Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
CTD

How Does One Falsify Vaporware?

Recommended Posts

Celebrating 3 theory-free months !

 

(And bumping before this falls back to page 3...)

28609[/snapback]

Congratulations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumping again. It just isn't sporting to keep blindsiding them with something so critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't kept up to date with this thread, so my apologies if I'm going over already crossed ground. I've read the OP and I think what CTD is looking for is pretty simple. At it's core, evolutionary theory says:

 

change + heredity + selection = evolution.

 

That's the most simple explanation of evolution I've heard, and it seems to hold true regardless of what kind of evolution you're talking about (eg. biological vs technological).

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CTD wants an Amazon link to a book called "Complete Evolutionary Theory" by All The Scientists In The World.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think such a thing exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CTD wants an Amazon link to a book called "Complete Evolutionary Theory" by All The Scientists In The World.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think such a thing exists.

39453[/snapback]

I think CTD and such a request shows the true nature of evolution as a pseudoscience. It's not like core issues are solved and peripheral issues exist. It's the core issues that are vaporware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

change + heredity + selection = evolution.

 

That's the most simple explanation of evolution I've heard, and it seems to hold true regardless of what kind of evolution you're talking about (eg. biological vs technological).

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

39444[/snapback]

Isn't there a rule that evolution cannot be described as "change over time"... which is what Arch essentially said here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another experiment where evolution has great predictive power.

 

1. Go to 100 random spots in the world that have fossil material and perform radiometric dating. Use one of the techniques described here in Table 1 depending on the rough date range and the material used.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

2. Make sure that that the date is appropriate for the method (e.g. a meaningful date for Carbon dating is between about 200 and 30,000 years). Other methods have other date ranges that provide meaningful answers. Repeat this process several times to see if the date is reliable (in most places it is).

 

3. From the date that you get, grab a book on paleontology and predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and predict the kind that you will not find.

 

4. Pick up any creationist book and use that to predict the kinds of fossil material that you find and the kind that you will not find.

 

This is the general approach leads to accurate predictions (it is the basis of paleontology). The approach has also led to the discovery of new transitional fossils. Neil Shubin went off to a specific place in the arctic that had rocks from fresh water streams that had dated from at 375 million years. They were looking for animals that bridged the transition between fish and tretrapod. They found Tiktaalik where their theory predicted the fossils could be found.

http://revcom.us/a/130/Shubin_Interview-en.html

 

This next year they are going to visiting rocks between 370 million and 365 million years in an attempt to find fossils of animals closer to the tetrapod end of the transition. There are no guarantees, but these sorts of predictions have been made hundreds of times and I'll bet the success is better than any creationist model out there. Anyone want to predict what they will find this year?

 

James

Posted Image

24060[/snapback]

Hi James,

 

Hope all is going well.

 

You make a good point. Evolution would expect to find a more advanced tetrapod at the end of an strata. You made this argument about Tiktaalik which I found compelling.

 

I know that debates are confrontational in nature and it seams like the other side is deliberately argumentative, obtuse or belligerent. I just wanted you to know that we are listening even though it isn't obvious.

 

I find your posts to well thought out and logical. I may not agree with you but it does get me thinking.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is uncertain about the subject here, in any way at all, they should review the first few posts in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to bump this thread once a month if necessary. I presume a moderator will let me know if this is unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, please don't respond that item three has not been directly observed. I know it hasn't been directly observed, but it's still a theory. That's really all this thread is about: showing that the theory of evolution at least exists. I think I've just accomplished that.

23900[/snapback]

That would be incorrect, and a major misconception. That would make it nothing better than a model (and a weak one at that ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to bump this thread once a month if necessary. I presume a moderator will let me know if this is unacceptable.

41097[/snapback]

I don't know of any rule that would prohibit you from doing that Ryyker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that when evos speak of theory they mean a model. The geologic timescale is this model. It is full of assumptions that is supposedly "backed" by research. However, much of this research can only lead to INDUCTIVE conclusions, compared to DEDUCTIVE conclusions. In plain English it can be countered by other explanations.

 

The contrast between the two is what keeps evolution in the theory department. Inductive reasoning is based on a set of facts that leads one to conclude a LIST OF POSSIBILITIES. Deductive reasoning leads to only one conclusion.

 

Origins as a subject can not be deductively solved by science because it requires empirical evidence of the stated explanation of something. Because our origin is in the past only a list of possibilities can be an explanation for each set of evidence put forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been presenting this challenge elsewhere, and the original presentation was not yet optimized when I posted here. I have combined the points I made in early posts into a single piece, and reorganized things a bit.

 

 

Here's the current text I intend to use next time I present it.

 

------------------------------------------------------

{1} One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make in these discussions is that some sort of "theory" of evolution exists. Clearly this is something that we should not have to assume. If it exists, it should be available. Indeed, it must have been available in the past, if it has been tested already, right?

 

I would like to read it. I may be mistaken, and I may learn something. At this moment, I do not believe there is an actual "theory" of evolution. I used to take it for granted; I've stopped taking it for granted. Until I see an actual theory, I shall consider it vaporware.

 

We are continually bombarded with "the theory of evolution says" or "does not say" such-and-such. There's an easy way to find out what it says - if it exists! Somehow, we never see any "theory" consulted when these disputes arise. Why this is the case can no longer be any mystery.

 

{2} Let us consider an oft-overlooked aspect of the term 'theory' in the English language.

 

"News theory"

 

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/theoryc/

 

"Car and tractor theory"

 

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/

 

"Music theory"

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/theory/theory.htm

 

"Feminist theory"

 

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/

 

"Queer theory"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

 

"Homology theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_theory

 

Enough with the sources.

 

"Opening theory"

"Number theory"

"Particle theory"

"Graph theory"

"Game theory"

 

The dictionary doesn't make a critical distinction when it defines 'theory'. The meaning of the term changes substantially depending on placement. "The theory of X" refers to a single, specific theory. "X theory" refers to a collection of ideas. This is the loosest of all known definitions, even looser than the common "any old idea" definition. "X theory" can incorporate any number of real, make-believe, and even contradictory ideas.

 

{3} I want to point out another thing: When using the posterior application of the term 'theory', the implication is neutral as to scientific validity. Germ theory is valid. Why then is it not "the theory of germs"? Because there's actually a separate theory for each germ. But particle theory is what it is. It cannot all be true because some of the ideas are inconsistent with each other.

 

I maintain some of the things we see called "X theory" are scientifically without any merit at all. I'd name names, but I prefer to stay on topic. The only time 'theory' connotes merit in experimental science is when an hypothesis withstands scrutiny and legitimate testing. Such cases are called "so-and-so's theory of such-and-such". The placement of the term differs. If I'm mistaken about how our Language works, I'd like to see some counter-examples. I prefer older ones because skills, knowledge. and respect have been declining steadily when you're talking about English. Examples from partially literate sources will not impress me either.

 

{4} Does "Evolution theory" exist? Certainly. I've seen tons of ideas involving different sorts of "evolution". Is there a scientific "Theory of Evolution"? No. Some evolutionists point to the dictionary, and a chosen definition. It may indeed differ from "any old idea". But it is not scientific. It is improperly employed when the claim is made that a "Theory of Evolution" exists. Perhaps some dictionaries make the distinction. I would like to see them all do so. Of course the Language itself takes precedence over dictionaries in any case. Their job is not to dictate reality, but to report it - an essentially scientific task.

 

I repeat once more, as this one of the things people are most likely to "overlook": EVOLUTION THEORY DOES EXIST.

 

In order to meet the scientific standard, and experimentally testable, a falsifiable hypothesis must exist.

 

{5} If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it. I intend to determine whether or not it is subject to experimental falsification, and meets the proper criteria. A candidate "theory" should have been stated as an hypothesis, and clearly recognizable as such. It will need to be complete. It will not consist of descriptions of a "theory"; it will have to actually be one itself. Telling you about my dog is not the same as showing you that I actually have a dog.

 

To those who would sell evolution, here's your chance to present your "theory". I think it's reasonable to ask to see the product, and one might even expect some degree of enthusiasm on the part of the sales staff. I admit in advance that I do not possess universal knowledge, and I make mistakes. By nature, my claim relies upon universal observation. If a properly scientific "theory of evolution" should be discovered - not some partial element, but the whole thing - what I said would be falsified. See? I know how to set an example.

 

IMPORTANT

{6} I am fully aware that many people believe such a "theory" exists, and they write about what they imagine. Such does not demonstrate the existence of an actual "theory". Such writings can be found anywhere. Anyone wasting my time linking me to talk about a "theory", rather than a "theory" itself will be wasting their own time.

 

I am only interested in seeing the alleged "theory" itself. Do not waste our time with links like the following:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

 

None of those contain the "theory" itself. Do not assume I will simply forget, either.

 

{7} A phrase to avoid:

 

"can explain" or "can be explained by"

 

This is simply claiming a theory can be formulated which will explain something. Duh! That's why we have theories. A theory which simply claims theories are possible is redundant and meaningless. Candidates containing these phrases, or their kinsmen, should not be presented.

 

Neither is this an invitation to compose nonsense and try to pass it off. We're told again and again that the "Theory of Evolution" has already been rigoursly tested. A fresh new candidate is out of the question from the get-go. A link to an extant "theory" is in order. If you are a sincerely scientific evolutionist, you might take this matter seriously and start a thread on how to go about formulating and actual "Hypothesis of Evolution". I might even be persuaded to discuss why it cannot be done. (Obviously the loss of plasticity which accompanies existence-in-writing is a big factor.)

 

{8} I'll be honest and state up front what I'm expecting. I expect hostility, and a lot of blatant overlooking of things I just got done saying. I expect to observe the antithesis of mature behaviour. I expect sharing screenshots and/or excerpts to be a means of providing amusement for some of my friends. I do not expect to encounter a single evolutionist who takes the matter seriously. They certainly should - and if sincere they must, as this can hardly be written off as "a mere technicality"; but my experience as an evolutionologist tells me few, if any, actually do. The nonchalance we may expect to observe regarding correspondence with reality, as well as scientific procedures and propriety, places evolutionism squarely within the category of religious belief.

 

I have a suggestion for those who are tempted to make excuses for the absence of any theory: hold off a spell, and give others a chance. Maybe they can find one, eh? Okay, not really. Go ahead and make me laugh.

 

In order to expidite discussion, I have inserted numbers. Should the inattentive rear their heads, they can quickly be referred to the section(s) which address the things they "chance" to miss. A poor student I'd be if I couldn't learn from experience and direct observation.

 

Finally, for those with short attention spans, ADHD, etc. my request is simple: Show me the "theory".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The critical distinction, which they do not miss, is whether they have "Evolution Theory" or a "Theory of Evolution". The talk I see of models is consistent with the existence of Evolution Theory, something I have never disputed.

 

For the evopusher, the truth of the matter is simply unacceptable. Confessing it would mean each individual cockeyed assertion needs to stand on its own merit, you see. The claim "the theory's been tested millions of times" does not work any better than "music theory has been tested millions of times". When the term refers to a mass of ideas, rather than a tested hypothesis, said mass has no inherent merit, scientifically.

 

Certainly there exists Evolution Theory. There is an enormous loose collection of Godless origin stories for all sorts of things, many of which contradict each other, experimental science, history, and even themselves. What the propagandist requires is that people believe a tested scientific "Theory of Evolution" exists. It does not.

 

Not only does it not exist, they know it doesn't. Requests to see an actual "Theory of Evolution" - the most reasonable request I can imagine of a seller - are met with immediate hostility. They don't even bother to look, because they already know the "Theory" they push does not exist. Their own hostility bears powerful witness against their position. (Those who'd like links to off-site evowrath are welcome to PM me.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that when evos speak of theory they mean a model.  The geologic timescale is this model.  It is full of assumptions that is supposedly  "backed" by research. However, much of this research can only lead to INDUCTIVE conclusions, compared to DEDUCTIVE conclusions.  In plain English it can be countered by other explanations.

 

The contrast between the two is what keeps evolution in the theory department.  Inductive reasoning is based on a set of facts that leads one to conclude a LIST OF POSSIBILITIES.  Deductive reasoning leads to only one conclusion.

 

Origins as a subject can not be deductively solved by science because it requires empirical evidence of the stated explanation of something.  Because our origin is in the past only a list of possibilities can be an explanation for each set of evidence put forth.

43805[/snapback]

I don't believe that is a correct assessment AFJ (I'm only referring to the emboldened portion, not the rest of the post). Inductive conclusions infer repeatedly observed evidences devoid of interpolation. Assumption must be removed in order for it to be inductive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that is a correct assessment AFJ (I'm only referring to the emboldened portion, not the rest of the post). Inductive conclusions infer repeatedly observed evidences devoid of interpolation.  Assumption must be removed in order for it to be inductive.

43810[/snapback]

I think we are speaking of two different fields. You are speaking of math, from which I like to stay away (lol). My terminology may have been wrong but I was speaking in terms of reasoning.

 

In school we used circles to show the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. The circles represented two different sets of data we could use to reason toward validity. The parts of the circles which intersected or overshadowed were what we could deduce. The rest of the circles were part of inductive reasoning in which inferences could be made by the commonality (deductions) between the sets of data.

 

Here is an example from Wikipedia of inductive reasoning:

"There are 20 balls in an urn, either black or white. To estimate their respective numbers you draw a sample of 4 balls and find that 3 are black, one is white. A good inductive generalisation would be: there are 15 black and 5 white balls in the urn."

There is a possibility that this is valid, but it is only one possibility. This is inductive reasoning.

 

However upon pulling out the 20 balls I find out that all the rest are white. 17 to 3. Upon weighing the balls I find that the black balls are lighter. By deductive reasoning I would conclude that something sorted the balls either by placing them one at a time or that the urn was shaken and the heavier balls settled to the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, you have no "theory" to present, and this is your excuse. I don't buy it. Typically in real science, things are stated in the form of hypotheses, and subjected to experimental testing. That you have to drag quantum philosophizing in as a counter-example should tell folks all they need to know.

23948[/snapback]

Oh shoot! I knew I forgot something.

 

While searching for evolutionists who might (if it were possible) know where to find the mythical "theory", I came across this

 

Posted Image

 

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm

 

Now I didn't just randomly chance to find that diagram. Oh no. I was directed to it by the official "You're a creationist so you're too dumb to understand what science is" spiel at an Atheism-Я-us forum, which all creationists who register are expected to read and understand.

 

Not only is this diagram sanctioned by amateur atheists, it is also clearly used in college biology. Of course it matches pretty closely with the universal teaching in all high school science classes, but those are layman-accessible, so they don't count :lol: . No matter. This does count.

 

Not only does it count, it matches exactly what evolutionists claim to have: a tested hypothesis - not just a loose group of ideas.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Editing to add funny:

 

It turned out they rejected their own official forum definition of evolution,

"The change in allele frequency in a population over time"

 

I told them I believe allele frequencies change, yet they refused to acknowledge my status as an evolutionist. They wouldn't even consider it for a moment! :lol:

Edited by CTD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make is that some sort of "theory" of evolution exists. Clearly this is something that we should not have to assume. If it exists, it should be available. Indeed, it must be available if it is to be tested. It must have been available in the past, if it has been tested already, right?

 

I would like to read it. I may be mistaken, and I may learn something.

23638[/snapback]

Okey-dokey, start here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

 

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

 

Get back to me with any problems you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey-dokey, start here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

 

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

 

Get back to me with any problems you have.

46808[/snapback]

Read the thread, joker. Non-responses of this species are already known to be bogus.

 

LOL! You didn't even read the very first post all the way through.

 

IMPORTANT

I am fully aware that many people believe such a "theory" exists, and they write about what they imagine. Such does not demonstrate the existence of an actual "theory". Such writings can be found anywhere. Anyone wasting my time linking me to talk about a "theory", rather than a "theory" itself will be reported.

 

I am only interested in seeing the alleged "theory" itself. Do not waste our time with links like the following:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_...odern_synthesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

 

None of those contain the "theory" itself.

 

Do not think I will forget after the thread grows a couple of pages, either.

Is there some sort of troll contest in progress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told them I believe allele frequencies change, yet they refused to acknowledge my status as an evolutionist. They wouldn't even consider it for a moment!  :lol:

45591[/snapback]

CTD, that is great! I'm gonna steal that approach from you. Great thinking. I can't wait to see if people will accept that I'm an evolutionist simply because I agree that allele frequencies change while rejecting the junk science associated with molecules to man evolution.

 

I like it. Thanks. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTD, that is great! I'm gonna steal that approach from you. Great thinking. I can't wait to see if people will accept that I'm an evolutionist simply because I agree that allele frequencies change while rejecting the junk science associated with molecules to man evolution.

 

I like it. Thanks. :lol:

46975[/snapback]

I should let you know it makes them angry. If results are consistent, you'll get no explanation - just bitterness and ugly (or nothing at all). It can be fun, of course, if you approach it from the right perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohhh, that’s some fine wiki propaganda!

 

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.

46808[/snapback]

Negative, micro-evolution is nothing more than a rip-off of "adaptation within a species". Anything else is assumption and fiction.

This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)

46808[/snapback]

Small-scale-evolution = adaption within a species. It’s just a change of terms to attempt to give evolution credibility. One then attempts to add millions of years (i.e. non-empirical, non-scientific method) to leads to:

and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

46808[/snapback]

Which is fictitious and spurious when posited as fact. In fact, when defended dogmatically (as in the post I am replying to) becomes a religion.

Get back to me with any problems you have.

46808[/snapback]

Okay, I got back to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tomato

On February 3, 2009, CTD wrote:

If there is a "theory" of evolution I would like to see what it says. That way I could evaluate what it does and does not say, assume, and imply.

On February 4, CTD wrote:

First of all, they'd need to state it in the form of an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis - just like other experimental sciences do. Claiming detectable forces would seem to make that easy.

I think I can answer both questions in one shot:

My theory states that for every taxon which has ever lived, all frames of reference will deliver the same answer regarding the origin of that taxon.

 

For "frames of reference," that includes, but is not limited to, the fossil evidence, the biochemical evidence, vestigial organs, and embryological evidence.

 

For instance, the Archeopteryx, which Duane Gish calls a bird, resembled a dinosaur so much that the first specimen discovered was confused for a Compsognathus.

 

The fossil evidence was further strengthened by the discovery of the Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur which possessed feathers not to fly, but to keep warm.

 

The Archaeopteryx possessed claws on its wings, which it didn't really need. This was a vestigial organ, or an unnecessary organ inherited from one's ancestors. Some birds living today, such as the ostrich, have claws on their wings.

 

The angle between the ilium and the pubis, two of the pelvic bones, has decreased between Archie's time and modern times. We see this decrease in the embryonic development of a current-day bird,

 

Furthermore, there are bird species which grow claws on their forelimbs in the embryonic stage, but which are resorbed by the time they hatch. This furnishes us with embryological evidence.

 

Among the millions of taxons which have ever lived, there are millions of opportunities for an investigator to find two or more frames of reference which contradict each other. But I don't know of a single case in which anyone has met this challenge.

 

If you can find fossil evidence that the polar bear descended from a myna bird, embryonic evidence that it descended from a salamander, and vestigial evidence that it descended from a cocker spaniel, I will look for another theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among the millions of taxons which have ever lived, there are millions of opportunities for an investigator to find two or more frames of reference which contradict each other. But I don't know of a single case in which anyone has met this challenge.

Dolphins and bats utilize sonar from the same genes. Does that prove bats evolved from dolphins or do we cherry pick which frames of reference to consider?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00125123219.htm

 

Or a crocodile with mammal teeth?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10874312

 

According to evolution, mammals evolved from synapsids during the permian. Barbarenasuchus brasiliensis is "alledgedly" the ancestor of crocodiles, yet it had no lineage with mammals.

 

If you can find fossil evidence that the polar bear descended from a myna bird, embryonic evidence that it descended from a salamander, and vestigial evidence that it descended from a cocker spaniel, I will look for another theory.

If you can find fossil evidence that evolution occured at all in any of the above animals, then you might have a survivable hypothesis, which could never be tested to become a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms