Re: Thank you everyone/answers for Phares
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Paul Andrew King <paul@m...>
> >--- In email@example.com, Paul Andrew King <paul@m...>mutations.
> >> > > Population genetics can handle the changes in frequency of
> >> >> genes, provided their effects on fitness can be accurately
> >> >> represented. Predicting which mutations will appear or even
> >> >> producing a list of possible mutations is not possible. The
> >> >> that we can manage is predict some of the more likely
> >> >>Any
> >> >
> >> >Well, whoever's fault it is, the question is still "what can it
> >> >It's only as falsifiable as it ventures to make predictions.
> >> >the claims which can't be tested through falsifiable
> >(forA claim such as "there has been no external influence on the
> >> >whatever reason) would remain categorized as hypotheses.
> >> And the relevance of this comment is ?
> >Whether the reason for lack of evidence is lack of fossils,
> >complexity, or long periods of time, claims still have to be
> And the relevance is ?
evolutionary process on earth" or "all significant mechanisms of
evolution are known" would have to be shown empirically.
> >> >> > Can it show how or why species
> >> >> >evolve to take advantage of new environmental resourcese,
> >> >than
> >> >> >just optimize their efficiency of using known resources?
> >> >> >post-dict the distribution of past evolutionary changes
> >> >> >then be used to judge whether the fossil record is
> >> >it?
> >> >> > Has anyone shown that all intermediate forms of any
> >haverecord ?
> >> >in
> >> >> >fact been functional?
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you find any "non-functional" species in the fossil
> >> >isn't
> >> >No, but I haven't found any black holes either. If a claim
> >> >falsifiable, that's not scientifically a virtue.I don't need to claim that there are non-functional intermediates. If
> >> And what exactly is your problem ?
> >Just that there is a difference betwee circumstantial and direct
> And there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and no
> evidence - which is what the idea that there were "non-functional
> intermediates" has.
biology claims that there aren't any, it needs to show it according to
the rules of science. If it does so only with circumstantial
evidence, then its claim is only circumstantially supported.
> But you aren't answering the question.Because you're changing the subject.
> >> >> >Can it calculate how long it would take to
> >> >> >evolve from one specific point to another (i.e., frog to
> >> >or
> >> >> >any other segment)?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Can it actually describe what mechanism is meant by the
> >> >"naturalpoint
> >> >> >selection"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Well that's easy. Natural selection describes the fact that
> >> >> which increase the number of offspring surviving to the
> >arevirtue of
> >> >> capable of reproduction will increase in frequency by
> >> >> fact.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Then the word "natural" is simply an assumption.
> >> You really seem determined to twist things around.
> >What kind of argument is that?
> It isn't one. It is an observation on your argument. Can't you
> work that our ?Obviously I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> > There is evidence that selectionsupported
> >happens. If the word "natural" is added to it, it has to be
> >too.controlled by
> There is evidence that natural selection happens - including
> observation. If you want to attribute any particular example to
> something extra then THAT needs support.
> >> >> > For example, if one looked at dog breeds (or their DNA)
> >> >> >can one figure out whether the selection was *natural*?
> >> >>
> >> >> Since the distinctions between breeds are largely
> >> >humanprior
> >> >> breeding, the answer is yes. Allow a mixed group of dogs to
> >> >as
> >> >> they will and the "breeds" will disappear.
> >> >
> >> >Sure, they'll settle into the current conditions, but without
> >> >knowledge that the breeds where shaped artificially, can onedetect
> >> >the difference between being artificially shaped, and simplycoming
> >> >from a natural environment which shaped that breed?doesn't
> >> I just told you how to do it. So yes, we can.
> >Just because they will adapt to an environment of your chosing
> >prove whether the environments they evolved in were artificial ornot.
>what I wrote.
> That isn't the test I proposed at all. I suggest that you reread
Your test is either weaker or not described in sufficient detail.
Allowing a mixed group of non-artificially altered breeds to
interbreed will *not* result in reduced differences?
> >> >> > If not, thensince
> >> >> >the current theory can't rule out purposeful evolution,
> >> >> >breeds were purposefully "designed" to be what they are
> > > >>as
> >> >> If you can find a species with the same artificial divides
> >> >> breeds of dogs existing in the wild you might have a case.
> >> >> without evidence of intelligent intervention, nor evenevidence
> >> >> anything that might intervene then there's no reason to
> >consider it
> >> >a
> >> >> serious possibility.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Then the "natural" in "natural selection" is an assumption
> >> >attached to a theory which makes no such claim.
> >> You mean that since there is no evidence at all of intervention
> >> must only be an assumption that there has been no intervention.I don't need to make any speculations. Biology needs to support its
> >> logic is none too good.
> >I'm saying that scientific claims need to be supported.
> By which you seem to mean that first we must be capable of making
> prophecies - beyond the capability of any predictive theory as well
> as disproving unfalsifiable speculations.
> > If it isscientific
> >"natural selection" and not just "selection" then there must be a
> >reason for it, and the reason must be subject to the usual
> >tests of falsifiability.I don't need to assume anything but the methodological requirements of
> Well you have the example of dog breeds - and we could add similar
> examples for other domesticated species (such as Darwin's favourite
> example - pigeons). So natural selection is falsifiable in that
> artificial selection - and genetic engineering can produce results
> that natural selection does not. If you wish to assume, say, that
> artificial selection is going on in a way that mimics natural
> selection then THAT would be unfalsifiable.
science. Does evolution theory claim that historically the process of
selection has been natural (not externally influenced) or does it
*assume* that selection has been natural by definition? If the
theory asserts it then it needs to support it. If it assumes it, then
the theory doesn't contradict claims of any potentially unpredictable
influences, such as divine influence, or others.
I'm not bringing this up because I'm a creationist, but because
science is not just another fundamentalism. It's not about beating
the creationists at any cost. As the saying goes, it's about doing
right, not being right.
> >> > It's a good thing
> >> >too, because if evolution theory did have a mechanism which
> >> >that it really is "natural" then it would be equivalent to thecome up
> >> >mechanism that the intelligent design people are trying to
> >> >with.inspire
> >> ROTFL!
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Descent with modification" isn't a model and it can't
> >> >> >sense of inevitability. Without a working model the theory
> >can be
> >> >> >subject to radical reinterpretation as new evidence is
> >> >>evidence
> >> >> Descent with modification is not going to change. The
> >> >> too pervasive. Even artificial selection is "descent with
> >> >> modification".
> >> >>
> >> >Right, evolution theory is quite convincing (to me, at least)
> >thatAt the
> >> >level of generality (which is about as broad as it can be).
> >> >more detailed level, it could say something more meaningfuland it
> >> >to be judged by its predictive power
> >> It says plenty that is meaningful - you just want a level of
> >> that is not practically available. Biology is complicated.is
> >> out detailed accounts of events millions of years in the past
> >nottheory to
> >> easy.
> >> >. If there's a missing variable,
> >> >it wouldn't just reduce the accuracy, but could cause the
> >> >make predictions which are systematically wrong.predictions
> >> Well there's no sign of that.
> >Of course, there isn't. The theory needs to make specific
> >with calculated ranges of error before we can see whether theobserved
> >error falls within the calculated ranges.There's no need for any speculation. The theory needs to calculate
> Well that isn't much of an objection, is it ? Any "missing
> variables" will be unfalsifiable speculation.
error ranges along with its predictions and show that observations
fall within the predicted error ranges. If it doesn't then it hasn't
shown that it has no significant holes.
> >> > When a theory ismade
> >> >missing important pieces the empiricallly observed errors don't
> >> >within the error range that was calculated by the model which
> >> >prediction. However, the theory isn't at a point where it can
> >> >many useful predictions, so I don't see that it can pass thattest
> >> >this point.
> >> The problem is that we don't even have the knowledge to apply
> >> theory we do have to the past course of evolution.that
> >Sure, the math just isn't there yet to prove the kinds of claims
> >evolution theory makes.math.
> That's because the claims you are talking about aren't based on
> But that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory does not makeYes it does make some general verifiable predictions, and the theory
> predictions - even ones that do have mathematical content (as in
> population genetics).
is validated only at that generalized level.
> > That doesn't mean they're not science, itspeak for
> >just means they're on the level of economics, psychology,
> >> > Creationism seems to overshadow the healthy dose of
> >> >skepticism which any science requires in order to advance, but
> > > >creationism is commited to biblical account. It doesn't
> >> >anyone else who, for whatever reason, would like to see a(origin
> >> >theory of origins. Current evolution theory isn't it.
> >> Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. For origins you
> >> disciplines like abiogenesis (origin of life and cosmology
> >ofI can see weather happening too, but that doesn't mean I can predict
> >> the universe).
> >Not just the origin of life, but the origin of humans.
> What is wrong with what we have ? There are details like the exact
> line of descent which may not even be knowable but we have a good
> idea of the immediate ancestry (we even have some species level
> intermediates - the "archaic homo sapiens" remains).
it. Understanding our origins isn't the same as showing that
evolution happens. It would have to show that given certain initial
conditions, a particular result is inevitable. Complete precision
isn't necessary, just as meteorologists don't predict the path of a
hurricane with complete precision.
> >> > It has enoughneed
> >> >to counter biblical creationism, but not enough to obviate the
> >> >for superstition the same way that superstition becameunnecessary
> >> >when other gaps have been filled with amoral explanations(weather,
> >> >lightning, illness, etc). Overcoming superstition may seemlike a
> >lowHowever, I'd
> >> >threshold if it's seen as just a frivolous diversion.
> >> >suggest that superstition is as necessary as science isunemotional
> >> >and incomplete. A theory of origin would have to be compellingfrom
> >> >the various relevant points of view, not just *possible*of
> >> >circumstantially. Biologists may not have asked for that kind
> >> >role, but they *are* inevitably treading on holy ground, so tobiologists
> >> You really haven;t made a case for that.
> >The case for what?
> The idea that superstition is necessary, and the idea that
> are "treading on holy ground" as you put it/Let's just say that some people find it a personally significant
> >> >> > Newtonup
> >> >> >didn't just say "what goes up must come down" but he came
> >with abut
> >> >> >way to predict planetary positions. His theory *did*
> >something. A
> >> >> >theory doesn't have to be complete in terms of precision,
> >> >> >*does* have to be complete in the sense of not missing any
> >> >variables
> >> >> >that are significant at its own level of precision.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you have in mind. What sort of "variables" are
> >> >thinking of ?speculations, but
> >> >>
> >> >Nothing in particular. I could come up with some
> >> >it's hard to pre-judge what kind of mechanisms could be at workown
> >> Well then, if you can't come up with falsifiable ideas of your
> >> what's the point of discussing it ?trying
> >I'm not making a case for or against the theory of evolution. I'm
> >saying that it needs to support its claims like any other science.
> Which for some reason involves making unreasonable demands and
> to pretend that a failure to meet those demands means thatIf by "unreasonable" you mean unreasonable due to practical
> evolutionary theory lacks support for its claims.
considerations, that's irrelevant to the requirements of science. Any
of the claims are only theoretical until verified experimentally.
The bar isn't set by practical considerations, but by the claims made
on behalf of the theory.
> >> >because life and evolution are quite different from otheronly
> >> >which we understand more fully. It's just that the theory is
> >> >good as its predictions, and right now it only makes
> >aboutyears to
> >> >the boundaries of the process, not predictions of evolution at
> >> Predictions of evolution AT WORK are precisely where it is good.
> >> Dealing with existing populations and how they change over
> >> decades is where the theory does work.to
> >So is the current environment making humans more or less resistent
> >disease?world suburb.
> Which environment ? A third world slum is different from a first
> Which disease ? AIDs resistance is going up, smallpox resistanceis
> probably coming down. I've already pointed out the problem ofdetail
> - and here you are asking vague questions like the above.Take your pick. Predict anything useful. If the theory understands
the real process of evolution, then it has a causal model. If it has
a causal model, then it can make (possibly stochastic) predictions of
causation from one state to another, with a known margin of error. If
it can't make such predictions, then it doesn't have a causal model,
but only an accomodating description.
If the model is claimed to be of the process which brought humans into
existence, then it needs to make predictions which support that claim.
Such a model would be able to make predictions about the
probabilities and directions of evolution on a planet with starting
conditions similar to those on earth several billion years ago. There
are practical obstacles to making such predictions, but that doesn't
absolve a scientific theory from empirical verification of a well
chosen set of predictions which rule out significant potential holes.
> >Is our genetic code gaining or losing complexity in theup
> >current environment.
> Probably neither to any appreciable degree. But unless you can
> translate that into the actual alleles in the current population -
> and their phenotypic effects there would be no way to answer that
> question no matter how good the theory.
> > How can we use the theory of evolution to
> >predict the course of antibiotic resistence by bacteria?
> Probably yes - with sufficient detail on the environment and the
> starting population.
> >What is it
> >that it can do ?
> Predict the distributions of genes in existing populations. (Look
> Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium sometime).Yes, it shows that some process of evolution is happening and that
selection, mutation, and random mating are significant variables in
that process. Their equation is a start. It shows that under stable
conditions, the given genetic information spreads out in a predictable
> Having discovered a phylogenetic relationship based on fossils andOk, not a bad thing, but is that enough to contradict creationist
> the morphology of existing species we can predict genetic
claims of influence from outside the system? Or can it answer
anyone's innocent question of "is it known whether there was any
external influence?" A scientific theory doesn't necessarily have to
answer such a question, but if it had a causal model (one which shows
an unbroken chain of causality), the question would be automatically
> "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
> immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting
> in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
> Guide to Taoism_
> Paul K.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "teleocat" <cat.c@n...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Paul" <jacor@t...> wrote:wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "teleocat" <cat.c@n...>
> > > --- In email@example.com, "Paul" <jacor@t...> wrote:wrote:
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "teleocat" <cat.c@n...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > --- In email@example.com, "Paul" <jacor@t...>
> > > > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "teleocat"<cat.c@n...>
> > > > wrote:Teleocat,
> > > > > > In post 12355
> > > > Re: post 12376
> > >Teleocat
> > Re post 12514
Re; post 12517
"Perhaps your quoting style has something to do with it. In your
previous post your question wasn't anywhere near the quoted sentence
that you are refering to. I understand your question now. I was
accused of being anti-science, and by my response I meant that my
accusations of posts made on a yahoo discussion group are not
accusations of science itself."
BS. My statements are always close to what I am talking about.
The relevant, complete text of original post 12355 to which I
> >> >I don't need to claim that there are non-functional
> >> OK, then we can rule out the idea that here were since there is
> >> reason to expect it and no evidence to support such an idea.any
> >You can rule them out, you can leave them for later and not make
> >assumptions about them, you can investigate further, or you canbuild
> >a model which contradicts them.You said: "The reason is that the TOE depends on it. If I were to
> Actually we can decide that it is a silly idea not worthy of
> consideration. Unless you can give some reason why it should be
> considered otherwise.
point out in a physics group that physics needs to prove empirically
that the speed of gravity waves is the same as the speed of light,
should someone reply that if I don't believe the theoretical
prediction by General Relativity then I should show why, and that GR
is a fact proven in many ways, and besides no one has seen gravity
go any slower or any faster, and it's too hard to do in practice, so
I must be anti-science."
My reply was in post 12371
"(Speaking about transitional forms and the theory of evolution)"
teleocat says: "The reason is that the TOE depends on it. If I were
to point out in a physics group that physics needs to prove
empirically that the speed of gravity waves is the same as the speed
of light, should someone reply that if I don't believe the
theoretical prediction by General Relativity then I should show why,
and that GR is a fact proven in many ways, and besides no one has
seen gravity go any slower or any faster, and it's too hard to do in
practice, so I must be anti-science."
I said: "The problem with "proving" transitionals is mostly one of
definition. Any animal, be it found only in the fossil record or
currently living, is either a transitional form between the past and
the future (evolutionary definition) or a "complete" animal that is
not transitional (Creationist definition). Using your example of
physics, the speed of light needs to be defined as the speed of
light in a vacuum in order for your statement to be true. If a group
demands that since the speed of light in water is much slower than
your definition, then your "proof" of gravity and light speed being
equal is BS. Which is precisely what (BS) and why (unreasonable
definition) Creationists claim of transitional fossils."
>>inserted note this post: (BS has been used to replace what thelord and master objects to, spelling out the word)
Observation this posting:
At worst, you and I are in disagreement about "transitional forms"
and non-functional intermediaries not being different aspects of
essentially the same subject. However, my reply is right under your
quote to which I responded. I did not include the rest, because I
was not responding to the rest. I gave a summation of my
interpretation of the exchanges to that point immediately prior to
your quote. It was therefore more appropriate for you to correct my
reading of the argument, rather than accuse me of getting my science
from yahoo chat rooms. None of which alters the fact my response
was appropriate to your statement and right under your statement.
The only person, even in a complete quotation, that accuses you of
being anti-science is you. I read your comment as supporting the
Creationist argument because the theory of evolution does not meet
your standards of proof. Hence the wording of my answer.