If physicists don't get excited when an apple falls to earth as predicted by gravity, then why do evolutionists get so excited about even lesser successes? After all, we're constantly told that evolution is as much a fact as is gravity. Joseph Le Conte complained 120 years ago that we ought not say "evolutionist" any more than we would say "gravitationalist." Both gravity and evolution are obvious facts, right? So why were evolutionists so excited this week about the pseudo fulfilled prediction about feathered dinosaurs? As Jerry Coyne exclaimed:Feathered dinos older than Archaeopteryx fulfill an evolutionary prediction!
I call this a pseudo fulfilled prediction because the prediction is soft, not hard. If an apple failed to fall to earth one day it would be a big deal. On the other hand, if no feathered dinosaurs older than Archaeopteryx were found, evolutionists would yawn and generate another just-so story.
Why is a pseudo fulfilled prediction so important? Because evolution has spawned so many false predictions--fundamental false predictions. Evolutionists need every success they can find--even pseudo successes.
Cornelius: "I call this a pseudo fulfilled prediction because the prediction is soft, not hard. "
ReplyDeleteWhat would you say would constitute a "hard" prediction? Given the hypothesis that birds descended from dinosaurs, this find seems to fit fairly exactly with what ought be expected. What are your specific reasons then that you think it is a soft or pseudo prediction?
And why not be excited? Any find like this that expands knowledge is surely always a case for celebration. Your post seems to come across as sour grapes...
"What would you say would constitute a "hard" prediction?"
ReplyDeleteWell, how about a prediction that, if false, would falsify evolution? After all, that's what evolutionists demand of the ID folks. But in fact evolution remains unharmed by profound falsifications of its predictions (eg, www.DarwinsPredictions.com).
An evolutionist once assured me that the finding of highly similar DNA sequences that are functionally unconstrained would absolutely falsify evolution, no question about it. Oops.
"Given the hypothesis that birds descended from dinosaurs, this find seems to fit fairly exactly with what ought be expected. What are your specific reasons then that you think it is a soft or pseudo prediction?"
Because Coyne advertises it as a prediction of *evolution*, not of a sub hypothesis.
"And why not be excited? Any find like this that expands knowledge is surely always a case for celebration. Your post seems to come across as sour grapes..."
Please, "expanding knowledge" is not the issue. It is the interpretation of that knowledge as an important confirmation of an evolutionary prediction.
"Please, "expanding knowledge" is not the issue. It is the interpretation of that knowledge as an important confirmation of an evolutionary prediction."
ReplyDeleteOK - so how would ID go about interpreting this particular find? Or (as I suspect), because ID is so narrowly scoped to "design inference" only it cannot say anything of value about such a find?
This is what is so challenging with your stance. You are very, very good at criticizing evolution, but you offer absolutely zero alternative hypotheses or new ideas. I read you stuff and interesting at times that can be, it just leaves me just hanging...
At least evolution, with all its faults is trying to answer some questions. ID just seems to want to avoid the questions altogether...
"Because Coyne advertises it as a prediction of *evolution*, not of a sub hypothesis."
ReplyDeleteBe it prediction of evolution of a sub hypothesis, the question still remains as to why you think specifically it is a soft or pseudo prediction.
As to falsifiability I assume if the find was in between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx without feathers you would accept that?
And what again is your alternative explanatory framework for evolution? Obviously you think evolution has failed, but how do we go about replacing it then. With what? We all know that ID is not up to the job since it has such a narrow focus. What then would you think the replacement framework will look like?
"Be it prediction of evolution of a sub hypothesis, the question still remains as to why you think specifically it is a soft or pseudo prediction."
ReplyDeleteBecause its falsification would not harm evolution. The history of evolution is full of expectations gone awry, only to be followed with patches to the theory that make it increasingly complicated. The theory itself is never questioned. So those predictions were soft.
"And what again is your alternative explanatory framework for evolution? Obviously you think evolution has failed, but how do we go about replacing it then. With what? We all know that ID is not up to the job since it has such a narrow focus. What then would you think the replacement framework will look like?"
That's a good and thoughtful question. But there's no way we are going to engage it seriously when people are making the non scientific claim that evolution is a fact. Religion is perverting science and folks have lost any sense of how to evaluate scientific data. We've got a plethora of life scientists making absurd claims about the evidence. We are in no position to move forward until we rid science of religion (or at least come to an understanding and recognition of its influence).
"We are in no position to move forward until we rid science of religion (or at least come to an understanding and recognition of its influence)."
ReplyDeleteThat really is a cop-out and an utter bunch of bull crap. There's absolutely nothing stopping you and your colleagues who have similar ideas from moving forward with new ideas...or is the real issue, none of you really have any better ideas? Perhaps you should ask the Discovery Institute to syphon of some of their funds they spend on lawyering and PR on some real research....
"That really is a cop-out and an utter bunch of bull crap."
ReplyDeleteActually it is a very real and obvious problem. But don't take my word for it, try engaging evolutionists on these issues.
"Actually it is a very real and obvious problem. But don't take my word for it, try engaging evolutionists on these issues."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting response. On the one hand you think that science (at least evolutionary science) is corrupted by religious presuppositions. Yet when it comes to looking forward to progressing alternative ideas to evolution, you seem to be implying that these very same (corrupted) scientists need to be onboard before that can happen. I may not have that quite right, but that seems to be the implication. Why the deference - again why shouldn't ID (or whatever alternative paradigm is touted to replace evolution) forge ahead with its own ideas, own research? Sure, funding is an issue, but at the very least the ID community could start to sketch a conceptual research framework of how this could proceed - yet we don't even see this happening. This strategy work after all, although it would require time and people, would not necessarily need huge material funding. Why at least isn't this happening? If I didn't know any better I would say it's because ID, regardless of whether it is science or not, just doesn't have much of a future. Why aren't you guys flooding the academic landscape with ideas and papers on how an alternative paradigm to evolution could come about?
Cornelius, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, if no feathered dinosaurs older than Archaeopteryx were found, evolutionists would yawn and generate another just-so story."
Actually, the "temporal paradox" has been used as evidence for a real "just-so story": the denial of the theropod origin of birds. ALan Fedduccia et al are kind of like you in that they have endlessly unconvincingly criticized the substantial evidence for this hypothesis while providing no testable hypotheses of their own. the temporal paradox, even though it has been cut by a third over the past decade, has been their most serious criticism. Now they don't have a leg to stand on. but at least they have publications, unlike you, oh failed one.
"forge ahead with its own ideas, own research?"
ReplyDeleteLife science research is going along pretty well, and usually no thanks to evolution. The only place where macro evolutionary premises are really important is, yes, evolutionary studies. But in the life sciences, evolution is not really important. Of course one can find instances where it helped, but that is not the rule.
"but at least they have publications, unlike you, oh failed one."
ReplyDeleteWhen you criticize evolution this is very often where the discussion goes. Evolution cannot withstand scientific scrutiny, so the skeptic must be discredited.
You're not a scientist. Oh you are, well you don't have any publications. Oh, you do, well, well, ... well you're not an evolutionist.
Evolutionists cannot tolerate the notion that evolution just might not be an absolute truth beyond a shadow of a doubt. So ultimately, the only test that matters is whether you are an evolutionist.
I underatnd that recent studies show that the birds can't possibly be descended form dinosaurs because if the details of their anatomy and mechanics. Birds run differentl because of the air bladders.
ReplyDeleteyet it's funny how you respond to that part and not the actual scientific point i made.. guess there's a reason you're a failed scientist. and the only reason I point that out is that you bank on your credentials as a "scientist" (indeed, you frequently refer to yourself as such) to give you credibility, so I only think it's fair to point out that you are not really a scientist, i.e. one who does science.
ReplyDelete"Life science research is going along pretty well, and usually no thanks to evolution. The only place where macro evolutionary premises are really important is, yes, evolutionary studies. But in the life sciences, evolution is not really important. Of course one can find instances where it helped, but that is not the rule."
ReplyDeleteThis didn't really answer the question, but it's always entertaining to watch you duck & weave in avoiding ever properly answering a question. Again, why doesn't ID aggressively pursue it's own research program and lay at least the beginnings of a theoretical framework?
And if evolution is not that important to life sciences, why all the fuss you are making on this blog? Obviously, you DO think evolution is important.
Why, therefore, aren't you throwing your energies in finding a better alternative to evolution, instead of this endless tirade against evolution?
I think the reality is, that even with all its faults, evolution is still likely the best explanation we have (yes, of course it has flaws). ID is of course not an alternative to evolution because it simply lacks the explanatory horsepower to be of any use. So what do you think should happen next, Dr H?
When an apple fall from a tree, it confirms the gravitational law not just because it fall from a tree, but because it's path and speed match exactly one that have been predicted by the law founds by Newton. We know that because we have tested this at school: remember the episode where you left an object in free fall and the camera captured at regular interval the fall? How many "dot" did we have to mesure on the picture in order to have a raisonable estimate of the speed and acceleration of the apple? Well, certainly more than two "dots".
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to bird-dinosaurs evolution, what do we have? How many "dots"?
Well, we have the Archaeopteryx, all found at the same place belonging to the same genus. This is one dot. And then we have this one. That make two dots. In physics or any other science, try to infer anything from "2 dots" and you'll probably going to be laugh at. Especially when the "dots" are so far apart (well this new specimen doesn't seems to belong to the Archaeopteryx ancestors... ).
I don't mind when people speculate. But can't stand they do that in a dogmatic way.
Mannix