The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")

by Spook 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Mad Dawg

  Spook said:

  Again, no such spec limit exists. If evolution is true, it's a soft boundary and species classifications are inherently arbitrary

  Hmmm, using something that has not been proven, “ If evolution is true ” to make an assumption, “ it’s a soft boundary ” then taking it to a definitive statement, “ no such spec limit exists. ” Not very scientific.

  I use the definition that I learned in grade school. It is basically an issue of interbreeding. This is based on observations. “ If evolution is true ” is speculation on facts not in evidence. Any conclusions you come to that support evolution based on speciation is dependant on the statement “ If evolution is true ”. You are using evolution to prove evolution – unless these statement are not intended in any way to support evolution.

  The interbreeding definition for a species is much more defined, but it can still be fuzzy because of the existence of mules and hinnies – which can’t reproduce.

  Listen, I know what you mean by these example, but it is erroneous to extrapolate this to other questions.

  I am not extrapolating anything. I never said that Ug evolved 240 miles because he walked from point A to B and Mike proved that from A to B is 240 miles.

  The point is: rate=units/time. We can solve for units: units=rate*time. We can solve for time: time=units/rate. There are a number of ways to determine the units or time:

  Ø Direct measurement

  o Stop watch

  o Odometer

  Ø |A-B|

  Ø Units/rate

  This is not to say that the means for determining the rate, time, or units is limited to the above. If someone is going to state that there is a rate of decay or change or something, they must show the units and the time it is based on, and how these values were determined.

  Why don't you come right out and say we can have no meaningful knowledge about the past?

  I don’t believe the above statement. What we actually know is less than we claim to know is my position.

  If light is observed at point X and travels at a known velocity, even in a vacuum, regardless of the observers location and velocity, from a known source,

  We know this because we have observed, tested, and repeated it many times.

  And hell, even if you don't think we can have knowledge about the past I can still prove it is rational to accept evolution in the present - just please say so.

  I have not said that it is irrational. What I have said is that the assumptions are unfounded. So far, you have not put forth anything that supports evolution without making unfounded assumptions.

  http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/rough-draft-of.html This is the link to the source you requested.

  Drwtsn32 said:

  As was mentioned before, if you are asking to see one species "clearly" change into another species in front of your eyes, you're asking for something that is not possible…

  I am glad that you agree that evolution has not been observed.

  …and not predicted by evolution.

  So? Go find some example that support evolution with empirical evidence. Something that can be observed, tested, and repeated.

  The changes that we can see in front of our eyes (ie, that only take a few decades to manifest) are going to be small changes.

  Is this an agreement that small changes do not prove evolution?

  … is certainly not evidence against evolution.

  I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am simply starting at zero and surveying what we do or don’t know. I will leave the conclusion to be drawn from the facts for later.

  And about speciation: I have read of examples where speciation has been observed, but I don't think it would qualify to Mad Dawg as "clearly another species".

  You are correct.

  As spook has mentioned, it can be difficult to even define what a species is and where the line is drawn.

  Unless there is a clear definition of “species” any discussion of it will be as useful as a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  Usually when I hear a challeng like Mad Dawg's, people want to see drastic change quickly.

  I have no desire to see any particular thing. I am only interested in what we do see.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Mad Dawg... You selectively misquote me, tell me I said something that you know I didn't, ignore things we've said that you don't like, and continue to ask the same things over and over again when the information you request has been provided.

  I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have time for this. If you're serious about your search, you know where to look.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Mad Dawg... You selectively misquote me,…

  Where?

  tell me I said something that you know I didn't,…

  Again, where?

  …ignore things we've said that you don't like,…

  There is nothing that I like or dislike. I ignore irrelevant arguments.

  and continue to ask the same things over and over again when the information you request has been provided.

  The only thing that I have asked for is proof for evolution that can be observed, tested, and repeated. What has been provided that fulfills my request? If I understand you correctly, you have said or agreed to:

  Ø Evolution can not be observed.

  Ø Small changes do not prove evolution

  Then you continue to waste everyone’s time by trying to show small changes prove evolution. You would get a lot further if you picked ONE example and stick with it. I don’t have time to exhaustively examine everything you put up here.

  If you're serious about your search, you know where to look.

  Where?
• 

  Spook

  Hey Mad Dog,

  First, thanks for the link.

  My if-then statement you quoted here is not asserting new information. Its meaning is derived in the same way as "If there is a mountain, then there is a valley." It flows from the theory of evolution directly. This may be a minority position - but when last I surveyed the philosophy of science literature this was not so. So we can use your species definition and it is fine by me. My argument does not depend on one universal species concept. (In another argument vs. someone with a different position than you, I may use the lack of a concrete species concept against platonic "type" thinking as evidence against certain views of creation - but this is not applicable to our terms.). If you disagree that this is the case for the theory of evolution then I can elaborate on why, if it were true that evolution has occured, then we should observe that species are not always objectively obvious.

  I'm going to propose something that may be difficult on an internet thread, but I'll try my best. We have a problem of either (a) speaking at great length for the simplest point in philosophical gobbdy-gook as you put it or (b) speaking more casually and having frequent misunderstandings and logical fallacies which flow naturally from casual language. I'm fine in either way and would like you to know when I misunderstand you I simply misunderstand you. But bouncing back and forth will tend to be unproductive. So I'm going to try and stop reading more into what you're saying or jumping at assumptions and request that you do the same. Either way, I will try to at least identify how I understand what you are saying before I make an assertion about it from now on.

  In general I agree with your claims about knowledge - that we know less than we act like we know. This gets very philosophical very quickly and I've tried previously to lay out what I consider to be a very specific standard for whether it is rational or irrational to accept or reject a theory. I go so far as to say "It is possible that there are no rational beliefs." In that it cannot be proven impossible without an unfounded assumption or a necessarily incomplete observation.

  I'd like to turn your attention to my first three points again, as I remind the readers of the first three necessary conditions which, if established, prove that it is not only logically possible for evolution to occur (in the present going forward) but it is also scientifically or empirically possible. This doesn't mean it did happen, this doesn't mean it probably happened, this doesn't mean it likely will happen. This is still a long way from establishing my final conclusion or making grounds for accepting or rejecting the theory - but it is a preliminary contained in my position.

  The necessary conditions for evolution to be possible are:

  1. The necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed. 2. The necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed. 3. The necessary condition of mechanisms of selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.

  My argument for #1 was as follows:

  Fact A: Genes, during copying, mutate in several discreet ways. This is prima facie given the necessary means of observation (not to the naked eye, that is) and as far as I know, uncontested. Fact B: At least some (permutations of genes) are non-deleterious. This is not only observable, but is true ipso facto since #1 is true and yet life persists in species where the mutation rate and gene volume would counterbalance the birth rate if it were true that all mutations are deleterious. Fact C: At least some of these can be inherited and fixate in a population. Observable and can be tracked and predicted with some low level mathematics. Ergo - variation occurs and is accounted for by the theory of evolution.

  Now, if you intended some of your responses previously to apply to these, please forgive me. It is sometimes difficult to track for me. As I understand you, of the first three points of necessity, #1 seems to me to be the only one you are contesting. As it pertains to establishing the facts above, I know most of the common responses but will not pre-empt you. I have tried to make this as easy to address as possible by purposefully saying some and possible. Now, I'd like you to answer three questions for me since I've answered three for you please:

  1. Do you agree or disagree with my grounds for rational belief, and if not, based on what.

  2. Do you agree or disagree with my seven points, which given (1) above would satisfy these conditions if they are indeed established according to the argument. If not, please tell me what necessary conditions are left out or what additional evidence should be expected in my two categories respectively.

  3. Do you agree or disagree with the three facts and the conclusion. If you disagree, please be specific.

  Thanks
• 

  still_in74

  “ALL the facts point to evolution.”

  If Rutherford were an athiest, that is what he'd say !
• 

  Spook

  “ALL the facts point to evolution.”

  Not bad, still_in72. I said something similar which I would defend. I have no problem admitting I think there are non-biological facts which would be more likely to occur given some other world view which did not contain evolution...but not biological ones. I'm saved - at least somewhat - because many of these world views contain beliefs about knowledge which would make it impossible to consider such facts true. Oh, it never ends!
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Do you realize that I have never stated whether I thought evolution is rational or irrational? That the question is irrelevant to my position?
• 

  Spook

  Mad Dog asked:

  Do you realize that I have never stated whether I thought evolution is rational or irrational? That the question is irrelevant to my position?

  Yes, I realize that. We are using words like knowledge, fact, factual, truth, rational, belief - which are broadly used in everyday language to refer to things which may not fit either the scientific or philosophical usages. These may all be used for the same identical subject in common speech. Your most recently stated position is that the individual 'facts' of evolution are without support.

  This is problematic and I have both invited further disclosure on what - more specifically - you mean by that and I have also tried to fairly infer what technically with a rigid view to the meaning words your position means. Facts, for example, do not have support. They are support in a theory. Someone might say "It's a fact my wife loves me." This is not even the sort of thing which could be a fact, as I said at great length before. It could be true, it could be rational, it could be knowledge but it cannot possibly be a fact. So I can ask for what you mean, assume and infer what you mean (and misunderstand you apparently), or I can dismiss the statement as having no actual real meaning - or some other alternative like I could shut the heck up. But, unfortunately, I'm still having fun.

  Further, your statement does not specify any range. It could be

  1. At least one fact...

  2. Some facts...

  3. About as many facts as not...

  4. Many of the facts.

  5. Most of the facts.

  6. All of the known facts.

  7. All possible facts.

  I can falsify your statement with ease at face value, as could you if I made a similar one, so I don't think you mean it at face value. But anyway, here it goes with a simple big and obvious fact:

  1. The individual facts of evolution are those facts which, of necessity and according to the theory, are predicted to obtain in the real world. True by definition.

  2. Of necessity and according to the theory it should be observed, verifiably and repeatably that not all organisms survive and reproduce in a given population because natural selection is a necessary condition of the theory and requires that at least some organisms do not reproduce. True by principles of logic.

  3. We observe this fact to obtain with great regularity in most if not all species at any given point in time.

  4. The scientific or emprical method of knowledge calls the confirmation of this fact evidence for evolution by definition.

  I just falsified your position as you stated it because we have an individual fact of evolution which does have support. But I assume you didn't mean all the facts. Please clarify your statement. Please also clarify if you are using the word fact in a different sense. If you have any specific facts you're talking about, I ask you to please state them and save some time. There is a finite "set of sets of facts" directly predicted by the theory, but it is a very large one.

  Of course rational beliefs can be false, true beliefs can be irrational and one can have knowledge of a given fact that is logically incompatible to another persons knowledge of the same fact. Without a normative (ought) statement there is nowhere to go with anything. Now, without trying to further assume things, my best understanding of your position is that it entails something like the following:

  1. Mad Dog may or may not have a normative position on what one ought to believe. I don't know - I think you may believe that the theory of evolution ought not to be called scientific or ought not to be excepted based on the evidence alone as a scientific theory. Again, it could be scientific and false. I don't think it could be scientific and irrational, however - that might be complicated.

  2. You do have a positively stated position about science (Science is observable, testable, repeatable) which is not adequately enough defined to address as an objection to why, perhaps - the theory of evolution is not scientific or something like that. It could be "to be considered scientific a theory ought to be obervable, testable and repeatable at some objective level which evolution does not satisfy.

  3. Knowledge about the past, though possible, is limited. Beliefs about the past - even if informed by present data - are limited in the degree to which they can be called scientific (insert rational, knowable, true, factual). I don't know what the standard is if this is the case.

  4. The data (facts) available in the present which pertain either positively or negatively to the theory of evolution are at least sometimes as likely to be the case in some other world view which does not contain the evolutionary hypothesis.

  Well, that's it for today. Cheers.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Spook,

  Thank you for taking the time for writing the above post. It has brought to light a couple of things that I have not been clear on. My schedule is too tight today to allow for the time for me to do your post justice. I will address it in a way that I hope will clarify things.
• 

  Tuesday

  1. The necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.

  It has been.

  2. The necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.

  It has been.

  3. The necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.

  It has been.

  (These conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.)

  4. There should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.

  There is.

  5. Any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.

  There is evidence, and it does.

  6. The current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).

  Not only does it, but it also fits the life chart of every branch of science.

  7. Given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.

  It does, that is how diseases are treated.