h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*Makes a note on the parts of my last post that were not replied to*... Interesting...

So, you have no answer to this then:
"Evolutionary biology fulfils all criteria of science, it even fulfils everything you demand of it. It's been isolated, observed, recorded AND repeated. Is this something you simply don't believe?"

Well, that speaks volumes...


Monty python can take all the credit for the witch science. Never seen "The Holy Grail"?


"It really seems like a good example to me. The Salem trials were based on things people could observe in the courtroom or testimony of people who claimed to observe things. The tests they devised seem very similar to the ones you have noted so far to *prove* evolution. None of them really proved witchcraft (there were other explanations) but because none of them managed to disprove it, witchcraft was assumed."

- How is proving someone is NOT a witch similar to someone proving (beyond reasonable doubt) a theory?
- How were the tests similar?
- This is even a very poor example of a court case. The were assumed to be guilty and had to prove otherwise.
- A better explanation or example is needed.


"I think I've said this already, but if that is the case, then there is no certainty in evolution, as I've said repeatedly."

YES. There is no certainty in gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics, or genetics, or organic chemistry. We can "prove" none of it! We can say this probably happens - in fact in some cases we can be 99.9999% sure it happens, but we can never get to that 100% mark.


<"You cannot expect people just to switch off their brains after noticing the same bones in the fin of a whale, the wing of a bat and the human hand, and not think of why the hell that happens.">

"Relevence? I was talking about what *proves* things, not what makes people curious. There are many different conclusions that are reachable as to why that happens. One of them is common descent. Another is common design."

The relevance is that you were saying that the *systematic* similarities between organisms from the morphological level down to the molecular level (that just *happen* to match the predictions made by evolutionary biology VERY well) are just similarities and that's it. It's like there's no need to try and ask why. That's what science did. It said "why?". A common designer is not a scientific explanation (for reasons we have already gone over), so we can discount that.

"...So far I haven't seen or heard anything that *proves* either one of those, and it appears to me that they are both dealing with things we can't observe since we can observe neither God nor the common ancestor."

You're not going to get absolute proof. You are going to get 99.9999% confidence though. A scientist making a theory of evolution predicts that all life is related, that they have a common ancestor at some point in the past. The evidence for this would be that more closely-related species are more similar that less closely-related species. This is observed all over the place many many times. This is evidence for common descent and that fact you have moved the goalposts again and started to demand seeing the first common ancestor shows your reluctance to *believe* this.

We're back to belief. You don't have any scientific reasons for not thinking evolution is true. You are scrambling for excuses at every opportunity, changing your demands of evidence or proof when needed and ignoring salient points if necessary.

When it comes down to it you don't believe it. There's a ton of hypotheses, predictions, evidence backing up these, and further theory. You don't believe any of them. For no reason other than personal belief. Scepticism is healthy, but unreasonable incredulity makes for a very poor argument.

Ste

"Evolutionary biology fulfils all criteria of science, it even fulfils everything you demand of it. It's been isolated, observed, recorded AND repeated. Is this something you simply don't believe?"
Thought I covered that in my response to the other parts of your post.

"- How is proving someone is NOT a witch similar to someone proving (beyond reasonable doubt) a theory?"
No, in this analogy, evolution is similar to the theory that the people ARE witches, not the other way around. The establishment believes they are witches, (the establishment believes in evolution) and it has not been proven or disproven but is being treated as absolute undisputable truth anyway.

"- How were the tests similar?"
They don't DISPROVE evolution or witchcraft and they don't prove it either. They don't even manage to eliminate any serious possiblities.

"- This is even a very poor example of a court case. The were assumed to be guilty and had to prove otherwise."
True, it's not a good example of a court case, but evolution is not a good example of science, so it seems like it fits pretty well to me. (I don't mean to be rude or demeaning here, OK? I'm not calling you a witchhunter or anything, anymore than I would call an anti-communist a witchhunter. (I wouldn't))

"- A better explanation or example is needed."
OK I'll try to think of one.

I have to goto English class now. I'll get to the rest of your comments later!
Nerd42

Hello,

I'd just like to add my say if that's ok.

Nerd,

On your analogy, I've got to say I believe it is weak one, evolution was not presumed true when Darwin announced his theory, for example. It is now commonly accepted as true because of emerging proofs for it.

However, I do agree with part of the sentiment. Ste, earlier you suggested that science progressed by a falsifying theories. Yet this dosn't sit well with the history of scientific advancement.

Thanks for the disscussion

blub-blub

This post in in response to both previous two posts:

"However, I do agree with part of the sentiment. Ste, earlier you suggested that science progressed by ... falsifying theories. Yet this dosn't sit well with the history of scientific advancement."

Science comes up with ideas (hypotheses) that are testable with the scientific experiment - they can be "proved" true or false by these tests.

I think this current confusion is my fault. I have focused too much on the "faslifiability" aspect of science in an attempt to demonstrate how evolutionary biology is science (as a lot of people demand this of a scientific theory for it to be science). Science clearly also relies on positive evidence aswell as negative evidence to come to its conclusions.

The example of homologous structures in related organisms is a good example of this positive evidence. An example of negative evidence that would falsify the above positive evidence would be if you then looked at the DNA of these similar organisms and it totally contradicted the patterns seen - that there was NO similarity at the DNA level whatsoever.

I hope this is now more clear.

Ste

Ste,

I understand what your saying, but I feel you still place too much importance on falsfying the theories due to contradictory evidence. For this to be the case surely it must be assumed that the falsfying evidence is infallable, or at least less fallable than the theory itself. Yet in the case of radical theories it is hard to find the positive evidence. In an ideal situation science would not accept the new theory until suitable positive evidence could be found. Maybe this is how science should work, but this isn't historically the case, and had it been the development of science would not have been as rapid as it has.

For example, at the time Newton anounced his theories concerning gravity, there was more proof against what he said than for it, yet still it was largely adopted early on.

blub-blub

"In an ideal situation science would not accept the new theory until suitable positive evidence could be found."

That's what I was talking about in my previous post. See the example I gave for the morphological similarities of animals being evidence of common descent. I then showed how it would be possible to prove this evidence false with further evidence, such as DNA sequences, IF this new information contradicted the old.

Science ideally progresses by letting the experiment itself "choose" the best hypothesis out of multiple alternative hypotheses. For further reading see Platt R (1964) "Strong Inference". Science 146

Ste

Yes, but science does not always progress this way.
In many cases, in which a whole body of understanding is believed true is contradicted by a new theory, the weight of evidence is on the side of the established theory. However, as shown in the adoption of Newton's gravity, despite the large body of 'proof' against, this is not how science progresses, pressumably because this would lead to a very slow rate of development.

blub-blub

This is what I was talking about in post 77:

"For example, you have hypothesis X, that predict A will happen if B happens. You test this by making A happen. You actually find C happens. It has been falsified. You modify your hypothesis in light of this new observation to predict A -> C. Re-test and bingo, X is on its way to theory-hood. Someone else does the same experiment and find A -> C also. Cool! X is now a stronger theory as it has been independently verified. However, other people test theory X and find when A happens something different happens: D. The theory is contested and controversial and not as strong as it once was."

Ste

"On your analogy, I've got to say I believe it is weak one, evolution was not presumed true when Darwin announced his theory, for example. It is now commonly accepted as true because of emerging proofs for it."
It *is* assumed true NOW. Darwin, or whoever else came up with the idea is irrelevent. I have not seen proof. So far, I've only seen unproven interpretations placed on information that both evolutionists and creationists acknowledge is true.
Nerd42

"YES. There is no certainty in gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics, or genetics, or organic chemistry. We can "prove" none of it! We can say this probably happens - in fact in some cases we can be 99.9999% sure it happens, but we can never get to that 100% mark."
Wait a second here ... now we need to define "proof" I can observe gravity. I cannot observe the "common ancestor". I can observe natural selection, but not the results of the alleged cumulative effect(s) it supposedly has.
Nerd42

"The relevance is that you were saying that the *systematic* similarities between organisms from the morphological level down to the molecular level (that just *happen* to match the predictions made by evolutionary biology VERY well) are just similarities and that's it. It's like there's no need to try and ask why. That's what science did. It said "why?". A common designer is not a scientific explanation (for reasons we have already gone over), so we can discount that."
Not really. First of all, it woud seem to me that organisms resulting from random processes would be likely to have random attributes, (as opposed to systematic) if it is possible for them to exist at all. The fact that organisms have *systematic* attributes just *happens* to match the predictions made by people studying the Genesis account VERY well. Until you can ELIMINATE ALL the other possibilities, your idea will not hold water.

"You're not going to get absolute proof."
Then I'm not going to get absolute certainty like you have without having faith in the idea, which means that, since you are absolutely certain the idea is true, YOU HAVE PUT YOUR FAITH INTO THE IDEA.

How is the government to judge which of our faiths is correct/superior? Answer: it shouldn't even try.

"You are going to get 99.9999% confidence though. A scientist making a theory of evolution predicts that all life is related, that they have a common ancestor at some point in the past. The evidence for this would be that more closely-related species are more similar that less closely-related species. This is observed all over the place many many times. This is evidence for common descent and that fact you have moved the goalposts again and started to demand seeing the first common ancestor shows your reluctance to *believe* this."
Proof that "more closely-related species are more similar that less closely-related species" would first require proof that all species are related (have a common ancestor) in the first place. The evidence you have submitted thus far to prove that is the fact that lots of (or even all of) different animals have some of the same DNA. However, that does not prove that all animals are related. That only shows that they have some of the same DNA. It is completely possible that they could all have some of the same DNA, all have similar bone structures, and yet not have a common ancestor. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 5.

"We're back to belief. You don't have any scientific reasons for not thinking evolution is true."
I don't have any scientific reasons for thinking evolution IS true either, except for the obvious absurdity of some of the more radical political ideas that have been based in part on evolutionary philosophy. (Communism is a good example of this) As I've said, from a scientific standpoint, though both sides make very compelling cases, agnosticism is the way to go.

"You are scrambling for excuses at every opportunity, changing your demands of evidence or proof when needed and ignoring salient points if necessary."
I say "I have not seen evidence that proves your idea", you give information, and I say "That did not prove your idea". How is that changing demands of evidence? In fact, I *don't* demand anything. I've only said something hasn't been proven. I am not demanding that it be proven, just that the government should treat it as ONE of a great many different ideas, and allow students to weigh the evidence and judge for themselves individually, or just remain undecided if they think it inconclusive. I don't think that is an extreme position. In fact, it is quite moderate, and I hope everyone will forgive me for when I have gotten angry and posted inflamatory rhetoric.

"When it comes down to it you don't believe it. There's a ton of hypotheses, predictions, evidence backing up these, and further theory. You don't believe any of them. For no reason other than personal belief. Scepticism is healthy, but unreasonable incredulity makes for a very poor argument."
Please understand something here.

I am not trying to disprove evolution. That paragraph there seems to imply that you think that I think I can disprove evolution. I can't. But I also can't prove it, and neither can anybody else I've ever talked to. The same thing goes for creation and ID. I'm for NPOV in schools!!
Nerd42

"Wait a second here ... now we need to define "proof""

Ok. Do you know what is meant by deductive and inductive reasoning? It has been explained to you previously in great detail. Science uses the latter so only deals with the probability of something being true. When something is statistically significant it is found to be true 95% of the time or more.


"I can observe gravity. I cannot observe the "common ancestor". I can observe natural selection, but not the results of the alleged cumulative effect(s) it supposedly has."

That's like saying you don't think WWII happened because you couldn't observe Hitler giving the order to invade Poland. The evidence of a common ancestor doesn't and cannot come from observing it. It comes from the observation that all life has commonalities in its most rudimentary functions such as DNA replication, protein synthesis, respiration, glycolysis, etc.

Ste

"Not really. First of all, it woud seem to me that organisms resulting from random processes would be likely to have random attributes, (as opposed to systematic) if it is possible for them to exist at all.

Evolution is NOT RANDOM. (**gah, how many times?**). What part of "selection" don't you understand? How can something that is "selected" be "random"? Evolution in part works by natural selection acting upon the genetic variation generated by random processes such as mutation. If evolution were just random then everything would be random. Again, no wonder you think evolution is junk. Wow.

"The fact that organisms have *systematic* attributes just *happens* to match the predictions made by people studying the Genesis account VERY well."

I don't believe you. Also, what was I saying about god and science?

"Until you can ELIMINATE ALL the other possibilities, your idea will not hold water."

That's NOT how it works. So, according to you, no idea in the world can be accepted as the current scientific truth unless every other idea in the world has been discounted. Don't be ridiculous. The veracity of one idea does not depend on other ideas. They are each judged in their own right.


"Then I'm not going to get absolute certainty like you have without having faith in the idea, which means that, since you are absolutely certain the idea is true, YOU HAVE PUT YOUR FAITH INTO THE IDEA."

Wtf? Didn't I say a few posts ago that I'd consider evolution false if convincing evidence was presented against it? What have I been repeatedly saying about science and certainty? Is anybody home? Every time I think progress is being made, we take ten steps backwards because you either forget or ignore what has taken place previously.


"How [who?] is the government to judge which of our faiths is correct/superior? Answer: it shouldn't even try."

Teach science in science classes. Evolutionary biology is considered a science by every reasonable person on the entire planet. Only you it seems disagree for reasons you cannot articulate. You cannot even follow the argument.


"Proof that "more closely-related species are more similar that less closely-related species" would first require proof that all species are related (have a common ancestor) in the first place. The evidence you have submitted thus far to prove that is the fact that lots of (or even all of) different animals have some of the same DNA. However, that does not prove that all animals are related. That only shows that they have some of the same DNA. It is completely possible that they could all have some of the same DNA, all have similar bone structures, and yet not have a common ancestor. 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 5."

It is possible, but it is HIGHLY unlikely. I'll repeat myself. Not for the first time. Darwin observed the same bird, yet with differentially adapted beaks to take advantage of different food sources. The most likely explanation was that a single bird species had dispersed to the Galapogas from Equador and changed because of natural selection (Bingo! evidence of the result of natural selection from the mid-1800s). Extrapolating this observed mechanism to the rest of life the prediction was made that all life is related as they also share many things in common. This prediction has been born out with centuries of evidence and more recently evidence from DNA sequence.

Please continue switching off your brain and refusing to see phenomena. It seems to be a personality trait.


"I don't have any scientific reasons for thinking evolution IS true either, except for the obvious absurdity of some of the more radical political ideas that have been based in part on evolutionary philosophy. (Communism is a good example of this) As I've said, from a scientific standpoint, though both sides make very compelling cases, agnosticism is the way to go."

Because you CLEARLY have NO IDEA of what evolution is, what it entails. Communism? Ummm, ok. I'll ignore that silly comment. There is no both sides because the creation standpoint invokes God as an explanatory mechanism. This is not science. In fact, to scientists, this is akin to giving up. It's pathetic.


" I say "I have not seen evidence that proves your idea", you give information, and I say "That did not prove your idea". How is that changing demands of evidence?"

Your demands changed from observing, recording, etc., evolution to observing the common ancestor. An unreasonable, ludicrous demand that is impossible to satisfy. And you know it. A very lame tactic. Very common to creationists.

"In fact, I *don't* demand anything. I've only said something hasn't been proven. I am not demanding that it be proven, just that the government should treat it as ONE of a great many different ideas, and allow students to weigh the evidence and judge for themselves individually, or just remain undecided if they think it inconclusive. I don't think that is an extreme position. In fact, it is quite moderate, and I hope everyone will forgive me for when I have gotten angry and posted inflamatory rhetoric."

Insisting a secular government teach fundamentalist religion as science is as about as extreme as it gets. You wrap it up in language that makes it sound reasonable but it doesn't mean it is. What would your opinion be of fundamentalists Muslims inserting their beliefs into the school curriculum as legitimate theories? It's THAT scary.


Nerd. I will only continue to discuss this with you if you can follow the debate. I really don't want to go over and over stuff again and again. We make small incremental steps and then demonstrate why I should just give up and ignore you. What shall I do?

Ste

One thing, Nerd.

Have you ever considered that you don't think evolution is true because you haven't got a clue what it says?

You clearly demonstrate over and over this is the case.

That's all.


Ste

<<"The fact that organisms have *systematic* attributes just *happens* to match the predictions made by people studying the Genesis account VERY well."<<

The problem is that if organisms did not have systematic attributes (or to put it more carefully, if the distribution of attributes across species, families etc was not systematic) this also would be quite compatible with Genesis. But the theory of evolution would be disproved if that were true.

Noggin

"That's like saying you don't think WWII happened because you couldn't observe Hitler giving the order to invade Poland."
No it's not - we've got World War II on tape. I can watch old newsreels. I can study history before film by looking at original documents. But there are no documents before there is writing ... and thus very little information.
Nerd42

"Evolution is NOT RANDOM. (**gah, how many times?**). What part of "selection" don't you understand? How can something that is "selected" be "random"? Evolution in part works by natural selection acting upon the genetic variation generated by random processes such as mutation. If evolution were just random then everything would be random. Again, no wonder you think evolution is junk. Wow."

Now hang on a minute here. First you're saying it's not random, then you're saying it works by natural selection acting upon the genetic variation generated by RANDOM processes such as mutation. In that case, for every "positive" (beneficial) movement forward (towards more sophisticated organisms) thre would have to be an almost infinate number of botched evolutionary steps that were wiped out BY natural selection. Those *would* have random attributes.

"I don't believe you. Also, what was I saying about god and science?"
Which time? You've said quite a few things about god and science.

"That's NOT how it works. So, according to you, no idea in the world can be accepted as the current scientific truth unless every other idea in the world has been discounted. Don't be ridiculous. The veracity of one idea does not depend on other ideas. They are each judged in their own right."
So, in that case, scientific "truth" can contradict itself? Idea A contradicts idea B but since A and B both sound good when "judged in their own right" they are both true? You're not making any sense at all here.

"Didn't I say a few posts ago that I'd consider evolution false if convincing evidence was presented against it? What have I been repeatedly saying about science and certainty? Is anybody home? Every time I think progress is being made, we take ten steps backwards because you either forget or ignore what has taken place previously."
Actually, I'm pretty sure you're doing that.

What has taken place previously includes my saying that I cannot disprove evolution, and you cannot disprove creationism or ID. Nobody can.

"Teach science in science classes. Evolutionary biology is considered a science by every reasonable person on the entire planet. Only you it seems disagree for reasons you cannot articulate. You cannot even follow the argument."
Someone who says their highly contraversial idea is accepted by "every reasonable person on the entire planet" is clearly not very reasonable themselves.

"It is possible, but it is HIGHLY unlikely. I'll repeat myself. Not for the first time. Darwin observed the same bird, yet with differentially adapted beaks to take advantage of different food sources. The most likely explanation was that a single bird species had dispersed to the Galapogas from Equador and changed because of natural selection (Bingo! evidence of the result of natural selection from the mid-1800s)."
The trouble with that is that it is a higly subjective interpretation. It may appear the most likely explanation *if you make the assumption of atheism* but, making no assumptions but those absolutely nessicary to practice science, the actual *evidence* is inconclusive.

Assuming for a moment that I am actually going to think about completely changing everything I believe in based on a conversation had anonymously with some anonymous person on the internet, think of it like this: A (Scopes style) courtroom, in which God is being accused of non-existance. Ste is the prosecutor and Nerd42 is the judge. (since it's my own mind this metaphor is applying to) Ste presents circumstancial evidence that makes God look somewhat suspicious. (which you still haven't really done yet, though ten out of ten for effort) Nerd42 considers the information but realizes that it does not prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. The verdict would be and indeed is "Innocent until proven guilty". I'm not just going to *assume* that everything I and people I am close to believe is false in order to reach the logical conclusion of somebody else's argument. That would require *absolute proof*, something I thought we'd already agreed isn't there.

"Extrapolating this observed mechanism to the rest of life the prediction was made that all life is related as they also share many things in common.
Like I've said before, we can't observe the long-term effect. Just because it's warmer this year than last year doesn't mean we're headed for a Global Warming appocalypse. Just because we see some animals change in very minor ways doesn't mean a mouse can turn into a lion.

"This prediction has been born out with centuries of evidence and more recently evidence from DNA sequence."
Also, like I've said before, that is completely open to different interpretations, and it seems to fit in with several different ideas very conveniently well.
Nerd42

"Because you CLEARLY have NO IDEA of what evolution is, what it entails. Communism? Ummm, ok. I'll ignore that silly comment."
No, no, I think you've got what I said backwards. Communism depends on evolution, not the other way around. It's part of Communism's materialistic philosophy. (i.e. "Nothing but matter in motion")

"There is no both sides because the creation standpoint invokes God as an explanatory mechanism. This is not science. In fact, to scientists, this is akin to giving up. It's pathetic."
I think we're beginning to see what I've been saying all along. That evolution requires more assumptions than science in general - one of which, as you are demonstrating, is the assumption that there is no God. The rest of science does not require any assumptions to be made about God.

"Your demands changed from observing, recording, etc., evolution to observing the common ancestor. An unreasonable, ludicrous demand that is impossible to satisfy. And you know it. A very lame tactic. Very common to creationists."
Eh? I don't really see the major distinction between the two. How could I observe evolution happening *without* observing a common ancestor? If the DNA from The actual common ancestor exists within organisms today (does it? I'm neither a geneticist nor an evolutionary geneticist) observing it might not be that difficult after all. It'd just be somewhat like a cloning procedure, although an impossible one at present.

"Insisting a secular government teach fundamentalist religion as science is as about as extreme as it gets. You wrap it up in language that makes it sound reasonable but it doesn't mean it is. What would your opinion be of fundamentalists Muslims inserting their beliefs into the school curriculum as legitimate theories? It's THAT scary."
I think that's where our difference on the educaiton thing really lies: you think the government should be secular (making the assumption of atheism) while I think the government should maintain NPOV.

Well, it *was* interesting for awhile . . . .

Never mind, Nerd, Ste and I will chat elsewhere.


az

<"That's like saying you don't think WWII happened because you couldn't observe Hitler giving the order to invade Poland.">
"No it's not - we've got World War II on tape. I can watch old newsreels. I can study history before film by looking at original documents. But there are no documents before there is writing ... and thus very little information."

And we have the history of evolution on tape too. Recorded in the DNA of current living organisms. Thanks for the handy analogy.

Ste