evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Why don't you start by asking us questions about what you don't understand?

Well, no, we never have structures that allow us to breathe water, but we do have pharyngeal pouches. Talk origins has this to say:

quote:

---

The pharyngeal pouches which appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos.

---

So, I guess my point is, you're both wrong.{Note from Adminnemooseus - There is also a "Gills" topic, at http://EvC Forum: Nuts! (gills again...) (Re: Human embryos have gills?) -->EvC Forum: Nuts! (gills again...) (Re: Human embryos have gills?)}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-25-2004]

I call dibs on this guy!Hx, I'm going to answer your question, but I wanted to make sure that you weren't hit with a deluge of answers to what is a very common question we get here.

...but unfortunately they're not on topic in this thread. I'm going to answer them, but if you want to discuss the answers, we can find better threads for it if you want. Just ask and we'll sort it out. Ok, wll, you have to understand something about science first, and what evolutionists are trying to do.Science isn't the process where we prove what's right and wrong. Science is the process by which we determine which model is the most accurate description of reality. That doesn't mean that the model is true in every respect; it means that it explains all the data we have and makes predictions about data we might find in the future.Evolution does that. Creationism does not. That's what we mean when we say that evolution is "true" - that's a shorthand for "evolution is an accurate description of the history of species on Earth. You're free to do that, but creationism is contradicted by much evidence. It's not an accurate description of the history of species on Earth, unlike evolution. We can't know if it's "right" or "wrong", but it's certainly inaccurate. Well, evolution is both fact and theory. The fact is, evolution has occured. The way we describe that, the way we model it as the result of processes called "natural selection" and "random mutation", is the theory of evolution.It's like the difference between a map and the territory it represents. The theory of evolution is our model of the biological reality of evolution. Yes, just like gravity is a theory (the theory of relativity), germs are a theory (germ theory of disease), and molecules are a theory (kinetic theory of gases.)Theory doesn't mean "guess" or "speculation". (If that's what we meant, we'd say "hypothesis" or "conjecture".) Theory means "explanitory model." A conjecture only becomes a theory when it's been confirmed both by repeating the observations and substantiating the predictions.

You're right that our understanding will never be complete; facts may exist but they are forever inaccessable to us. This is the conclusion of sophistry.As a result, science is not the search for facts; it's the search for models. The model is not the reality, of course; the map is not the territory. All we can access is the model; models can never be proven though they can be disproven.All models are accepted provisionally, and are rejected or modified in the face of disconfirming evidence.Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them? Why don't we talk about the models, instead, since that's all we'll ever have? Nobody's saying that ultimate truth doesn't exist; that's not a statement we can prove or disprove, and we certainly can't ever know that ultimate truth.Let's stick to the models, because that's the only thing we have. Evolution is probably a fact (but maybe it's not), but all we have to talk about is the model - the theory - of evolution.

But nobody's saying that absolute truth doesn't exist.It's just that we can't know it. The fundamental truths of the universe are not directly accessable to our minds, partially because of the nature of thought itself, and partially because sophistry cannot be refuted. It might not exist, though. That's the point of sophistry. There's no way to tell if we live in an actual reality or just a perfect simulation.But the scientific method - the search for the accurate model - works no matter if sophistry is true or not, because it doesn't purport to find the truth, just the most accurate model. Only if you wanted to prove one of them was correct.We don't do proof in science, because the question of absolutes is fundamentally unresolvable. If we waited around for the answer to that, we'd never get anywhere.But the search for the most accurate model, based on the wieght of evidence (which is not proof), works no matter what the status of absolutes is.That's why science isn't about proof. We don't prove in science the way we prove in mathematics, because if we labored under that burden of proof, we'd never get anywhere.Science is not the search for proof, or for truth. It's about constructing accurate predictive models, because that process works no matter what the status of absolutes is.So, no. You don't have to determine if absolutes exist or not in order to know that evolution is the more accurate history of life on Earth.

No, none of them are confirmable. That's why scientific models are tentative.On the other hand, they are falsifiable. We can know which ones are wrong; we can't know which ones are right. Because everything you observe about reality may not be real; it might simply be hallucination. It might be an illusion created by a demon to confuse you. It might be that you're in the Matrix.It might be any number of other things besides reality that you experience; that's why truth is inaccessable to us.I would have thought this was obvious. You don't know them, though. You think you do, but observations might prove your "facts" wrong. Much as the "fact" of the geocentricity of the Solar System was proven wrong by observation.If you think you "know" these facts to be true, you're overreaching. We tentatively accept these facts as factual because so far they've not been contradicted by observation.That's not to say they won't ever be contradicted. They might. That's why we cleave to them tentatively. Not so. Clearly, we have experiences. Just because we can't know the ultimate truth behind them doesn't mean we can't try to fit them into an explanitory framework.And ultimately, if your VCR shows you the movie you want, does it matter whether or not the VCR is really "real", or if it's just a perfect simulacrum? If the experience is the same either way? To the contrary; there's still things we can agree on. If I see an apple on the table, and you do too, that's not proof that the apple really is there - we could both be having the same unlikely hallucination, independantly - but it is pretty good reason to accept, tentatively, the conclusion that there is an apple there - with the provision that, at such time as additional data about the existence of that apple comes to light, we'll revisit our conclusion and maybe change our minds.Get it, yet? Tentative. Because we can't know for sure, we have to be tentative. Right, that's Kant's Inductive Fallacy.All inductive reasoning is fallacious, because it relies on the Fallacy of Affiring the Consequent. All of science is based on that logical fallacy. Just because something is true one hundred times, or one thousand times, or even a million times, that's still not proof that it will be true the millionth-and-one time.Because all scientific conclusions are fallacious, they cannot be accepted as proof. They can, however, be accepted as explanitory frameworks that make predictions, provided you accept them tentatively, and are prepared to revise in the light of new data.Don't make the mistake of assuming that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. There's plenty for us to do in the universe of sophistry; plenty to find out and plenty to talk about. It's just that we can't know any of it for certain. The fundamental truths of the universe are inherently inaccessable to us.

If you're concluding that, though, you're committing the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. (As well as offering a tautology with this example; without specifing what those conditions are, you're assuming what you're concluding - that under the conditions for which nitroglycerin explodes, nitroglycerin explodes. Duh.)How can we know anything for sure if our conclusions are based on fallacies? Hopefully you're going to address that point.Conclusions of science are tentative and subject to future revision due to additional data; no one's denying that a real truth exists, it's just that our models are not it, science is not it, and it can never be known. All we have are models. Math is another terrible example because all conclusions of math are tautologies, too. In fact, "1 + 1 = 2" is not true for all people in all situations; in particular, it's not true for anyone who doesn't accept the fundamental axioms of math. These axioms are not derived but assumed."1 + 1 = 2" is only true for those people who have assumed that the axioms of mathematics are true.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-13-2004 03:23 PM

for jrtjr1.Message 90 or 87, if you please; they mostly say the same thing.

Do you think that, if they changed or stopped working for an hour, no one would notice?Every time we make predictions and model behavior based on the laws of physics, we're testing them. Ok, but then, you're using the word "fact" differently than the way you started out using it; everybody knows that our models of reality - our conception of what is "factual" - is not the same thing at all as reality itself; as what is really factual.That's all we're saying. How can something be true if later, it's proven false? "True" implies eternity; you need to use a much less loaded term. We prefer "tentatively accepted."

Here's an even better idea. Why don't we find out what the facts say? Evolution isn't atheism, and the talk origins people aren't atheists. Who told you evolution was atheism? The majority of Christians accept evolution; why would they do that if it was "atheist"? Are you saying the Pope of all people is atheist? He accepts evolution. The problem is that the information at these sites is not factual.

If you did argue it, it would be a waste of your time, because it's not true.Evolution is not the most important "pillar." If atheism has any pillars at all, the most important one is also the only one - there is no evidence for the existence of God.That's it. That's atheism. Plenty of atheists support evolution, but not all of them do. (There's plenty of idiot atheists, like the Raelians.) Yes. As I said, most Christians are evolutionists.

I don't quite understand. Were you asked for the evidence, or for "physical proof of the evidence"? I don't understand what that would be.

Yes, I'm really asking, because I didn't understand. You generally write well enough that I didn't even think of chalking it up to unclear writing; I assumed you really meant to say "proof of evidence", which I didn't understand.I mean, if it's the evidence you want, we'll get into it (if you like, in another thread probably). If it's the "proof of evidence" that you want, we need to know what that is first.

How would you know? What makes a mosquito a mosquito? Of what "fundamental" do you speak? How would you know if they were "fundamentally" the same or not? You do know that we abandoned species essentialism sometime in the 19th century, right?