Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 53 (9184 total)
 4 online now: Newest Member: paulwilliam Post Volume: Total: 918,373 Year: 5,630/9,624 Month: 36/619 Week: 25/47 Day: 4/4 Hour: 3/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Biological Evolution

# Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023

 Message 331 of 699 (915272) 02-12-2024 6:02 AM Reply to: Message 330 by PaulK02-12-2024 5:57 AM

quote:
Taq did indeed answer that. And then you went off on your rabbit trail trying to discredit the answer.
Okay so lets get this straighten out here.
Do you, like Taq, think that the probability of an observation being made, given the assuptions of a hypothesis, is the same as the probability of the assumptions being true or not, given the observations?
Prob(observations | hypothesis) = Prob(hypothesis | observations) ???
Tell me, yes or no. Then we can talk and see if you are even capable of understanding what is at the core of scientific testing.
Because Prob(observations | hypothesis) is what we get from testing, which in case of the coin example with ten times tails is 1/1024 (p-value).
And we need to know the probability of the hypothesis to be true if we want to claim anything about the level of doubt for the hypothesis. Which in the case of the coin example is, that we have a fair coin, and in the case of Taqs data, that humans and non-human primates share common ancestors. And this probability is not the p-value, unlike what Taq claimed.
So explain to me, how is all this irrelevant?

 This message is a reply to: Message 330 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2024 5:57 AM PaulK has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 332 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2024 6:17 AM sensei has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 (1)
 Message 332 of 699 (915273) 02-12-2024 6:17 AM Reply to: Message 331 by sensei02-12-2024 6:02 AM

quote:
Do you, like Taq, think that the probability of an observation being made, given the assuptions of a hypothesis, is the same as the probability of the assumptions being true or not, given the observations?
As I already pointed out - Message 284 - that is not what Taq claimed. Maybe you should try paying attention?
In Message 153 Taq’s actual claim is:
The often used p value in science refers to the chances that a random set of data will produce a false positive.
This is rather obviously relevant to the claimed confidence in common ancestry and also obviously not addressed by your argument.

 This message is a reply to: Message 331 by sensei, posted 02-12-2024 6:02 AM sensei has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 348 by sensei, posted 02-12-2024 7:32 PM PaulK has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9546
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8

 (1)
 Message 333 of 699 (915274) 02-12-2024 6:31 AM Reply to: Message 325 by sensei02-12-2024 5:28 AM

sensei writes:
Wrong answer, same as Taq. But at least you tried and understood the question it seems.
In normal discussions with normal human beings when that kind of statement is made it's normally followed by an explanation of the error being made.
But you're not normal are you? You can't even tell us in any comprehensible way what your point is. I'm now assuming that you don't have one and what's more, you know it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

 This message is a reply to: Message 325 by sensei, posted 02-12-2024 5:28 AM sensei has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003

 (2)
 Message 334 of 699 (915275) 02-12-2024 9:29 AM Reply to: Message 12 by K.Rose02-06-2024 5:39 PM

One of my undergraduate textbooks says this:
Evolution in the process of biological change by means of which different types of organisms have inhabited the Earth at different times. A common definition used by biologists is 'any cumulative change in the heritable characteristics of species or populations from generation to generation, or over longer periods. Darwin used the wonderful succinct phrase 'descent with modification': descent from an ancestor and modification of biological features with time.
Which is about as good a definition as you will find. Probably it will not satisfy you, and it certainly isn't handed out from on high by some authority. It's just what the team writing that book agreed on.
So let me ask you why you think there should there be a definition of evolution? And why would there be an "authority" approving such a definition? Who would want this, and why? Who would such a definition be for? Scientists don't need it for anything.
I suspect that what you are thinking of as "evolution" is actually the wide range of varied theories, hypotheses, and facts that collectively form the broad fields of evolutionary research, genetics, and palaeontology - and many others beside. Evolution is still a field of active research with many details still be discovered, and with many details over which current opinion is divided.

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by K.Rose, posted 02-06-2024 5:39 PM K.Rose has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 364 by K.Rose, posted 02-12-2024 8:04 PM Dr Jack has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22725
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 (3)
 Message 335 of 699 (915276) 02-12-2024 10:16 AM Reply to: Message 315 by K.Rose02-11-2024 5:48 PM

K.Rose in Message 315 writes:
Scientific proof is something else entirely.
Though the term is often used in an informal sense, there really isn't any such thing as scientific proof. Everything in science is tentative. All that can be done is increase the level of confidence that something is likely true. At some point a consensus develops around a set of ideas and explanations and a theory is born, one that is still tentative and remains open to change in light of new evidence or insights.
Scientific certainty is an erroneous claim you consistently make. Perhaps you should join a thread where we can discuss tentativity and why it's present in all science.
Until you can prove something through repeated demonstration you have an argument that is indeterminate - the yes/no urgency isn't there.
In science there is never any "yes/no". It would be better to think of accepted science as "very probably yes but always keep in the back of your mind that it may be wrong."
Look at the Standard Model in particle physics, one of the most successful theories of all time, yet a huge scientific contingent is convinced that it is very likely wrong in some ways or at a minimum incomplete. They have good reasons for thinking this, things like the lack of anti-matter and the presence of dark matter.
Evolutionary Theory is mired in this indeterminate stage.
To the extent this is true of evolutionary theory it is true of all scientific theory. You appear to be aghast at what science really is.
Discussing the evidence at a DNA level is pointless because 99% of the population that is aware of evolution is thinking at the macroevolution level: How did land creatures turn into whales, how did apelike creatures evolve into humans, etc. These are the big questions of evolution.
This "big question" has already been answered: descent with modification combined with natural selection.
If you're looking for the details of which mutations occurred when and spread through a population in response to which selection pressures, we do not know. But though we also don't know the specifics of how the planets of our solar system formed and took their current orbits we are nonetheless highly certain it happened through the laws of physics. In the same way, we are just as highly certain that the species of our planet took their current form through a process of descent with modification combined with natural selection.
What you're doing on the topic of evolution would be identical to saying to an astronomer, "You don't know how Pluto achieved its orbit, and that throws all your theories of astrophysics into question." Given that we've put men on the moon that would be pretty ridiculous, right? In light of this, do you think telling them, "You could be wrong," would be viewed as a serious argument? Or try, "The moon landings were faked."
This is similar to saying to evolutionary biologists, "You don't know which whales mated with which other whales with which mutations to produce which changes throws all your theories about evolution into question." Given that we can analyze DNA and RNA down to the nucleotide level, manipulate DNA at the nucleotide level using CRISPR, produce vaccines based on virus RNA, breed and/or genetically engineer crops and livestock, and analyze DNA to produce nested phylogenetic trees, that would be just as ridiculous, right? Or you could try, "It's all just a conspiracy, none of it is true."
Consider these questions:
1. What was/were the initial lifeform(s), i.e., what organism(s) are at the root of the evolutionary tree?
That isn't known, but there is great confidence that it was a single-celled organism.
2. How did the eyeball evolve? How did all of the eyeball sub-components develop concurrently through random mutation to eventually create such a profoundly useful feature? Without these sub-components working in tandem the eyeball would be entirely useless and would be naturally de-selected.
Specifically how, like which mutations when? We don't know.
But generally how? A mutation might be measured along a continuum from highly deleterious to neutral to highly beneficial. The more beneficial a mutation the more likely it would be to spread through a population and become fixed. Most mutations are SNP's (single nucleotide polymorphism, which is replacement of a single nucleotide with another) and cause only minute changes or no apparent changes at all.
There's a great deal of variation in vision. You undoubtedly know people who even though their eyes can focus perfectly they can not make out as much detail as you. Or maybe that person is you. In any case, this is due to normal variation within the human population of the density of cones and rods on the retina. The greater the density the greater the visual acuity and the lower that second number. 20/20 is considered normal, 20/18 very good, 20/15 incredible, and 20/10 incredibly rare and also incredibly beneficial to athletes in certain sports. Ted Williams and Barry Bonds had 20/10 vision. There are other aspects of vision that can be beneficial, such as stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity.
These variable traits of vision are due to evolutionary processes and can be selected for in a given population. Vision is more important to certain ways of life, and it is common to find that the average visual acuity is much higher in certain primitive tribes who still have a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
3. In the cardiovascular system which developed first - The organs that required oxygen, the blood that carried the oxygen, the lungs that oxygenated the blood, or the heart that pumped the blood?
4. Any number of unique features, like the chameleon's tongue, whose development through gradual mutation defies comprehension?
I realize you've probably heard these all before.
And we realize you've asked all these before and have heard the same answers before, and we're wondering why some creationists do this, going from board to board getting blown up by the same points over and over again.
I suspect there are no definitive answers,...
Unlike religion, it is considered bad form within science to provide answers in the absence of sufficient evidence.
...and I suspect the answers that do exist are riddled with "might have", "could have", "potentially", etc.
Questions can always be asked for which there is insufficient evidence for an answer. That such questions exist doesn't invalidate what we do know.
Within these indefinite answers is where the great evolutionary leap of faith occurs.
If you are aware of any evidence that some scientific process other than evolution produced the diversity of life we see today, please tell us what it is. It wouldn't be correct to say that it is a mere assumption that, just like today, there has been selection of imperfectly reproduced life since the beginning of life, because all the evidence we have supports this. This is the same as some other sciences, such as astronomy and cosmology that believe the laws of physics in the past were the same as today, and all the evidence they have supports this. Or like geology that assumes that the same processes acting on our planet today, like sedimentation and erosion, uplift and subsidence, were also operating in the past.
Or as James Hutton said, "The present is the key to the past." However things happen today, that's how they also happened in all the days that went before.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 315 by K.Rose, posted 02-11-2024 5:48 PM K.Rose has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 340 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-12-2024 12:18 PM Percy has replied Message 341 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2024 12:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied Message 365 by K.Rose, posted 02-12-2024 8:05 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22725
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 336 of 699 (915277) 02-12-2024 10:22 AM Reply to: Message 323 by PaulK02-12-2024 1:52 AM

PaulK writes:
Or, for another comparison we don’t know when or where Jesus was born, nor do we know much of his ancestry. But no sensible person concludes that Jesus didn’t exist based on those facts.
I just want to go on record as considering myself a sensible person, and there are other people who I think would say that I seem to be a sensible person.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 323 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2024 1:52 AM PaulK has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 337 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2024 10:42 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 337 of 699 (915278) 02-12-2024 10:42 AM Reply to: Message 336 by Percy02-12-2024 10:22 AM

Then - if you conclude that Jesus didn’t exist - I hope that you have more than just those two facts.
And, The Buddha’s dates of birth and death are even more obscure, so I suppose you have to deny his existence, too.

 This message is a reply to: Message 336 by Percy, posted 02-12-2024 10:22 AM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 338 by Percy, posted 02-12-2024 10:47 AM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22725
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 338 of 699 (915279) 02-12-2024 10:47 AM Reply to: Message 337 by PaulK02-12-2024 10:42 AM

I probably shouldn't have commented - I don't want to change the topic.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 337 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2024 10:42 AM PaulK has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007

 Message 339 of 699 (915283) 02-12-2024 11:51 AM Reply to: Message 317 by K.Rose02-11-2024 6:22 PM

Hi K.Rose,
Unfortunately, bacterial mutations are still bacteria
That is fortunate for the ToE. That is what the ToE actually predicts. If we observed say, a prokaryote giving rise to a non-prokaryote, that would falsify the ToE. By the same token, if we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog, that would falsify the ToE.
and statistical organization of microbiological data does not demonstrate a macroevolutionary process
Is there some reason why microbes can't undergo macroevolution? Macroevolution only means evolution at or above species level. It doesn't mean "evolution of things that are big".
...my quest for understanding evolutionary theory...
A quest! How grand. What exactly has this quest consisted of so far? Does it include any formal education on the subject of biology at all?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

 This message is a reply to: Message 317 by K.Rose, posted 02-11-2024 6:22 PM K.Rose has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 366 by K.Rose, posted 02-12-2024 8:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4564
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9

 (2)
 Message 340 of 699 (915285) 02-12-2024 12:18 PM Reply to: Message 335 by Percy02-12-2024 10:16 AM

Percy in Message 335 writes:
Though the term is often used in an informal sense, there really isn't any such thing as scientific proof. Everything in science is tentative. All that can be done is increase the level of confidence that something is likely true. At some point a consensus develops around a set of ideas and explanations and a theory is born, one that is still tentative and remains open to change in light of new evidence or insights.
He talks funny too...lifeforms, when everyone else including all the biologists I have known and worked with all use "species" and "populations" as the base taxonomic level. All this "give birth to a wholly different lifeform" nonsense is just shorthand for dogs giving birth to porkypines or some other wholly different lifeform.
And it's like he expects all the science performed over the past 40 years has to be re-validated, in three sentences, covering all observations and data collected, oh and with certainty and error bars, as a preface to any specific supporting evidence that we reference.
These guys are really hard to communicate with. This is a strange pathology when you examine it, they demand that we share our knowledge with them, when we do they ignore it and demand we share what we know with them again...
Next we are going to have to explain over and over that "macroevolution is not some separate process" in addition to descent with modification and natural selection. When speciation occurs the resulting offspring species are not "wholly different life forms", instead they are almost identical, with only a few differences that become barriers to reproduction. Once interbreeding between the populations dwindles or ceases altogether, mutations accumulate in each separate population leading to increasing morphological differences. Nowhere in the speciation process does some mysterious, undefined, macroevolutionary process occur, instead it is just the continuing descent with modification and natural selection.
K. Rose seems to be completely unaware of just how much scrutiny scientists give to every aspect of this process of biological evolution. They record and report their observations primarily because of inborn curiosity, but also in the hopes of making a great discovery that stands out among the millions of more mundane observations. The probability that a major unknown process, "macroevolution," would remain undetected, given the level of scrutiny over the past 150+ years, is incredibly low.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

 This message is a reply to: Message 335 by Percy, posted 02-12-2024 10:16 AM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 343 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2024 1:23 PM Tanypteryx has replied Message 346 by Percy, posted 02-12-2024 2:48 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 341 of 699 (915289) 02-12-2024 12:55 PM Reply to: Message 335 by Percy02-12-2024 10:16 AM

Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
Scientific certainty is an erroneous claim you consistently make.
Percy I think you need to qualify that statement as I believe there are many things that are scientific certainties and Marvels.
I for one am a scientific marvel. I have been wearing glasses since the comment was four eyes. Actually since I was nine. I got my first complete knee implant in January of 2000 and a partial in my left knee in 2001 which is still working today. My first implant lasted 16 years and from 3 weeks after surgery I was able to do a days construction work 6 days a week for that 16 years. The revision didn't work so good because of my age.
I got a couple of steel plates in my left fore arm you would not want me to hit you with.
If it had not been for science, I would have probably spent the last 23 years in a wheelchair.
Because of science we have been able to put a man on the moon.
But when it comes to creation and the beginning to exist scientist will never find the answer to that problem as they are looking in all the wrong places.
Einstein identified himself as a Pantheist, as he believed the universe was God. I have been accused of being a pantheist right after I started posting here. But I don't believe God is the universe but I believes He holds it together like science believes dark matter holds it together and dark energy is causing the acceleration of expansion.
Percy writes:
In science there is never any "yes/no".
Sure there is just not about how life or the universe began to exist.
All of my body parts including a stent in my right artery about 2 " from my heart, that I forgot to mention earlier, were created in a lab.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 335 by Percy, posted 02-12-2024 10:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 342 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2024 1:08 PM ICANT has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9383
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9

 (1)
 Message 342 of 699 (915290) 02-12-2024 1:08 PM Reply to: Message 341 by ICANT02-12-2024 12:55 PM

irrelevant to the point Percy made.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

 This message is a reply to: Message 341 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2024 12:55 PM ICANT has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 345 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2024 1:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 343 of 699 (915291) 02-12-2024 1:23 PM Reply to: Message 340 by Tanypteryx02-12-2024 12:18 PM

Hi Tanypteryx,
Tanypteryx writes:
All this "give birth to a wholly different lifeform" nonsense is just shorthand for dogs giving birth to porkypines or some other wholly different lifeform.
All living creatures, mankind, animals, plants and fungi are lifeforms.
If you need an explanation of those just ask.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 340 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-12-2024 12:18 PM Tanypteryx has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 344 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-12-2024 1:28 PM ICANT has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4564
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9

 Message 344 of 699 (915292) 02-12-2024 1:28 PM Reply to: Message 343 by ICANT02-12-2024 1:23 PM

ICANT in Message 343 writes:
Tanypteryx in Message 340 writes:
All this "give birth to a wholly different lifeform" nonsense is just shorthand for dogs giving birth to porkypines or some other wholly different lifeform.
All living creatures, mankind, animals, plants and fungi are lifeforms.
If you need an explanation of those just ask.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

 This message is a reply to: Message 343 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2024 1:23 PM ICANT has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 387 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2024 9:56 AM Tanypteryx has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 345 of 699 (915293) 02-12-2024 1:41 PM Reply to: Message 342 by Theodoric02-12-2024 1:08 PM

Theodoric
You are irrelevant!
Percy writes:
Scientific certainty is an erroneous claim
I gave 4 examples of scientific Certainties.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 This message is a reply to: Message 342 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2024 1:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)