What got my juices flowing with the epiphany is during a real great conversation.
Earlier Pvblivs brilliantly said "We don't have evidence that large-scale evolution is wrong and we are not going to. Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. It's always always "if we get outcome A it is confirmation and if we don't, it's inconclusive." I have looked at the claims of "easily falsifiable if wrong." Every time it is a case where they determined something would not happen (independent of large-scale evolution) and then decreed it was a potential falsifier."
Now I wish to explore those thought and expound on it. Sometimes you can just feel when people are on to something and that's the feeling I experienced when Pvblivs said his points. I also added three books to the DA bookstore from a man that has great insight to the subject named Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson agrees with Pvblivs' observations also. I am excited and rejuvenated and look forward to discussing it further. If I lay it all out in one post it would be ginormous, so I may have to do it in steps and stack the case. Let me plead the case in it's entirety before an onslaught of counter points because I may address it when all the posts are complete. Plus, I need that time to create it instead of discussing things in the comments.
The things I found, so far, are from Johnson and CRI so most of what I present will be shamelessly borrowed from those sources since the research on the subject has already been completed. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here. I am not trying to write a book or take credit for anything. I want to get atheists to understand they are absolutely wrong. I am trying to make a case to expose evolution in this forum. This is my intention.
Tell everyone you know! When you see my mug prepare to be enlightened!
Go right ahead. Never mind that Pvblivs charge is wrong, and we've been trying to show him and you that in several comments in your last post....
ReplyDeleteGreat. Philip Johnson. You do realize that he's been refuted many times over the years right? Do some reading about the refutations of his views as well as just his views alone.
I could point out that the refutations of Johnson's views are written mostly be the people in the actual fields that he's criticizing.
He's not exactly motivated by evidence either. For him, it's a religious issue first. That was discussed here.
To counter the defense’s predictable denials that ID is creationism, I also explained, using an account by ID proponent and CSC fellow Paul Nelson, how Phillip Johnson had master-minded creationism’s transformation into “intelligent design” after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed creationism in public schools in its 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. According to Nelson, creationists believed that Edwards meant the death of the “two-model approach to origins,” in which creationists recognize only two alternatives, either evolution or creation, hoping to win by default after undermining evolution. But Nelson explained that “a revolution from an unexpected quarter . . . was about to occur.” [34] The revolutionary was Johnson, who decided that, for creationism to survive Edwards, creationists had to redefine science: “Definitions of science, [Johnson] argued, could be contrived to exclude any conclusion we dislike or to include any we favor.” Not only was Johnson’s deliberate but nominal transformation of creationism into ID important for demonstrating ID’s true identity, but it also provided important support for my testimony about Pandas: to survive after Edwards, Pandas would require a similar transformation. (When the book was first published in 1989, Johnson was already allied with chemist Charles Thaxton, author of the creationist book The Mystery of Life’s Origin and “academic editor” of Pandas. [35]) The subpoenaed FTE documents, which contained several earlier Pandas drafts, revealed that precisely such a transformation had been effected.
Check out this review.
I was naive. I assumed that a Christian writing to other Christians would provide a scrupulously fair and accurate account of the facts[1]. But the deeper I got into Darwin on Trial, the less naive I became. And the clearer it became that the driving force behind Johnson's book was neither fairness nor accuracy.
A few years passed with this troubling thought at the back of my mind. I entered graduate school and started doing real science myself. And, the more I learned, the less I trusted Darwin on Trial. I finally challenged myself to put my mistrust to the test. Perhaps Johnson was merely confused about some things. What I should do, I told myself, is look at the sources he actually used in writing Darwin on Trial, and see what they say. Perhaps part of what Johnson says is accurate; perhaps his sources misled him in places. So I went to the campus library and started checking his claims.
I was a lot less naive when I finished that task. I found that almost every scientific source cited by Johnson had been misused or distorted, in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction. The more closely I examined Darwin on Trial, the more inaccuracies I found, until it became almost impossible to catalogue all of the misleading statements in Johnson's work. This book-upon which the "intelligent design" movement is trying to hang a program of social reform and public education-is perhaps the ugliest and most deceptive book I have ever seen.
You may be interested in the Wedge Document itself. Just type in Philip Johnson's name in your "find" or "search" function in your browser and you'll be taken to both Johnson and the Wedge on that page.
Pvblivs has yet to come up with any evidence to back up his observation. All he's got so far is so far unjustified assertion.
Wait until he can back up his claim before you snatch onto it.
Dan
Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. It's always always "if we get outcome A it is confirmation and if we don't, it's inconclusive."
Wrong. What about the finding of fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian? Or even finding modern animal fossils in the same rock layers as dinosaur fossils of the same size? (assuming that the "flood" would have sorted them out by weight). If those were found, evolution would have been dead long ago.
Whoops. The information about Johnson's religous motivations are more in the link that talks about the Wedge Document than that second link I posted.
ReplyDeleteJust do a search for "Phillip Johnson" on that page.
Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID's "Wedge Strategy," which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that "theistic realism" or "mere creation" are defining concepts of the IDM. This means "that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . ." (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80-81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the "Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose."
"What about the finding of fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian?"
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion would be that spines had evolved by that time. The data, had they been found, would have fit evolution.
"Or even finding modern animal fossils in the same rock layers as dinosaur fossils of the same size?"
Again, the date for such evolution would have been pushed back. Those are timelines within the "theory." They can be adjusted without changing the concept of evolution at all. In the same way, irregularities in the orbits of planets suggest other massive bodies, not that gravity is wrong.
I will not discuss the point, but will answer these other part from the previous thread:
ReplyDeleteunfortunately I do believe what Ben said about people in academia especially a 'Dean' is just frightened about real life.
Bull dan, I am not a Dean, but not a single Dean I know is afraid if real life. I am not either. You make me furious this time. This is blatantly offensive and unfounded.
I see no value in today's academia.
This is your opinion. But if everything gets to depend on businesses you will see that we will get in a lot of trouble (I know I should explain, but that would need lots of space, and now I am just furious). I would agree that academia as it is today might not be the most appropriate model for the advancement of knowledge, though.
Most CEO's of companies agree, even Bill Gates dropped out to start Microsoft.
Nope, not most CEOs, though many do. Bill dropped because he saw something that interested him more than academia, he saw the opportunity and took it, and that is fine. Each person to what is best for them. However, his company would not be competitive if he did not hire those high-degree engineers, would it?
I will probably give my children a company to run instead of pushing academia.
This is an excellent idea. Even if they later decide to pursue knowledge, they will have a good economic basis so that they can go at their own pace, and thus take better career decisions. Unfortunately, not all parents can do this for their kids.
That last thing I want my child to be is an elitist that does not believe in God.
And they would become such a particular thing because ... What about becoming an elitist that believes in God?
I will explain it further in my newest posts but basically the academia of today is skewed and biased and evil.
Really? Evil? Come on Dan. No such thing. Academia is among the noblest professions.
The reason the more educated turn from God is what academics force the kids to admit, that this universe was created by natural selection without any proof just a faith.
This is pure crap Dan. I was never forced to accept any of this. Not as faith, not as anything. Most sciences never touch on evolution (wrongly :-) ).
I did study, read, and saw the arguments for evolution, but mostly by myself. Evolution during my undergrad was mostly a model behind the scene. I doubt I ever had an explanation about how evolution works in class. I never had to pass a test of beliefs to become an academic. I did not even have to pass a test on evolution. Evolution was something I learned about out of pure interest. What people do with their beliefs is their option. I was not forced to admit anything, and I am quite successful as an academic. I have even been invited to stay for long periods at other Universities (all expenses paid). None of them have asked me before signing anything if I believe in evolution. Nor have I had to sign any statement saying "I hereby declare that evolution is true whether there is any evidence or not." Nothing of the sort. You bought too much into that crappy expelled movie Dan.
Finally, not a single serious scientists believes that the universe was created by natural selection.
G.E.
Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk
ReplyDeleteThis is bull. Data are not collected so that we do not run the risk. There is no conspiracy. Data are collected however the data are. Whether there is a risk or not is another story, but there is no design behind the scenes with the purpose of keeping evolution safe.
Pvblivs, yes, some findings will change dates of the appearance of this or that feature, but finding vertebrates before the Cambrian would not just mean we change the dates, it would mean that scientists would start to explore for more data to see where it leads. That would be too much because the vertebrates would be appearing at a period when even fossil-producing invertebrates have not appeared yet. No way of dismissing such a strong finding by just changing the dates of appearance of vertebrates. Granted, many scientists would think of such thing as an artifact, or would ask for strong support on the finding (why not?), but no easy dismissal.
G.E.
Pvblivs said, quoting me:
ReplyDelete"What about the finding of fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian?"
The conclusion would be that spines had evolved by that time. The data, had they been found, would have fit evolution.
"Or even finding modern animal fossils in the same rock layers as dinosaur fossils of the same size?"
Again, the date for such evolution would have been pushed back. Those are timelines within the "theory." They can be adjusted without changing the concept of evolution at all.
But, they haven't have they? Bottom line: scientists have themselves said many times that things like "fossil rabbits in the precambrian" would disprove evolution. Yet you're ignoring that and spinning a hypothetical scenerio of your own making in order to hold onto your ideas of how scientists think.
Why do I say this? Scientists realize through the various radiometric dating methods how old the precambrian is. They know that that layer is older than even the plant life that such vertebrates (or their prey) would need to live. They know that the precambrian layer is older than any of the vertebrate fossil groups that have been found.
That's why they say if fossil vertebrates were found there, it would completely upset the theory of evolution.
You can only push back the developement of life so far in earth's history before you run into the time when life wasn't possible. You can only shoehorn so much.
Precambrian vertebrates would be too much, since the precambrian is so old.
In the same way, irregularities in the orbits of planets suggest other massive bodies, not that gravity is wrong.
Gravity, like evolution, has got so much evidence for it, that it'd take something major for the theory to be overthrown, but there's something else: those irregularities didn't even really need an adjustment to the theory of what gravity is or how it works. The theory of how gravity works is what led astronomers to assume that there were other spatial bodies out there causing the disturbances.
As a result, other spatial bodies have been found because of those orbital irregularities. ex) pluto was found that way.
Reynold:
ReplyDeleteYes, once they were confident that such data would not be found, then they said such data would disprove evolution. At any rate, you proposed the hypothetical scenarios, not I. I only stated what the actual result would be. If such data had been found before such a time when statistical analysis stated that if it hasn't been found by now it's not going to be, it would have been reconciled with evolution. This is what you and others have done continually. You have taken something that was declared a potential falsifier only after it was safe and tried to present that as evidence that they are not rigging the game.
Gravity, the phenomenon that things fall when dropped, is an empirical observation, not a theory. Now, theories of gravity that fill in details and they allow for more direct testing. However, the fit of the motions of the planets is not very useful as a confirmation because when it doesn't fit, it is not a disconfirmation.
Suppose Ray said that the sun rising in the west would disprove his god because "god causes the sun to rise in the east." Would you take that as sincere? No. You would note that he was making a safe prediction and not really putting his idea to the test.
In the same way, it looks that evolution is kept safe. Now, maybe there was something that was determined a potential falsifier before it could be ruled out without appealing to evolution. But that's not what it looks like to me. It looks like you are advancing safe predictions. While you say pre-cambrian vertebrates would falsify the idea, if we were going to find them, we would have found them by now. And it looks like that wasn't declared to be something that would falsify the idea until the condition was solid. You can predict not finding these data because if they were there to be found, they should have been found.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteReynold:
Yes, once they were confident that such data would not be found, then they said such data would disprove evolution.
Let's see: You're outright saying that every single anthropologist and paleontologist in existence had somehow been able to work together to not make any predictions to the public until they could all agree upon which discoveries they each figured would not ever be found.
Sounds like you're building a conspiracy theory to me, and an unweildy one at that.
I'd adivse you to read the Macroevolution page again, for all the good it will do.
There is a correspondance between the fossil and genetic records. They did not have the gentic records before they got the fossil records.
At any rate, you proposed the hypothetical scenarios, not I.
Yeah, I and others proposed actual tests...
I only stated what the actual result would be.
No, you asserted without evidence according to your opinon what the result would be.
If such data had been found before such a time when statistical analysis stated that if it hasn't been found by now it's not going to be, it would have been reconciled with evolution.
No, something like precambrian vertebrates would have messed it up. Not that you'll believe or admit this...
This is what you and others have done continually. You have taken something that was declared a potential falsifier only after it was safe and tried to present that as evidence that they are not rigging the game.
And your accusation that all those scientists over 150 years of "rigging the game" is NOT a Conspriacy Theory in your mind?
Gravity, the phenomenon that things fall when dropped, is an empirical observation, not a theory.
Actually, it's both.
Now, theories of gravity that fill in details and they allow for more direct testing. However, the fit of the motions of the planets is not very useful as a confirmation because when it doesn't fit, it is not a disconfirmation.
It is useful because that's how we've found new planets. Using the knowledge of the laws gravity.
Suppose Ray said that the sun rising in the west would disprove his god because "god causes the sun to rise in the east." Would you take that as sincere? No. You would note that he was making a safe prediction and not really putting his idea to the test.
Guess why? Because that's something that has already been observed. Unlike Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence
Confirmation:
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.
Are you going to say that the anthropologists knew that in advance?
Now, what would have happened if that wasn't the case? One less piece of evidence for evolution. The case for the theory would have been weaker. Maybe a lot weaker.
In the same way, it looks that evolution is kept safe. Now, maybe there was something that was determined a potential falsifier before it could be ruled out without appealing to evolution. But that's not what it looks like to me. It looks like you are advancing safe predictions.
That's your opinion. Not the reality, but just your opinion. I'd say to read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, including the part I quoted just above.
While you say pre-cambrian vertebrates would falsify the idea, if we were going to find them, we would have found them by now. And it looks like that wasn't declared to be something that would falsify the idea until the condition was solid.
It wasn't declared to be something that would falsify the idea until we had an idea of the dates and succession of the arrival of organisms on earth. If we didn't know when plants and invertebrates arose, and that invertebrates arose first, then the finding of precambrian vertebrate fossils wouldn't have meant anything at the time.
As time would have gone on and things got more fleshed out, then those precambrian vertebrate fossils would have caused problems with the theory and overthrown it. Or even prevented it.
But so far evolution has stood up to that test. Until it fails it, or some test like it, there's no real reason to doubt it. It explains the fossils that paleontolgists do find quite well.
You can predict not finding these data because if they were there to be found, they should have been found.
Actually, it's more like we can predict that the precambrian fossils won't be found because they'd have to predate everything else, even their supposed precursors. Read get_education's last post to you.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteYou are doing something intellectually wrong, and I cannot find a way to clearly show it to you. It is very evident to me, but I can see that it will not be easy (always happens when something looks too evident). We are not just placing safe bets like the one you describe as "Ray claiming that the sun coming from the west" would be. Not at all. Please look it over, your imaginary Ray statement does not fit with vertebrates previous to the Cambrian explosion at all.
So, what is the test we have not made because it would be truly risky?
G.E.
Actually, fellas, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (generally referred to as "gravity") is wrong.
ReplyDeleteGet it?
Rather, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, coupled with Quantum Mechanics, are the current theories we use to describe "gravity".
Pluto, in fact, was found by meticulously checking telescope slides, looking for moving objects. It was not found as a result of the application of either Newton's or Einstein's theories. Instead, it was Neptune which was discovered through the application of Newton's [incomplete] theory. When Uranus was found in unexpected places, the available hypotheses to account for this were the following:
1) Uranus was being influenced by some as-yet unseen body of significant mass.
2) Uranus was being pushed around by god to show us he wasn't analogous to the Tooth Fairy.
I'm sure there was significant debate over which of the two available hypotheses should be accepted. The dichotomy was eventually resolved, however, when Neptune was found based on the predictions of Newton's theory coupled with Kepler's laws.
Thus, one of a myriad of confirmations for the effects of gravitation on large bodies did occur.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, as it turns out, was confirmed in two distinct ways initially. First, it, unlike Newton's theory, could account for the precession of Mercury's orbit. Precession occurs rather like a spirograph, where the effects of relativity pull Mercury ahead in its orbit. Since its orbit is more eccentric than the other interior planets, this makes for an obvious shift in its position (explained here).
The second confirmation for Einstein was when light from a star which was behind the sun was visible during a total eclipse.
What's the point?
First, theories can be and are disconfirmed. Indeed, to an extent, Pvblivs and Zilch et al are correct -- if a pre-cambrian rabbit were discovered, it would be a disconfirmation of the current theory of evolution, and it would begin a shifting of the theory to account for the find.
No, the whole theory wouldn't be scrapped -- just as Newton's classical mechanics are sufficient for most calculations -- and no, some new hypothesis wouldn't immediately be accepted by the scientific community at-large. Yes, however, competing hypotheses would surface, in an attempt to explain the phenomenon. None of them, I should think it safe to say, would begin with "god did it".
In the absence of any significant countervailing evidence, though, this is both mere speculation and completely unnecessary. For millennia, humankind recognized the earth as the center of the universe, and everything worked just fine. For centuries, the prevailing "theory" concerning the origins of the universe were based on the alleged writings of an excommunicated member of the Egyptian ruling class who later became a shepherd. Things worked fine then, too.
Now, we have better explanations for a great many (pre-) historical events, and as usual, there is weeping and gnashing of teeth from the adherents of the "traditional" theories. Unfortunately, laypersons are not attuned to the scientific method; nor are they privy to the vast quantities of evidence -- and if they were, they are not able to comprehend it -- which disconfirm that ancient text.
True, the body of evidence supporting Evolution, the Big Bang, etc., are not individually conclusive, but taken as a whole, they paint an extremely accurate picture of things, and they produce various off-shoot specialized sciences, without which much of the realized luxury so prevalent in Western societies would be impossible.
Evolution is a theory, and as such it cannot be proven, per se. It can be disconfirmed at any time, and indeed, we should expect and welcome disconfirmation. Unfortunately for the die-hard creationist, any theory which replaces Evolution will be much more like Evolution than it will be like creationism.
The argument isn't over which theory is correct -- neither is, completely -- but it is instead over which is the least incorrect.
Evolution clearly wins out over Young-earth Creationism, and the only significant resistance to that comes from the uneducated, the deluded, or the profiteering (or various combinations of the three).
Gorilla love from Trading Spaces
--
Stan
Pluto, in fact, was found by meticulously checking telescope slides, looking for moving objects. It was not found as a result of the application of either Newton's or Einstein's theories. Instead, it was Neptune which was discovered through the application of Newton's [incomplete] theory. When Uranus was found in unexpected places, the available hypotheses to account for this were the following:
ReplyDeleteWhoops. Right. Neptune! Sorry about that. I should have done some more reading myself.
I like how you showed how those various other theories got altered over time with new observations. That should help.
Get Education:
ReplyDeleteInteresting, because from my perspective it is clear that you are placing safe bets, but are blind to it. If the appearance of "safe bets" were an illusion caused by my seeing the prediction made when it was not safe, you should at least be able to understand why it looks that way to me. If I were unfamiliar with mirages and was taking one for actual water, someone familiar with mirages would understand the illusion. Instead, I get people telling me I am lying. This is more what I expect if my accusers are mistaking an illusion for the real thing.
This is apparently the wrong post to be arguing with Pvblivs: He's still arguing it in the other post.
ReplyDeleteStan and Reynold:
ReplyDeleteWhy should I answer your questioon, when you are obviously not listening? But I will give evidence that "accepting evolution uncritically" is the path of least resistance. My evidence is your own posts, directed at me. It's really quite simple. I have suggested that it looks like evolution may be being accepted uncritically. The tests that I have seen are of a "confirm or inconclusive" nature. I have specifically pointed out the fossil digs, which are touted as evidence, cannot provide negative data because the most negative theoretical outcome is finding nothing, which is inconclusive.
Stan, it really is a pity. If you had said that you were interested in an answer to the question while refraining from accusing me of a conspiracy theory, I would have responded. An actual conspiracy theory required an assumed top-down control structure. I do not assume this; and I think you are aware of that. (I could be wrong; but I don't think I am.)
The way the two of you are broad-brushing it, anyone noting something done by the scientific community as a group could be charged with adhering to a "conspiracy theory." Whether you actually made the charge would probably depend on how favorable you saw the action.
The fact is that most (if not all) scientists working in relevant fields have already "placed their bets" with larg-scale evolution. Within a group, ideas accepted by the group carry their own inertia. People who even so much as suggest that the truth of the idea is not as firmly established / tested as generally believed are invited to get lost. The group dynamic builds an effective wall. At the same time, the people forming the wall will say that they have bent over backwards to give a fair hearing. This is exactly what I see in you.
Now, you will no doubt say I am wrong. You may even claim that I am deliberately lying. But you know that claim has no merit. I have nothing to gain by deliberate deception. I have taken a position in which I have no followers and no one really willing to listen.
Your actions are, in fact, reasonably coordinated with each other. Depending on how loosely you define conspiracy, you qualify. If you consider yourself to qualify, because a conspiracy requires a greater level of organization, then your claim of "conspiracy theory" is entirely without merit. You are taking my observations, calling it a claim of conspiracy (in a loose sense) and insisting I prove a conspiracy (in a much more organized sense) or get lost. This is precisely the phenomenon I was talking about. Scientists know it's easier just to accept evolution. Any dissent, however mild, is met with the wall. You have so aptly demonstrated the wall. Well, the scientists within the scientific community have more to lose in the way of reputation if any dissent gets through. They too, will form a wall. And just like you, they don't have to make a specific plan beforehand.
So, now I have completely answered your charges of conspiracy theory. They are completely without merit. And that meritlessness serves as an indicator that your "question" was only a distraction.
Group dynamics is interesting. I remember reading about studies in which it was shown that people will, with a high probability surrender their own judgement in favor of the judgement of a group. One of the test was remarkably simple. They showed subjects three lines and asked them to indicate which one was of a different size. When the subject was asked alone, he got it right every time. The differing line was not "close." However, when the subject saw "other testees" give a different answer they had a tendency to adjust their own to match the group. Hmmm. A similar study can be found here. Reynold's post at 6:36 PM 23 Aug looks very much like someone trying to gain support in "upping the pressure." Stan and Reynold were definitely presenting a united front; and there was nothing unconscious about that. Now, I am not prepared to say that scientists present a deliberate united front to squash dissent on certain beliefs. I am only assuming normal group pressures. When the tendency to conform is that strong even in the fact of the group being obviously wrong, how much greater must it be when the group is giving an answer that looks reasonable and which has been drilled in through the educational system?
ReplyDeleteUnderstand, I still think that large-scale evolution is a plausible hypothesis. I just don't think it has ever really been tested or that (with our current limitations) we even can test it. You can see the pressure applied to try to bring me back in line. Much as they say they have bent over backwards to hear me out, they have only bent over backwards to give me the opportunity to conform.
Pvblivs
ReplyDeletePvblivs said...
Stan and Reynold:
Why should I answer your questioon, when you are obviously not listening? But I will give evidence that "accepting evolution uncritically" is the path of least resistance. My evidence is your own posts, directed at me. It's really quite simple. I have suggested that it looks like evolution may be being accepted uncritically. The tests that I have seen are of a "confirm or inconclusive" nature.
You've ignored the cytochrome-c study again I see.
I have specifically pointed out the fossil digs, which are touted as evidence, cannot provide negative data because the most negative theoretical outcome is finding nothing, which is inconclusive.
You've also ignored the fact that if those were the only results, then evolution would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
You said The fact is that most (if not all) scientists working in relevant fields have already "placed their bets" with larg-scale evolution.
That's the thing. Would it have been that way when the theory was first proposed?
Again, you refuse to answer.
The fact is that most (if not all) scientists working in relevant fields have already "placed their bets" with larg-scale evolution. Within a group, ideas accepted by the group carry their own inertia. People who even so much as suggest that the truth of the idea is not as firmly established / tested as generally believed are invited to get lost. The group dynamic builds an effective wall. At the same time, the people forming the wall will say that they have bent over backwards to give a fair hearing. This is exactly what I see in you.
Wrong. Why? I've asked you the same question over and over. I've given you the chance to answer, I'm damn near begging you to answer and each and every time you refuse. I've given you the cytochrome-c test as an example of a "non-safe" test for evolution, you ignore it and keep prattling on about how we only proposed "safe" tests.
Quasar and Stan have tried to help explain things to you.
The way the two of you are broad-brushing it, anyone noting something done by the scientific community as a group could be charged with adhering to a "conspiracy theory." Whether you actually made the charge would probably depend on how favorable you saw the action.
You're the one doing both the "broad-brushing" and also the ignoring of any points that refutes your charge.
Your actions are, in fact, reasonably coordinated with each other. Depending on how loosely you define conspiracy, you qualify.
Right, two people agreeing that you have not yet answered a question is a conspiracy! Yet your accusation that all those scientists in all those fields over all those many years somehow all decide to not expose evolution to any "unsafe" tests is not a conspriacy theory??
So, now I have completely answered your charges of conspiracy theory. They are completely without merit. And that meritlessness serves as an indicator that your "question" was only a distraction.
Wrong. Even if the charge against you was wrong, which I doubt, it was not a "distraction".
As I've said before, the only one doing any distracting is you. You're whinging and moaning about my "false" charge against you is being used by you as a distraction from the fact that you have still refused to answer the question.
I've been hammering at you repeatedly to answer it, even in this very comment, and you keep
1) refusing to answer
2) claiming that I don't really want an answer.
This is just getting stupid.
Reynold's post at 6:36 PM 23 Aug looks very much like someone trying to gain support in "upping the pressure." Stan and Reynold were definitely presenting a united front; and there was nothing unconscious about that.
You bet there wasn't. We're trying to get you to answer a question. Stan saw your evasions just like I have. Sometimes group dynamics work to expose other's mistakes and evasions too, you know.
Instead of answering my simple question, you're now trying to distract everyone by talking about psychology issues.
Understand, I still think that large-scale evolution is a plausible hypothesis. I just don't think it has ever really been tested or that (with our current limitations) we even can test it. You can see the pressure applied to try to bring me back in line. Much as they say they have bent over backwards to hear me out, they have only bent over backwards to give me the opportunity to conform.
No, Pvblivs, we've given you the opportunity to answer the question (which you keep refusing to do).
Now, you will no doubt say I am wrong. You may even claim that I am deliberately lying. But you know that claim has no merit. I have nothing to gain by deliberate deception. I have taken a position in which I have no followers and no one really willing to listen.
No, Pvblivs, we've asked you to back up your claim, you don't. We've given examples of unsafe predictions and you dismiss them (or in the case of the cytochrome-c test, you've just plain ignored them)
Just because we disagree with you does not mean that we are not listening. The fact that you've ignored the cytochrome-c test on the other hand, is evidence that it's you who is not listening.
You even go so far as to blame Stan for your not answering the question.
Let me try again!
You said Scientists know it's easier just to accept evolution. Any dissent, however mild, is met with the wall. You have so aptly demonstrated the wall. Well, the scientists within the scientific community have more to lose in the way of reputation if any dissent gets through. They too, will form a wall. And just like you, they don't have to make a specific plan beforehand.
Was it or was it not like that when the theory of evolution was first proposed, when it had not yet been accepted and they started doing their predictions and tests on it?
No evasions, no excuses. Answer the question. That question goes to the very heart of your broad-brushing accusation against scientists.
"Right, two people agreeing that you have not yet answered a question is a conspiracy!"
ReplyDeleteWrong. I have stated point blank that I will not answer that under the cloud of the "conspiracy theory" charge. I am specificly offended by that charge, which I assert is false. In fact, you are in concert to say that I should essentially be happy with the slander. That is what can loosely be considered a conspiracy. You are working in concert toward a goal I consider malevolent. That's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy. I have more or less accused the scientific community of being blind to the fact that their tests for large-scale evolution do not meet the normal criterion of a potential falsifier. If I was engaged in a conspiracy theory, I would be asserting that scientists were conducting these tests as deliberate shams, knowing full well the outcome. If I was engaged in a conspiracy theory, I would probably be asserting that the transitional fossils were stone carving. I do not make any such assertion. I think that the fossils are real and that they have been interpreted as transitional. I cannot judge myself whether they truly are transitional. And I am uncertain of the objectivity of their judgement. But that is not a conspiracy theory. I think that the scientists have preconceived notions but believe what they say. A conspiracy theory would mean that I believed that they did not believe what they say.
If you are so sure that I cannot respond and only placed the condition of "removing the cloud" of the accusation to disguise that, call my bluff. It's really that simple. If you meet that condition, if you remove the claim of conspiracy theory and agree not to bring it up again and I still don't answer, you win. In such a case you will have demonstrated your point. On the other hand, if I am right (about you) you will continue to cling to that because I have already stated that I will not give you an answer under that cloud. I have committed myself. Saying you want an answer under that cloud is only saying that you want me to break my word.
So what is it? Do you really want an answer? Are you willing to call my bluff? Will you meet the conditions under which I say that I will answer? Or are you afraid that I have an answer? Do you want the condition under which I am already committed not to answer, just so you can continue to say that I am evading? After all, I responded to an open admission of not listening. (I think that was Stan's admission.) And it is soooo easy to call my bluff -- that is, if you think I'm bluffing.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDelete"Right, two people agreeing that you have not yet answered a question is a conspiracy!"
Wrong. I have stated point blank that I will not answer that under the cloud of the "conspiracy theory" charge. I am specificly offended by that charge, which I assert is false.
And every scientists would be offended by your charge, since it's their livelihood and goal in their jobs that when they test something, they do it in such a way that they can winnow out the working theories from those that don't!
In fact, you are in concert to say that I should essentially be happy with the slander.
Just like you seem to think that all scientists everywhere should be happy with your slander against them.
That is what can loosely be considered a conspiracy. You are working in concert toward a goal I consider malevolent. That's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
"Malevolent"?? That's funny. All I did was point out that you have unjustly smeared pretty much every scientist over the last 150 years and you start bawling that I have "malevolent" intent?
I'm trying to get you to justify your claim.
I have more or less accused the scientific community of being blind to the fact that their tests for large-scale evolution do not meet the normal criterion of a potential falsifier.
And I and others, have tried to show you that you are wrong. Again, remember the cytochrome-c test? You keep ignoring that. If you had any honesty motive in seeing if your charge against the scientists was true, you'd look into that. You've ignored it.
If I was engaged in a conspiracy theory, I would be asserting that scientists were conducting these tests as deliberate shams, knowing full well the outcome.
What you said is almost as bad: It's just one step away from a textbook conspriacy theory. I've acknowledged that you've said that they do it "unconsiously", though you didn't say that until you started getting pressed about it...
If I was engaged in a conspiracy theory, I would probably be asserting that the transitional fossils were stone carving. I do not make any such assertion. I think that the fossils are real and that they have been interpreted as transitional. I cannot judge myself whether they truly are transitional.
That meanst you also can not judge as to whether the scientists who work in the actual fields are consiously or unconsiously trying to protect their theory.
And I am uncertain of the objectivity of their judgement. But that is not a conspiracy theory.
At the best it's a huge broad-brushing statement that you have yet to justify.
I think that the scientists have preconceived notions but believe what they say.
Would those "preconcieved notions" have existed when the theory of evolution was first proposed?
That was the time when the biblical view held sway after all.
Notice I've just asked again!
A conspiracy theory would mean that I believed that they did not believe what they say.
Remember, it wasn't until I started pressing you about it that you said that they did it "unconsiously". You did not say that in your original accusation agains them.
If you are so sure that I cannot respond and only placed the condition of "removing the cloud" of the accusation to disguise that, call my bluff. It's really that simple. If you meet that condition, if you remove the claim of conspiracy theory and agree not to bring it up again and I still don't answer, you win.
Why in blazes should I have to do anything?????
I am not in any way preventing you from answering my question. You are full of it.
In such a case you will have demonstrated your point. On the other hand, if I am right (about you) you will continue to cling to that because I have already stated that I will not give you an answer under that cloud.
Fine.
Since you're being such a baby about it, let me put it in terms even you can't ignore...bolded and all-caps even.
Though it will look childish and will break net-etiquette:
It's NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY!YOU'RE JUST REALLY REALLY BROAD-BRUSHING A SLANDEROUS AND FALSE ATTITUDE ABOUT HOW SCIENTISTS WORK!
There. You have no more excuses.
I have committed myself. Saying you want an answer under that cloud is only saying that you want me to break my word.
So what is it? Do you really want an answer? Are you willing to call my bluff? Will you meet the conditions under which I say that I will answer? Or are you afraid that I have an answer?
I've done my part, now do yours.
Do you want the condition under which I am already committed not to answer, just so you can continue to say that I am evading? After all, I responded to an open admission of not listening. (I think that was Stan's admission.) And it is soooo easy to call my bluff -- that is, if you think I'm bluffing.
Why is it so hard to answer the question without all this drama?
Just do it.
Geez!
You've not gotten it quite right.
ReplyDeleteWell, now the nameless one says his question was about cytochrome-c test for evolution.
I gave that as an example of an "unsafe" prediction that scientists have made.
Oddly enough it still doesn't seem to be good enough for you. Well, I tried.
My question itself has nothing to do with the cytochrome-c test, though I'm glad you're at least talking about it, even if it's not on this blog.
Well, now that this debate has devolved into name-calling, the only thing mildly interesting remaining for me is trying to figure out why pvblivs, who seems to be a pretty intelligent and rational person not driven by religion, is skeptical about large-scale evolution. I can't be sure, of course, but I think it hinges on the following. Please excuse the discourse on stuff we all know already- I'm just trying to get it as clear as possible in my own mind, so I can make my case:
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary theory, like all sciences, has two parts: an observational and a theoretical- in other words, what happens and why it happens, explained down to the lowest level possible.
In evolutionary theory, observations include those of comparative anatomy, molecular biology, cross-breeding, microevolution in the lab and field, and paleontology. Theories include natural selection, genetics, and evo-devo.
By "explained down to the lowest level possible", I mean explaining in terms of increasingly general laws: in this case, that means explaining evolution in terms of biology, biology in terms of chemistry, chemistry in terms of physics, and physics in terms of a unified theory of everything. Needless to say, not everything can be reduced successfully this way, for various reasons, and in practice no scientific theories explain every observation.
One obvious problem with reduction is this: physics describes what particles and fields do. Particles can combine into complex structures called molecules, and chemistry describes what molecules do. Molecules can combine into ultracomplex structures called living organisms, and biology describes what organisms do. Countless organisms interact with each other, and evolve through time, and evolutionary science describes how they evolve. At each step upward, there is an increase in complexity of orders of magnitude.
What this means in practice is this: it is much simpler to describe the motion of particles through space, say, than the evolution of birds through time. The "higher" (in the sense of progressing from physics to biology) you go in a science, the less accurately you can predict what will happen in any given situation, and the more you are "reduced" to describing what (apparently) has happened. The word used by Stephan J. Gould for this inability to go straight from theory to the particular history we observe is "contingency". Evolution is extremely contingent because it is so complex, and because small changes can result in huge differences over time. There is no way of predicting exactly what course it will take, even if we have very good knowledge of some particular starting point. This means that we have to depend a great deal upon the fossil record to reconstruct the particular course evolution has taken on Earth- we can't simply predict, say, that once you have Tiktaalik then you will get T. Rex.
This does not mean that useful theories cannot be developed for evolution. For instance, while we cannot predict exactly what will evolve if we subject bacteria to chemical stress (say, adding nitric acid to a petri dish of a culture), the theories of mutation and natural selection predict that there will evolve some strain of bacteria that can cope with the stress. And indeed, this is what happens. A famous example of this kind of prediction is from Darwin: he guessed that there must be a moth, as yet unknown to science, with a proboscis long enough to reach to the bottom of a particular Angraecum orchid on Madagascar. He was proven correct 41 years later.
And while the particular ways life has evolved on Earth are intractably complex and defy complete reduction to theory, there are many generalizations that can be made. For instance, evolution is gradual (natura non facit saltus): direct observation of microevolution, and many fossil lineages of gradual change, demonstrate this, and our increasing knowledge of mutation and genetics show why this is so.
More generally: while we cannot show why we have exactly the particular Tree of Life that we do, there is overwhelming evidence that it is indeed a Tree of Life: it is highly ordered, with organisms placed next to similar organisms, organized in a trunk, branches, and twigs, which delineate relationships attested to in multiple independent ways.
Of course, we cannot "prove" that the relationships we see are the result of gradual evolution. But by the same token, we cannot "prove" that South America and Africa were once joined: all we can do is look at forces we can observe today, and clues of how things were in the past, and presume that the same forces we see today also operated in the past.
Since there is no evidence that macroevolution is anything more than lots of microevolution, and given what would be a mindboggling concatenation of coincidences from different lines of evidence for familial relationships in the Tree of Life, I don't see how anyone familiar with the material can be skeptical about evolution.
But what about pvblivs? It seems to me that his problem here is the fact that our particular Tree of Life cannot be predicted from theory, and that it still holds surprises. Apparently, the contingency of evolution, especially as evidenced in the fossil record, makes evolution itself unfalsifiable for him. I hope I have demonstrated that this is an unreasonable criterion: there are many grounds for accepting macroevolution, and a standard of falsifiability that would not be unreasonable in physics is simply out of place in evolutionary theory.
Zilch:
ReplyDeleteIt is not an unfair assessment to say that the level of contingency in large-scale evolution drives my belief that it is untestable (unfalsifiable.) From where I stand, it looks like a reason can be constructed for any test that does not give the desired results. It stems from the fact that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. (It only becomes evidence of absence when there is reason to expect evidence of presence.)
At worst, you seem to be saying that I am blind to the ways that large-scale evolution is falsifiable. I can live with that. I don't believe that it is the case. But it is also possible that there is something I am not seeing. But I will defend my judgement, even in such a case, by pointing out that if I am somehow incapable of perceiving that which should convince me then skepticism is the only appropriate course. If I agree while unable to see the evidence, then I am only believing uncritically and bowing to social pressure.
Reynold:
The worst I have accused the scientific community of is a collective blindness. Since the community does act collectively (peer reviews and large-scale research projects would be impossible if it did not) it would be very surprising if there did not exist something where collective belief stemmed only from the collective belief. When it comes down to it, you are stating that I am broad-brushing them with a claim that they are human. Yes, I am assuming that they are all human. I am assuming that they are susceptible to the same group dynamics that everyone else is. If I were to make the observation that people in a Hindu society tend to conform to the prevailing belief in Hinduism, would you call that a "conspiracy theory"?
"I've done my part, now do yours."
No, you haven't done your part. I specified the conditions under which I will and will not respond. You have chosen to present the conditions under which I said I would not respond. When you present the conditions under which I said that I will respond, you will have done your part.
"Why is it so hard to answer the question without all this drama?"
Because I can see that you are trying to pressure me into uncritical acceptance.
"Why in blazes should I have to do anything?????"
Because you want me to do something. And I have conditions for doing that something. If you don't want me to respond, then you don't have to do anything. But I refuse to walk into a lynch mub. (I know, I know, there's that "drama" again.)
pvblivs- You do not deign to answer my polite and reasonable questions (about plate tectonics, for instance, which I asked three times, the last time three days ago). You keep repeating that large-scale evolution is, according to your standards, not falsifiable, and that evolutionary scientists are all "biased", "blind", lacking in "critical thinking", and hold evolution "sacred". You offer no evidence for any of these assertions, other than the fact that these scientists accept something you don't.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is not a dialog. I don't really care any more why you are skeptical, because you obviously do not know a lot about evolution, but are just pontificating from your armchair a philosophical position about falsification that is simply not relevant to figuring out what is going on in the real world, which is what science is about.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteHow can you act offended when your statement was actually about a conspiracy theory?
You clearly explained that the experiments are built to keep evolution safe. That is conspiracy theory.
You also very clearly state that the results are published once they know they keep evolution safe. That is also conspiracy theory.
So, are these your claims or not? If not please go back and erase those posts and post the correct one.
As of your response, I did not say ours are not "safe bets," I am saying they are nothing like Ray saying the sun coming from the opposite side. The reason I think ours are safe bets is because evolution is proven beyond doubt. But the possibility is still there for finding the wrong fossils at the wrong time (if evolution is not true and there are any such fossils). While the sun coming from the west is factually impossible.
But I am not trying to convince you, just to see that your comparison with the imaginary Ray claim was not fair.
G.E.
The worst I have accused the scientific community of is a collective blindness. Since the community does act collectively (peer reviews and large-scale research projects would be impossible if it did not) it would be very surprising if there did not exist something where collective belief stemmed only from the collective belief. When it comes down to it, you are stating that I am broad-brushing them with a claim that they are human.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm accusing you of broad-brushing all scientists since you accused them of "unconsiously" refusing to look at any data that goes against the theory of evolution.
I've tried to counter that by asking you if they were that predisposed to protect evolution even when it first came up while the reigning paradigm was creationism.
Surely if there was evidence in the fossil record and elsewhere to shoot down the theory of evolution that was found, they would not have protected it then, wouldn't you say?
Yes, this is yet another time I'm asking the question. I'm even explaining why I'm asking it.
Yes, I am assuming that they are all human. I am assuming that they are susceptible to the same group dynamics that everyone else is. If I were to make the observation that people in a Hindu society tend to conform to the prevailing belief in Hinduism, would you call that a "conspiracy theory"?
Well for one thing, Hinduism is a religion, or at least a faith...you know, something that's taken without evidence?
Again, as to your comments about "group dynamics", I'll ask again: Do you think that scientists were so eager to protect evolution when the theory was first developed (when the creation model was the one currently accepted)?
Well, let's look at what someone else had to say:
From get_education:
You clearly explained that the experiments are built to keep evolution safe. That is conspiracy theory.
You also very clearly state that the results are published once they know they keep evolution safe. That is also conspiracy theory.
So, are these your claims or not? If not please go back and erase those posts and post the correct one.
I'm not the only one who wants answers from you, and I'm sick of playing your game.
I've given you amble time to answer my simple question, I've repeated it several times and you keep refusing because I've hurt your feelings or something.
Bar that. I'm through playing. You've been exposed enough.
"I've done my part, now do yours."
No, you haven't done your part. I specified the conditions under which I will and will not respond. You have chosen to present the conditions under which I said I would not respond. When you present the conditions under which I said that I will respond, you will have done your part.
Wrong I have done my part. I've said in my previous post that
you're broad brushing an inorrect attitude about how scientists work. You just wanted me to take away the charge of "conspiracy theory". I've done that and accused you of broad-brushing, which you have done.
"Why is it so hard to answer the question without all this drama?"
Because I can see that you are trying to pressure me into uncritical acceptance.
Baloney. All I'm doing is asking you if scientists were so eager to protect evolution theory when it was first develped or not.
That's it. The only thing you're being pressured into here is in trying to back up your own claims, which as some others have noted, you're not.
"Why in blazes should I have to do anything?????"
Because you want me to do something. And I have conditions for doing that something. If you don't want me to respond, then you don't have to do anything. But I refuse to walk into a lynch mub. (I know, I know, there's that "drama" again.)
Yeah, and your excuses. I did what you asked. I'm not surprised, really.
I should not have to do anything. You would think, as a matter of simple bloody courtesy you'd back up you claims against scientists. As get_education noted, you haven't.
Instead of justifying your claim, you're whining about being called out on it, and are refusing to answer a simple, reasonable question unless I soothe your hurt feelings.
Thing is, now I'm not the only one who's asking you questions that you seem to be ignoring.
zilch said...
pvblivs- You do not deign to answer my polite and reasonable questions (about plate tectonics, for instance, which I asked three times, the last time three days ago). You keep repeating that large-scale evolution is, according to your standards, not falsifiable, and that evolutionary scientists are all "biased", "blind", lacking in "critical thinking", and hold evolution "sacred". You offer no evidence for any of these assertions, other than the fact that these scientists accept something you don't.
Good luck.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIn an earlier post you said,
"1. THE BOOK OF GOD: ......[snip]
Man could not set out to write a book of this size. He would not have the ideas of it, nor would man be able to produce the detail and precision of it. It presents God as THE God. It presents God as having a plan. It presents God only as deserving glory. It presents God as the absolute authority."
This pretty much sums up your absurd arguments.
Appaently you have never read any other book because there are hundreds of thousands of books that are far more complicated, imaginative and realistic than Genesis.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteWay to go interrupting a brilliant discussion going on.
I have a wild idea post that comment HERE
Hee hee. Interruption is funny.
ReplyDeletePvblivs: I'd like to say here, I don't think your opinion is anything resembling a 'conspiricy theory'. It's more like an accusation of bias and inability to think critically about personal beliefs.
The problem I have is that this bias would have to apply on a larger scale than almost any other scientific bias in history. With all the students of evolution, including the large numbers who have reason to doubt evolution (due to it's inconsistencies with their faith), and taking into account that scientists are among the most critical, doubting people on earth, this bias would have to transcend mere group dynamics.
And look at people who challenged and overturned theories in the past: Gallileo, Darwin, Einstein. The most respected names in science, who all followed the same philosophy: doubt everything.
As to an inability to think critically about personal beliefs: we are speaking about people who make their living by thinking critically. Not that they're immune: no one is. But they're a lot less susceptible to it.
As I said, I don't think this accusation equates to a conspiricy theory. At the same time, it's an accusation on a massive scale, and you've yet to provide evidence for it other than your own very unorthodox interpretation of the actions of scientist. Can you see why you're being accused of the former?
Get Education:
ReplyDeleteAt this point you must know that I am closed to claims of conspiracy theory. Indeed, they can only meaningfully serve as indicators that you are backing one another up in keeping the pressure to conform on. That's all. You cannot convince me that you think I am engaging in conspiracy theory. That would be aside from accusing you of engaging in a direct conspiracy to pressure me. But that is no secret. Your efforts are clearly coordinated; and they are equally clearly designed to pressure me.
Reynold:
"You just wanted me to take away the charge of 'conspiracy theory'. I've done that and accused you of broad-brushing, which you have done."
No, you have maintained your charge of conspiracy theory. And you have people supporting you on it. I have supported my claims that the tests you presented could not, under any circumstances, falsify evolution. So, I have backed up my claim that you belittle as "conspiracy theory: and now "broad brushing."
"I did what you asked."
What I asked was for you to withdrew your claim of "conspiracy theory" and admit that it was only a distraction. You have not done that. Whether or not you think you are justified in not doing what I asked, it is a falsehood when you say you did.
Zilch:
Repeat your question. I have been parrying slanders for some time and may simply have missed it.
For the record, I think that everyone has biases (yes that includes me.) I also think that everyone is blind to certain things (again, including myself.) The tests presented for evolution cannot provide negative data. Those would be the ones that you and the others here have stated were tests of evolution.
"Sorry, but this is not a dialog. I don't really care any more why you are skeptical, because you obviously do not know a lot about evolution, but are just pontificating from your armchair a philosophical position about falsification that is simply not relevant to figuring out what is going on in the real world, which is what science is about."
Was this your idea of asking politely? Quite frankly, I don't think you ever cared about my reasons. You just sought to pressure me into the groupthink. Is this how the scientific community operates? Are you representative? Because if you are, then I will go so far as to say scientists are engaged in a conspiracy. I don't want to think that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy. The tests that I have seen, including the ones that you presented, were safe for evolution. Even if macroevolution were false (say, people had seeded the initial populations from captive-bred animals in their timeships) it would not give a result that would hut the "theory." And the example that I just gave is not meant to be plausible. It is only an alternative that, if true, would still give results that would not disconfirm evolution.
Now, I have stated from the beginning, that it is possible that there was a test somewhere that actually sought to falsify evolution. But if there was, I haven't seen it. If any of you can produce one, I will look at it. So far, everything that I have seen touted as a "potential falsifier" (e.g. rabbits mixed with dinosaurs) was declared so (as near as I can tell) after there had been enough searches that if they were going to be found they would already have been so. Other tests supportive of evolution (e.g. the cytochrome-c) had they turned out otherwise, would have been considered neutral. If there were no such thing as cytochrome-c or if the variations were unrelated to the proposed genetic tree (presumably the expecation in a world where macroevolution is false) it would have meant nothing to evolution. The divergence of the sequences could be so long ago as to predict randomness. But according to the group, none of this is evidence. I suppose only something like a signed confession (after all, you accuse me of engaging in conspiracy theory) would satisfy you as being evidence. But with these tests, either there is a falsification result (that does not negate our ability to make statistical observations of the world) that I simply don't see, there is no possible falsification result and the scientists don't see the fact (that would be the "blindness" that I declared) or they really are conducting willfully fraudulent tests (which is not what I think is happenning.)
Quasar:
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can see that I am being accused of "conspiracy theory" is because it is a standard "let's shun this person" accusation. I have seen this accusaton trotted many times as a third-party observer and it is normally a silencing tactic. Now, you accuse me of simply being wrong, of having judged incorrectly. I have no problem with that. I might be wrong. As I said before I saw your post, I have presented evidence. Perhaps you don't think it is sufficient. Perhaps you think I am reading too much into it. For that matter, you could even be right. This could be my own bias operating; and I could simply be blind to it.
The fact is that accusations that I consider malicious only cause me to defend myself against a perceived attack. I don't mind being told that I am wrong. I mind having standard silencers thrown at me; and I mind being told that I am lying. So, for that, I apologize for getting emotional.
Reynold and others,
ReplyDeleteI found an article while searching for something. This is a big shocker but it is way beyond my pay grade, but I thought you might like to take a look at it.
A BARAMINOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SUBTRIBE FLAVERIINAE (ASTERACEAE: HELENIEAE) AND THE ORIGIN OF BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY
Reynold:
ReplyDelete"You just wanted me to take away the charge of 'conspiracy theory'. I've done that and accused you of broad-brushing, which you have done."
No, you have maintained your charge of conspiracy theory. And you have people supporting you on it. I have supported my claims that the tests you presented could not, under any circumstances, falsify evolution.
Utter bull. I explain a bit why later on in this comment.
So, I have backed up my claim that you belittle as "conspiracy theory: and now "broad brushing."
"I did what you asked."
What I asked was for you to withdrew your claim of "conspiracy theory" and admit that it was only a distraction.
It was NOT a distraction, you liar. You've ascribed a false motive to me, and you won't answer my question unless I agree that your false charge against me was true?
Pike off. I'm not playing your game.
Something that you can't seem to realize is that NONE of those tests for evolution are truly "safe". If evolution were false, then the fossil record could still show that in the future, even if it hasn't in the past. The fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian is still a valid, "unsafe" test of evolution. If YECism were true, that could still show up. Thing is, it has not, and the prediction is that it never will. Nothing is stopping anyone from going out and doing the digging to find this. Evolutionary theory is always on the line.
As for the cytochrome-c test being "neutral"? No. If there was no commonality between the human and chimpanzee cytochrome-c protein sequences, biologists would have some explaining to do.
It was the fossil record that first helped people establish that evolutionary relationship. Without any genetic confirmation such as that provided by cytochrome-c, biologists would have had to explain why the genetic and fossil record contradicted each other. Instead they've gotten corroboration.
The relationship was helped established by the fossil record well before the science of genetics could start checking some things out, so predictions of the genetic similarities like the cytochrome-c protein relationship are not "safe" predictions.
You have not done that. Whether or not you think you are justified in not doing what I asked, it is a falsehood when you say you did.
The only falsehood is when you keep saying that I'm throwing up that charge as a "distraction".
The only person using it as a distraction is you. You're using it as an excuse to not answer the question as to whether scientists would have "shielded" the theory of evolution from "unsafe" tests even when the theory was first proposed, at the time when creationism was the reigning paradigm.
Quasar and I may disagree on the interpretation of your slander, but as he points out; it's an accusation on a massive scale. The way you've constructed it, as pointed out by get_education sounded pretty much like a conspiracy theory to me.
ReplyDeleteI did not bring it up as a "distraction" or to shut you up. If I did, do you think I'd keep hammering at you to answer a simple question?
Dan- I looked at the link you provided, on "Baraminological Somethingorothers". Sorry, Dan, it's not a "shocker", or only so in the sense that it provides a window onto a bizarre parallel universe, the mind of the "creation scientist". In a word, "baraminology" is "barmy".
ReplyDeleteAll the authors have done is look at some genuine features (the various kinds of photosynthetic pathways, the particular ways plants get energy from the sun) of a group of plants (genus Flaveria, related to asters) through Bible-colored glasses, and come to the conclusion that one particular subgroup of species are all descendants of one precursor- what they call a "holobaramin", and what real scientists call an "ancestral species".
Unfortunately, the descendant species have a different kind of photosynthesis pathway than their presumed precursor. To avoid the unpleasant implication that post-Deluge evolution occurred, that wasn't just degeneration (a canard of creationists, who claim that genes can only become less complex through time, not more), they invoke something called AGE's, or "altruistic genetic elements", roving bands of DNA in the genome that God allegedly supplied to help organisms deal with post-Flood stress. To us evilutionists it might look like evolution; but the baraminologists know better: since the Bible says "goddidit", the evidence must simply be squooshed till it fits. And if that includes inventing a structure for which there is no evidence outside of one interpretation of the Bible, well, it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. After all, what are you going to believe: your own eyes, or the Word of God?
Needless to say, there is no evidence presented in the article that is not explained better by garden-variety Neodarwinism: no irreducibly complex structures, no AGE genes, no fingerprints of God. In this case, the authors did not even attempt to demonstrate the involvement of God through the evidence: they simply assumed God's involvement, and tried to map the findings based on that assumption. The same thing could be done by assuming the existence of Xenu and body thetans, and it would be just as convincing.
And Dan- don't sell yourself short. True, this article is bristling with technical terms, but it is at least written in a clear and accessible style, something which cannot be said of many creationist works: I'm sure you would be able to understand it if you put some effort into it. The danger I see is that many people might well be impressed by all the big words and graphs, and conclude that the authors must be on to something, without reading it carefully.
Of course, articles about evolution should be treated the same way: just because something sounds sciency, doesn't mean it is science.
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"The things I found, so far, are from Johnson and CRI so most of what I present will be shamelessly borrowed from those sources since the research on the subject has already been completed."
So, you plan top copy and paste Hanegraaff's stuff.
If you consider what Hanegraaff has done as "research," you do not know what "research" is.
Just like the IRC, he loosely associates some scientific fact with a bible verse that supposedly proves it wrong.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteSo would it be fair to say it all depends on all of our presuppositions? No matter what evidence we are presented with, we must filter it through the "colored glasses" of that presupposition in order for it to make sense.
I did understand the basic gist of the article but I am just not familiar enough with the subject to refute or approve of it.
Thanks
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteThat would be aside from accusing you of engaging in a direct conspiracy to pressure me. But that is no secret. Your efforts are clearly coordinated; and they are equally clearly designed to pressure me.
I wish I knew how you find this to be so clear. I am not trying to pressure you but ask you for clarification. You did imply conspiracy theory, and now you charge me with another conspiracy (peer pressure). I said I was not trying to convince you about the evolution part, but show you that you were actually talking about a conspiracy about evolution. I could not coordinate anything with anybody. I am alone here. I do not even have an e-mail in my profile. Hell Pvblivs, was this for real?
Do not answer, I think I do not want to know.
G.E.
So would it be fair to say it all depends on all of our presuppositions?
ReplyDeleteYes, that's fair enough, Dan. There are, however, two differences between a biological explanation and a "baraminological" explanation of the data.
One: the baraminological account doesn't explain anything new. It simply takes data that biologists have already gathered, and gives it a new interpretation. What science there is here was already done by scientists, and bariminology adds nothing: no new predictions, no discoveries, no insights about function or structure.
Two: in order to make the data fit a creationist mold, many assumptions must be made that are not warranted by the evidence. The postulation of an "AGE" to nudge evolution along is one example from this article: there is simply no evidence for such a structure; it is simply required to safeguard the creationist notion that complexity cannot evolve by itself.
Of course, there are other problems with the creationist view: besides not really explaining anything science does not, it is simply wrong about many things. For instance, complexity can and does evolve, and this can be demonstrated in real time, with the evolution of polyploidy in plants, and evolutionary computer programs.
I did understand the basic gist of the article but I am just not familiar enough with the subject to refute or approve of it.
As I have indicated, it's not so much a matter of refuting or approving it, as seeing that it is pretty much content-free. I'm not an expert in plant evolution either, but it's easy to see that nothing new has been demonstrated here.
I must give the authors credit for not claiming otherwise: they never say that they have given evidence for the existence of God, or for a young Earth, but simply accept these and work from there. If they dropped this creationist stuff, they could probably do real science.
I am beginning to think it was a bad thing to mention Pvblivs as having a point. The gloves are off and the attacking swarm is in full swing.
ReplyDeleteWe can see how the scientific community takes such offense to the fact that maybe they have it wrong. If anyone challenges the points the community attacks are equal to a knuckle raping with a ruler by a nun.
Shame on you! Bad, bad, critic!
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"there are other problems with the creationist view: besides not really explaining anything science does not,"
Ah, now you are close to one of the punch lines of the series of posts.
How about Creation is rejected because it's untestable for scientists, if it's accepted.
Keep following that logic to it's fruition.
Dan
ReplyDeleteI am beginning to think it was a bad thing to mention Pvblivs as having a point. The gloves are off and the attacking swarm is in full swing.
We can see how the scientific community takes such offense to the fact that maybe they have it wrong. If anyone challenges the points the community attacks are equal to a knuckle raping with a ruler by a nun.
Shame on you! Bad, bad, critic!
Dan's said that with obviously no appreciation of the idea of the tests that have gone into the theory, or any realization that when the theory of evolution was first tested, it was at the time when creationism was the reigning pardigm.
That's why I keep asking Pvblivs if scientists were so protective of evolution when it was first developed;
Dan, you may also want to read some of the comments on Pvblivs's blog:
Get Education:
ReplyDeleteI have a habit of anwering anyway. If the peer pressure here is not clear to you, then I don't know how to explain it.
I said that a conspiracy about evolution would require that I thought that they had evidence that evolution is false. I just don't think that that is possible. I don't think that we have the ability to conduct a test that could have an outcome, assuming evolution is false, that cannot also happen assuming it true. Beyond that, the only "conspiracy" that I can think of which you might accuse me of theorizing is that scientists work together to popularize their beliefs among the general public, which is not a bad thing. But this is a direct fact. There are various periodicals devoted to doing just that. And it is no secret.
Dan:
By all means, check the comments on my blog. Also note the response I made (some time ago) to the question Reynold continues to insist I hadn't answered even after he referenced the next post on my blog.
Pvblivs:
ReplyDeleteBy all means, check the comments on my blog. Also note the response I made (some time ago) to the question Reynold continues to insist I hadn't answered even after he referenced the next post on my blog.
Pvblivs, I've already explained that the response on your blog was not to the question that I keep asking here!
Let me repeat myself:
You've not gotten it quite right.
Well, now the nameless one says his question was about cytochrome-c test for evolution.
I gave that as an example of an "unsafe" prediction that scientists have made.
Is the cytochrome-c problem the "question" that you say that I keep asking on this site?
If that's your claim, then you should know better. The question that I keep asking (just read through my posts) is always some variation of:
Would scientists have tried to consciously or unconsciously "shield" evolution from tests that would disprove it even when the theory was first developed, at a time when it was creationism that was the reigning pardigm?
Is was predicted in the 70s that there must be evidence of a fusion event in one of the human chromosomes since we have 23 pairs and the rest of the Great Apes have 24 pairs.
ReplyDeleteScientists risked setting themselves up for failure here because lack of a fusion event would disprove common ancestory and so undermine evolutionary theory.
The technology to check this prediction wasn't good enough until the early 90s, two decades later, but guess what...?
Human chromosome 2 has two centromeres and four telomeres, in exactly the right orientation as would be expected from a fusion event.
Thats how good science happens contrary to what some people here think...
Pvblivs' assessment that evidence against evolutionary prinicples results in it being labelled "inconclusive" is either patently false, or represents rejection of the scientific method (something which peer reviewing scientists would point out with enthusiasm).
ReplyDeleteI'm not implying that science is infallible. I'm saying that quality control is built into the process such that mistakes and errors are most often revealed and resolved after some time.
Christianity has no such self-regulating mechanism.
EDIT: previous response deleted to address typing errors