|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If a mythical creature such as a griffin existed..... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We already know that birds evolved from dinosaurs ... Yeah, but we wouldn't know that any more. All those intermediate forms could be chimeras. We'd have to go back and look again at the basis of what we now think we know with more skeptical eyes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
CS writes:
Which is the "Q: What if we found an animal that didn't disprove evolution? Would it disprove evolution? A: No." scenario. Heh, yeah, I was going to reply that if a griffin existed, then we'd find examples of its ancestors in the fossil record and end up figuring out an evolutionary path for it, too. If we found a creature that was unconnected to other creatures development (e.g. had a completely different form of phenotype instruction system) then we would probably assume it was alien - which would still match the above scenario. As HDB mentions in his post: what kind of animal would be required to 'break' the ToE?Would we be correct to assume 'alien origin' for any anomalous species? The problem with disproving evolution is that it has already been proved beyond most doubt.It is similar to trying to prove that water isn't wet or that the earth is not round. Sure - we can discover the Earth is a sphere.We can then discover that it is an oblate ellipsoid. But at no point will we discover that the earth is flat. And at no point will we discover that random mutations + natural selection do not play an important role in creating the diversity of species that we see today."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
CS writes:
I agree. I don't think the ToE would be refuted in the sense that it still does describe the way that things do evolve. But you're right that there'd be some new doubts about whether or not everything evolved once we found a creature that we know didn't.At this point, the only things that I can imagine producing a chimera are us, aliens and gods. If the source of the chimera was either us or aliens then the ToE is safe.If a god magically 'pooofed' it into existence then that would undermine our confidence in anything being true - including all the sciences. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3614 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Im not sure why would a god create doubt in the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Im not sure why would a god create doubt in the theory. A god per se would not lead us to doubt the theory. But a god poofing species into existence obviously would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The problem with disproving evolution is that it has already been proved beyond most doubt. With regard to the evidence we have. But we're being invited to consider evidence that we don't have. We're being asked: if there were griffins, would there be doubt? Yes, there would. You remind me rather of a creationist I once talked to. He maintained that evolution was unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. I pointed out that there were lots of things we could conceivably find in the fossil record that would totally destroy evolution. He replied that since no-one had found any such thing in all these years of looking, evolution was in practice unfalsifiable. He'd got the wrong end of the stick one way, and you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick another way. The question is: what if there was evidence that disproved evolution? Like my creationist acquaintance, you are apparently content to dismiss this idea on the grounds that there hasn't been yet. But that doesn't answer the question: what if there was?
And at no point will we discover that random mutations + natural selection do not play an important role in creating the diversity of species that we see today. Well, we could. As an extreme example, we could meet the superintelligent alien who faked up the Earth and the evidence for evolution as the alien equivalent of an eighth-grade science project, and she could explain to us that this was a big experiment on us like running rats through a maze. She could show us the machines that she used to produce strata and fossils. We'd have to suck it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dr. A writes:
I did think of mentioning some form of LastThursdayism - but I was a bit rushed and decided to leave it out. Well, we could. As an extreme example, we could meet the superintelligent alien who faked up the Earth and the evidence for evolution as the alien equivalent of an eighth-grade science project, and she could explain to us that this was a big experiment on us like running rats through a maze. She could show us the machines that she used to produce strata and fossils. We'd have to suck it up.(I think your 'alien' example is more useful than a literal LastThursdayism though.) But, even in your example, evolution would still be true.We saw evolution happening yesterday. We see it happening today. And (if we are not killed by the massive space rock) we will see it happening tomorrow. Using RAZD's ToE summary (Thanks RAZD!):quote:This is still true. {abe}Changing "are sufficient" to "would be sufficient" would probably be necessary. The difference your 'alien' example makes is when asked "Did evolution cause the diversity of life on Earth?" we would have to reply "No, not all of it.". LastThurdayism though, would make evolution (and 99.9% of all knowledge) unevidenced - maybe right; maybe wrong.I can't think of anything other than LastThurdayism that could prove the ToE false. (And if we found out that the entire universe was created last Thursday, how do we know the universe wasn't made to look that way last Friday?) Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But, even in your example, evolution would still be true. Well in that case I'd have to ask: "What is this evolution thing that you maintain is still true"? You write:
Panda writes: We saw evolution happening yesterday. We see it happening today. And (if we are not killed by the massive space rock) we will see it happening tomorrow. So now when you say that "evolution is true", you mean that natural selection will still go on operating on random mutation. Well, yes. I believe most creationists would agree with that. But what "evolutionists" maintain is not merely that this process goes on, but that this process has produced all the varieties of life on Earth from, in Darwin's words "a few forms or one". To make it clear, I would give the following definitions: * Evolution: heritable change in a lineage. * Theory of evolution: our knowledge of genetics so far, subject to modification. * Darwinism: The proposition that the species now found on Earth were produced from one or a few ancestral species in accordance with the theory of evolution, from "a few forms or one" (as Darwin put it). Now if you want to defend "evolution", then this is an ambiguous word. But it would clearly be dishonest to use the second or the first of these definitions to fight for "evolution" when the real issue in question is the third. The third is the whole thing that we're fighting about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
{abe}Re-reading my previous post, I see I made the mistake of interchanging the words 'evolution' and 'theory of evolution'.
But I think my previous post is equally true using either term. Dr A writes: Well in that case I'd have to ask: "What is this evolution thing that you maintain is still true"? I'll use RAZD again: quote:It is the same definition we currently use. Which part do you think would be false? Dr. A writes:
I believe most biologists would also agree with that. So now when you say that "evolution is true", you mean that natural selection will still go on operating on random mutation. Well, yes. I believe most creationists would agree with that.Which part do you think would be false? Dr. A writes:
So....when I say that the Theory of Evolution would still be true - what I am actually talking about is Darwinism? * Evolution: heritable change in a lineage.* Theory of evolution: our knowledge of genetics so far, subject to modification. * Darwinism: The proposition that the species now found on Earth were produced from one or a few ancestral species in accordance with the theory of evolution, from "a few forms or one" (as Darwin put it). Now if you want to defend "evolution", then this is an ambiguous word. But it would clearly be dishonest to use the second or the first of these definitions to fight for "evolution" when the real issue in question is the third. The third is the whole thing that we're fighting about.And it would be dishonest for me to talk about the Theory of Evolution? I don't see how I can talk about the ToE...without talking about the ToE.And I don't see how I can talk about evolution without talking about evolution. Perhaps you could clarify? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is the same definition we currently use. Which part do you think would be false? The bit where someone asserts that the griffin is certainly produced by the processes that comprise the theory of evolution.
I believe most biologists would also agree with that. Which part do you think would be false? Well, given the discovery of a griffin, that bit.
So....when I say that the Theory of Evolution would still be true - what I am actually talking about is Darwinism? And it would be dishonest for me to talk about the Theory of Evolution? I don't see how I can talk about the ToE...without talking about the ToE.And I don't see how I can talk about evolution without talking about evolution. Perhaps you could clarify? No, I don't think that it would be dishonest for you to say this or that. I think that it might be ambiguous. I don't mind what terminology we use, so long as we can agree on what it means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dr. A. writes:
Here it is again: Panda writes:
The bit where someone asserts that the griffin is certainly produced by the processes that comprise the theory of evolution. It is the same definition we currently use.Which part do you think would be false? quote:Can you underline the part where it asserts anything about griffins? If not, then I ask again: which part do you think would be false? Dr. A. writes:
Here it is again: Panda writes: Well, given the discovery of a griffin, that bit. I believe most biologists would also agree with that.Which part do you think would be false? quote:Can you underline the part that mentions griffins? If not, then I ask again: which part do you think would be false? Dr. A. writes:
These should remove whatever ambiguity you currently perceive: I think that it might be ambiguous. I don't mind what terminology we use, so long as we can agree on what it means.Evolution: Evolution - Wikipedia The Theory of Evolution: Modern synthesis - Wikipedia Or would you prefer to use non-standard definitions?"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Can you underline the part where it asserts anything about griffins? If not, then I ask again: which part do you think would be false? [...] Can you underline the part that mentions griffins?If not, then I ask again: which part do you think would be false? Well, this is obviously unworthy of you. If someone pointed out that asteroid DA2012 DA14 had a triangular orbit, and I said that this violated the theory of gravity, would you ask me to underline where in the theory of gravity it mentions that particular asteroid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have given considerable thought to this sort of problem. And I have concluded that either there is no solution, or that if I could solve it I would write my name across the centuries like Newton or Galileo.
The general form of the question is how much confirmation we would require to push a theory from not probable to probable, or alternatively how many anomalies we would need to push a theory from probable to not probable. Now it is clear that scientists themselves cannot solve this interesting question about the scientific method. If they could, then (for example) there would have been a single scientific paper that would have pushed geologists from not believing in continental drift to believing in it. But there wasn't. Some of them were ahead of the time, some of them were behind the times, and even from our godlike perspective of knowing the right answer, we cannot (without egregious immodesty) point to the exact point when enough data really was enough, and we would have believed it. What will be the next thing, and what should our attitude towards it be? Hindsight does not grant us a general principle of foresight. Sometimes, looking back, we see that apparent anomalies could be brought within the rule. And sometimes, looking back, we see that there were real anomalies that required a new rule. Now in this hypothetical case of the griffin, we are provided with a remarkable situation. On the one hand we are supplied with literal mountains of evidence that a theory is true; on the other hand, we are presented with a single but really glaring counterexample. Which way should we jump? Now I would suggest that in this case also even hindsight would not give us the right answer. Suppose the following sequence of events to take place: (1) The griffin is discovered.(2) I announce on this basis that in my opinion Darwinism is bunk. (3) Further evidence comes forward proving that Darwinism is bunk. Now, can it really be said that on the basis of (3) that I made the right call at point (2)? No, not at all. I might merely have had a bias that in that particular case turned out to be the right one: I might have been a blind Gadarene swine furiously and fortuitously stampeding over the right cliff. Could I really claim a superiority of reason over those who went the other way? What, then, of this particular case? Now, I have put forward arguments, which I believe are correct, proving that the griffin would be a particularly harsh blow against evolution, even if it was just the one singular case; and people who are not idiots should see the force of my arguments. And yet no-one, certainly not I, could really say that this one piece of evidence would be sufficient to overturn the Darwinian paradigm; and no-one is in a position to say that it shouldn't. We would find ourselves repeating the usual scientific mantra: "More research is needed". But I do claim that such a discovery would cast a dark shadow of doubt over Darwinism unless and until the griffin could be explained within the Darwinian concept. While people are working on that, and before they come up with a solution, I think we would have to entertain grave doubts about the whole theory. And without further information about this purely hypothetical situation, I think that this is about as far as we can go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
While people are working on that, and before they come up with a solution, I think we would have to entertain grave doubts about the whole theory. An otherwise excellent analysis. This conclusion is where I think you stray. When the OPERA experiment on neutrinos first announced its results, other than the media and those who did not understand the strength of the theory, did any of you seriously think "We have to entertain grave doubts about relativity"? No. We had grave doubts about the reported results and were quite sure the details would eventually fit the theory. I submit this griffin thing is the same. It is not the theory that would be in jeopardy but, given the details yet to be determined, the nature of the griffin. Now if the OP is saying "If I come up with something to disprove evolution then is evolution disproved?" well then the mental masturbation is obvious, and frankly, inane. But if the OP is saying "This thing, this griffin, appears. Does this disprove evolution?" Given the strength of the theory, the body of evidence, the overwhelming facts ... no ... this thing has not disproved evolution. Frankly, it doesn't even give any serious challenge. No grave doubts. Like the OPERA example we would be confident that the eventual details would have to fit evolution. Either that or the thing is alien to this planet. No gods, no doubts. There are, realistically, no other choices. Yes, the theory is that strong. Keeping an open mind is one thing, but ... thank you Carl Sagan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
An otherwise excellent analysis. This conclusion is where I think you stray. When the OPERA experiment on neutrinos first announced its results, other than the media and those who did not understand the strength of the theory, did any of you seriously think "We have to entertain grave doubts about relativity"? No. Me neither. But imagine being confronted with a griffin. For fuck's sake. Biology is actually simpler than physics. An experiment suggesting that superluminal travel is possible is not quite on the same plane as finding a fucking griffin. If we had one in a zoo, then it would not be subject to the same sort of question as whether we'd accurately measured the speed of the neutrino. Either it is a fucking griffin or it is not a fucking griffin.
But if the OP is saying "This thing, this griffin, appears. Does this disprove evolution?" Given the strength of the theory, the body of evidence, the overwhelming facts ... no ... this thing has not disproved evolution. Frankly, it doesn't even give any serious challenge. No grave doubts. Well then, what would? As I have said, it's something of a judgment call. Very well then, what is the least thing that would cause you to have "grave doubts"? For me, an actual fucking griffin would do it. But what would do it for you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024