Jump to content


Photo

Darwin's Experiments


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 August 2015 - 07:24 AM

Scientific theory,  systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

 

Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

 

http://www.britannic...ientific-theory

 

 

 

Ok so if a scientific theory is based on laws or observed experiments... Then what were the laws or experiments Darwin used in order to establish his theory of evolution?

IF there were no experiments then could we conclude that his theory wasn't a scientific theory, rather just a theory of the mind, aka his explanation for what he observed which he himself thought was logical.

 

 

 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#2 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 August 2015 - 08:10 AM

Scientific theory,  systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

 

Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

 

http://www.britannic...ientific-theory

 

 

 

Ok so if a scientific theory is based on laws or observed experiments... Then what were the laws or experiments Darwin used in order to establish his theory of evolution?

IF there were no experiments then could we conclude that his theory wasn't a scientific theory, rather just a theory of the mind, aka his explanation for what he observed which he himself thought was logical.

 

 

I've been asking these 2 Questions for over a year (well over 500 directly)....and nobody can give me an "actual" Answer:

 

 
1. Please Define the theory of evolution......?
 
2. Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING evolution as a viable Scientific Theory....?
 
I had 2-3 define it as "CHANGE" lol.  ~ 3 give the "Change in Allele Frequency" Hammer meet c4 Fire response.
 
ONLY one ventured into question #2, a PhD Microbiologist ( a Real One) .....
 
"IF "Darwinian evolution" explains the diversity of life forms on this planet, THEN we would expect a *common universally understood genetic "code" amongst organisms in any putative "lineage". 
:funny:
 
This is from the most Scientifically Valid "theory" the world has ever known... forever and ever.  
 
Scientifically, "it" and Humpty Dumpty are on equal footing.
 
regards

  • Mike Summers likes this

#3 cyara

cyara

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:please delete this account
  • Interests:please delete this account
  • Age: 99
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • please delete this account

Posted 30 August 2015 - 12:30 PM


Ok so if a scientific theory is based on laws or observed experiments... Then what were the laws or experiments Darwin used in order to establish his theory of evolution?

 

pretty much every fossil Darwin examined.

 

for example

 

idea: fossil X is related to known animal A

experiment : examining fossil

Does the experiment support the idea?

-yes : theory created

-no  : bad idea (the fossil is not related)

 

-> continue scientific methodology



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 August 2015 - 01:03 PM

Scientific theory, ..... A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

....

Ok so if a scientific theory is based on laws or observed experiments... Then what were the laws or experiments Darwin used in order to establish his theory of evolution?

IF there were no experiments then could we conclude that his theory wasn't a scientific theory, rather just a theory of the mind, aka his explanation for what he observed which he himself thought was logical.

I think you missed one key word...  From your comment: (1) careful observation OR experiments (emphasis Pi's)....

 

Example, Cepheid variable stars are an important step in the cosmological distance ladder.  No one has ever done an experiment on a Cepheid variable star.  They're far too big and much too distant for us to perform experiments on them.  What was done instead, was to make careful observations, then apply those observations to objects with known distances established by parallax.  After doing this, we are able to establish the relationship between the brightness of a Cepheid star and its distance.  Notice, there is no "experiment" performed .... only observations (and the application of the Inverse Square Law).

 

Darwin's theory, and many others, are based on "careful observation," not "observed experiments."


  • StormanNorman, Goku and mrchopper like this

#5 Giovanni

Giovanni

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 23
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • N/A

Posted 30 August 2015 - 02:51 PM

pretty much every fossil Darwin examined.

 

for example

 

idea: fossil X is related to known animal A

experiment : examining fossil

Does the experiment support the idea?

-yes : theory created

-no  : bad idea (the fossil is not related)

 

-> continue scientific methodology

 

Did Darwin, or anyone that supports universal common ancestry, conduct any experiments or otherwise observe a chain of transitional fossils that elaborate the exact steps for "macroevolution" to happen for us to claim that accumulation of "microevolution" is simply "macroevolution"? If the answer is yes, please post them here.

 

P.S a proof from the laws of genetics is required for the claim "macroevolution is simply microevolution over time" to be correct as we cannot base the claim solely on the fossil record, since the fossil record has nothing to do with genetics/microevolution/macroevolution, but rather the "history" of creatures; if the claim is based solely on the fossil record, then it's a speculation, and not a fact; yet we can still assume that macroevolution did indeed happen if a chain of transitional fossils for a specific "evolving" creature were observed suggesting so.


  • gilbo12345 and Bonedigger like this

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 August 2015 - 05:09 PM

pretty much every fossil Darwin examined.

 

for example

 

idea: fossil X is related to known animal A

experiment : examining fossil

Does the experiment support the idea?

-yes : theory created

-no  : bad idea (the fossil is not related)

 

-> continue scientific methodology

 

Giovanni has hit the nail on the head, though I will add my 2 cents :)
 

Firstly, Cyara I don't think you understand what an experiment is if you think mere observation of something after-the-fact is an experiment.

Experiments require a dependent and an independent variable and a hypothesis. Additionally an experiment is a test conducted to determine cause-effect relationships. How is observing something after-the-fact demonstrating cause and effect? Since you're not determining the cause by any means or test, you're just assuming "evolution did it".

Assume that I have a billion dollars in my bank account, how does observing my billion dollars after-the-fact determine the methods of where my billion dollars came from?
 

 

I think you missed one key word...  From your comment: (1) careful observation OR experiments (emphasis Pi's)....

 

Example, Cepheid variable stars are an important step in the cosmological distance ladder.  No one has ever done an experiment on a Cepheid variable star.  They're far too big and much too distant for us to perform experiments on them.  What was done instead, was to make careful observations, then apply those observations to objects with known distances established by parallax.  After doing this, we are able to establish the relationship between the brightness of a Cepheid star and its distance.  Notice, there is no "experiment" performed .... only observations (and the application of the Inverse Square Law).

 

Darwin's theory, and many others, are based on "careful observation," not "observed experiments."

 

The problem Piasan is the "careful observation" evolutionists make isn't conducive to their claims of evolution or common ancestry, as I explained above it is assumed as a cause. Where does it say in the quote above that assumptions are acceptable?

Where in the scientific method does it state a step that allows one to assume a hypothesis is correct?

I believe that the "careful observation" was added there as a means to include natural experiments and field trials since these aren't controlled like lab experiments are...

Do you think "careful observation" includes after-the-fact observation, and then assuming what a cause would be?

 



#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 August 2015 - 05:36 PM

From the responses it seems that apparently making after-the-fact observations and then assuming a cause is science. IF this is the case then why isn't Creationism deemed science since its the same thing?....

Perhaps this is the fabled "atheist double standard" ;)



#8 I am the Batman

I am the Batman

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Houston, Texas

Posted 31 August 2015 - 01:36 AM

Scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.
A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

http://www.britannic...ientific-theory



Ok so if a scientific theory is based on laws or observed experiments... Then what were the laws or experiments Darwin used in order to establish his theory of evolution?

IF there were no experiments then could we conclude that his theory wasn't a scientific theory, rather just a theory of the mind, aka his explanation for what he observed which he himself thought was logical.


Scientific theories are basically the same as scientific laws, except for theories include an explanation of why something is the way that it is.

For example, the law of gravitational force is accepted as true because we can observe it. But we can't explain why or how it works. That's why it isn't a theory. We cannot theorize on how or why it works because we don't have a clue. It should be much stronger.

The theory of evolution follows from the law of natural selection, which is an observed fact in all different types of life. It is a theory because we have an explanation for how it works

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2015 - 05:51 AM

Scientific theories are basically the same as scientific laws, except for theories include an explanation of why something is the way that it is.

 

Not really.
 

 

 

Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so....

   

LAW 

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

 2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

 3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

 

 THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

 

http://science.kenne...3380theory.html

I am asking for the experiments Darwin performed in order to create his "theory", since each time I ask this question I've yet to hear of an experiment he performed.... Which means his "theory" wasn't a scientific theory since scientific theories are founded on supported hypotheses, hypothesies supported by experiment.

 

 

For example, the law of gravitational force is accepted as true because we can observe it. But we can't explain why or how it works. That's why it isn't a theory. We cannot theorize on how or why it works because we don't have a clue. It should be much stronger.

 

Gravity is BOTH a law and a theory ;)

 

 

The theory of evolution follows from the law of natural selection, which is an observed fact in all different types of life. It is a theory because we have an explanation for how it works

 

Could you explain this "law of natural selection" and how it pertains to evolution?

What experiments did Darwin perform in order to support this law?



#10 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 31 August 2015 - 06:27 AM

Did Darwin, or anyone that supports universal common ancestry, conduct any experiments or otherwise observe a chain of transitional fossils that elaborate the exact steps for "macroevolution" to happen for us to claim that accumulation of "microevolution" is simply "macroevolution"? If the answer is yes, please post them here.

 

P.S a proof from the laws of genetics is required for the claim "macroevolution is simply microevolution over time" to be correct as we cannot base the claim solely on the fossil record, since the fossil record has nothing to do with genetics/microevolution/macroevolution, but rather the "history" of creatures; if the claim is based solely on the fossil record, then it's a speculation, and not a fact; yet we can still assume that macroevolution did indeed happen if a chain of transitional fossils for a specific "evolving" creature were observed suggesting so.

 

At Darwin's time, the fossil record and the general trends therein were already coming to light including the Cambrian, Pre-Cambrian, and many other layers.  So, even before Darwin, scientists were postulating that life had transitioned or evolved through the ages ....again, just based on the general trends in the fossil record.  But, no one could explain the why, e.g., what are the mechanisms that would drive such changes.  And, of course, Darwin came up with the first viable explanation in the form of natural selection.

 

I don't think Darwin performed any experiments, per say.  I think he was more on the observational side of things.  As far as chain of transitional fossils showing micro to macro, I guess it depends on what you would except.  My favorite example is us, e.g., humans.  We have several fossils from Australopithecus -> Homo Habilis -> Homo Ergaster -> Homo Erectus -> Homo Heidelbergensis -> Homo Sapiens.  And, these fossils starting from about 3.5 million years ago fall in a logical order and show clear transitions of multiple traits, e.g., cranium size, etc.  Now, is this one straight branch or are there multiple branches?  There was probably more than one branch based on the recent Neanderthal DNA sequencing, but we need more evidence, e.g., more hominid fossils.



#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2015 - 08:02 AM

At Darwin's time, the fossil record and the general trends therein were already coming to light including the Cambrian, Pre-Cambrian, and many other layers.  So, even before Darwin, scientists were postulating that life had transitioned or evolved through the ages ....again, just based on the general trends in the fossil record.

 

Postulating = Assumed... So people assumed transitions "evolved" through the ages... Any evidence that this was a common thought among scientists, or that it was merely Darwin's grandfather's idea.

What general trend in the fossil record? Darwin admits in his book as to the gaps in the supposed "fossil record" which falsifies his "theory"... He assumes that future evidence will fill in the gaps, (argument to the future logical fallacy).

 

And, of course, Darwin came up with the first viable explanation in the form of natural selection.

 

So this was an explanation of what people assumed occurred in the past... Doesn't that mean it is dependent on whether one makes those assumptions about the past?

 

How was this explanation viable? What experiments or evidence did he use?

 

 

I don't think Darwin performed any experiments, per say.  I think he was more on the observational side of things.

 

So it was like pre-scientific method "science" where one observes something and then construes an "explanation" which he / she feels is the most logical, (this is opinion-based by the way).

 

So how would it stand by today's standards? I mean without all the assumptions that "evolution did it"

 

 

As far as chain of transitional fossils showing micro to macro, I guess it depends on what you would except.

 

Did you mean "accept"?

Interpretations of fossils under the assumption that "evolution did it" isn't scientific... Lest you can provide an experiment that supports such a claim? Rather than just assuming...



#12 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 31 August 2015 - 08:30 AM

 

So this was an explanation of what people assumed occurred in the past... Doesn't that mean it is dependent on whether one makes those assumptions about the past?

 

How was this explanation viable? What experiments or evidence did he use?

 

 

this....

 

"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology."
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

 

 

So it was like pre-scientific method "science" where one observes something and then construes an "explanation" which he / she feels is the most logical, (this is opinion-based by the way).

 

 

Yes....

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

 

 

So how would it stand by today's standards? I mean without all the assumptions that "evolution did it"

 

 

A Textbook Begging The Question Fallacy

 

 

Interpretations of fossils under the assumption that "evolution did it" isn't scientific

 

 

Yes it is, if you use: the Angle of the Shovel, Eyelids, or your Imagination as the Independent Variables.

 

 

hope it helps   ;)



#13 mrchopper

mrchopper

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Manchester

Posted 31 August 2015 - 08:37 AM

The premise of this argument is flawed. Basically Gilbo, unless we can directly test/witness large-scale evolution through experiments, its not a theory, its just speculation. The problem arises because the earth and life actually are billions of years old Gilbo, and we must infer what has happened in the past. Thankfully, our reality is apparently objective, that is, it doesn't seem to run "alternative programs" at the same time, meaning we can develop scientific explanations for things.

 

Other than the fact that this tenous argument would also apply to any alternative to evolution, (HOW do you have the balls to ignore this), we have seen as much evolution as we would reasonably expect to see, including the evolution of new species. We are positing that the forces reponsible for this must also explain the adaptive radiation apparent in the fossil record - because, until we know better, we cannot detect any other forces in biology.

 

We see, in the lab and field:

 

Natural selection

Genetic drift,

Adaptation

Speciation

 

There may also be longer-term evolutionary mechanisms we cannot detect in a short time frame, but that is basically it.

 

We do not see:

 

God choosing designs

Creation of new species by god

Adaptation and shaping of organisms by god



#14 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 31 August 2015 - 09:40 AM

Postulating = Assumed... So people assumed transitions "evolved" through the ages... Any evidence that this was a common thought among scientists, or that it was merely Darwin's grandfather's idea.

 

In this context, postulated = inferred.

 

What general trend in the fossil record?

 

Single cell life -> marine life -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> birds & mammals over many, many geologic layers.  And, of course, humans at the very, very top of the fossil / geologic record.

 

Darwin admits in his book as to the gaps in the supposed "fossil record" which falsifies his "theory"... He assumes that future evidence will fill in the gaps, (argument to the future logical fallacy).

 

Darwin predicted that many of the gaps in the fossil record (which again people were well aware of because they were already identifying key trends within the record).  And some have and some haven't.  I don't believe Darwin thought his theory was absolute fact, gilbo; in fact, he outlined several possible future discoveries that could potentially falsify the theory.  So, I don't think he was "assuming" it; but, I do think he felt that the observable evidence supported his theory making it a viable and logical inference based on the evidence at hand.

 

So this was an explanation of what people assumed occurred in the past... Doesn't that mean it is dependent on whether one makes those assumptions about the past?

 

How was this explanation viable? What experiments or evidence did he use?

 

Like I said to G, I'm not aware of Darwin conducting any experiments.  However, he did conduct many environmental observations including those of species with unique adaptations that help them survive in their particular environmental niche.

 

So it was like pre-scientific method "science" where one observes something and then construes an "explanation" which he / she feels is the most logical, (this is opinion-based by the way).

 

Isn't that what you do with physical evidence, e.g., you try to explain that evidence?  Now, if the evidence is such that different people derive completely different conclusions from the evidence, then you would probably won't be able to develop and very solid or convincing theory.  However, in cases where the evidence is consistent across multiple lines of inquiry, then a strong theory with some statistical significance is more likely.

 

 

So how would it stand by today's standards? I mean without all the assumptions that "evolution did it"

 

No different.  How would you suggest we investigate the past and all the evidence left behind by the past? 

 

 

 

 

Did you mean "accept"?

Interpretations of fossils under the assumption that "evolution did it" isn't scientific... Lest you can provide an experiment that supports such a claim? Rather than just assuming...

 

 

Yes, I did ....thank you. 

 

I think you are conflating inference and assumption.  Evolution was originally logically inferred from the record of life contained in the rocks starting with the very oldest rocks containing life (only very simple life and nothing else); to the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian where life began to diversify; to the first jawless fish to the first jawed fish; to the Carboniferous with first amphibians followed by the first amniotes (including the first synapsids); to the Mesozoic Era and the rise of the dinosaurs; to the Cenozioc Era and the rise of the mammals; and finally to the very most recent layers that contain modern mammals including humans.

 

Looking at that, gilbo, I don't see how you can't at least infer (not assume) the possibility that life went through various transitions throughout the eons and eventually made it to where we are today.  Now, understand, that does NOT make it fact; but it is clearly a possibility based on a logical inference from the evidence.



#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 August 2015 - 11:09 AM

The premise of this argument is flawed. Basically Gilbo, unless we can directly test/witness large-scale evolution through experiments, its not a theory, its just speculation.

 

I'm glad you admit this... So I guess all the claims of "inference" are false then since an inference requires evidence in order to infer from. If evolution is speculation then it IS assumptions which is what I stated previously.
 

 

The problem arises because the earth and life actually are billions of years old Gilbo, and we must infer what has happened in the past.

 

"billions of years old"... really... I'd love to see the experiments that demonstrate that, (actual experiments... NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED).

 

Yet you admitted its speculation?.... How can you infer from a speculation? Or are you using the word infer to cover-up the fact that you are ASSUMING...

I'd love to see the premises you are "inferring" from and how they relate to the concept of evolution and common descent....
 

 

Thankfully, our reality is apparently objective, that is, it doesn't seem to run "alternative programs" at the same time, meaning we can develop scientific explanations for things.

 

Funny that... Its the reason why science was born from belief in God, the belief that the universe is ordered under God's providence..... I always find it amusing how many people don't know science's theistic beginnings.... Go check it out if you don't believe me.

 

 

Other than the fact that this tenous argument would also apply to any alternative to evolution, (HOW do you have the balls to ignore this),

 

Why do you claim I ignore this? Perhaps provide evidence for this assertion... Or were you using this to dodge the fact that evolution fails to this argument...

 

Creationists readily admit that their stance goes beyond the bounds of science... Its the evolutionists who stubbornly refuse to accept that their position does too... So who are the level-headed reasonable ones then? Those who admit to the flaws of their position, or the ones who defiantly claim that their position is "scientific" or "a fact" despite all evidence to the contrary?

 

I wonder....

 

we have seen as much evolution as we would reasonably expect to see, including the evolution of new species.

 

You've made this claim before I and I subsequently ask you for evidence... To which you ignore my call for evidence... Honestly why even post this junk of a claim, when you were unable to support it before?

 

Do you think if you claim something enough it suddenly becomes true by default?

I formally ask you to provide the examples of an organism being observed to "evolve" into another organism... A cat to a horse would be good, or a dog to a whale... Or a fish to a reptile... Either of these would be great :D

 

 

We see, in the lab and field:

 

Natural selection (AND? You assume natural selection is the cause of large-scale change... The existence of X doesn't mean X was the cause of something)

 

Genetic drift (As I explained to you before, this LIMITS the variety of traits... Hence it works against evolution...)

 

Adaptation (You ASSUME that this leads to large-scale structural changes over time, yet what we observe is oscilating change which leads to no net change over time- Darwin's finches, animal breeds)

 

Speciation (Evidence...)

 

There may also be longer-term evolutionary mechanisms we cannot detect in a short time frame, but that is basically it.

Argument to the future much?... Wishful thinking isn't science....

 

 

 

 

In this context, postulated = inferred.

 

Wrong.. So wrong...

 

Postulating means assumed... By definition. You don't get to redefine words...

 

postulate
 
[v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt]
 
 
verb (used with object), postulated, postulating.
1.
to ask, demand, or claim.
2.
to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
3.
to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.
4.
Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.
 

http://dictionary.re...rowse/postulate

 

 

I'm always amazed at how often atheists wish to redefine words as it suits their arguments or claims.

 

 

People assuming transitions through the ages isn't a good foundation for science to operate... I'd love to see the evidence by which you claim that this was "inferred"...

Where was the evidence that evolution was a common idea before Darwin since that is what you claimed... I'd like to see your evidence for such, or was this an attempt to make evolution seem more authoritative than what it is...

 

 

 

Single cell life -> marine life -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> birds & mammals over many, many geologic layers.  And, of course, humans at the very, very top of the fossil / geologic record.

 

It seems you're ignoring all the fossils that are found "out of place" (this is assuming there is a proper place where they should be found...)

http://creation.com/...ls-out-of-order

 

And you believe this is a trend because?... On what basis can you claim this is a trend?

 

Would you admit that the occurrence of the Coelacanth which went missing for "millions of years" worth of layers demonstrates that the non-presence of a particular organism in a particular layer doesn't mean the organism didn't exist then.... Since that is what happened to the Coelacanth...

IF that is the case (which it is) then how in the world can you assume that your "trend" is reliable?

 

 

 

Darwin predicted that many of the gaps in the fossil record (which again people were well aware of because they were already identifying key trends within the record).  And some have and some haven't.

 

Which gaps have been filled?... Is there a progressive "line of transition" demonstrating the changes from one organism to the other?... Since that is what you need to demonstrate, NOT providing 2 or 3 independent organisms and then ASSUME that one "evolved" to another...

 

 

I don't believe Darwin thought his theory was absolute fact, gilbo; in fact, he outlined several possible future discoveries that could potentially falsify the theory.  So, I don't think he was "assuming" it; but, I do think he felt that the observable evidence supported his theory making it a viable and logical inference based on the evidence at hand.

 

What evidence?.... I know you claim Darwin had evidence, but what evidence did he have to make the claims he did.... This is what this thread is about...

 

Are Darwin's claims justified under the "evidence" he had, considering he had no experimental evidence then it would be correct to state that his "theory" was NOT a scientific theory... Rather it is merely his theory as per the following definition.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory

Remember a scientific theory REQUIRES supported hypotheses, if Darwin did no experiments then he has no supported hypotheses to base his "theory" on... Hence it isn't scientific.

 

 

 

Isn't that what you do with physical evidence, e.g., you try to explain that evidence?  Now, if the evidence is such that different people derive completely different conclusions from the evidence, then you would probably won't be able to develop and very solid or convincing theory.  However, in cases where the evidence is consistent across multiple lines of inquiry, then a strong theory with some statistical significance is more likely.

 

You know full well what I mean, don't act dumb. If Darwin had no experiments then his "science" was like pre-scientific method "science" where one observes something and then construes an "explanation" which he / she feels is the most logical, (this is opinion-based by the way).

 

In modern science rather than using ones opinions to determine the validity of an idea, you do this with EXPERIMENTS... The fact that you admit that Darwin performed ZERO experiments means he had no to very little evidence for his "theory" and in fact it means that he was using his OPINIONS to determine what was correct and logical... This was my point, which you attempted to ignore.

 

I'd like to hear what his evidence was since to claim that X organism changes over time to Y organism is a pretty incredible claim which would require, as Hitchens would demand, incredible evidence.... Or was this merely his idea that he thought of off the top of his head...

 

 

 

No different.

 

No different?... So you think someone looking at something and then coming up with any kind of explanation and deeming it correct is compatible with modern science?... Honestly?...

THIS is why I get so frustrated with evolutionists and how their beliefs now bastardize science, opinions and what you deem "logical" has no place in science... Only experiments and evidence gleaned from experiments, that is it... Why is it only the Creationists who stand up for the scientific method? Ironic isn't it...
 

 

 

How would you suggest we investigate the past and all the evidence left behind by the past? 

 

First I'd start by not calling it science... Since it cannot abide by the scientific method, you cannot perform an experiment on the past can you?... Then it isn't science... End of story.

 

I think you are conflating inference and assumption. 

 

Nope, you're attempting to claim that your and Darwin's assumptions are somehow inference.

 

 

 

Evolution was originally logically inferred from the record of life contained in the rocks starting with the very oldest rocks containing life (only very simple life and nothing else); to the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian where life began to diversify; to the first jawless fish to the first jawed fish; to the Carboniferous with first amphibians followed by the first amniotes (including the first synapsids); to the Mesozoic Era and the rise of the dinosaurs; to the Cenozioc Era and the rise of the mammals; and finally to the very most recent layers that contain modern mammals including humans.

 

Looking at that, gilbo, I don't see how you can't at least infer (not assume) the possibility that life went through various transitions throughout the eons and eventually made it to where we are today.  Now, understand, that does NOT make it fact; but it is clearly a possibility based on a logical inference from the evidence.

 

You're ignoring the out-of-place fossils.

You are assuming that the placement of fossils actually relates to the age they lived, (doesn't work for the Coelacanth)

 

How can you "infer" transitions from the placement of fossils? If I place similar objects next to each other, can I "infer" that one "evolved" from another?.... What is the logical link here?

Even after all that, you do realise that your "inference" is a hypothesis to be tested via experimentation?... (that is if you want evolution to be deemed science).

 


  • Enoch 2021 and Giovanni like this

#16 mrchopper

mrchopper

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Manchester

Posted 01 September 2015 - 01:35 AM

 

I'm glad you admit this... So I guess all the claims of "inference" are false then since an inference requires evidence in order to infer from. If evolution is speculation then it IS assumptions which is what I stated previously.

 

There is evidence, that why we can make such an inference.

 

 

"billions of years old"... really... I'd love to see the experiments that demonstrate that, (actual experiments... NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED).

 

Yet you admitted its speculation?.... How can you infer from a speculation? Or are you using the word infer to cover-up the fact that you are ASSUMING...

I'd love to see the premises you are "inferring" from and how they relate to the concept of evolution and common descent....

 

Where is the experiment that shows God created the world?

 

It is not something we can devise an experiment to test, unless we are designing experiments to test the validity of radiometric dating. Thankfully, radioactive half-life is reliably stable through extreme temperatures and pressures.

 

The premises we are inferring from are every single observation about biology.

 

 

Funny that... Its the reason why science was born from belief in God, the belief that the universe is ordered under God's providence..... I always find it amusing how many people don't know science's theistic beginnings.... Go check it out if you don't believe me.

.

Bit simplistic. Science has since shown that a literal reading of genesis is invalid.

 

 

Why do you claim I ignore this? Perhaps provide evidence for this assertion... Or were you using this to dodge the fact that evolution fails to this argument...

 

Creationists readily admit that their stance goes beyond the bounds of science... Its the evolutionists who stubbornly refuse to accept that their position does too... So who are the level-headed reasonable ones then? Those who admit to the flaws of their position, or the ones who defiantly claim that their position is "scientific" or "a fact" despite all evidence to the contrary?

 

I wonder....

 

You have yet to demonstrate what is unscientific about evolution.



#17 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 September 2015 - 02:19 AM

mrchopper said:

Where is the experiment that shows God created the world?


Since we are intelligent and made in God's image, we create things. So there you have it. In fact the only way an inntelligent being can bring anything into existence is to create it! If you know another way I would appreciate knowing it.

Why are you so down on intelligence? Do you expect us not to believe you are a creator like the rest of us??
PS It would be nice if you stopped creating nonsense. :)

#18 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 September 2015 - 02:31 AM

mrchopper

You have yet to demonstrate what is unscientific about evolution.

Evolution is unscientific because:
1. It's not observable
2. It's not testable.
3. It's not repeatable.
4. Moreover, the concept of evolution was "created" by an intelligent being. LOL
Three strikes and it's out!

#19 mrchopper

mrchopper

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Manchester

Posted 01 September 2015 - 02:35 AM

 

Since we are intelligent and made in God's image, we create things. So there you have it. In fact the only way an inntelligent being can bring anything into existence is to create it! If you know another way I would appreciate knowing it.

Why are you so down on intelligence? Do you expect us not to believe you are a creator like the rest of us??
PS It would be nice if you stopped creating nonsense. :)

 

Doesn't that rather assume that we were created to begin with?

 

 

Evolution is unscientific because:
1. It's not observable
2. It's not testable.
3. It's not repeatable.
4. Moreover, the concept of evolution was "created" by an intelligent being. LOL
Three strikes and it's out!

 

1. It is

2. It is

3. What do you mean by repeatable?

4. Don't see why this is important.



#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 September 2015 - 02:53 AM

There is evidence, that why we can make such an inference.

 

You just said it is speculation... Speculation is a guess, not inference....

 

Can you provide some examples of evidence..... Preferably evidence Darwin used initially...

 

 

Where is the experiment that shows God created the world?
 
God creating the world isn't claimed to be a scientific explanation.... Evolution is and thus should be held accountable to the same standards other scientific ideas are tested on... This was a red herring since this thread is discussing evolution, if you want to create a new thread for God then please feel free to do so.
 
 
Yet this was already addressed in my reply to you... So why state it again?

 

Creationists readily admit that their stance goes beyond the bounds of science... Its the evolutionists who stubbornly refuse to accept that their position does too... So who are the level-headed reasonable ones then? Those who admit to the flaws of their position, or the ones who defiantly claim that their position is "scientific" or "a fact" despite all evidence to the contrary?

 

I wonder....

 

 

 

 

It is not something we can devise an experiment to test, unless we are designing experiments to test the validity of radiometric dating. Thankfully, radioactive half-life is reliably stable through extreme temperatures and pressures.

 

So you admit that this doesn't follow the scientific method?... Thanks.

 

Actually decay rates are random...
 
Also how does knowing the half-life of a material mean you are able to calculate ages... In order to use this method you need to know the initial amount of the substance before it decays, the rate and the amount after... Hence you can deduce by the missing amount, how much has decayed and thus how long it has taken for that amount to decay...

IF you don't know the initial amount then you have no starting point for your methodology and thus the age can be ANY number.
 

 

The premises we are inferring from are every single observation about biology.

 

Such as? Provide examples and explain how they are relevant to evolution.
 
 

 

Bit simplistic. Science has since shown that a literal reading of genesis is invalid.

 

Who was talking about Genesis? I was discussing the fact that science was brought about by the belief that the universe is ordered by God and thus learning more about the universe would allow one to learn more about Him....

 

 

You have yet to demonstrate what is unscientific about evolution.

 

Actually I have, its your non-comprehension of science which stops you from seeing it... Here is what I have stated in terms of evolution not being scientific....
 
What evidence?.... I know you claim Darwin had evidence, but what evidence did he have to make the claims he did.... This is what this thread is about...

 

Are Darwin's claims justified under the "evidence" he had, considering he had no experimental evidence then it would be correct to state that his "theory" was NOT a scientific theory... Rather it is merely his theory as per the following definition.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory

Remember a scientific theory REQUIRES supported hypotheses, if Darwin did no experiments then he has no supported hypotheses to base his "theory" on... Hence it isn't scientific.

 

You know full well what I mean, don't act dumb. If Darwin had no experiments then his "science" was like pre-scientific method "science" where one observes something and then construes an "explanation" which he / she feels is the most logical, (this is opinion-based by the way).

 

In modern science rather than using ones opinions to determine the validity of an idea, you do this with EXPERIMENTS... The fact that you admit that Darwin performed ZERO experiments means he had no to very little evidence for his "theory" and in fact it means that he was using his OPINIONS to determine what was correct and logical... This was my point, which you attempted to ignore.

 

No different?... So you think someone looking at something and then coming up with any kind of explanation and deeming it correct is compatible with modern science?... Honestly?...

THIS is why I get so frustrated with evolutionists and how their beliefs now bastardize science, opinions and what you deem "logical" has no place in science... Only experiments and evidence gleaned from experiments, that is it... Why is it only the Creationists who stand up for the scientific method? Ironic isn't it...
 

 

 

First I'd start by not calling it science... Since it cannot abide by the scientific method, you cannot perform an experiment on the past can you?... Then it isn't science... End of story.

 

Even after all that, you do realise that your "inference" is a hypothesis to be tested via experimentation?... (that is if you want evolution to be deemed science).

 

 

 

It seems you've once again dodged this...

 

You've made this claim before I and I subsequently ask you for evidence... To which you ignore my call for evidence... Honestly why even post this junk of a claim, when you were unable to support it before?

 

Do you think if you claim something enough it suddenly becomes true by default?

I formally ask you to provide the examples of an organism being observed to "evolve" into another organism... A cat to a horse would be good, or a dog to a whale... Or a fish to a reptile... Either of these would be great :D

 


  • Mike Summers and Enoch 2021 like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users