It is sad that you can't even answer a simple question. Why the reflexive need to complicate things?
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
Please answer these questions:
- John drives for one hour at 60 MPH, how far did he drive?
- Mike leaves point A with 32,254 miles on the odometer, he arrives at B with 32,494 miles on the odometer. How far did he drive?
- Bob drives for 1 ½ hours and arrives at point X with 12,009 on his odometer. How far did he drive?
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
In science…
In chemistry, we talked at length about what we don’t know. We were certain of what we do know because it was observable, testable, and repeatable. What we did not know was not a problem because none of the chemistry was based on what we don’t know. A was based on B, C was unknown. Who cares? But if we state that A is based on B, and B is unknown then we can’t know A.
If you really do reject my assumptions then there can be no recourse because to reject these is to say no theory should be accepted. I will continue, complete and post them here if you have some normative (ought/should) based belief about accepting a theory as probably true.
It actually is your fault if you refuse, so as to maintain the maximum possible inscrutability of belief, to give any inclination of productive starting ground…
QUOTE:
‘The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup(or evolution)on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life (evolution).’ (emphasis added)
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336. statements added.
What I may, or may not, believe has no bearing on the fact that evolution is built on blind assumptions. I have no obligation to offer an alternative in order to show that the current one is built on sand.
Again, I really think we should leave the neanderthal example.
Why, because your slip is showing?
Your rebuttal was no more specific than mine and is full of just as many holes.
Name the holes.
Yes, of course a past genome would be impossible beyond the maximum shelf life of genetic material. But when preserved, such suffices and has been used before. Agree or disagree?
Are you saying that we have representative samples of Neanderthal’s DNA? If so, what was the sampling plan?
Now, your statement about the makeup of the current genetic range is false according to geneticists.
Then whatever geneticist you are referring to needs to go back to school and learn some basic statistics.
Mine reflected the current consensus opinion that given a genome, a geneticists could accurately say with a stated margin of error if a sample was or was not within the range of modern humans.
SO WHAT!? Do you have any idea what the difference between a control limit and a spec limit is? You keep talking about irrelevant control limits when the issue is the spec limits for the genomes in question.
I'd be happy to defend, specifically: The fossil record constitutes evidence which supports the theory of common decent.
You call that a defense? No it doesn’t. Pffffft!
If you first tell me whether you accept the geological column theory and the techtonic plate theory of geology you could save us both a lot of time. If you don't, I'll expect you to say why not - since again these are in the public domain and are only secondarily related to my position. You could add in dating methods to that list while we're at it. And beneath that the theory of radiometric decay, soil sublimation, depository transitions and the compressive production of soil types...the mineral infiltration and replacement of biological bone material...
We can get there eventually, I am in no hurry. From where I sit:
Ø You stated that the Neanderthal DNA proves or points to or something about evolution.
Ø You have been entirely unable to provide any known information about the history of the genomes in question.
There is a logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof fallacy whereby a position is maintained through unrealistically high standards of evidence.
- Burden Of Proof:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.
There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
You really should learn what a particular fallacy is before you go accusing someone of committing it.
You could want more, but it is irrational to reject a theory because of how much evidence you want.
You are the one that brought up Mr. Neander. If you claim to know A, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask, “How do you know that?” “Well I know that A is true because I know that B is true.” But if B is unknown, then you can’t know A, unless there is a legitimate C or D. You talk as if you have established the theory when you have offered zip. B was bunk, where is C or D?
The ‘information’ you offer about the genome requires specific knowledge about the past. When asked for the basis of this knowledge you offer the following fallacies:
Ø Appeal To Anonymous Authority: an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.
Ø Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice)
Ø Argument By Generalization: drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases .
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
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!
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
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.
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
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.”
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
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.
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
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.
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
drwstn32 said:
We will never directly observe evolution…
drwstn32 also said:
We can see evolution happen in front of our eyes.
Which is it? The problem is that you keep swithching between natural selection, which is limited, and goo-to-you evolution. I have already stated that I accept that things change in a limited, observable fashion.
Remember, just because I can jump across a mud puddle does not mean that I can jump across the Grand Canyon .
If there are “tons of lines of evidence which proved that evolution happened,” then pick one and stick with it. Tossing out “vitamin C gene” or “our genome” with out explanation does not constitute a fact.
Keep in mind that whatever you choose must be observable, testable, and repeatable.
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
Why are you offering "evidence" when evolution is supposed to be a "fact"? You all are always talking about the "fact" of evolution, but can't seem to produce the facts.
In any trial there is evidence for and against the defendant. "Evidence" is not "fact."
We will never directly observe evolution from a bacterium to a mammal before our eyes, just like we would never observe the entire life of a star from birth to death. It simply takes too long.
Which is why it is not observable, testable, or repeatable. Which is why it is not fact. Which is why it is more accurate to say “I believe in evolution” per the OP.