Assumptions of ToE

Hockey tonight though, I can't continue discussing this right now. I'll drop by tomorrow hopefully to see how it has progressed. (Although if calypsis4 jumps in I'll have 57pages to read)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Please do not make meaningful edits to the body of a post after more than a few minutes have passed. If you need to make a major addition, do it at the bottom in a section that you designate as "Added by Edit" or "AbE" for short. --AdminSorry people, my weekend why pretty occupied.Ok, so since I'm the one who claimed that the ToE had assumptions, I guess I should back it up a bit.First off I'll start by saying that assumptions, even in the scientific method, is not negative at all. It is in fact an essential component. Scientists do not go around collecting random data and then theorize on it. They think of something, and develop an hypothesis on it. This hypothesis sometimes plays the role of an assumption (not always). Only after this do they start collecting data to try and validate this hypothesis.Now, when I developed the idea of assumptions on the other thread, and that I said that it was perfectly normal that the ToE had assumptions, Subbie replied that it only had two assumptions: our senses provide us with accurate information about the real world behind us, and our intellect allows us to come to reliable conclusions based on the evidence we see. These are in fact the two assumptions of scientific inquiry. Surely, if the ToE had but those two, it would be the purest of all scientific theories, unaffected by biase.I find this not only a bit pretentious, but also unrealistic. As a matter of fact, considering the role assumptions take in science, I consider that subbie's claim is much more extraordinary, if true, than mine, and so any realistic person on this forum should agree that it most probably at least has 1 other assumption, if not more.One of the hints that can lead us to some of those assumptions is that the theory of evolution is not about operational science, but about historical science. Even more, it is about how things became to be, in the oh-so-distant past, full of ponctual events that are for the most part unrepeatable. THis only should make us doubt subbie's claim. (Note that I am not saying that the ToE is strictly non-operational science. I am merely saying that it primarily explains what things happened in the past, and not how they happen in the present)With all this said, let me try and tackle a bit this question:The first assumption is the one that I have mentioned in the other thread, and it is also the one that Darwin made in his time. That the small changes in today's species from generation to generation can accumulate, with enough time, as to produce major changes such as new organs, new proteins, etc. This was very much an assumption in his time, and it was what permitted him to construct his famous 'tree of life'. I think it is still an assumption today, and here is why. When is the last time someone asked a question like this: can the small changes that we observe today be extrapolated to big changes with enough time ?Or when the new field of genetics was being discovered, did anyone ask if their was a barrier between species or families, that would prevent such thing from happening ? Personnally, I do not think that any question of the sort was ever adressed, and so the answer was assumed to be yes for both questions. My personnal opinion was that it was assumed to be yes because the 'fact' of evolution was a certainty.A second assumptions is that the earth is old. Once again, this was done by Darwin in his time, since he assumed uniformitarianism as to believe that the earth was old, so that evolution could have had enough time to take place. Today, uniformitarianism is no longer a serious assumption in geology, and as of such it has been replacer by the current dating methods. As of such, the same assumptions that are being used in the current radiometric dating methods are sustaining the possibility of the ToE.Got to go, if you can hold unto your replies for the moment, I will edit this message to continue later.AbE I think I'll stop here, and discuss the first two assumptions. If we ever get to an agreement, I will add a third, than eventually a fourth etc. as long as I can think of some.Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment at top.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I agree totally, this is what makes Popper's falsification criterion so powerful. Unfortunately, this is only what happens in theory. In the practice of science, a scientist will almost always try to support his theory, not the contrary.The ones that will try to prove it false will be the people who already think the theory is false (in other words, they presuppose it to be false). It is only apparent it 'already had' only through a naturalistic mindset. But Darwin wasn't a naturalist at this time, and so this is why his assumption is not that special creation isn't an option, But rather that the small changes he saw in nature could accumulate to explain the vast diversity he say in the animal kingdom, and so this was a viable alternative to the current 'special creation' idea at the time.If you do not think this is true, how then did he hypothesis that human and apes had a common ancestor ? How did he build his tree of life ? None of these things could have been the result of any observations he made. It was the result of this assumption. (here there is a secondary daughter-assumption to the first, which is that morphological similarity is evidence of common ancestry) I disagree, it had a remarkable impact to Darwin and how he interpreted what he saw. There is a reason why Darwin was a geologist, and that he brought Lyell's famous book 'principles of Geology' on his voyage.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This is more of a personal opinion on the subject than any related idea. But I think that if someone presupposed that such a mechanism existed, that he would in fact see enough evidence for it as to reserch on it. This may sound strange, but this is exactly what Einstein said in a discussion about science with Schrodinger: ''It is the theory who determines what one can see'' (from memory, may not be the exact quote).I would find that the up and down variation we see in species would be good evidence that such changes cannot accumulate. This can be seen in finch beaks: They go from small to big during half the year, then from big to small the other half. No net accumulation. Also in bacteria, where you can make them adapt to a given environment at the lose of other properties, only to put them back in another environment where they lose their 'novel' adaptation to regain the previous one that was lost. Again, no net accumulation. If your argument was to be correct, then it would mean ''no assumptions allowed'' in science. Because if someone would assume something, than he would have to also assume everything that is 'assumable'. Clearly this is fallacious, and in fact is it the same type of fallacy as 'If you believe in God, then you have to believe in pink unicorns''.I can readily assume something that I find plausible, and in this case the existence of such a genetic barrier is very much plausible, in order to go out and look if it is a reality. See previous post. I'll add that evolution does need a lot of time in order to go from original cell to thinking human.

Yeah sorry, I added by edit that I'll stop at those two assumptions (small chanegs can accumulate to big changes) and the assumptions of the dating methods (uniformitarianism in Darwin's time, constant nuclear decay today)You can post your own opinion on those two. I'll try to sum up the common objections from everyone and discuss them later on.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.