Why do we say " I believe in evolution"? (page 7)

Anti-Christ

What drwtsn is saying is right, It has been observed in bacteria and animals. It has been observed through the fossils record and DNA. I has been predicted, I can not remember the exact details but there was a fossils of a fish like creature ( not a fish, you must understand the importance of this difference) in northern Canada. The people who found it knew were to look, how deep to dig and what kind of fossil they were going to find. This is a fact and this can only be done if they got it right.

I am happy that I asked this question I have learned a lot. I am realising more and more that a lot of people who do not accept evolution simply do not understand the facts or are afraid of something ( I do not what to sound condescending so sorry). I rejected evolution for a long time until I got the facts straight. I realised what was presented to me as evolution was clearly not the real deal.

Anti-Christ

Keep in mind that whatever you choose must be observable, testable, and repeatable.

I don't understand what you want, are you asking for a scientist to replicate the evolutionary process?

drwtsn32

Mad Dawg:

You partially quote me to make it sound like I contradict myself. I think you're being stubborn, but maybe you really are so dense you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll try once more:

You seem to demand full scale evolution from microbe to mammal to happen in front of your eyes. That will never happen. (In fact if it did, it would decimate the current theory of evolution.) I liken it to you asking to see a star born, die, and turn into a black hole in front of your eyes. Won't ever happen. But it does happen on a very large time scale.

What we can see in front of our eyes (within a relatively short time period) are small evolutionary steps. We have seen it with bacteria and viruses. Bacteria and viruses are great for studying evolution because they go through tens of thousands of generations in a relatively short time period.

Our genome, including the defunct vitamin C gene, are excellent, clear examples that show evolution happened to us. They are facts. Atavisms also show evolution happened, and they are facts. There are many more.

It appears you would rather stick your head in the sand and demand the impossible. You can go ahead and not believe a star can turn into a black hole, either, until it's demonstrated to you in front of your eyes. :)

Cheers

Spook

I couldn't resist, so I'll ramble at length. The problem with the evolution deniers is that they don’t understand the following:

FACTS!
Facts are data only. This is the scientific usage, not the cultural usage of language. The precise nature of language is crucially important.
Here are some things which could be facts…

i. The location of an object X at a place Y

ii. The mass of an object X.

iii. The presence of chemical compound A.

Here are some things which cannot, by definition, be facts…

i. John put X at Y.

ii. The mass of X is so because of Y

iii. Compound A is present because of X

Nothing in (c.) above is a fact because it is not data. It is an explanation which accounts for data or gives meaning to the presence of data. These explanations are all called theories.

Theory! Theories are explanatory statements involving cause, process and mechanism functions about facts. They are not, by definition, facts in themselves. Theories account for facts.
A new theory begins before significant investigation as “hypothetical.” Thus, a hypothesis is the first stage of a theory.
The purpose of further investigation is to test the theory. A theory has implications given other known data and can thus allow one to make predictions in line with that theory. Facts which are discovered in line with the theory confirm or strengthen the theory. Facts which contradict the theory could either disconfirm/weaken or falsify (prove impossible).
Example of fact/theory distinction (completely made up for JW’s)

i. Fact: Of those who are disfellowshipped for fornication, 27% reported having watched an R rated movie within 30 days before fornicating according to one elder’s survey.

ii. Theory: Watching R rated movies has a causal relationship which increases an individual’s likelihood of fornicating.

Conflicting theories may reinterpret the same data or add new data.

i. Theory: Those who watch R rated movies are more likely to later fornicate, not because of having watched the movie, but because they in general do not take the religious injunctions given by Jehovah’s Witnesses against both R rated movies and fornication as seriously as those who are involved in neither fornication nor the watching of R rated movies.

ii. Fact: 99% of those disfellowshipped for fornication who had watched R rated movies in the last 30 days reported in a survey conducted by Spook that “They were glad they were kicked out of the Jehovah’s witnesses so they good finally stop wasting time at meetings and devote more time to fornicating and watching R rated movies.”

The above example is one of strengthen/weaken argumentation. The evidence for the second theory weakens the first one by providing an alternative explanation. But is either one true?

True/False! A statement can be said to be true if it can be proven logically/mathematically so or probably true if a quorum of evidence empirically gathered supports one theory vs. another.
A bit of playing with the above scenarios is illustrative:

i. Assume that the following were facts:

1. Fact: All persons who view R rated movies fornicate within 30 days of viewing an R rated movie.

2. Fact: No persons who do not view R rated movies fornicate at all.

3. Fact: All persons disfellowshipped for fornication lied to Spook in the survey.

4. There exists a biological mechanism that, once exposed to the presence of an R rated movie, increases the human sex drive over 1000% for a period of 30 days.

ii. And the first theory could be called true because it corresponds completely with reality. The truest scientific theories uncover a direct causal mechanism. However, assume the following facts were discovered instead:

1. Fact: Of those who did not commit fornication in a given 30 day period, 99% reported secretly seeing an R rated movie.

2. Fact: One thousand FMRI scans have been conducted to locate a mechanism which would cause fornication after viewing R rated movies and zero scans located any evidence of such a structure existing.

iii. Now the second of the theories could be called true because it corresponds completely with the facts and weakens the first theory.

Evolution! Here’s an extremely simplistic example:
Theory A: Current species share common ancestry over the past 4 billion years.

i. If A is true, then the rate of genetic change expressed in a % per year is X.

Theory B: Current species were created about 6000 years ago distinctly.

i. If B is true, then the rate of % per year is Y.

If either A or B are true, at least some amount of genetic change has occurred. For example we may agree that dogs diverged from wolves or that humans dispersed into ethnic populations (but not species) groups such as Asian and Caucasian.
Fact: The genetic differences required between a particular example are Z. (Za%, Zb%).
For theory A, we observe an average %change in species closer to Za% by a factor of 100000. Therefore, if A is true then the observed level of genetic change is closer than if B is true by a large margin.
Fact: Large genetic change degrees (Greater than Za) are highly unlikely, since none have been observed out of innumerable cases.
Conclusion: A is more likely to be true than B.

This is a basic line of argument that doesn’t get into too much science. It happens to be true. If the rate of genetic change in a creation model actually produced the morphology changes we know have occurred as facts, then that rate is astoundingly greater than the rate of evolution. It’s a great argument to use against flooders and JW’s because if, let’s say, poison or viruses evolved in the last 6000 years then that rate of evolution would be so great that claims made by science are astoundingly more probable. For example, if cats emerged from one feline “kind” in 6000 years, then that rate of evolution could shorten the entire history of man from 4 billion years to a few million. This is great since the Neanderthal genome was recently mapped. If Neanderthals were “just early humans” then the rate of change over 6000 years could jump you from primate to humans in tens of thousands of years instead of millions. This completely undercuts any bad statistical argument, and it doesn’t require any depth of science.

Spook

Mad Dog is engaging in straw man arguments against evolution.

Science say: If evolution is true we should find A, B and C.

Mad Dog says: If evolution were true we should find D, E and F.

Science actually says: If we found D, E and F, darwinian evolution would be false and a saltationary tree of lief would be true.

Mad Dog must either (A) Prove that the findings of evolution are equally probable given another theory or (B) prove that it is impossible for A, B and C to account for evolution. And I do mean impossible, not just unlikely. If it is unlikely, the burdedn is still to provide another theory and new data which suggests that the second theory is at least as probable.

Anti-Christ

Thank you spook I understand a lot better now. I really appreciate the time people take to explain things. Thank you.

Now if I got it straight, evolution is a theory (an explanation of a process) that is based on facts (data ) and it (evolution) is very likely to be true because of the data that supports it.

Spook

You got it Anti-Christ! You're welcome, btw. I will add people confuse it a little because some things which have been mentioned on this board as "evolution" (fundies might say micro-evolution) are actually facts, not theories. These facts are evidence for "Evolution" (common descent, fundies would say macro-evolution.). The term is used in both instances, which is why some say "Evolution is a fact and a theory." Which is like saying "The fact that techtonic plates move a thousandth of an inch in a given day is evidence for the theory that they have moved great distances over long periods of time."

quietlyleaving

here is something from Goethe

"Every act of seeing leads to consideration, consideration to reflection, reflection to combination, and thus it may be said that with every attentive look into the world, we already theorize ...(using) the eyes of the mind and the eyes of the body". This he calls "anschauung" or intuition.

Mad Dawg

My statements are simple. In order to be scientific fact, as opposed to historical facts, it must be observable, testable, and repeatable. No one has denied this. Dwrstn32 has specifically stated that evolution cannot meet the standard of “facts,” but wants to cling to the notion that it is, indeed “fact.” Orwell described this as “double think.”

My point has not been whether or not evolution happened, but whether or not it is appropriate to make the sweeping generalization that “evolution is fact.” I fully agree that it is an idea that is worth investigating, but it is not fact on the order of “the sky is blue.” Often the “facts” that are offered are based upon assumptions, thus they don’t rate being called “facts.”

Spook, I was very impressed with the work that you produced in the first post. It was well done.

The problem with the evolution deniers is that they don’t understand the following:

It is understood very well. In fact, I am saying that it is you who does not understand the full ramifications of what you have written.

FACTS!

Facts are data only. This is the scientific usage, not the cultural usage of language. The precise nature of language is crucially important.

Here are some things which could be facts…

i. The location of an object X at a place Y

ii. The mass of an object X.

iii. The presence of chemical compound A.

Here are some things which cannot, by definition, be facts…

i. John put X at Y.

ii. The mass of X is so because of Y

iii. Compound A is present because of X

Nothing in (c.) (i., ii, iii above) above is a fact because it is not data. It is an explanation which accounts for data or gives meaning to the presence of data. These explanations are all called theories. (Emphasis added.)

I could not agree more. In addition, if it is a fact, it can be observed, tested, and repeated. Keep in mind that this is reference to scientific facts as opposed to historical facts.

Theory! Theories are explanatory statements involving cause, process and mechanism functions about facts. They are not, by definition, facts in themselves. Theories account for facts. (Emphasis added.)

Good, no problems here. So let’s see what we have:

1. Facts are data only.

2. They (theories) are not, by definition, facts in themselves .

3. Therefore, it follows that the theory of evolution cannot be stated to be fact in itself.

That is all that I have been saying here.

The things is, evolutionary theory is filled with unfounded assumptions which are mixed with data and presented as Fact ™ . For example:

If A is true, then the rate of genetic change expressed in a % per year is X. And: If B is true, then the rate of % per year is Y.

The assumptions are:

Ø The rate of change has been linear.

Ø That you somehow know the original state of a given genome. (In case B)

Ø That you know the state of a genome in a given point in time. (In case A)

Ø That there has not been a unique event that altered the rate in some way.

These are a lot of assumptions. Frankly, it renders the remainder of your argument moot because you are arguing from the unknown. Don’t give me probably this or probably that. The bottom line is that nobody knows.

For the record, my stance on proving the origin of life and all that from the natural sciences is one of agnosticism. We cannot know by examining the world today.

Spook

Hey Mad Dog,

Thanks for the reply and clarifications, I think we'll actually be able to narrow in on something meaningful, which is not often done in this debate. We can narrow in further. So I'll get right to it.

The things is, evolutionary theory is filled with unfounded assumptions which are mixed with data and presented as Fact ™ .

I wholeheartedly deny the veracity of that statement, and I request your evidence. Name one assumption necessary for evolution to be true that is not founded on any facts (unfounded). I'll respond to your comments on my example, even though I when I said it was simplistic and I meant "weak" rather than "obvious." It would take at least a hundred pages to fully flesh that out, but I will stand by the basic argument from a standpoint of variables.

For example:
If A is true, then the rate of genetic change expressed in a % per year is X. And: If B is true, then the rate of % per year is Y.
The assumptions are:
Ø The rate of change has been linear. That's a false asessment. This is not a necessary condition of the argument. The average as expressed can accomodate lower and higher levels for both the A case and B case. An average obviously represents non-linear data and I don't see how that could escape you. Otherwise it would be a constant. Further, we're talking about orders of magnitude here, so some fuzziness I can abide by.
Ø That the genome started at some particular “starting point.” That you somehow know the original state of a given genome. (In case B) That's not true either. It could be a range, or you could credit the oldest evidence available as being the "not later than" point. If it turned out to be earlier, in my example, the argument would be stronger, not weaker.
Ø That you know the state of a genome in a given point in time. (In case A) Some features can be well identified, and I identified the Neanderthal genome as an actual example. You have the genome, you have the time with a +/- known from independant lines of confirmation. So that's our evolutionary date. Theists can provide the date for their side. This might not be an argument for you, but I think the conclusion made that evident.
Ø That there has not been a unique event that altered the rate in some way. That's a red herring and should always be assumed to be false unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unless we have other reasons to believe that such an event happend it is an ad-hoc objection.
These are a lot of assumptions. Frankly, it renders the remainder of your argument moot because you are arguing from the unknown. Don’t give me probably this or probably that. The bottom line is that nobody knows. Not that many assumptions, and none of them so far have been shown to contradict the conclusion. For the record, my stance on proving the origin of life and all that from the natural sciences is one of agnosticism. We cannot know by examining the world today. That may be true at the moment, but it certainly isn't logically impossible. If you think it is, then by all means explain.

Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?

Share this