by Anti-Christ 89 Replies latest jw friends
3. Therefore, it follows that the theory of evolution cannot be stated to be fact in itself.
It cannot be stated to be a fact any more than it can be called a tomato. That doesn't mean it isn't true. I accept it as true because both of the following are true: All of the facts of biology fit evolutionary theory. No facts of biology fit as good or better with any other theory which is not ad-hoc and is falsifiable.
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. It is a given that there is a standard deviation for a set of data points. I didn’t think that I would have to spell that out to you. It has a major impact on your theory. If there are outliers or if it is a curve instead of linear, it throws off all your calculations. Particularly those of the 6000 year model.
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. Then tell me how you know the % change when you don’t know the start point or the rate? Frankly, taking a sample of 30 or 50 (years) from one end of a population of 6k or 4bil (years) will give no meaningful data. If you tried that with the FDA, you would be laughed at and slapped with a fine. It could be a range… So? You still don’t know where the range is centered.
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… What was the sample size of the Neanderthal DNA? I’ll bet that it wasn’t significant. If you want to get into the dating of the rocks and bones, you are stepping into even more assumptions. And you still have the same problem as above.
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. Does that mean we can agree that we will dispense with the just-so stories needed to prop up the evolutionary astronomy of this solar system? That large objects collided with planets to give them a unique tilt or rotation. Ooops! This points away from evolution! My bad.
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. Granted it does not contradict the conclusions, but it does leave them unsupported. You have no basis for stating anything about the % change. Extrappolating the past 50 years across thousands or billions of years is a farce. My position in this is that the theory of evolution cannot be stated to be fact in itself. I stand by that position. 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. I never said that it is logically impossible. What I have said (again and again) is:
Ø To state that evolution is “fact” is not warranted.
Ø That much of what evo’s state as “fact” is based on an assumption somewhere along the line of logic.
To be intellectually honest, evo’s should man up to the assumptions they make and quit trying to pass off theory as fact.
I accept it as true because both of the following are true: All of the facts of biology fit evolutionary theory…
You are kidding me. Right? How do you know this? Do you really know all the facts about biology? Can you actually claim to know everything that is written on biology? Have you even examined “all the facts of biology”? Are you God that you can know all the facts of biology? Please tell me how to cure this nagging foot fungis that I have.
Thanks again for the reply MD, this is fun.
A few things: You clearly understand statistics and I'll tell you I do too, I think we're both working in Engineering if I'm not mistaken from an earlier post. We're talking past each other on the points in the illustration, so I'll have to return to it and speak more clearly. And will also have to condense how statistics are applied to genomics, etc. I'll also remind the readers that I did say it was a simplistic example (i.e. not intended to be comprehensive, rather directed toward an opposing claim from YEC's). Now, your two statements are...
Ø To state that evolution is “fact” is not warranted.
Ø That much of what evo’s state as “fact” is based on an assumption somewhere along the line of logic.
The first one is obvious, but still not capturing what I said. To call evolution a fact is non-sensical. It's not a song, it's not a ford mustang and it isn't a sack or rice either. No theory can by definition be a fact. Now, there are some things one may call evolution that are facts, but then you really must disect the breadth of the theory more to be specific. I would say this, nothing which is true is a fact. It's just not the right word. Truth is a judgement about statements about facts.
The second point is also not saying anything. No meaningful statement can be made without assumptions somewhere along the line of logic. The strength of the conclusion can be evaluated in terms of the strength of the assumptions. Now you also say that
To be intellectually honest, evo’s should man up to the assumptions they make and quit trying to pass off theory as fact.
I think this is a good expectation for high level debate, but the effort involved to make very simple statements with full disclosure of assumptions is daunting. No popular books or certainly brief interchanges can rise to that level. I'll "man up" to any of these assumptions to the best of my ability. You said earlier evolution relies on unfounded assumptions and I asked you to name one, since obviously my position is that the theory is based on well founded assumptions.
Now, I'll also return to my claims you found audacious:
All of the facts of biology fit evolutionary theory. No facts of biology fit as good or better with any other theory which is not ad-hoc and is falsifiable.
I'll stand by these. It's easy to disprove since these are purposefully straightforward propositional statements. The first one might look better if you took the contrapositive:
1. No fact of biology exists which is impossible to fit with evolutionary theory. This is falsifiable easily if it is true that "At least one biological fact exists for which it is impossible for evolution to account." It's an assertion and is justified since it is easily attacked. I could give you a laundry list of things which are possible.
2. You didn't challenge the second one, so I'll leave it. Yet without an alternative, one would have to still accept that not only is evolution possible but there is at least some evidence for it, and is more likely to be true than any other theory for which there is no evidence.
Basically my position would be
1. It is rational to conclude that evolution accounts for biodiversity.
2. It is irrational to reject (1) because no other theory which is not ad-hoc can account for biodiversity.
Thanks again for the reply MD, this is fun.
And my thanks to you. It is refreshing to discuss this with someone that doesn’t get emotional over it.
To call evolution a fact is non-sensical. No theory can by definition be a fact.
I wholly agree. Regarding the question in the title of this thread, the reason is, that saying “I believe” is the honest thing to say.
No meaningful statement can be made without assumptions somewhere along the line of logic.
Absolutely true. In geometry there is the following 3 axioms:
Incidence Axiom 1:For every point P and for every point Q not equal to P there exists a unique line that passes through P and Q.
Incidence Axiom 2:For every line there exists at least two distinct points incident with .
Incidence Axiom 3:There exist three distinct points with the property that no line is incident with all three of them.
These are considered self-apparent and are, in fact, built on the assumption of the point. From this, at least 250 theorems, postulates, and corallaries have been deduced. If any one of the three axioms – or the point itself – is shown to be false, the entire body of knowledge is false.
You said earlier evolution relies on unfounded assumptions and I asked you to name one, since obviously my position is that the theory is based on well founded assumptions.
Your statements about the rate of change in the Neanderthal, and other genomes assumes a constant rate of change. You can:
Ø Prove a linear genetic rate of change or
Declare it axiomatic – a cop out that leaves the whole thing an ad hoc, just-so story.
Because you are the one relying on this assumption, YOU need to prove that it is true. I don’t need to prove it is false. If you can’t prove the assumption, then the entire line of reasoning built on it falls.
All of the facts of biology fit evolutionary theory.
You have made a positive assertion, it is up to you to prove that ALL facts support evolution. You can wiggle out of this one by saying “All the facts I know fit evolutionary theory.”
No facts of biology fit as good or better with any other theory which is not ad-hoc and is falsifiable.
Now you have to know not only all facts of biology, but also all possible theories.
Basically my position would be
1. It is rational to conclude that evolution accounts for biodiversity.
It appears that you are trying to say that it is “fact” without using the word “fact.” Do you really mean “that evolution may account for biodiversity”?
2. It is irrational to reject (1) because no other theory which is not ad-hoc can account for biodiversity.
Two things here:
Ø One does not have to prove “B” is true – or that there even is a “B” - in order to prove that “A” is false. Falsifying “A” falsifies it whether there is a “B” or not.
o Galileo searched for an alternative because he had falsified the current one. This is common practice in science. The same was true of:
§ Keplar
§ Pastuer
§ Einstein
§ The Manhattan Project
§ Edison
o Doing the “can’t reject A because there is no B” is actually bad science.
§ This would get one kicked off the police force. “Sorry Bob, we have this evidence that clears you, but we have no one else to pin it on. So, it’s you.”
§ It discourages further research in that: if most of the evidence points to “A”, then rest can be made – or assumed - to fit.
Ø Evolution itself is an “ad hoc account for biodiversity.”
About half of your comments got cut off by formatting, so I'll just comment on what I can read.
We're still talking past each other on the illustration, so I'm going to leave it, since it clearly isn't an argument about evolution as a whole anyway. Unless you disagree, because I'll be happy to talk only about that. Since to me this underlying contradiction was the first inescapable conclusion that lead me to reject the flood and the notion of a perfect creation. And the loss of the perfect creation broke JW theology, and on and on. It's useful to those whom I identified, in a sense already making the assumptions you are criticising - so it may be that both are wrong but it can't be that both are correct. Kind of like an argument pointing out flaws in the bible is not strong against one who isn't a biblical literalist, although it may be strong against a biblical literalist and therefore still a "strong" argument.
Let's see, assumptions (I'm going to cut these short, so please don't nit-pick unless you want to jump to pure existentialism or Camut-ist absurdism)
1. There is a reality external to my experience.
2. I am part of that reality.
3. I sample through my senses from that reality.
4. Cause is observed to function consistantly
5. Language exists and refers to reality.
Where to begin, right?
I'd like to begin with biodiversity, unless you'll just tell me what Mad Dog's #1 fact that to him weakens the theory of evolution is...it would save us a bunch of time. Biodiversity is the easiest to deal with through language alone without requiring the transcription of numerical data from paper to electronci format. Further, I'd like to at least say it's fine to provide references - but not links - to information in the public domain. Or else we'd really never get anywhere.
So, at any rate I'll post about biodiversity later.
I'd like to begin with biodiversity, unless you'll just tell me what Mad Dog's #1 fact that to him weakens the theory of evolution is...it would save us a bunch of time.
There is no “#1 fact.” Evolution dies a death of a thousand cuts. One of the things that I have noticed is that Evo’s like to make grand statements such as “ALL the facts point to evolution.”
So, I take the above statement at face value and test it. At best, the premise is inscrutable. At worst it is false. Regardless, it cannot be said to be true.
If one says: “’A’ is true because of ‘B,’” then B must be shown to be true. If B is false, A may still be true, but not because of B. If B is the only evidence of the truth of A, then we can not state that A is true. This is why I am asking how you know the history of any genome.
Your observations about axioms are good. I have two things to say about it:
Ø The axioms one holds affects how they interpret the world.
Ø A system of thought only needs to be consistant with the axioms it is based on.
Ø The axioms one holds affects how they interpret the world. Hell, why not stir the pot. I think the axioms one holds are also a product of their interaction in the world in addition to what you said in a non-linear way.
Ø A system of thought only needs to be consistant with the axioms it is based on. I don't know what this means. In order to what? Be logically internally consistant?
I would request you tell me if you have any particular epistemiological opinions on the past: Please answer...Can we have meaningful knowledge about the past which constitutes rational grounds for accepting any theory about the present?
The "all" statements are a common rhetorical device, depending on who is agreeing to the burden of proof. That is commonly understood to mean "all (in the knowledge of spook") and it's quicker than probabilistic arguments. Furthermore, the burden of proof in the face of absolute negatives is shifted to the antagonist. Or else negative statments have no real meaning. For example "Nobody has been to Saturn" is an absolute statement, but the burden is not on me in making that statement because of a fairly complicated series of assumptions which I think may detract from our conversation. The ease of defeating such a statement mitigates the absolute nature, because the antagonist must produce only one counterexample. I'll dispense with that form of rhetoric if you are not so inclined. Instead I'll talk about necessary conditions and sufficiency of evidence with respect to predictable values. Here are some weighty axioms.
1. For any theory, if the necessary conditions are either logically true or empirically verifiable as factual it should be considered at least possible unless there exists some other known fact which would falsify the theory.
2. For any possible theory for which all necessary conditions have been satisfied, it is rational to accept it as at least probably true insofar as the degree of evidence available approaches the degree of probable evidence which can be inferred from the theory in excess of evidence which better fits any other theory the necessary conditions of which have also been met,
3. We should not accept irrational theories nor reject rational ones, nor encourage the acceptance and rejection of such respectively.
Agreed?
The last I'll say on your endless critique of my example for today (until I can find the white-paper brief again) is that we can certainly find a deviation and confidence level from a suitably large population of currently living humans to use as a basis- this exists and is a fact. Now, it is true that one could generate a test genome against which the previous range could be compared. You can then say either it is or is not within the range of modern humans and is therefore not a human at a certain confidence level based on the assumption all humans share statistically modelable genetic characteristics within a confidence level of (whatever the case may be). If the answer to the Neanderthal question is, as the authors claim, to the contrary, then the conclusions are either:
1. The neanderthal is homonid but not human. This would be evidence which weakens christian theism, and indeed could falsify some versions of it. Neanderthals are not viewed as direct ancestors of humans, but rather cousins from a past radial. So, there are additional predictions we can make that aren't immediately relevant to the case I used this for, namely, christian theism.
2. (Theistic defense) The neanderthal WAS completely human who was either (a) outside the statistical range as an outlier, this being able to be addressed as confidence ratio and probability (slim. very slim.). (b) Must have been an early human and in the past genetics were very different and have somehow changed now. (This latter being ad-hoc and requiring some theory with additonal evidence to constitute rejection of the evolutionary conclusion that non-human hominids existed in the past.) This would then be a theory well supported by the evidence and should be considered at least probably true, even if based on only one case because any individaul test case against the norm would obviously be a single instance. And it still would stand that at least one non-human homonid existed in the past.
I'll first also rebut Mad Dog's claim that evolution is Ad-hoc. In science, a theory or modification to a theory is not ad-hoc if the theory or modification proposes some new falsifiable way to be real. In philosophy an argument or rejoinder is not ad-hoc if either evidence or at least some new logically coherent argument So, returning to the biogeography / biodiversity issue. I'll start in on some of the arguments, or graciously let this thread die if interest has waned.
Creation ... Evolution ...Big Bang ???
It is not how we got here ... it is how long we stay!
The "all" statements are a common rhetorical device…
I am not interested in rhetorical devices.
that is commonly understood to mean "all (in the knowledge of spook")…
I am not the kind of honest hearted person that I can just “understand,” or guess, what you REALLY mean. Say what you mean; mean what you say.
and it's quicker than probabilistic arguments.
It is not my fault IF you are too lazy too clearly state your arguments.
Furthermore, the burden of proof in the face of absolute negatives is shifted to the antagonist. Or else negative statments have no real meaning.
Very good, but I did not make a statement of absolute negative. You made a statement of absolute positive. Therefore, you have the burden of proving the absolute positive. To do so, you have to be able to observe the entire set contained by the positive. I.E. all the bottles on my desk are Mountain Dew bottles. I can observe all four bottles on my desk and they are Mt. Dew bottles.
1. For any theory…
Agreed?
No, has no relavence to my basic position, which is: Evolution is propped up by speculation and ad hoc theories.
The last I'll say on your endless critique of my example for today is that we can certainly find a deviation and confidence level from a suitably large population of currently living humans to use as a basis- this exists and is a fact. Now, it is true that one could generate a test genome against which the previous range could be compared. You can then say either it is or is not within the range of modern humans and is therefore not a human at a certain confidence level based on the assumptionall humans share statistically modelable genetic characteristics within a confidence level of (whatever the case may be) (emphasis added).
We are still left with exactly zero information about the past state of the genome. And we still don’t know what the spec limits are for what is considered human. We may have control limits, but we cannot confuse control limits with spec limits.
Ø Your “theories” about Mr. Neander are based, ultimately, on speculations about the past.
Ø These speculations are based on data that is lost to history and is unknowable today.
Ø Your statements are without a basis.
So, let’s take a moment and look at ad hoc speculations and supposed predictions. The history of Early Man from Lucy to written history is supposed to have covered a period of time of 100,000 years. If we assume, this is the evolution model – so we have to assume, the following:
Ø A starting population of two
Ø A life span of 50
Ø A doubling of the population every 100 years
These are very generous towards evolution. In fact, every type of fauna in existence today beats these rates. If they didn’t they would be extinct in two generations.
At the 100 th generation we would have a population of 1,267,650,600,228,230,000,000,000,000,000. Now, this is a rediculously large number that would have been kept in check by the ability of the earth to support them. So, let’s take a very small number by comparison: 1million. Not a large population. Sampling only every 50 years produces a total population 20 TRILLION over the course of 100,000 years. Keep in mind that this is a VERY conservative estimate that covers from Lucy to Babylon.
Let’s examine what evolution “predicts”:
We expect: Bones EVERYWHERE! 20 Trillion skeletons have to go somewheres.
We find: Precious few bones. If we were to take all the bones from all the “early men” and put them in a box, they would fit in a box about the size of a casket. Far short of 20 trillion.
We expect: A smooth transition from one species to the next in the fossil record.
We find: Not a single smooth transition of anything. The ones that evo’s have thus far produced are anything but smooth.
So what do the smartest scientist in the world do? Make excuses why we really shouldn’t expect that many bones and pull ‘punctuated equilibrium’ out of thin air. See how this works? “We don’t have the bones where we need them, so there must have been fast and slow periods! And we will call it ‘punctuated equilibrium’! This is really fascinating. This means that the evidence to support their theory was the fact that there is no evidence!
