Evolution Did It

[cheeseburger 24]

Thanks for the welcome, Bruce, and thanks for considering my post. My aim was to show that whilst causation cannot be demonstrated through manipulated controlled trials, long-term evolution as an explanation can be tested by comparing the model's implications with new data subsequently observed - in this way the theory is comparable with other disciplines that seek explain traces of past activity.

I am not familiar with the work of Robert Koon so I shall give his stages due consideration.

- Frankie

[gilbo12345 860]

My aim was to show that whilst causation cannot be demonstrated through manipulated controlled trials, long-term evolution as an explanation can be tested by comparing the model's implications with new data subsequently observed - in this way the theory is comparable with other disciplines that seek explain traces of past activity.

 

- Frankie

 

So like this?

 

Observation: Similarities

Hypothesis: Evolution did it

Experiment: Similarities

 

Could you please respond to my last reply? Post# 100

[cheeseburger 24]

To clarify the methodology discussed in my previous posts, this would be an example experimental sequence:

Presupposition: traits can be inherited
Initial observation: a sketch of phylogeny based on inheritance appears to show common ancestry between notably distinct species
Hypothesis: long-term evolution explains the data and the implication from common ancestry that notably distinct species are related is valid
Prediction: the first appearance of new specimens found across the geological column will be found to match the order of emergence of species indicated in the phylogeny
Experiment: field experiment - compare the implications of the model (point above) with subsequently discovered data (new specimens).
Conclusion: the model (long-term evolution) is either supported or contradicted.

To show how long-term evolution compares to other disciplines that study traces of the past the following might be an experimental sequence from planetary science:

Initial observation: some large objects observed in gravitationally-collapsed nebulae do not appear to be young stars
Hypothesis: they may be gas planets in early stages of formation
Prediction: such proto-planets would be observable within nebulae at at a range of stages of accretion and formation
Experiment: field experiment - compare the implications of the model (point above) with subsequently discovered data (new observations).

[Ron 10]

My aim was to show that whilst causation cannot be demonstrated through manipulated controlled trials, long-term evolution as an explanation can be tested by comparing the model's implications with new data subsequently observed - in this way the theory is comparable with other disciplines that seek explain traces of past activity.

 

- Frankie

 

Is this attempting to say that macroevolution is true?

[Bruce V. 34]

To clarify the methodology discussed in my previous posts, this would be an example experimental sequence:

 

Presupposition: traits can be inherited

Initial observation: a sketch of phylogeny based on inheritance appears to show common ancestry between notably distinct species

Hypothesis: long-term evolution explains the data and the implication from common ancestry that notably distinct species are related is valid

Prediction: the first appearance of new specimens found across the geological column will be found to match the order of emergence of species indicated in the phylogeny

Experiment: field experiment - compare the implications of the model (point above) with subsequently discovered data (new specimens).

Conclusion: the model (long-term evolution) is either supported or contradicted.

 

 

 

Hi Cheesburger,

 

What determines what a new species is ? The example above example sounds like Mendelian evolution . That is existing genetic code was not changed, but filtered. The point is that no new genetic code was created. So is genetic drift evolution? Does this kind of evolution explain the diversity we see in life today - absolutely not. What we need is a mechanism that creates new genetic code which we do not have. (mutation + natural selection <> produce new genetic code) (<> means not equal)

 

The point of the Koon's example is that proof of evolution requires:

 

1) a real hypothesis - not some large hand waving statement that things change over time. The how of how organisms create new genetic information is of paramount importance. So once we have the how we can break it down;

 

2) Biological pathways. That is the required steps to obtain a trait is broken down into logical steps.. For example, a fish obtaining legs. What is really required to do that? How many mutations and where would they occur. My guess is that it would take over 10,000 mutations for a fish to create legs. So know we know what is required we can determine if our hypothesis is capable of creating the necessary mutations.

 

3) We gather information that proves our hypothesis like DNA sequencing, fossil records...

 

We have nothing like that in evolution. We do not have a working hypothesis of how new genetic information is created. We don't understand what is required to go from fish to a fish with legs. We don't have biological pathways for anything.

 

So my challenge to you is :

 

1. What is evolution?

2. What is the mechanism on how things change over time?

3. Proof that things change over time by that mechanism?

[gilbo12345 860]

To clarify the methodology discussed in my previous posts, this would be an example experimental sequence:

 

Presupposition: traits can be inherited

Initial observation: a sketch of phylogeny based on inheritance appears to show common ancestry between notably distinct species

Hypothesis: long-term evolution explains the data and the implication from common ancestry that notably distinct species are related is valid

Prediction: the first appearance of new specimens found across the geological column will be found to match the order of emergence of species indicated in the phylogeny

Experiment: field experiment - compare the implications of the model (point above) with subsequently discovered data (new specimens).

Conclusion: the model (long-term evolution) is either supported or contradicted.

 

To show how long-term evolution compares to other disciplines that study traces of the past the following might be an experimental sequence from planetary science:

 

Initial observation: some large objects observed in gravitationally-collapsed nebulae do not appear to be young stars

Hypothesis: they may be gas planets in early stages of formation

Prediction: such proto-planets would be observable within nebulae at at a range of stages of accretion and formation

Experiment: field experiment - compare the implications of the model (point above) with subsequently discovered data (new observations).

 

Why is it that you draw on an example from a theoretical science in order to support evolution which is claimed to be a part of empirical Biology?

 

 

 

Hi Cheesburger,

 

What determines what a new species is ? The example above example sounds like Mendelian evolution . That is existing genetic code was not changed, but filtered. The point is that no new genetic code was created. So is genetic drift evolution? Does this kind of evolution explain the diversity we see in life today - absolutely not. What we need is a mechanism that creates new genetic code which we do not have. (mutation + natural selection <> produce new genetic code) (<> means not equal)

 

The point of the Koon's example is that proof of evolution requires:

 

1) a real hypothesis - not some large hand waving statement that things change over time. The how of how organisms create new genetic information is of paramount importance. So once we have the how we can break it down;

 

2) Biological pathways. That is the required steps to obtain a trait is broken down into logical steps.. For example, a fish obtaining legs. What is really required to do that? How many mutations and where would they occur. My guess is that it would take over 10,000 mutations for a fish to create legs. So know we know what is required we can determine if our hypothesis is capable of creating the necessary mutations.

 

3) We gather information that proves our hypothesis like DNA sequencing, fossil records...

 

We have nothing like that in evolution. We do not have a working hypothesis of how new genetic information is created. We don't understand what is required to go from fish to a fish with legs. We don't have biological pathways for anything.

 

Totally agree Bruce

 

All I see the evolutionist doing is simply assuming evolution as a cause of observation and then claim that more observation verifies this... Perhaps cheeseburger hasn't seen the scientific method yet?

 

If evolution is as he claims, then

 

A- its not a part of Biology

B- it is a theoretical model for history

C- evolution is NOT a fact

D- evolution is not falsifiable (history is not falsifiable), and thus is not scientific in the empirical sense.

[cheeseburger 24]

Re post 104 : " Is this attempting to say that macroevolution is true? "

I am comparing the methodology behind evolutionary biology with other disciplines which seek to explain traces of past activity. In so doing I am addressing the issue of scientific validity that adherents to evolution are invited to discuss in the OP. I would reiterate that any scientific model could be subject to revision in light of new data.

Re post 105:

Bruce, the wording and content of your challenge differs from that in this thread's OP. I would recommend using your challenge as the basis of a new thread where you may also get responses from more technically qualified respondents.

Re post 106: "All I see the evolutionist doing is simply assuming evolution as a cause of observation and then claim that more observation verifies this... Perhaps cheeseburger hasn't seen the scientific method yet?

If evolution is as he claims, then

A- its not a part of Biology

B- it is a theoretical model for history

C- evolution is NOT a fact

D- evolution is not falsifiable (history is not falsifiable), and thus is not scientific in the empirical sense"

Evolution is hypothesized (not assumed) as an explanation then the hypothesis is tested by comparing its implications against new data. Long-term evolution is certainly a theory of natural history and is supported by field experiments; as with biology it studies life on Earth. Long-term evolution is potentially falsifiable based on a comparison of what the model implies with what is actually observed. This testing of the model determines its explanatory power and allows contrast with other possible explanations - this facilitates the best explanation of the data set when manipulated trials are impossible. Whether evolution constitutes a fact depends upon whether the theory is accepted and upon the criteria used to establish something as factual.

Both evolution and the example from planetary science offered follow the same experimental approach. They both use empirical, real-world data (proto-planets have been imaged) rather than computer modeling, simulations and such tools of pure theoreticians.

[gilbo12345 860]

Re post 104 : " Is this attempting to say that macroevolution is true? "

 

I am comparing the methodology behind evolutionary biology with other disciplines which seek to explain traces of past activity. In so doing I am addressing the issue of scientific validity that adherents to evolution are invited to discuss in the OP. I would reiterate that any scientific model could be subject to revision in light of new data.

 

 

Re post 105:

 

Bruce, the wording and content of your challenge differs from that in this thread's OP. I would recommend using your challenge as the basis of a new thread where you may also get responses from more technically qualified respondents.

 

 

Re post 106: "All I see the evolutionist doing is simply assuming evolution as a cause of observation and then claim that more observation verifies this... Perhaps cheeseburger hasn't seen the scientific method yet?

 

If evolution is as he claims, then

 

A- its not a part of Biology

 

B- it is a theoretical model for history

 

C- evolution is NOT a fact

 

D- evolution is not falsifiable (history is not falsifiable), and thus is not scientific in the empirical sense"

 

Evolution is hypothesized (not assumed) as an explanation

 

A hypothesis is an assumption........

 

then the hypothesis is tested by comparing its implications against new data.

 

So it is TESTED via an experiment, as per the scientific method?

 

Observations which affirm a pattern is not an experiment, as I have asked what are the control groups and variables?

 

Long-term evolution is certainly a theory of natural history and is supported by field experiments;

 

Experiments such as? This entire thread I have been asking for a single example of an experiment and you have yet to give any example. Merely saying there are experiments is not demonstrating them.

 

as with biology it studies life on Earth.

 

Except Biology is empirical....(and evolution is not as I have already explained and you admit via claiming it is historical).... So you cannot compare the two, or claim evolution is a part of biology..

 

Long-term evolution is potentially falsifiable based on a comparison of what the model implies with what is actually observed.

 

And? As I have said in the OP such observations ASSUME "evolution did it" is THE ONLY CAUSE.. How do you know that evolution is THE ONLY cause? What experiments were done to verify this assumption? That is what I have been asking for and it is what you have been dodging this entire time....

 

This testing of the model determines its explanatory power and allows contrast with other possible explanations

 

What contrast? Evolution is assumed as the cause and that is it.... Where has any evolutionist contrasted similarities due to design?

 

Essentially you are making up claims in order to sound logical / reasonable, sorry its not working.

 

- this facilitates the best explanation of the data set when manipulated trials are impossible.

 

 

Whether evolution constitutes a fact depends upon whether the theory is accepted and upon the criteria used to establish something as factual.

 

And such criteria for factual requires the claim be VERIFIED via reality. You cannot simply assume evolution did it and then think that because a pattern fits that assumption therefore your assumption is factual.

 

Not very scientific.....

 

 

Both evolution and the example from planetary science offered follow the same experimental approach.

 

Its NOT an experimental approach.... As I already debunked your claims of "experiment" from observation.... An actual experiment is a test one sets up in order to test something. ie- I grow plants with different endophyte treatments to test the hypothesis that endophytes can be beneficial to plant growth.

 

When you are observing a pattern, all you are doing is observing a pattern... Its not an experiment...

 

They both use empirical, real-world data (proto-planets have been imaged) rather than computer modeling, simulations and such tools of pure theoreticians.

 

However an experiment is a physical TEST one carries out, an experiment is not created from "data", in fact an experiment is done to provide data.... Ergo you are deeply confused.

[Ron 10]

Re post 104 : " Is this attempting to say that macroevolution is true? "

 

I am comparing the methodology behind evolutionary biology with other disciplines which seek to explain traces of past activity. In so doing I am addressing the issue of scientific validity that adherents to evolution are invited to discuss in the OP. I would reiterate that any scientific model could be subject to revision in light of new data.

 

That's not what I asked, was it.

[Adam Nagy 50]

A hypothesis is an assumption........

We don't assume evolution! We assume it!

[cheeseburger 24]

Re post 109:

I debate in favour of the scientific validity of evolution (the issue in the OP) just as creationists are arguing against it. My concern in this thread is to focus on the issue of methodological validity.

Re post 108:

i "A hypothesis is an assumption"

ii "So it is TESTED via an experiment, as per the scientific method? Observations which affirm a pattern is not an experiment, as I have asked what are the control groups and variables?"

iii "Experiments such as? This entire thread I have been asking for a single example of an experiment and you have yet to give any example. Merely saying there are experiments is not demonstrating them."

iv "Except Biology is empirical....(and evolution is not as I have already explained and you admit via claiming it is historical).... So you cannot compare the two, or claim evolution is a part of biology.."

v "And? As I have said in the OP such observations ASSUME "evolution did it" is THE ONLY CAUSE.. How do you know that evolution is THE ONLY cause? What experiments were done to verify this assumption? That is what I have been asking for and it is what you have been dodging this entire time...."

vi "What contrast? Evolution is assumed as the cause and that is it.... Where has any evolutionist contrasted similarities due to design? Essentially you are making up claims in order to sound logical / reasonable, sorry its not working."

vii "And such criteria for factual requires the claim be VERIFIED via reality. You cannot simply assume evolution did it and then think that because a pattern fits that assumption therefore your assumption is factual. Not very scientific....."

viii "Its NOT an experimental approach.... As I already debunked your claims of "experiment" from observation.... An actual experiment is a test one sets up in order to test something. ie- I grow plants with different endophyte treatments to test the hypothesis that endophytes can be beneficial to plant growth. When you are observing a pattern, all you are doing is observing a pattern... Its not an experiment..."

ix "However an experiment is a physical TEST one carries out, an experiment is not created from "data", in fact an experiment is done to provide data.... Ergo you are deeply confused."


i - The primary definition of assumption given in post 98 is that which is taken for granted. A scientific hypothesis, meanwhile, is subject to investigation and potential falsification; no model should ever be taken for granted given that fresh data can render a model redundant.

ii - The definition of experiment is given in post 98. Varieties of experiment such as manipulated trials and field experiments are discussed in post 89. The impossibility of conducting manipulated trials on long-term processes was discussed in my first post in this thread (87) which Gilbo12345 liked.

iii - An experimental sequence was outlined in post 103.

iv - Empirical and historical are not mutually exclusive. Hitorians appraise and interpret sources; Earth sciences and sciences of natural history etc look to explain traces of past activity. Science would be hugely limited if it could only explain processes that occur during a lifetime. The definition of empirical is given in post 98.

v - In dsciplines which cannot make use of manipulated trials to establish causality field experiments are used to determine a model's capacity to explain the data set. This was covered in posts 87 and 89.

vi - Explanations for the origins of species that invoked supernatural design prevailed prior to the nineteenth century. The creation models' shortcomings were an impetus for Darwin and Wallace's subsequent careers. The naturalistic explanation challenged and replaced design as the dominant explanation. The contrast between evolution and ID arguments are shown in literature written/editted by adherents to evolution (e.g. Scott, E.C. (2009), Evolution vs creationism: An introduction).

vii - Field experimentation is a means to empirically test the explanatory capacity of the long-term evolution model via reality. See point i re assumption. See post 103 for the scientific basis for an example field experiment.

viii - The definition of experiment is given in post 98. Varieties of experiment such as manipulated trials and field experiments are discussed in post 89. Whilst a manipulated trial can be used in botany, the impossibility of conducting manipulated trials on long-term processes was discussed in my first post in this thread (87) which Gilbo12345 liked.

ix - Data are items of information that may be perceived in a variety of ways. Whilst data may be obtained through an experiment the existence of data is not dependent upon experimentation. Data recognised as the CMBR predicted by Big Bang cosmology was recorded by accident by Penzias and Wilson.

As will be clear many objections in post 108 are out of line with accepted definitions and have been adddressed already. I am not aware of any methodological difference between long-term evolution and other disciplines that seek to explain traces of past activity - geology, cosmology, physical geography etc.

I'm off down to the States for a couple of days. Happy Haloween!

- Frankie

[gilbo12345 860]

Re post 109:

 

I debate in favour of the scientific validity of evolution (the issue in the OP) just as creationists are arguing against it. My concern in this thread is to focus on the issue of methodological validity.

 

Re post 108:

 

i "A hypothesis is an assumption"

 

ii "So it is TESTED via an experiment, as per the scientific method? Observations which affirm a pattern is not an experiment, as I have asked what are the control groups and variables?"

 

iii "Experiments such as? This entire thread I have been asking for a single example of an experiment and you have yet to give any example. Merely saying there are experiments is not demonstrating them."

 

iv "Except Biology is empirical....(and evolution is not as I have already explained and you admit via claiming it is historical).... So you cannot compare the two, or claim evolution is a part of biology.."

 

v "And? As I have said in the OP such observations ASSUME "evolution did it" is THE ONLY CAUSE.. How do you know that evolution is THE ONLY cause? What experiments were done to verify this assumption? That is what I have been asking for and it is what you have been dodging this entire time...."

 

vi "What contrast? Evolution is assumed as the cause and that is it.... Where has any evolutionist contrasted similarities due to design? Essentially you are making up claims in order to sound logical / reasonable, sorry its not working."

 

vii "And such criteria for factual requires the claim be VERIFIED via reality. You cannot simply assume evolution did it and then think that because a pattern fits that assumption therefore your assumption is factual. Not very scientific....."

 

viii "Its NOT an experimental approach.... As I already debunked your claims of "experiment" from observation.... An actual experiment is a test one sets up in order to test something. ie- I grow plants with different endophyte treatments to test the hypothesis that endophytes can be beneficial to plant growth. When you are observing a pattern, all you are doing is observing a pattern... Its not an experiment..."

 

ix "However an experiment is a physical TEST one carries out, an experiment is not created from "data", in fact an experiment is done to provide data.... Ergo you are deeply confused."

 

 

 

i - The primary definition of assumption given in post 98 is that which is taken for granted. A scientific hypothesis, meanwhile, is subject to investigation and potential falsification; no model should ever be taken for granted given that fresh data can render a model redundant.

 

And something that is taken for granted is by definition an assumption

 

1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.

2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.

3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.

4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

5. Presumption; arrogance.

6. Logic A minor premise.

7. Assumption

a. Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.

b. A feast celebrating this event.

c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption

 

 

Therefore by definition a hypothesis is an assumption. Meaning in order to claim the hypothesis is correct it needs to be verified and to do this scientifically the scientific method states this is done via an experiment... Not observing patterns which seem to, but ultimately may or may not fit with the assumption.

 

It is a bit worrisome when you already posted this in your post #98...

 

ii - The definition of experiment is given in post 98. Varieties of experiment such as manipulated trials and field experiments are discussed in post 89. The impossibility of conducting manipulated trials on long-term processes was discussed in my first post in this thread (87) which Gilbo12345 liked.

 

Yes and I agree an example of an experiment are manipulated trials. You admitted in your post #87 that evolution is not reliant on experiments rather quasi-experiments.. To which I agreed.

 

Whether you think adding the word "experiment" makes it valid, I and all rational people who read this can tell you that observing patterns after the fact is not a manipulated trial / act of operation (see your post # / field experiment etc

 

iii - An experimental sequence was outlined in post 103.

 

Sigh...

 

1. Your "experiment" rests on the assumption that your hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE... How can you test what is the CAUSE of similarities when all you do is observer similarities?

 

You can't you need to dig deeper than presume a cause for similarities and then claim that because you observe similarities that verifies your presumed cause... In essence you are using more of the same initial observations as your "experiment" / verification... (As I alluded to in post #102, the fact that this post we presented before your demonstration here of what I claimed is amusing).

 

2- What is this "field experiment"... Oh making observations after the fact.... This is not a field experiment. Again I ask you what are the controls / variables etc... A clinical trial for a new drug is a field experiment, making observations after the fact is not.

 

iv - Empirical and historical are not mutually exclusive. Hitorians appraise and interpret sources; Earth sciences and sciences of natural history etc look to explain traces of past activity. Science would be hugely limited if it could only explain processes that occur during a lifetime. The definition of empirical is given in post 98.

 

Actually they are mutually exclusive... What evidence do I have for this? Why the very definition you gave from post #98

 

Empirical

 

adjective

1.

derived from or guided by experience or experiment

2.

depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.

provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

http://dictionary.re...e/empirical?s=t

 

 

Now please tell me how can one experience the past? Um... No....

 

Can you do an experiment on the past? Um... No....

 

 

I already mentioned this in post #100 (green writing)

 

 

v - In dsciplines which cannot make use of manipulated trials to establish causality field experiments are used to determine a model's capacity to explain the data set. This was covered in posts 87 and 89.

 

Yes and I then proceed to claim that such is not empirical science meaning if you want to equate evolution with this then it too is not an empirical science meaning

 

A- its not a part of Biology

B- it is a theoretical model for history

C- evolution is NOT a fact

D- evolution is not falsifiable (history is not falsifiable), and thus is not scientific in the empirical sense.

 

 

vi - Explanations for the origins of species that invoked supernatural design prevailed prior to the nineteenth century. The creation models' shortcomings were an impetus for Darwin and Wallace's subsequent careers. The naturalistic explanation challenged and replaced design as the dominant explanation. The contrast between evolution and ID arguments are shown in literature written/editted by adherents to evolution (e.g. Scott, E.C. (2009), Evolution vs creationism: An introduction).

 

Again I ask what contrast? Oh when evolutionists a priori exclude design out of hand and then write about how silly it is.... That isn't a contrast, that is called attempted indoctrination.

 

Here is one example

 

If you listen to the podcast, Luskin goes over some of the recent peer-reviewed papers that support ID. But much more importantly, he proves that Eugenie Scott is a liar. She is literally caught in a lie in the video above. She claims that there are no peer-reviewed papers that support ID. Stephen Meyer cites a peer-reviewed paper that he authored. Eugenie Scott claims that the paper does not mention ID. Casey Luskin reads from the paper. The paper explicitly supports ID. Eugenie Scott lied in order to defend her religion of naturalism from the scientific publication that falsifies it.

 

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/is-eugenie-scott-right-are-there-no-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-id/

 

 

Also what are these "shortcomings" of Creation as per Darwin?

 

vii - Field experimentation is a means to empirically test the explanatory capacity of the long-term evolution model via reality. See point i re assumption. See post 103 for the scientific basis for an example field experiment.

 

Lets see shall we...

Experiment: field experiment - compare the implications of the model (point above) with subsequently discovered data (new specimens).

 

So your "field experiment" is comparing after the fact observations... That isn't a field experiment... The fact that evolution relies solely on data determined after the fact, ensures that it can never be empirical. Because the past cannot be observed nor can it be experimented on.

 

viii - The definition of experiment is given in post 98.

 

And? Read my post #100

 

Varieties of experiment such as manipulated trials and field experiments are discussed in post 89. Whilst a manipulated trial can be used in botany, the impossibility of conducting manipulated trials on long-term processes was discussed in my first

 

Care to post it because I am reading your post #89 and I see no such thing.

 

post in this thread (87) which Gilbo12345 liked.

 

Why do you keep mentioning that I liked your post? Is it such a big deal? Am I a celebrity?

 

 

 

ix - Data are items of information that may be perceived in a variety of ways. Whilst data may be obtained through an experiment the existence of data is not dependent upon experimentation.

 

Strawman I never said it was dependent on experiment... I said that an experiment is not made up of data, which is what you were implying when you proposed data analysis as a form of experiment.

 

To use your definition, (except you deleted the 4th definition I now see why)

 

Experiment

 

noun

1.

a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.: a chemical experiment; a teaching experiment; an experiment in living.

2.

the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that is the result of long experiment.

3.

4.

to try or test, especially in order to discover or prove something: to experiment with a new procedure.

 

Data analysis by definition is not an experiment because analyzing your data isn't you attempting to test something

 

 

Data recognised as the CMBR predicted by Big Bang cosmology was recorded by accident by Penzias and Wilson.

 

And? Data being recorded isn't an experiment.

 

As will be clear many objections in post 108 are out of line with accepted definitions and have been adddressed already. I am not aware of any methodological difference between long-term evolution and other disciplines that seek to explain traces of past activity - geology, cosmology, physical geography etc.

 

 

 

 

I'm off down to the States for a couple of days. Happy Haloween!

 

- Frankie

 

Have fun (We don't have Halloween in Aus )

[Ron 10]

As will be clear many objections in post 108 are out of line with accepted definitions and have been adddressed already. I am not aware of any methodological difference between long-term evolution and other disciplines that seek to explain traces of past activity - geology, cosmology, physical geography etc.

 

I'm off down to the States for a couple of days. Happy Haloween!

 

- Frankie

Well, since yu didn't answer it when I asked before (See posts 105 and 110). When you say "Long Term evolution" are you reffering to "Macroevolution"? And if so, are you saying that "Macroevolution" is a fact?

 

Please give a "Yes" or "No" answer, then an explanation (if you wish to give an explanation).

[gilbo12345 860]

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)

n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

 

The definition of hypothesis claims it is an assumption...

 

Additionally when evolutionists claim that they use evolution as an explanation of an observation, yet have no validation to verify that evolution was the cause of such then they are taking evolution as the cause of said observation for granted, this means they are assuming it... This is what all evolutionists do, this is the method of "investigation" cheese burger has been claiming.

 

Observe something

Claim evolution did it

Make more observations that fit a pattern

Believe that making such observations verifies the assumption of "evolution did it"

 

 

The elephant in the room is the fact that whilst something can be proposed as a cause for something and whilst a pattern can be observed fitting with that proposed cause, there NEEDS to be some kind of verification since the causation of both observations may be something totally different to what the person believes is the case. I gave this example over and over before...

 

Observation: The stars, moon and sun rotate around the Earth

Hypothesis: The Earth is the centre of the universe

 

We can observe more stars fitting this pattern...

 

However this hypothesis is wrong because it is based on assuming that the hypothesis given is THE ONLY possible cause for the event... Begging the question fallacy... This in turn assumes / implies the person knows all there is to know about the cause of what is observed. Sadly this speaks to the arrogance of many evolutionists / atheists, in that they perceive themselves as an intellectual elite, and continually use words like "freethinker" "rational" "logic" etc in self identification (even names on this forum).

[cheeseburger 24]

re post 113:

By long-term evolution I mean the model whereby notably distinct species share common ancestry (which I presume is what is meant by macro-evolution).

No, I would not claim that as a "fact": this is one of few fora where evolutionists get to chat with creationists and it would be counter-productive to make assertions that appeared to close the matter to discussion. Furthermore, I would be wary of any wording that appeared to render an explanation set in stone - Isaac Newton's conception of universal gravitation was once considered a "law" until Einstein's equations proved more adpet at predicting observations.

queries re post 112+4:

The primary definition of hypothesis pasted in 114 states a "tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation " (and thus subject to subsequent verification) and is thus clearly not taken for granted (as is the case with an assumption, see primary definition in post 98). The testing of hypotheses is ubiquitous across the experimental sciences. Were hypothesis synonymous with assumption and making an assumption implied petitio principii, shouldn't this objection apply to all scientific theories?

What is the objection to after-the-fact observations? It is necessary to collect data after formulating the hypothesis in order that the predictive power of the model be ascertained.

Why would "rational people" not reason that new data that fitted the patterns predicted by a model be support for a model's explanatory power? Why should the possibility of conducting manipulated trials be a criterion for scientific validity? Correlation may not itself be causation, but causes correlate with effects and thus correlation supports the likelihood of causation. There are many fields studying the old or remote that draw upon observational data and traces of past activity to determine the best explanation and: glaciology, paleontology, climatology, geology, mineralogy, stellar formation etc. etc. Are the scientific validity of these subjects also under discussion? Why the pre-occupation with evolution?

What is the relevance of begging-the-question accusation and cosmological models? The geocentric universe was once reasonable given crude data and explained the apparent revolution of the heavens. The ptolemaic system was finally replaced when advances in observational technology (the telescope) revealed that Venus showed phases (new data) that were better predicted by the heliocentric model.

 

We know from the definition of experiment that not every experiment is a manipulated trial. We can agree that those disciplines studying the old or remote do not have access to manipulated trials. In many fields - not just long-term evolution - the most comprehensive explanation has the strongest claim toward ascertaining causation.

[gilbo12345 860]

 

The primary definition of hypothesis pasted in 114 states a "tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation " (and thus subject to subsequent verification) and is thus clearly not taken for granted (as is the case with an assumption, see primary definition in post 98).

 

And? Does this allow evolutionists to assume their hypothesis is correct, to assume something is correct IS to take something for granted... Hiding behind the "primary definition" doesn't change this fact, because to assume something may well be tentative, however to assume something is correct is to take that thing for granted as correct.

 

You cite observations fitting a pattern as "evidence" of your hypothesis despite the fact that there can be many other unknown hypothesises that can account for the same phenomena.

 

I will ask yet again, how do you KNOW that your hypothesis is THE ACTUAL CAUSE of the phenomena? Observing the phenomena after the fact, (as per fossils / DNA etc) does nothing to help determine the CAUSE.

 

 

 

The testing of hypotheses is ubiquitous across the experimental sciences.

 

As per the scientific method.....

 

Were hypothesis synonymous with assumption and making an assumption implied petitio principii, shouldn't this objection apply to all scientific theories?

 

Huh? So you are trying to group evolution with other experimental theories?

 

You do realise that evolution is not an experimental science? I have already attempted to teach you this... Evolution is in no way empirical due to it having no empirical experiments and being based on theoretical constructs. Additionally the fact that it is attempting to explain the past underlines this, (as I already told you before a few times, which I assume you either didn't understand or wish to ignore), you cannot do experiments on the past, you cannot experience the past.... Therefore anything discussing the past is not an empirical science.... Which is why theoretical physics is called THEORETICAL physics, (since you wish to use analogies from theoretical physics in support of your beliefs in evolution).

 

However this is only peripheral to the failure in your claim here. The fact of the matter is that all theories dealing with (actual) experimental science, is based on empirical experiments (hence the name experimental science, perhaps). Evolution, ( as I have been demonstrating to you), contains no such empirical experimentation, ergo you cannot logically attempt to shift my statements onto other areas of science, because you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

What is the objection to after-the-fact observations? It is necessary to collect data after formulating the hypothesis in order that the predictive power of the model be ascertained.

 

Its not an experiment! That is what we are discussing is it not, you were claiming these were the experiments that support the assumption of "evolution did it", are you going to admit these are not experiments?

 

However one thing I would like you to try and understand here. Observing phenomena after the fact tells you literally nothing about the cause of the phenomena... Why? Because the observations are after the fact, the cause is past it itself cannot be observed.... Ergo when doing such observations, one is forced to make assumptions about the cause of the observations... I am asking how do you KNOW that the assumption being made is correct.

 

 

Why would "rational people" not reason that new data that fitted the patterns predicted by a model be support for a model's explanatory power?

 

Because what you or I THINK is logical doesn't determine reality, that is why we do experiments in order to justify ones claims by doing an experiment in reality in order to learn more about reality. You're not going to learn anything about the real world if you sit in an armchair and dream up ideas... The fact is that the buck stops at reality, and the scientific way to do that is via experiments (hence the scientific method).

 

Why should the possibility of conducting manipulated trials be a criterion for scientific validity?

 

It is a criterion of experimental / empirical science... Because it is the basis of experimental / empirical science. If you do not like this, I suggest you complain to the scientific establishment and petition for them to allow ideas as evidence for empirical science... (I hope you see how ridiculous this sounds).

 

Correlation may not itself be causation, but causes correlate with effects and thus correlation supports the likelihood of causation.

 

Sure there can be a "likelihood" of evolution... However that is not what I am asking. I asked how do you KNOW that evolution was indeed the cause?

 

There are many fields studying the old or remote that draw upon observational data and traces of past activity to determine the best explanation and: glaciology, paleontology, climatology, geology, mineralogy, stellar formation etc. etc. Are the scientific validity of these subjects also under discussion? Why the pre-occupation with evolution?

 

Perhaps you didn't see the name of this forum?

 

However as I understand it evolution is the only one on this list claimed to be a "fact" and is deemed experimentally verified. At least people within these other examples realise their science is not exact and cannot be fully verified, hence the distinction.

 

If evolutionists were as honest about the validity of their claims then I wouldn't have a problem. But when I go into a lecture and have the lecturer yell that "evolution is a fact" THEN there is clearly a problem about the integrity (or perhaps ability) of the evolutionist scientists.

 

 

What is the relevance of begging-the-question accusation and cosmological models?

 

Was I discussing this? Perhaps you can stick on topic rather than create a red herring to hide behind.

 

The geocentric universe was once reasonable given crude data and explained the apparent revolution of the heavens. The ptolemaic system was finally replaced when advances in observational technology (the telescope) revealed that Venus showed phases (new data) that were better predicted by the heliocentric model.

 

Which is my point..... It was based on observations fitting a pattern, the same "evidence" you wish to use. Meaning if the cause of the observations were wrong then, then its possible the same can be said for yourself.. Thus leading me to my central question, how do you KNOW that evolution was the cause?

 

We know from the definition of experiment that not every experiment is a manipulated trial. We can agree that those disciplines studying the old or remote do not have access to manipulated trials. In many fields - not just long-term evolution - the most comprehensive explanation has the strongest claim toward ascertaining causation.

 

And? That is why those fields are not considered empirical / experimental science..... (As I have told you many times now)... Meaning for you to equate evolution with these other examples then evolution is not an empirical / experimental science as well... (I've already told you this a few times now, lets hope it sticks this time )

[Mike Summers 454]

I have observed that Evo scientists like to piggyback the hypothesis of evolution on credible theories like gravity. Every day the general public experiences gravity and so agrees that it is a valid theoy (scientific fact). We hear Evo scientists say statements like, "Evolution is a theory just as gravity is a theory." Baloney!

To prove that evolution is a theory experiments would need to prove valid by observation that Evo scientists could cause one species to give birth to another. This has never been observed. Moreover, even if it were done, bias would be introduced into the experiment and color results because intelligence was used.

Since only intelligent beings seem able to do experiments, any experiment done could not be unbiased. If one thinks about it, one realizes that all experiments are conducted by intelligent beings and what is claimed is that intelligence was not involved in evolution. That's quite a pickle, I would say. Therefore, all experiments can be misrepresentations of reality being biased by the human being that does them. Logically then, no experiment can replicate what actually happened. For example can you duplicate your birth? Each cause and effect unit is a unique anomaly and an historical fact assigned to memory as a one time event (this may require you ponder it to understand what I mean,

About as objective as we can get is would be to observe evolution happen. Since no one has done that, evolution remains an hypothesis. And then, there is the double slot experiment...

Hypothesis = Humans can walk in space. It still is an hypothesis and has not been proven. There is no theory that humans can walk in space. At the

A number of years ago NASA' s scientists hypothesized that a man could walk in space. That hypothesis was never proven and an astronaut almost died trying to prove it. Lest you think I'm just a religious nut, here is the rest of the story.

The astronaut so trying was hooked to his spacecraft with an umbilical cord that carried oxygen and connected sensors to his body to collect data like respiration rate, pulse, heartbeat and blood pressure. The astronaut pushed himself away from the vehicle. He began to try to walk in space. NASA observed his heart rate going higher and higher. They could not figure out what was happening. His blood pressure had gone up to 170 and was rapidly climbing. So, they decided to order him back into the spaceship. He was able to pull himself into the vehicle by the umbilical cord he was attached to. It must of been amusing to watch the astronaut flail around in space--his arms and legs rapidly moving and going nowhere.

When he got to earth, over a gallon of water was removed from his spacesuit. Finally, someone remembered Newton's laws of opposing forces. Since there is very little matter in outerspace, there was little matter for the muscles in his arms and legs to oppose. Don't believe me? Then do this experiment. Lay on your back and use your arms and legs against thin air to try and move the rest of your torso. <img title=":)" class="bbc_emoticon" src=""="" smile.png[="" default="" style_emoticons="" public="" evolutionfairytale.com="">

Experiments only prove what what happens as a result of the experiment. They do not prove what happened in the past. That requires reasoning ability and faith.

[Bonedigger 42]

I have observed that Evo scientists like to piggyback the hypothesis of evolution on credible theories like gravity. Every day the general public experiences gravity and so agrees that it is a valid theoy (scientific fact). We hear Evo scientists say statements like, "Evolution is a theory just as gravity is a theory." Baloney!

 

To prove that evolution is a theory experiments would need to prove valid by observation that Evo scientists could cause one species to give birth to another. This has never been observed. Moreover, even if it were done, bias would be introduced into the experiment and color results because intelligence was used...

 

That reminds me of an interesting anecdote. One day while at college, I was in the lab cataloguing fossils. In the next room, one of the grad students was talking with one of my professors, and he (the grad student) just kept going on and on about how he just didn't understand how people could trust science to get on a plane, but they couldn't trust "science" regarding evolution. Of course, the obvious response to such a misrepresentative conflation of the two is: "I've seen thousands upon thousands of planes fly during the course of my lifetime. I have yet to see a lizard turn into a bird, even once."

[Mike Summers 454]

Yep. Exactly Bonedigger. It's amazing how much faith we have in intelligent engineering and experimental flights that keep over and over proving how valid and dependable intelligent engineering really is. Now, if we could convince evo scientists to use their intelligence to stop writing fairytales like, "Evolution did it."

 

According to a Google search;

 

"On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States."'

 

At the end of the day, traveling by the plane is pretty safe. An excerpt from http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm - "If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would be approximately 22,000 years before he or she would be killed."

[gilbo12345 860]

I have observed that Evo scientists like to piggyback the hypothesis of evolution on credible theories like gravity. Every day the general public experiences gravity and so agrees that it is a valid theoy (scientific fact). We hear Evo scientists say statements like, "Evolution is a theory just as gravity is a theory." Baloney!

 

Certainly, the effects of gravity is observed in real time, evolution however is speculated.

 

 

To prove that evolution is a theory experiments would need to prove valid by observation that Evo scientists could cause one species to give birth to another. This has never been observed. Moreover, even if it were done, bias would be introduced into the experiment and color results because intelligence was used.

 

That or demonstrating that small changes add up to larger ones, since this has never been demonstrated and is assumed by the evolutionist... Its a tad sad when a "scientist" must assume the mechanism one claims for their assumed "theory"...

 

 

Since only intelligent beings seem able to do experiments, any experiment done could not be unbiased. If one thinks about it, one realizes that all experiments are conducted by intelligent beings and what is claimed is that intelligence was not involved in evolution. That's quite a pickle, I would say. Therefore, all experiments can be misrepresentations of reality being biased by the human being that does them. Logically then, no experiment can replicate what actually happened. For example can you duplicate your birth? Each cause and effect unit is a unique anomaly and an historical fact assigned to memory as a one time event (this may require you ponder it to understand what I mean,

 

I wouldn't go so far to claim that. Where there are experiments designed in a biased fashion there are those which are designed to limit bias and focus on reality

 

That is why when a real experiment is done it is done with controls in order to check the experiment. Additionally one can do other tests as verification, one such thing is Koch's postulates, (of which I am doing a variation of such with my endophyte research).

 

 

Experiments only prove what what happens as a result of the experiment. They do not prove what happened in the past. That requires reasoning ability and faith.

 

I agree

[Mike Summers 454]

I wouldn't go so far to claim that. Where there are experiments designed in a biased fashion there are those which are designed to limit bias and focus on reality

 

That is why when a real experiment is done it is done with controls in order to check the experiment. Additionally one can do other tests as verification, one such thing is Koch's postulates, (of which I am doing a variation of such with my endophyte research).

I think we might be misunderstanding each other here and I certainly don't want that. Nor did I mean a "deliberate" manipulation of an experiment to produce a "desired" outcome. I meant this in the sense that a "less" biased experiment would require time travel which seems unavailable to us. Our experience then would be direct observation of the actual event as it transpired which seems less biased. However, there are moral implications of doing that as you can well imagine.

Nor do we have the ability to resurrect someone that has died and observe them die again. The evidence that someone has died is not the same to us as it would be to God. God, from everything thing I have read in the pages of the Bible, has never caused anyone's ultimate death. As Jesus demonstrated, He could wake up someone we would do experiments on and conclude that they were dead (non responsive and therefore non existent--our definition of dead). God says they are asleep. "God gives to His beloved sleep."

 

What experiment could we do to prove a miracle is true? Take one of Jesus's first public miracles. We could duplicate wine but it would not be within the event time frame that Jesus did it in.

[cheeseburger 24]

Creationist claims in this thread about the nature of hypotheses, experiments, what is empirical etc contradict accepted primary definitions. Attempts in this thread to limit experimentation to manipulated trials, to limit empirical scientific explanations to the recent and short-term and to infer circularity (all of which have been addressed) would, if granted, negate the credibility of a whole range of experimental sciences that no one would dispute.

Re post 118: "One day while at college, I was in the lab cataloguing fossils. In the next room, one of the grad students was talking with one of my professors, and he (the grad student) just kept going on and on about how he just didn't understand how people could trust science to get on a plane, but they couldn't trust "science" regarding evolution. Of course, the obvious response to such a misrepresentative conflation of the two is: "I've seen thousands upon thousands of planes fly during the course of my lifetime. I have yet to see a lizard turn into a bird, even once." "

One would expect to see the former, should we expect to see the latter? Observing a lizard turn into a bird during the course of a lifetime would be closer to supporting miraculous intervention than the gradual morphological change over generations implied be the TOE.

Re post 120:"That or demonstrating that small changes add up to larger ones, since this has never been demonstrated and is assumed by the evolutionist..."

How could an accumulation of small changes not lead to greater overall change? - why request a demonstration? The principle of addition that we learnt when young is that the sum of a collection is greater than any of its terms: the sum of 1+4 is greater then either one or four, 1+4+2 equates to more than 1+4 or more than 4+2 etc.

[gilbo12345 860]

I think we might be misunderstanding each other here and I certainly don't want that. Nor did I mean a "deliberate" manipulation of an experiment to produce a "desired" outcome. I meant this in the sense that a "less" biased experiment would require time travel which seems unavailable to us. Our experience then would be direct observation of the actual event as it transpired which seems less biased. However, there are moral implications of doing that as you can well imagine.

 

No worries, I was hoping I misunderstood you

 

Yes I agree attempting to look at the past (and most definitely the unobserved / unrecorded past) will never get fully verified results. The unbiased observer literally must admit that there is and always will be a level of doubt with such things. Unfortunately the evolutionist never considers this fact, they'd prefer to ignore this inconvenient truth and claim their beliefs are "facts"...

 

 

Cheeseburger can you use the quote system of this forum? I believe I have already asked you to do so, since it is much easier to read rather than going over past pages.

 

However I see that you have actively ignored my post #116.. I take this as further evidence of my statements that "evolutionists do not like to engage the hard questions". Rather than attempt a response via generalisations and claims of which you do not support whilst not addressing my points, perhaps address the specific points (with quotation to allow easier reading for the lurkers).

 

Even if you are proven wrong, (by attempting to actually deal with the issue rather than skirt around it), I am sure the lurkers here would appreciate not appealing to the evolutionist merry-go-round of failed "tactics".

 

Creationist claims in this thread about the nature of hypotheses, experiments, what is empirical etc contradict accepted primary definitions.

 

Why, because you say so? Assertum non est demonstratum fallacy... Perhaps demonstrate this.

 

And pre-emptively I will tell you again that assuming something is true, IS taking it for granted... (Not that this has any bearing on my point, rather its a point of semantics you'd rather engage in).

 

The hypothesis "evolution did it" pertaining to causation of similarities and other observed 'after the fact' phenomena is not supported, it is merely assumed to be true because the evolutionist wants it to be. If you wish to contend this, provide the experimentation done to verify this hypothesis... (And observations based on this unverified hypothesis cannot be used to verify it since that is begging the question which is a fallacy).

 

Attempts in this thread to limit experimentation to manipulated trials, to limit empirical scientific explanations to the recent and short-term and to infer circularity (all of which have been addressed) would, if granted, negate the credibility of a whole range of experimental sciences that no one would dispute.

 

That is what empirical is by definition.... You are now complaining that we are limiting your imagination by ensuring it holds to reality. Sorry, reality is reality you cannot try and change it.

 

Empirical is observable (directly observable), repeatable, measurable and ultimately falsifiable. Yes observations can be made in real-time however the conclusions you make from such observations MUST follow logically from said observations. Observing similarities will only give you the conclusion "there are similarities", such observations tell you nothing about the cause that brought the similarities about. Yes you are allowed to speculate, (such as claim "evolution did it"), however if you do you are forced to admit that such is merely a speculation and cannot be verified.

 

 

How could an accumulation of small changes not lead to greater overall change? - why request a demonstration?

 

Because otherwise it is assumed as true, which is not being scientific..... Essentially demonstrating an evolutionist's faith statement.

 

The principle of addition that we learnt when young is that the sum of a collection is greater than any of its terms: the sum of 1+4 is greater then either one or four, 1+4+2 equates to more than 1+4 or more than 4+2 etc.

 

 

So your evidence for biological mutations adding together, is that numerical constructs (numbers) can be added..... You do realize that numbers have no relation to biological mutation? Do you? Because there was a guy on the League of "Reason" who attempted the same correlation, despite having no logical reasoning behind it, (as if merely saying so made it so...).

 

Perhaps you can demonstrate why you can draw parallels between numbers and biological mutations. Failure to do so will ensure that you are in fact demonstrating your own faith in evolution.

 

Perhaps consider that in ALL other fields of Biology, evidence for hypothesises come from Biology.. Funny that, the evidence for Biology comes from Biology...

 

Care to give evidence in Biology of mutations adding up to create a better benefit, (since that is what the evolutionist assumes happens)...

[Bonedigger 42]

Re post 118: "One day while at college, I was in the lab cataloguing fossils. In the next room, one of the grad students was talking with one of my professors, and he (the grad student) just kept going on and on about how he just didn't understand how people could trust science to get on a plane, but they couldn't trust "science" regarding evolution. Of course, the obvious response to such a misrepresentative conflation of the two is: "I've seen thousands upon thousands of planes fly during the course of my lifetime. I have yet to see a lizard turn into a bird, even once." "

 

One would expect to see the former, should we expect to see the latter? Observing a lizard turn into a bird during the course of a lifetime would be closer to supporting miraculous intervention than the gradual morphological change over generations implied be the TOE.

 

Cheeseburger, you just proved my point. The conflation of the two is disingenuous at best. No, we would not expect to see the latter, but that is what the TOE ultimately requires to occur. The fact that you hide it behind a mask of time and as being the sum of gradual changes (never mind the functional problems with such a gradual transformation like changing the dead end lungs of a lizard to the one-way continuous oxygenation system of a bird for example), just emphasizes the difference, and shows how dishonest (or ignorant) it is to equate the two and place macroevolution on the same level as a plane flying. The first is observable and repeatable. The second is just another faith based assertion that "evolution did it."

[gilbo12345 860]

 

How could an accumulation of small changes not lead to greater overall change? - why request a demonstration?

 

 

A scientist doesn't assume anything is possible, they determine what is possible via testing reality... If you want to believe something, and believe it is scientific then you need to have the evidence for it. This is what Mr Dawkins says... So I guess this could be double standards, evolutionists request evidence except for when their own assumptions and beliefs are concerned. Instead they complain about asking for the evidence for such.

 

Its not a theist's job to debunk each and every fantastical idea that an evolutionist has. This comment of yours has further cemented my belief that evolution is based on imagination not reality.

 

Requesting a demonstration would ensure it is a part of reality. If I told you I could fly with my magic gumboots am I to believe you would accept this without evidence (aka demonstration)?

 

 

I believe my post #116 (the one you didn't reply to) already debunks this

 

 

Because what you or I THINK is logical doesn't determine reality, that is why we do experiments in order to justify ones claims by doing an experiment in reality in order to learn more about reality. You're not going to learn anything about the real world if you sit in an armchair and dream up ideas... The fact is that the buck stops at reality, and the scientific way to do that is via experiments (hence the scientific method).

 

 

Why question the request of a demonstration? Unless of course you cannot demonstrate this evolutionist assumption.