlled lab setting we can create nearly every possible condition, including the conditions found in nature. Your objection here is somewhat spurious.
Well I was only taking Dr Adequate's statement...
Dr Adequate writes:
When we want to know what happened in nature, then an observation of what we can achieve artifically is irrelevant.
...to its logical conclusion. I personally think it's rather obvious that observations of, say cells, in artificial conditions are a great aid in knowing what happens or has happened in nature. But, correct me if I'm wrong...
crashfrog writes:
Whyever not? Once you've excavated the fossil from its bed, I assure you you can take it wherever you would like and do whatever you want to it. Indeed, tests run in labs are regularly done on excavated fossils. Who's going to stop you? The fossil police?
Hmm, maybe I haven't been accurate enough. What I was trying to say is that it's not possible to test the fossils in the same way most testing is done in physics or chemistry. For example, as Modulus said, testing the boundary conditions of macroevolution. If you wanted to find out at what temperature water boils you could go into the lab and heat it up until it boiled. And do it again and again until you found a precise temperature. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like this sort experimentation is possible with macroevolution. Of course, you mentioned an example before and I'll have to look into it when I get the time.
BUT as far as I understand from all of you, pretty much any kind of experiment will do. A geological excavation or an observation of a planet in orbit has just as much scientific value as a repeatable experiment done in the lab. If this is true, then I'd like some sort of source for it. (Not wiki)
Annafan writes:
So the conclusion is you indeed reject them because, just like (macro)evolution, you argue they can not be tested in the lab.
No. I never said I rejected evolution or that it couldn't be tested in a lab. I asked a QUESTION about the testing of evolution, and if you'd go back and read the first sentence of the first post that I made, you might be able to see this.
Annafan writes:
Did you ever take the time to systematically evaluate all scientific knowledge, to be sure that you only accepted science entirely based on laboratory experiments?
No. (?)
Annafan writes:
Or is there maybe another reason why you single out evolutionary theory?
I'm not deliberately "singling out" anything, but this topic happens to be about evolution and science and I happen to have come here to discuss science and the scientific method from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Is this okay with you, or are you so prejudiced that you need to firmly put me in a box with "all the rest" in order to establish your superiority? Why don't you just answer my questions about evolution instead of treating me like a lunatic? If this is too much to ask then please don't waste my time with any more of your petty nitpicking.
Edited by Malangyar, : Typo.
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.
Edited by Malangyar, : Another typo.
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 10-16-2007 12:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2007 2:46 PM Medis has replied
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2007 4:06 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2007 7:20 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 148 by Annafan, posted 10-18-2007 5:27 AM Medis has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 134 of 305 (428750)
10-17-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Medis
10-17-2007 2:21 PM


Explaining Evolution
Oh. I always thought the theory of evolution was thought up BEFORE Darwin and that Darwin was only the guy trying to explain how it happened. (Using natural selection) In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that evolution was around before Darwin, and that his father even wrote poems about it.
You have the occurrence of evolution mixed up with the explanatory model (the theory). For a long time before Darwin it had been obvious that life on Earth had changed forms over time (and that it was a pretty long time as well.) Naturalists could see from the very limited number of fossils found already that current life had not always been on the planet. They could also see that there had been a succession of different sets of critters on Earth.
But how could this be? That was the question that needed answering. How could one set of critters inhabiting the Earth be replaced by a new set? Either there were a whole new set created over again (which was a hypothesis put forward) or the existing ones had to change into the new ones. The new creations hypothesis got a little weak seeming as it became apparent that there would have to be 10's then 100's and then even more recreations of life. But experience showed that one animal doesn't suddenly turn into another so how could it have happened? Because it was clear that it had happened; life hadchanged and changed a lot. It was too clear to ignore even 200 years ago.
There were then hypotheses put forward for how this could happen. Darwin's was the one that answered the question, stood up to scrutiny and testing over time and is now the accepted one. The explanation for how something occurs is what a theory is.
ABE
Oops did it again: Wallace and Darwin independently came up with the theory of change through imperfect replication and selection. Poor Wallace -- a day late and a dollar short.
Edited by NosyNed, : added a bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 2:21 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 4:48 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 142 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2007 7:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 305 (428778)
10-17-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Medis
10-17-2007 2:21 PM


Oh. I always thought the theory of evolution was thought up BEFORE Darwin and that Darwin was only the guy trying to explain how it happened. (Using natural selection) In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that evolution was around before Darwin, and that his father even wrote poems about it.
Well, that doesn't contradict my point that the theory of evolution was proposed and almost universally accepted before the fossil record was known in enough detail to give really, really good evidence for it.
--
As a matter of fact, people were proposing evolutionary explanations for natural history before Darwin. But I think that most people thought of each species representing a different, distince lineage. Lamarck, for example, thought that new life was continually arising and then evolved on its own -- the diversity of life we see around us is due largely to species that came to exist at different times and so are at different points in their evolutionary development.
One of the main parts of Darwin's theory (and the part I think is most interesting) is the idea of common descent -- that all life has evolved from only a very small number (one, two, or three) of original ancestral species (and, in fact, today we believe that all life share one common ancestor). Actually I don't think this was necessarily original to Charles, either -- I think that Erasmus, the grandfather you mentioned, himself had an idea of common descent.
The other important part of the theory is mechanism that causes the diversity -- natural selection acting over a long time on small, randomly occurring variations. Natural selection wasn't a new idea, either, but the thought at the time was that it is a conservative force, acting to prevent change from the archetype of the species. Darwin's great innovation was to figure out how what was considered a conservative force is actually a creative force, the leading cause of the diversity of life around us.
So, Darwin's theory of evolution was, as a whole, different from what came before: that natural selection, acting over a very long time from on small, randomly occurring, inheritable variations will lead to great morphological change; that a separation of populations of a species can, therefore, lead to two new and distinct species; and that, in fact, all known species have evolved from a very small number of ancestral species.
He also made a contribution in establishing the evidence for his theories. We all know that he wrote two books, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man; he also wrote many, many treatises and monographs in which he explained, in minute detail, the evidence of his theories.
Not only did Darwin give a complete, comprehensive, and logical theory explaining a variety of phenomena in biology and natural history, but he also produce a wealth of evidence in favor of it.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 2:21 PM Medis 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