Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,138 Year: 22,174/19,786 Month: 737/1,834 Week: 237/500 Day: 65/69 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 346 of 385 (565430)
06-16-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 5:49 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
It is exactly what ERVs and shared pseudogenes demonstrate IF common ancestry is true.

You have things completely backwards.

Imagine you are a defense attorney in a murder trial. The prosecution presents DNA, fingerprints, shoe print, tire tracks, and fiber evidence all of which links your client to the murder and the scene of the crime. Would you approach the jury and proclaim that all of this evidence indicates guilt, but only if your client were truly guilty. You then proclaim that your client is not guilty, so they should just ignore all of this evidence. In fact, there is another explanation. The evidence is also consistent with an evil spirit who wants revenge on your client. You even go as far as to claim that this is a reasonable explanation, much more reasonable than your client actually committing the crime.

Does this sound reasonable to you? This is the argument you are using.

There is more than one way if interpreting the evidence. My way IS logically consistent.

We do not observe supernatural deities incorporating retroviral sequences into genomes. We do observe retroviruses inserting their genome into the host genome. We do observe that the 5' and 3' LTR's of and inserted retroviral sequence are identical at the time of insertion, but that these sequences have diverged over time in the genomes of the host. We do observe that retroviruses insert randomly among billions of bases meaning that the chances of two insertions occuring at the same base are highly improbably. We observe that the same ERV's (thousands of them) are found at the same base in multiple species. We observe that common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy.

Now please tell me how magical poofing is more logical than real observations of nature.

A hypothesis is opinion.

Bullshit. A hypothesis is a testable and verifiable statement. An opinion is not.

I do not know the answer to either of these questions. Baraminology (as we've discussed) is not a well-developed science yet - so the answer to your first question may be none. You are certainly welcome to do the research to answer your second question, you haven't given me any reason to take the time out of my day and do it.

Why haven't you done the research? You are calling for the expulsion of common ancestry for a supposedly better system (baraminology) and yet you don't even know if either is being used or is well developed. I do know. Common ancestry and evolution are immensely useful in biological research, and baraminology (which has been around for 50 years) is an abject failure. So please tell us why you want to replace a model that works with one that doesn't.

I don't wish to participate in this game. If you'd like to discuss so-called transitional fossils on a case by case basis then name one and we'll get started.

You claim that humans and apes are in separate baramins. Time to prove it. If you can't then withdraw the claim.

I don't recall you showing anything of the sort. The SIFTER research was the closest - but that was based on an ontological model and had nothing to do with common ancestry.

No, SIFTER is based on an evolutionary model that incorporates common ancestry and divergence over time. At least try to be honest about other people's work. SIFTER uses EVOLUTOINARY DISTANCE and EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS to predict protein function. It doesn't use an "ontological model", it uses an evolutionary one. And SIFTER is the tip of the iceberg. SIFTER is a program based on the methodology of phylogenomics. A search for phylogenomics and www.pubmed.com will turn up hundreds of papers that use the theory of evolution to better understand the function of genes and proteins. No one, and I mean no one, is using baraminology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:49 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 347 of 385 (565431)
06-16-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 5:34 PM


Re: Off the deep end
As I said before - there are multiple semi-coherent explanations of the data.

But only one that is consistent with the evidence. That explanation is common ancestry.

Repeating your dogma doesn't make it true.

You owe me $14.95 for a new irony meter.

Darwin really was brilliant. His observations lot of conclusions that have since been shown to be accurate. Unfortunately, not all his conclusions were accurate.

Why do you go on about Darwin? Yes, he was wrong on a few things. Science changes. Why don't we talk about the modern theory of evolution instead of Darwin's writings that are 150 years old. What next? Are you going to point to the mistakes made by Newton to refute Special Relativity?

Edited by AdminModulous, : more trimming.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:34 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 348 of 385 (565434)
06-16-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 5:34 PM


Bob (and Taq)
Hi Bob,
You have received many casual warnings regarding the Forum Guidelines. We do tend to give a lot of latitude for newcomers as long as they remain polite and civil - which I think we can all agree you have.

However - they are there as a Guideline for users on how moderators want discussions to go. Without moderation discussions become very disorganised. I've put forward a warning to keep this thread on topic, along with the many you have already received. I commend you for your efforts in some posts to request discussion be taken elsewhere, but there remains too much off topic tangents.

I have had to edit a number of your posts so that content is now hidden (not deleted) and I'm issuing a 12 Hour suspension - which most of the moderation team will probably think is merciful to the point of uselessness. But I have faith Bob - don't let me down.

Taq, please heed the topic and consider this a moderator's friendly warning I've edited some of your posts too.

And I hid the off-topic posts ruthlessly. There were tenuous links to the topic, but I'm pushing for a final round of productive, completely on-topic, discussion.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:34 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 349 of 385 (565463)
06-17-2010 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 5:49 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
I don't recall you showing anything of the sort. The SIFTER research was the closest - but that was based on an ontological model and had nothing to do with common ancestry.

The acronym SIFTER stands for Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships.

Perhaps you think that the scientists that created and named it have no idea how it works --- and that you do.

But I'd bet the other way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:49 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19102
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 350 of 385 (565480)
06-17-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by BobTHJ
06-15-2010 4:49 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
Hi Bob,

I read ahead in the thread a little bit, and I can see that you understand that Borger's ideas are only hypotheses, but you need to understand that he's only proposed them because they're consistent with his religious beliefs rather than the available evidence. You're holding out hope that if his ideas are ever tested that they'll prove out, but this isn't likely, for two reasons.

First, hypotheses not based upon real world evidence could only prove out through sheerest happenstance.

Second, and as you've noted but for the wrong reasons, for the most part creationists produce very little research. The creationist technical material is almost exclusively people like Borger misinterpreting mainstream research so as to give the appearance that it supports creationist views like a young Earth and the like.

There's no point in discussing untested hypotheses. You prefer to believe that one day they'll replace current theory, and who knows, maybe you're right. But it would be perverse to argue that the currently available evidence supports your favored hypotheses, because it does not. It not only doesn't support them, it doesn't even suggest them. It is only the influence of Genesis that suggests them.

One particularly significant difference of Borger's VIGEs from normal evolution is that it is directed. In his view evolution proceeded in a manner directed by prepositioned VIGEs rather than selected for by the environment. This doesn't explain adaptation. If evolution comes from within as directed by VIGEs with no input from the environment, how did adaptation ever occur?

It's very strange this creationist view that evolution actually *does* occur, but at a highly inflated rate over just a few thousand years. There's no evidence for this, it's just the influence of the Genesis story on creationist apologetics, but one thing's for sure, it would have produced a nested hierarchy. You have to concede as much because we agree that evolution produced all the species we see today, and evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy. There is such a thing as horizontal gene transfer between branches by various mechanisms, but the genetic contribution of descent completely overwhelms any small horizontal exchanges.

So since you accept that evolution is responsible for modern species diversity, we actually disagree on just two things: the time period, and how far back common descent goes. And genetic analysis of diverse animal genomes shows that there has been continuity of descent all the way back to way before Noah's ark and the species he took board.

In other words, it makes sense to you that chimps are related to gorillas genetically, because they both had a common ancestor aboard the ark. And it makes sense to you that chimps and gorillas are related genetically to monkeys because monkeys shared the same common ancestor. But the same types of analysis that reveal this genetic relatedness show that the common ancestor was responsible for more than just monkeys. Rodents, and lizards and fish and insects and ultimately bacteria also share a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and monkeys.

Probably others have provided a link to the tree of life derived from genetic analysis, but I'll put the image here, click on it to display at full size:

The animal kingdom is in pink, we're near the top. Select a lineage on the perimeter and trace inward toward the center, and this will take you through the branch points where lineages come together. Somewhere in these junctions you'd like to draw a line and say that it goes no further, that before that point the lineages possess no commonality and therefore had distinct origins. But there's no hint of this in the genetic analysis. If a designer is responsible for what you think are the original species, he designed in a nested hierarchy.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity slightly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 4:49 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19102
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 351 of 385 (565481)
06-17-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by BobTHJ
06-15-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Getting down to details
BobTHJ writes:

Most YEC scientists agree that the flood caused widespread tectonic shift. Mount Everest is more recent than creation.

What evidence leads you to think this?

quote:
And how do you explain both large and small creatures being found in both early and late layers? Why are clams found above mammals in some places?

Some sedimentary layers have been laid down in the "slow and gradual" way post-flood - but this thread doesn't cover geology.

We're not talking about geology. Or are you saying that baraminology is not informed by the geological context of fossils?

It's 95%+ (as in greater than 95%), and it is an educated guess, nothing more.

Nice guess. So I'll guess 100%. Prove me wrong. I hope you're not going to pull your old Abbot and Costello "third base" routine again and say "bats/dolphins."

--Percy

Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden potential thread derailment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 5:39 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19102
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 352 of 385 (565484)
06-17-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by BobTHJ
06-15-2010 7:29 PM


Re: Mutations and Information
BobTHJ writes:

I'll try to do a little better. However, as I've previously stated I base my conclusions upon the evidence I've reviewed.

You're reaching conclusions based on "the evidence I've reviewed" when you've clearly reviewed far too little evidence to be reaching any conclusions. Also, often when pressed about your evidence you respond that such and such is just a hypothesis at this point.

Mostly what you've got at this point is Genesis and hope.

Sorry...it appears I may have misrepresented this. this is the study I was thinking of. If I understand it correctly, it shows that much of the redundancy in the genome is not due to gene duplication. I was wrong in that it didn't have anything to do with frequency.

Are you sure that's the right reference? Only the abstract is available to non-subscribers of Science, and the abstract says nothing about redundancy. What I was questioning in your statement was that there was ever a prediction about the prevalence of gene duplication, let alone a revision downward.

Another poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant was: The evolutionary prediction that this type of adaptation requires large amounts of time is falsified by these studies.

I think you've been misinformed. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that predicts that bacteria should require a great deal of time to evolve. What evolution predicts is that imperfect reproduction will cause genetic changes to accumulate over time. The shorter the generations the faster genetic changes can accumulate.

Therefore, if common ancestry is true - why does it require billions of years to get from the first life to modern life?

Let's say one of your descendants a billion years from now were to ask, "Why did it take a billion years to get from Bob to me? If evolution is true, why wasn't I produced a long time ago?" What would you answer?

Maybe you want to rephrase your question?

Here's the link to a study demonstrating this. Remember: transposons are a type of semi-functional remnant VIGE in Borger's hypothesis.

Using the link you provided, please read your reference and then post a message explaining how transposons support Borger's hypothesis that the VIGE ancestors of these transposons directed the course of evolution, as opposed to selection based upon the environment. It must be true that environmentally influenced selection could not have been a factor because with accelerated evolution the environment could not have been rapidly changing at the same time. Or did ancient historians not only fail to note the rapid changes in the local flora and fauna, but also that one year they were living in a forest, the next in a desert, and the next in a tundra.

And of course the geological contradictions of how animals that evolved and went extinct since the flood came to be deeply buried beneath miles (in some cases) of sediment is off-topic in this thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 7:29 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2010 9:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19102
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 353 of 385 (565488)
06-17-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 3:12 AM


Hi Bob,

The kind of post I had in mind was one you posted shortly after mine, Message 297:

Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find.

So if creationists find evidence of a global flood 4350 years ago we're entitled to respond, "Gee, they found exactly what they set out to find!"

Or should we perhaps examine the actual evidence and address that.

Most of my posts leading up to my Message 291 were attempting to get you to notice your tendency to give short shrift to evidence and rather long shrift to unevidenced hypotheses. That context was apparently not obvious and gave the wrong impression, sorry about that.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:12 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2436 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 354 of 385 (565490)
06-17-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Percy
06-17-2010 8:43 AM


Winzeler paper
Are you sure that's the right reference? Only the abstract is available to non-subscribers of Science, and the abstract says nothing about redundancy.

I suspect that is the right reference, but it doesn't say what Bob would like it to. One big problem is that Bob seems to be conflating the 2 different concepts of redundant and non-essential genes. The paper ( Winzeler et al., 1999 ) (you don't need a subscription, but you do need to register with the Science website) discusses the effect of several hundred gene deletions and notes that most of these genes are non-essential, meaning that when they are deleted these genes do not cause a complete loss of viability. Of these non-essential genes 8.5% had more than one homologue in the genome, what we might consider gene redundancy. Of the essential genes, those whose deletion caused a complete loss of viability, only 1% had any homologues in the genome. So we can see that gene redundancy seems overrepresented in non-essential compared to essential genes, which seems to me to run totally counter to BobTHJ's claims.He seems to be trying to represent the research as if all of the non-essential genes should have duplicates to be in accord with current evolutionary theory.

It is worth noting that of those non-essential genes 40% of the deletants showed defects in growth in competetive assays, so there is an important distinction to be made between a deletion that does nothing and one that simply doesn't kill you straight away, as the essential deletions do. They don't say how many of the genes in that 40% had duplicates. They also couldn't test every functional attribute of the yeasts so there may be other environments in which some of the remaining 60% would show a phenotype.

So I really don't think this paper says what BobTHJ wants it to at all.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : Revised paper date.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 8:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 355 of 385 (565494)
06-17-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
Hi Bob,

Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God.

I cannot look at it from that perspective, because it makes no sense. That just does not follow.

If evolution were wrong and divine creation the answer to our origins, there is no reason why God's handiwork should resemble evolution. It might resemble some other system or no system at all. It might, just might, show some evidence of having been created. But no. All we see is evidence of evolution and an old Earth. I can think of no good reason why this should be true in a recently created world.

It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving.

There is no reason to claim this. No matter how biased one might be, the actual evidence remains unbiased. Starlight does not give the appearance of great age because of my biases. ERVs do not distribute themselves according to the evolutionary relatedness of their hosts because Taq wants them to. Fossils do not care what we think about them, yet they are arranged in just such a way that they always support an evolutionary explanation and they never, ever, falsify evolution.

It would take only one Precambrian rabbit to bring down our understanding of common ancestry, just one. It would be impossible to explain away or sweep under the carpet. It would revolutionise biology. It has never happened. In fact, it never will.

My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.

Are you saying that the fossils were put there by Satan? Is that what you're telling me Bob? Is this an example of the sort of supernatural explanation that you feel should replace methodological naturalism?

Can you think of an experiment or observation where we could apply this kind of rationalisation?

You haven't shown that there is any 'fact' to the matter {of feathered dinosaurs -GM}. But even if there is I'm not sure how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

It is relevant because according to most creationist lists of "kinds" birds and dinosaurs are of different kinds. These fossils - transitional fossils - show that in reality, there are intermediate forms between the two kinds, that they are related. This destroys the idea of kinds, or at the very least, forces the kinds to be so flexible that they are meaningless and so accommodating that it is ever harder to see how humans and chimps can occupy separate kinds.

To recap - I demonstrated that assumptions were made.

No you didn't. You took the evidence-based conclusions of the paper and called them assumptions in an effort to throw mud at them. Fortunately, you dismissive attitude toward science doesn't affect actual biologists.

If the statements in your rebuttal are correct then it's possible they were reasonable assumptions.

They are not assumptions at all, reasonable or otherwise. An assumption would be something taken as a founding axiom, in the absence of evidence. These findings are based upon careful scrutiny of the evidence; remember, evidence is not biased! There would be no compelling reason to allow dinosaurs to possess bird-like features in a created world. Evolution explains this, along with a host of other dino/bird similarities.

To get back where this started, if the assumptions are reasonable then Dr. Wile should have mentioned so in his post (even if he didn't believe the fossils to show feathered dinosaurs).

Yes, he should have. And, please believe me, I have only just scratched the surface of what is known about transitional dinosaur/bird fossils. There are now dozens of feathered dinosaur fossils, mostly with "fuzz", but also with well developed feathers.

Dr Wile is hand-waving away a large body of evidence as though it didn't exist, seemingly because it does not meet his biases. Meanwhile, he finds time to detail the views of fringe figures like Feduccia. This is why I would not trust Dr Wile as a source of information.

Granny writes:

Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.

BobTHJ writes:

I'm guessing you typed that without thinking. How exactly did evolutionists determine two organisms were closely related when constructing the phylogenetic tree? Oh yeah, morphological similarity. Yes, the convergence thread did show me that some cases of convergence (organisms in different parts of the tree that share a similar feature) don't have genetic similarity - but of course organisms that are close on the tree and share many features and genes - or are you disagreeing with the sacred scientific consensus?

Eh? I am slightly perplexed as to where the contradiction is supposed to be. I don't want to drift off-topic here, since we already have a thread to discuss convergence, but...

Convergence is only ever centred around a small number of traits, usually one trait. This may involve a superficial morphological similarity, but when we look closer, and look beyond superficial appearances, we see that the apparent similarities between, say, a marsupial wolf and a placental wolf, just fall away. A detailed examination of both shows more dissimilarities than similarities. Their physiology does fit the nested hierarchy, as do their genes.

By the way, as Percy has pointed out above, it doesn't matter how we construct our tree of life - genetic, morphological, whatever - we end up with pretty much the same nested hierarchy that Linnaeus observed centuries ago.

This agreement between genetic and morphological systems need not exist in a non-evolutionary world, but it does exist. It is a powerful vindication of Darwin.

Dr. Borger's indicator gene method seems promising.

Given that Borger appears to be wedded to a set of bizarre delusions about retroviruses, I would not hold my breath if I were you. By the way, I notice that you keep saying that the current position of baraminology is a hypothesis. Really? Is that it? In seventy years? A hypothesis, that's all? Frankly, that's really poor.

You misread me. I believe the Bible to be inerrant. But I'm not here to argue the inerracy of the Bible.

Understood. I misread your previous comments. You might want to rethink that one though...

Ultimately, it's down to what the evidence is telling us. Evidence is not biased. Follow the evidence and you will always be headed in the right direction. After all if you are right and the world is God's creation, then you will only be revealing the truth of his handiwork. If I am right, the evidence will show this too. I trust that you will be honest and forthright enough to do this.

BobTHJ writes:

Objective measures must be found if baraminology is to advance as a science.

BobTHJ writes:

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis

Can't you see how those two comments contradict each other? The baramin must be objective. We agree on that. But if the baramin cannot be falsified, how can it be objective? An unfalsifiable idea can never be objective; it could be true or untrue, we would have no way of knowing. What point is there in having a classification so lax that it could be changed according to whim? What purpose would it serve? Any system of taxonomy must be objective. falsifiability is a big part of that.

- the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory.

It's not. Falsifiability is a methodological principle. It need not be falsifiable in itself because it is not an attempt to describe reality; it is an attempt to refine our means of seeking knowledge. It is an axiom of our method, not a theory in itself. Falsifiability is a central plank of modern scientific method. Without it, we would have no way of testing our theories.

I would also note that you, like all creationists, seem keen to apply falsification to the ToE. What other purpose could you have in bringing up issues that you consider problematic for the ToE? I suspect that if that pesky Precambrian rabbit was found, you would be very happy indeed with the principle of falsification.

To recap, when I say that baramins must be falsifiable, I am only saying the same thing you are saying, that baramins must be based upon objective criteria. If a baraminological hypothesis did not meet those criteria, it would be falsified. Until such objective criteria are described by baraminologists though, we have no criteria upon which we might judge the worth of the idea. If we have no objective criteria, we have no way of testing the hypothesis. And with no way of testing the hypothesis, our hypothesis becomes quite useless.

Nothing can falsify a phantasm. If you want to show us the worth of baraminology, you must demonstrate that it is more than a phantasm.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 356 of 385 (565496)
06-17-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


Falsifiability
I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis

It's from Karl Popper. It's a cornerstone of the philosophy of science.

- the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory. I've posted on this previously.

It's a statement about the philosophy of science. It is not a scientific hypothesis. There is nothing contradictory here.

And, really, if you think about it, it's quite obvious. If a hypothesis isn't falsifiable then nothing is evidence for it. Really. Whatever experiment you do, whatever answer you get, the result is always the same: compatible with the hypothesis. This means no experiment, and no answer, can ever distinguish between the hypothesis being correct, or incorrect. That means that no experiment, and no answer, is ever evidence for it.

Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3339 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 357 of 385 (565499)
06-17-2010 12:14 PM


First - I apologize sincerely to everyone for straying off topic. It was not my intent to violate the forum rules, but it is my responsibility to abide by them. For my breach of etiquette I am sorry.

Second - I leave today on a four day trip and it is unlikely I will be able to post during that time. During that time I intend to re-assess my level of involvement in this forum - It is consuming a disproportionate amount of my time. I'd really like to respond to each of your posts personally (I hate to leave questions or comments unanswered), but I'm not sure that's realistic. I don't want to cease my involvement entirely as I have enjoyed our conversations and have learned a lot in the process. My goal is to find a way to participate in a limited fashion while still fairly responding to the major questions and arguments that are raised.

Thank you all - I appreciate your taking the time to discuss these matters with me.


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 358 of 385 (565545)
06-17-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


If It Quacks Like A Duck
No, of course evolution LOOKS true (at least in the big picture sense). There is a good reason for this.

Yes. There's also a reason why a duck looks like a duck.

Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God.

But this is akin to saying: "The reason this object looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck stems from an effort to explain this object without admitting that it's a magic fairy".

But you see, all the "effort" in the world can't make something look like a duck if it doesn't.

It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true.

This is a non sequitur. Just as there is no "of course" about a fairy looking exactly like a duck.

Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.

Given which, how can we know anything at all? The thing that we're looking at could be a fairy, and our "spiritual enemy" could be deceiving us into thinking that it's a duck.

When creationists find it necessary to put forward arguments that undermine the possibility of us acquiring any knowledge at all, in order to deny our knowledge about evolution in particular, I think they're on the ropes.

As for omphalism, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that God created to look like darwinism - but (see my last paragraph) darwinism is an invention to explain what God created without his incorporation. That's circular reasoning.

Or, to put it another way: "As for the idea that the fairy might be using its magic to fool us into looking like a duck, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that the fairy is taking on the guise of a duck - but (see my last paragraph) the duck is an invention to explain away the existence of the fairy. That's circular reasoning."

No, Bob, what you just did is ... actually, it's so convoluted that to call it "circular reasoning" would be to lend it a dignity that it does not in fact possess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 1713 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 359 of 385 (565547)
06-17-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
quote:
Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God. It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.

Do you think that the theory of gravity LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain god's means of keeping the planets in orbit or "why things fal"l --without invoking god? What about germ theory? Atomic theory? Heliocentrism? The notion that the earth is an oblate spheroid rather than flat? (Remember, scientific theories are the best explanations for the observed facts.)

It seems like the only scientific theories that you have problems with are the ones that conflict with your indoctrination. When you say that appearances are deceiving, do you think the devil makes the earth look flat? Do you think the devil is responsible for my perception that the earth is not spinning even though science shows that it's spinning at 1000 m.p.h.? How do you suggest we remedy these deceiving appearances? The truth is not laid out in your holy book. So far, it seems that science is the only method for separating deceiving appearances from what is actually going on. For example, it appears the sun moves across the sky each day; science shows us this is an illusion due to the fact that we are on a planet that rotates towards the sun each morning and away each night.

To a scientist, "kind" is a vague term that allows believers to change the meaning as need be to fit whatever it is they feel saved for believing in. To understand more, we use more specific terms. "Kind" is used by people who want to remain purposefully ignorant of the facts so that they can continue to believe in the story they feel "saved" for "believing in". It's not a term used by those seeking to understand the actual origin of the species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19102
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 360 of 385 (565558)
06-17-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:42 AM


BobTHJ writes:

Yes, YEC scientists did predict Neanderthal to be human - and have for some time.

Oh, is that what "Homo holobaramin" means? Human? I didn't realize you were claiming that YEC scientists had predicted Neanderthals were human. So this would be a great example of the application of baraminology. How did they apply the principles of baraminology (which you have yet to describe, so this would be a great opportunity) to make this prediction?

By the way, the genetic analyses that indicate cross breeding between Neaderthals and humans (the criteria you're using to decide they were human) also indicate that the two lineages split about 500,000 years ago. So you think scientists are 1000 times off on some things but can be trusted on the rest? What criteria are YEC's applying to make these vastly different assessments of reliability of data from these closely related studies?

Here's an AiG review of Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411):65–71, 1999. I can't access the original article without a subscription...

Sure you can, right here: The Human Genus

...but unless AiG is misrepresenting the findings the study showed H. Ergaster to be completely human...

You misunderstood John Woodmorappe's description of the article. The article argued that Home egaster *does* belong in the genus Homo, while other lineages like Homo habilis do not. It wasn't arguing that Homo egaster should be reclassified as Homo sapiens.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:42 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019