Your Blog may be under attack? Or possibly the google Blog format is 'being auto upgraded'. I tried a couple times last week to Reply a comment. And it showed posted then never 'came through'. This morning..it took one HELL of a long time, just to 'load' your Blog, which before only took a few seconds. With me, generally if a Site/Blog is a slooow loader or has added-on extra Cookies or video crap, I kill it and think twice about revisiting any such sites. Just a thought..
Several years ago, I worked in a call center with several hundred operators for awhile. It was usually pretty busy, and when it wasn't the operators would talk amongst themselves, so it was always quite loud.
One day it suddenly became deathly quiet for no apparent reason. Everyone was looking around at everyone else, trying to see figure out why. No one wanted to be the dumba-- that started talking when something important had so obviously just happened. About fifteen seconds later one operator finally said rather loudly (or maybe it only seemed loud after the long silence) "Thank you for calling ------, this is ------ how may I help you?" That broke the spell, and everyone finally realized that nothing imporant had happened at all. In fact every phone call and every conversation in the entire call center had just happened to end at the exact same instant creating a sound vaccuum that no one wanted to be the one to break.
I bring this up in the hope that that's what has happened on this blog. It's been extremely quiet for a few days, and I'm hoping it's because no one has anything more to add at the moment. The alternative is that Rhod is right, and the blog is broken or under attack in some way so that no one can post a comment. Here's hoping it's the former.
Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....
These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus".
Predation filtered out these before arriving at the highly successful Indonesian species.
If you've come to this conclusion, it would seem that you're unable or unwilling to think outside the narrow box of your world view.
We do not think the any species of Octopus spontaneously appeared, which could strongly mimic any particular species local to its environment. Rather this ability occurred, due to incremental changes which were gradually more like specific species in their environment.
Specifically, the knowledge of how to successfully mimic other species in its environment was *created* via the process of darwinian evolution: RM & NS. It's a feedback system.
Given that Groucho Marx, Richard Nixion and Elvis Presley were not present in the environment, the mimic would be unable to create the knowledge of how to mimic them.
This is in contrast to creationism, which ironically tells us nothing of how the ability to mimic other species in its environment was created. Rather it merely claims this knowledge was previously located in an abstract designer's mind. Of course, the question becomes, where did the knowledge the designer used to create the Indonesian Mimic come from? Where did the knowledge used the design the designer come from?
Did it spontaneously appear out of nothing?
A which point the creationist tells us that, in the case of the biological complexity we observe, we simply cannot know this. Of course, this is due to the creationist's underlying claim that the creator is an unexplainable supernatural being that exists in an unexplainable supernatural realm, rather than due to a lack of explanations that are tested by empirical observations.
Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....
These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus".
Predation filtered out these before arriving at the highly successful Indonesian species.
It obviously skipped right over the Neal Tedford Mimic Octopus, which was born with a sack of pus where its brain should be. The poor NTMO therefore had no thoughts of its own but could only mimic slimy dishonest Creationist leaders.
I think the more accurate answer tends to be something like "Evo did it, don't ask how if you're not actually interested in the answer."
In my experience very few questions asked about evolution on sites like this are intended to clarify ones understanding of evolution. Rather they tend to be purely rhetorical questions for which the answer is not of any interest to the questioner except insofar as it can be used as a "Gotcha" against the person attempting to answer it. Just look at how rarely a question is asked by someone who has actually tried to find an answer on their own first. In many cases a simple Google search turns up a detailed answer on the first page of results. If one were really interested in answers, one would think that that would be a good place to start.
It's essentially the same as asking "Why?" over and over again. One can ask "Why?" and genuinely be interested in the answer. One can also ask "Why?" only to ask "Why?" about the answer to that question, then ask "Why?" about the answer to that question, then ask "Why?" about the answer to that question, and so on. Eventually you get to a question that can only be answered with "We don't know." This is the goal of anti-evolutionist questions. They're not trying to understand evolution through questioning, and they are genuinely uninterested in the answer anyway. What they're really trying to do is force evolutionists to say "We don't know." at which point they can claim "victory".
When you encounter that over and over again, you learn that it's no use trying to give an answer in the first place if it's just going to be ignored. Demonstrate that you are actually willing to listen to and at least attempt to understand the answer and more in depth answers will be forthcoming. Demonstrate that you will just ignore the answer anyway, and as a short cut the answer will be something along the lines of "Evo did it, don't ask how." because you'll accept that answer just as thoroughly as you will accept the real answer.
Eocene's "argument" appears to be that intentional outcomes cannot be caused by things that lack intent. But this begs the question that the outcomes are in fact intentional. This is likely due to his assumption that the "correct" interpretation of the Bible reveals intent though divine revelation.
Eocene has a God shaped hole in his scheme of things. Evolution is not God. Therefore, evolution couldn't possibly have done it.
So, in other words, "don't ask how" intentional outcomes could be brought about by processes that lack intent because (surprise!) no answer will be forthcoming. His belief is "safe" because he has internally framed the argument in a way that evolution must be false and can never be answered.
As for Neal and Nat, I think they use Google extensively. However, the "answer"s they're looking for is how to attack a theory that threatens their theological views, rather than an honest attempt to understand it.
Simply saying, as Scott does, "Specifically, the knowledge of how to successfully mimic other species in its environment was *created* via the process of darwinian evolution: RM & NS. It's a feedback system"...
This is a less helpful of an explanation than saying the Space Shuttle was constructed via the process of SD & SI. That's "Screw Driver" and "Soldering Iron". We don't have to know all the details! Stop asking why!
If a Chinese spy in search of advanced technology from the USA brought back as much hard information about our technology to his government as evolutionists do regarding their theory, would he keep his job? Would he end up in the laogai?
We've come to expect soft answers (with a lot of bluster) from evolutionists regarding details. If the details are falsified, then Que Sera, Sera, evolution is still a fact. Right?
We've come to expect soft answers (with a lot of bluster) from evolutionists regarding details. If the details are falsified, then Que Sera, Sera, evolution is still a fact. Right?
Hey there Mr. Always-run-your-mouth-with-nothing-to-say, why don't you give us your details of the situation? Tell us the details about how the octopus, and the flounder and lion fish it impersonates, managed to survive the Great NOAH'S FLUD. If this was DESIGNED, tell us why only some octopuses have this ability and not all.
Speak up there Tedford the idiot, we can't hear you.
Neal: Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....
Scott: Specifically, the knowledge of how to successfully mimic other species in its environment was *created* via the process of darwinian evolution: RM & NS. It's a feedback system.
Neal: This is a less helpful of an explanation than saying the Space Shuttle was constructed via the process of SD & SI. That's "Screw Driver" and "Soldering Iron". We don't have to know all the details! Stop asking why!
My explanation wasn't "helpful", so we should expect more blatant misrepresentations of evolutionary theory as in your original comment?
Again, I just pointed out either a disingenuous claim regarding what evolutionists propose (you knowingly presented a falsehood), or a concrete illustration of how you simply do not understand evolutionary theory (you can't use a feedback loop to increasingly more accurately mimic something that doesn't exist in your environment)
In other words, something is clearly amiss here. You either just lied or you're blatantly ignorant of evolutionary theory.
Your response?
Act as if your previous comment simply never happened by complaining that my explanation wasn't "helpful" - which in itself is another indication that is something clearly amiss here.
So, what gives Neal? What do you have to say for yourself?
Again, if one holds the presupposition that the biological complexity we observe was the result of intent, then nothing could "help" explain how a process which lacked intent could account for it. It's impossible. We could present explanations until we're blue in the face and It would make no difference.
But there's no need to assume this in your case as you can clearly speak for yourself...
Q: As a confessing Christian, do you think the Bible reveals the biological complexity we observe is the result of intent?
Q: Where do you put divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction (observations) and philosophy?
You could easily put this to rest by clearly answering these questions.
However, should you refuse to disclose your position I see no reason why we should take any of your objections seriously.
In case it's not clear, I'll put this in the sort of form that Cornelius uses regularly in regards to supernatural explanations.
If you [1] put divine revelation above induction (observations) and [2] conclude that the Bible represents true divine revelation (in that the biological complexity we observe was the result of intent) then you're limited to explanations that include intent.
On the other hand, since I accept neither [1] or [2] I'm under no such limitation. I'm free to accept explanations that lack or include intent.
So, again, it would come to no surprise that you find my explanation "unhelpful" as it would be unavailable to you. It's literally impossible for a process that does not exhibit intent to exhibit intent.
Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Feel free to deny [1] and [2] , which would allow you to accept explanations that do not include intent.
Evolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning that skeptics have no legitimate grounds to criticize evolution without offering an alternate.
This argument at its heart a fallacy.
Why should a theory get such automatic immunization from criticism?
While the principle of "don't criticize me unless you have a better solution" is a good one in some situations, it shouldn't be carried over into scientific methodology. In fact, good scientific methodology should be unbiased in its testing to proactively look for problems and issues.
In the court of law, the defense does not need to find the real criminal in order to defeat the prosecution's case. It just needs to poke enough holes in the prosecution's case. It would be a kangaroo court indeed if people were presumed guilty on the basis that the defense couldn't produce an alternative crook.
Trying to insulate evolution by such reasoning is another ploy by evolutionists to defend a weak hypothesis.
Evolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning that skeptics have no legitimate grounds to criticize evolution without offering an alternate.
Just like to poke the bear,Neal? Yadda yadda peer review,yadda yadda not a court of law, yadda yadda facts to back up criticism or as Thronton might say yadda yadda idiot.
Evolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning among themselves that their skeptics are not as smart as they are and typically move the conversation off topic and into silly name calling.
Trying to insulate evolution by such empty bluster is another ploy by evolutionists to defend a weak hypothesis.
Neal: Evolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning that skeptics have no legitimate grounds to criticize evolution without offering an alternate.
Neal,
Again, I've pointed out a concrete example of "criticism" that is based on knowingly presenting a falsehood or ignorance. Your response does not address either of these things. Rather it seems to be an attempt to change the subject yet again.
Furthermore, I'm pointing out that your criteria for adequacy appears to be based on the smuggled assumption that the biological complexity we observe was due to intent. And this is justified via divine revelation, rather than, say, induction, which is inadequate to justify conclusions on it's own as well. So, your constant claims of inadequacy are really rejection due to the lack of intent in disguise.
So in the case of the former, your "criticism" is legitimate due to disingenuous misrepresentation or ignorance. In the latter, your "criticism" is appears to be legitimate exclusion due to hidden assumptions based on divine revelation. It's begging the question.
Evolution can't explain the "intentional" biological complexity we observe because it lacks intent. Of course, you just so happen to leave out the "intentional" part. It's smuggled into your argument.
Why else would you complain that we ascribe "powers" to nature which it does not have? The power you're referring to here is "intent."
"The following is an example of probabilistic reasoning, which is a type of weak induction:
90% of humans are right-handed. Joe is a human. Therefore, Joe is probably right-handed.
This is an example of inductive reasoning:
90% of humans are right-handed. Joe is a human.
Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90%."
--
With the myriad of exceptions that evolution accommodates it leaves its inductive arguments in tatters. Every inductive argument it makes must be qualified with exceptions. Normally such flawed inductions would get the boot, but evolution is protected from falsification. They kid themselves with silly little examples of how their theory can be falsified while ignoring all the examples that do indeed falsify it.
It seems you've help pave the way to answering the second of my two questions by looking up the definition of induction.
However, what you appear not to realize is that all claims that X caused Y based on empirical observations alone are based on inductive reasoning, not just evolution.
For example, one might start out testing a drug in a lab on 2,000 of samples in a petri dish. If we obtain the results we want, we may conclude the drug was the cause of the reaction in each case the test was performed. However, this is probabilistic in nature because this same test could fail on sample 2,001 for some unknown reason. For example, it could be that some supernatural agent decided to bring about the desired result, rather than the drug, for the 2,000 times the test was run, but would have changed it's mind at sample 2,001.
Should this actually be this case, inductive reasoning alone would have caused you to reach the wrong conclusion because you didn't run enough tests. Using merely observations alone (induction), the best one can say is that it's highly probable that the drug was the cause.
Eventually, the drug is tested on a particular number of actual patients. However, it could be that this same supernatural agent decides to bring about the desired result for every person who is administered this particular drug during the test. The agent would have decided to stop interceding at patient 1,015, but if there were only 1,000 patients, Induction alone would result in the wrong conclusion. Again, we simply didn't run enough tests.
However, by now you should have realize there is no "right" number of tests to run as this same agent could chose some other number at which to stop interceding. It could be 1,000, 1 million or 1 billion, etc. We could use the drug for hundreds of years and still get the wrong conclusion via induction alone.
This is what I mean when I say that we cannot use mere observations to justify conclusions. And this includes all fields of science, not just evolution. Formally, this is known as the problem of induction.
In fact, the primary reason a drug makes it to the testing phase in the first place is because someone has created an *explanation* as to how the desired result could be caused by the drug in the first place.
Or, to use my earlier example, it's unlikely that anyone is testing if standing on one's head cures cancer. Why is this? It not because it's logically impossible. Nor is it because it's unfalsifiable, as it would be trivial to test. Again, the reason is because we lack an explanation as to how standing on one's head cures cancer. As such we discard it.
In other words, in science, a claim that is merely logically possible and falsifiable isn't sufficient. We reject a near infinite number of possibilities all the time. Rater, in practice, what's important is an *explanation*.
So, now that it's clear inductive reasoning would be a problem not only for evolution, but science as a whole, we can return to my original question. I'll rephrase in an attempt to clarify.
Q: When engaged in the process of justifying conclusions, which do you give priority: divine revelation, deduction, induction or philosophy?
If, as you say, "Every inductive argument it makes must be qualified with exceptions.", then what is left? Deduction? But deduction depends on it's premies being correct in the first place. So, a best, we can say a deductive argument is only as sound as its premies.
So, it would seem that you have some hidden answer to the problem of induction which you have yet to disclose, otherwise, you'd be objecting to the entirety of science.
Neal: Scott, evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe. If it did, this blog would not exist.
Neal,
Again, I'm suggesting you've failed to disclose your real position, as has Cornelius, etc.
Your real objection is that a process that does not exhibit intent (evolution) does not explain biological complexity caused by intent. However, that the biological complexity we actually observe was actually caused by intent is begging the question.
Evolution is silly because it assumes that a process that does not exhibit intent could explain biological complexity caused by intent. Evolution is "scientifically unlikely" because it assumes that a process that does not exhibit intent could end up gradually building biological complexity that was caused by intent. Etc.
The assumption that it's even possible to blindly follow evidence without putting it into some sort of explanatory framework in the first place indicates a blindness to the sort of naive empiricism that permeates every argument on this blog.
Scott, evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe.
What you really mean is that evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe to the asinine level of detail your ignorance demands. But that's your problem there idiot, not science's. To the actual scientific community ToE is an excellent explanation that fits the observed data far better than any other.
If it did, this blog would not exist.
This blog exists because Cornelius is getting paid to write his politically motivated anti-science swill just to pander to Creationist idiots like you Tedford, nothing more.
Scott said, "Q: When engaged in the process of justifying conclusions, which do you give priority: divine revelation, deduction, induction or philosophy?"
--
I used to be an evolutionist but the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale. The evidence points to creation and in my search for the creator I found the Bible to be reliable and life changing.
I used to be an evolutionist but the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale.
Funny that every time you present this 'evidence' it turns out instead to be your pitiful ignorance and/or misunderstanding of the actual science involved. Remember how you thought 'Mitochondrial Eve' evidence meant there was only one woman alive at that time in the past?
The evidence points to creation and in my search for the creator I found the Bible to be reliable and life changing.
Like the part that says you can make cattle produce striped calves by having them stand in front of a striped pole? That was sure reliable. Or the part about how all languages in the world were created at the same time during the Babel incident? The evidence sure backs that one up too.
Sorry Tedford, but the plain fact is that you're an idiot. If you need the Bible to be your guidebook for moral decisions, more power to you. But to think its moral teachings somehow make the Bible an accurate science book is pure stupidity.
More bad news from CERN for the pseudo-science elites:
Hey idiot, weren't you the guy who just last week told us global warming wasn't happening? That the polar bears on ice floes photos were staged and the scientists were being investigated for fraud?
Now you say GW is happening, but that cloud formation due to reduced cosmic rays is the cause?
You're just as clueless an idiot when it comes to AGW as you are with ToE. You don't understand the science behind either even a little, but just love to flap those idiot gums.
What the AGW denier crowd 'forgot' is that if the cosmic rays effect was causing GW, there should be a direct correlation between measured GW and measured cosmic ray intensity over the last 5 decades. But there isn't
Neal: I used to be an evolutionist but the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale. The evidence points to creation and in my search for the creator I found the Bible to be reliable and life changing.
Neal,
Again, there is something clearly amiss here as this strongly conflicts with your previous comment.
You wrote: Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus".
However, as we've pointed out, you'd know this wasn't the case if you understood how the theory explains the evidence (observations). This either this represents ignorance of evolutionary theory or it represents willingly presenting a falsehood.
If the latter, it's unclear how you could conclude "the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale" when you don't understand the theory. And if it's the former, then why not just present the evidence, rather than lie about it?
In other words, your "explanation" for your behavior here simply doesn't add up.
Furthermore, on multiple occasions you've claim that Evolution requires attributing "magical" attributes to natural causes. But we do no such thing.
However, if you have an intentional being-shaped hole in your scheme of things, then any explanations we provide will be inadequate unless they exhibit intent. The details of the theory would therefore be irrelevant.
To use an analogy, imagine someone had a RV shaped hole in their vacation plans. In an attempt to fill this hole, they visit a store that only sells campers. They would ask, does it have a kitchen? Yes. Does it have a bathroom and shower. Yes. Does it have a bed, doors, wheels, break lights, etc. Yes.
But all of these things would be irrelevant because campers are not self-propelled. Which also makes the details of how they work are irrelevant as well. Why even bother learning about how the camper works if you know it can't possibly fill the RV sized hole in your vacation plan? Not being self propelled is a deal breaker.
Furthermore, it would be "silly" to assume that one could replace a RV with a camper. One would have to attribute "magical properties" to a camper to replace an RV, etc.
In case it's not clear, I'm suggesting that your ignorance of evolutionary theory is due to the fact that you have a hidden assumption that the biological complexity we observe could only be explained by a being that exhibits intent. As such, the details of the theory are irrelevant. And if the details are irrelevant than this so called "evidence" you speak of is irrelevant as well.
However, if this isn't the case, then how do you explain your comments here? What other conclusion should we reach?
Scott said, "This either this represents ignorance of evolutionary theory or it represents willingly presenting a falsehood."
--
Scott, the Elvis Presley mimic octopus comment was just in humor, not as a technical reply. Okay? Do you see how you OFTEN frame "A or B" questions in which neither choices are good ones?
Nature shows patterns of top-down design, which is intent. It's not a hidden assumption, it is one of the expected properties of design.
Complex systems are by their very nature unable to be produced in a gradual step-wise manner in which each incremental step yields a fundamentally useful system.
Back to a relatively simple system like the mouse trap. How do you produce a mouse trap in such a way in which each additional component yields a functioning system of some kind? Evolutionists are fond of making everything a crude and impractical door stop, paper weight, or tie clip. Even if we gave them a free pass on the impractical examples, their still leaving out many of the incremental steps of the building process. Their answer to irreducible complexity is throwing out a couple impractical examples and add some bluster and poof their problems are gone. Someone needs to bring out a duck that squeaks quack, quack.
Neal: Scott, the Elvis Presley mimic octopus comment was just in humor, not as a technical reply. Okay?
No, Neal. It's not OK.
The problem is, this wouldn't be the only time where you've made an argument that reveals what appears to be ignorance or misrepresentation on your part. In fact, it happens quite often.
Is in really necessary for me to go back and point them out?
Neal: Do you see how you OFTEN frame "A or B" questions in which neither choices are good ones?
Again, mocking evolutionary theory isn't much different than calling it "silly" or claiming we attribute "magical" properties to natural processes. Again if you have a valid argument based on a tested theory, then present it.
Neal: Nature shows patterns of top-down design, which is intent. It's not a hidden assumption, it is one of the expected properties of design.
That what we observe was actually designed, and therefor the result of an intentional designer, is begging the question. As such, assuming it's designed is the hidden assumption.
Neal: Complex systems are by their very nature unable to be produced in a gradual step-wise manner in which each incremental step yields a fundamentally useful system.
Of course, you cannot know this based on observations, due to the problem of induction. So, we're back to your hidden assumption. Or do you have a theory of how this designer actually did it?
Furthermore, are you humoring us again? Because evolution doesn't supposed each step must be functional - it could be neutral or even mildly detrimental. We point this out time and time again, yet you keep repeating it. So how can you say you reject evolution based on the evidence, when you're clearly either misrepresenting it in your argument or bound and determined to remain ignorant of it?
So, what gives Neal? Why do your comments keep conflicting with your claims?
Neal Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus
Intent is the cause of the physical events, not the other way around.
If I want to nail two pieces of wood I can describe the physical event to a deepest detail. All the masses, forces, trajectories of the physical objects can be explained.
I don't think describing physical event explains my intent to build the shed.
All that being said I cannot confirm some bio physical events are caused by intent although there are high suspects at the cell level.
The study said, "It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species."
While the article assumes evolution to be a fact, big picture evolution is lost in the fog of time and fossil interpretation based on evolution being an assumed fact.
What we actually observe in real time is evolution within limits... just what creationists have been saying for years.
So equating Gravity and Water Erosion processes with evolutionary processes is a gross fallacy... something that evolutionists on this blog are fond of doing repeatedly.
We can determine the amount of gravity from a little mass all the way up to cosmic size masses. We can observe a little water erosion all the way up to canyon size erosion. However, we can't do this with evolution. What we observe is rapid small change that has limits and doesn't stick. This is devastating to the examples of evolutionary observations.
With this finding evolutionary assumptions are removed further from reality... the examples of evolution we observe don't continue, but we are assured that the ones a million years ago did. How convenient! We know that they did from the tree of life. Quack Quack... LOL
Neal: Scott, here's a interesting link from Science Daily:
And yet another attempt to change the subject. No surprise here.
And the link?
In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn't mean that process will continue and we'll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.
Neal,
Do you think this conflicts with evolutionary theory? If so, this would be another example of either misrepresentation or ignorance on your part.
We lack a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary pattern and process because short-term and long-term data have rarely been combined into a single analytical framework. Here we test alternative models of phenotypic evolution using a dataset of unprecedented size and temporal span (over 8,000 data points). The data are body-size measurements taken from historical studies, the fossil record, and among-species comparative data representing mammals, squamates, and birds. By analyzing this large dataset, we identify stochastic models that can explain evolutionary patterns on both short and long timescales and reveal a remarkably consistent pattern in the timing of divergence across taxonomic groups. Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time. The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales. We suggest that these rare bursts reflect permanent changes in adaptive zones, whereas the short-term fluctuations represent local variations in niche optima due to restricted environmental variation within a stable adaptive zone. "
"Rare but substantial bursts"... that's just what Darwin meant to say after he said just the opposite. LOL
We lack a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary pattern and process because short-term and long-term data have rarely been combined into a single analytical framework. Here we test alternative models of phenotypic evolution using a dataset of unprecedented size and temporal span (over 8,000 data points). The data are body-size measurements taken from historical studies, the fossil record, and among-species comparative data representing mammals, squamates, and birds. By analyzing this large dataset, we identify stochastic models that can explain evolutionary patterns on both short and long timescales and reveal a remarkably consistent pattern in the timing of divergence across taxonomic groups. Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time. The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales. We suggest that these rare bursts reflect permanent changes in adaptive zones, whereas the short-term fluctuations represent local variations in niche optima due to restricted environmental variation within a stable adaptive zone. "
"rare but substantial bursts"... just what Darwin meant after he said the opposite. LOL
"rare but substantial bursts"... just what Darwin meant after he said the opposite. LOL
...and God said, let there be...
And God said, let there there be idiots like Tedford to amuse the rest of us.
Only a true blithering fool would provide a paper outlining the evidence for regular periods of punctuated equilibrium over the last 360 million years and say it somehow disproves evolution. A paper that argues normal population genetics processes become less important than the emergence of novel genotypes every million years or so, and claim it supports Biblical creationism.
Amazing how Tedford never seems to run out of truly stupid things to say. Magic!
Neal: "Rare but substantial bursts"... that's just what Darwin meant to say after he said just the opposite. LOL
First, please cite where Darwin "said just the opposite"
Second, just as there are a great number of people who today better understand Einstein's theory of general relativity than Einstein ever did, there are a great number of people who today better understand Darwin's theory better than Darwin ever did. This isn't anything new. In fact, it's the norm, rather than the exception.
So even if Darwin did "say the opposite" modern evolutionary theory isn't bound to whatever Darwin might have thought or said. Nor would it matter if Darwin went around torturing puppies, worshiping Satan, etc. Darwin isn't evolutionary theory.
Third, the quote from the paper doesn't conflict with the summary I posted from the article. For example, when the paper says….
Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time.
it means…
In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn't mean that process will continue and we'll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.
"do not accumulate over time" doesn't mean that significant changes do not occur or that neutral or mildly detrimental mutations do not accumulate. It means that significant changes are not used as a foundation to build on when forming future changes.
To give an example similar, the size of our ancestor's brains grew significantly the recent past. However, within the last 30,000 years our brains have become smaller. We're not getting less intelligent, we're becoming more specialized.
In other words, just because the size of the homo genius brain grew larger in the last 500,000 years, this doesn't mean this process must continue and that our brains will be significantly bigger in the next 200,000 years or even as big one million years from now. We're still evolving. however, this doesn't mean that the changes in our brain structure in the short term were not significant.
Again, this doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory.
Fourth, "That's just what the designer must have wanted" isn't an explanation of what we observe. Rather it's merely an attempt to explain away evolutionary the prevalent theory.
In other words, it clams that evolution merely appears to be true, but is actually false, while never getting around to actually explaining the concrete biological complexity we observe in the first place.
Thorton: "John shows he is another Creationist liar, as I actually provided numerous examples of things that would falsify current evolutionary theory."
I did not say you didn't provide examples. I was referring to what happened when one of your examples turned out to be true. You resorted to obfuscation and when that didn't work, you ran away.
Thorton: "John, why do you tell such blatant lies? Does your religion teach you it's OK to lie? "
You can have as much fun as you want putting words in my mouth, but at the end of the day, you know you were wrong and you still will have to deal with it at some point.
Thorton: "John shows he is another Creationist liar, as I actually provided numerous examples of things that would falsify current evolutionary theory."
I did not say you didn't provide examples. I was referring to what happened when one of your examples turned out to be true.
No, you blatantly lied about what was presented and claimed I showed evolutionary theory is not falsifiable. That's not a misunderstanding, not a difference of opinion, it's an an out an out lie.
I'm content to show Creationists like you for the lying scum you are. So keep breaking those Commandments there John, I'm sure you're making Jesus proud.
John: Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable.
John,
I'd disagree. Of course, before any such discussion would be fruitful, we'd need to address some rather fundamental assumptions about science first.
For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe, just as the classic Copenhagen intepretation represents instrumentalism in the field of quantum physicists.
Scott, before moving into quantum physicists, I would like to know if you still equate the observation of gravity with the observation of evolution? Can observations of constrained evolution be valid evidence for unconstrained evolution that we are assured took place millions of years ago?
Do we need to redefine evolution (definition #7 or 9... I lost count), as a creation or saltation event so that it actually matches the evidence?
Whoever believed in gradualism anyway? Perhaps definition #9 would go something like this, such as "rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales."
Scott: For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe, just as the classic Copenhagen intepretation represents instrumentalism in the field of quantum physicists
Ha! I stared out with ... "quantum physicists are instrumentalists in the case of ..... " but edited it to the above. Forgot to swap "quantum physicists" with "quantum mechanics."
Thorton: "No, you blatantly lied about what was presented"
No, I specifically said, "Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable." And last week you did that precisely the way many evolutionists do when confronted with uncooperative data. You tried moving the goalposts, then you tried changing the subject, then you finally fled. In no case did you agree that you had falsified evolution by your own standards. That is a perfect example of why evolution is never falsifiable. You're free to pick up the discussion where it was left off at any time.
Thorton: "That's not a misunderstanding, not a difference of opinion, it's an an out an out lie... I'm content to show Creationists like you for the lying scum you are."
If you're supposed to be sounding content right now, then I'm definitely a liar :D
That is a perfect example of why evolution is never falsifiable.
When you get tired of breaking the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness", feel free to explain why the following
Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones.
wouldn't falsify current evolutionary theory.
Should be easy for you, all you have to do is pull another lie out of your butt. Lying comes easy for you Creationists. It's your only discernible talent.
Thorton: "No, you blatantly lied about what was presented"
No, I specifically said, "Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable." And last week you did that precisely the way many evolutionists do when confronted with uncooperative data.
Sorry liar, but your attempts to rewrite history just won't fly. The criteria I gave for falsification was multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' as Creationists define the term. You came back with known minor variations in codons that most certainly aren't 'incompatible forms of DNA', and you didn't provide an objective definition of 'kind'. So your claim that I showed evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable is a big fat lie.
Keep up the lying for Jesus there John. Show us how a good Christian Creationist behaves.
That's because you probably want to go back and discuss the specifics of the criteria he set for falsification, which would be a good idea. I was hoping to continue that discussion here as it seemed to be abandoned in a very poor manner in the Cod immune system thread. But the reason I said he showed ToE was unfalsifiable was because of his behavior, not his falsification criteria.
I was also hoping to point up that it seems a little inefficient to care what Thorton thinks about other people's arguments when he has so little respect for his own.
Scott: "For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe,"
I suppose not in the arena of origins, as I disagree with the evaluation that, "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality." I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
Thorton: "Sorry liar, but your attempts to rewrite history just won't fly. The criteria I gave for falsification was multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' as Creationists define the term."
and therefore your criteria is just as concrete as what you believe the Creationist's definitions of 'kinds' is. As you laugh at the creationists definition of kinds evaporate, you laugh at your own criteria for falsification evaporating as well. Should I ask forgiveness for taking you seriously?
Thorton: "You came back with known minor variations in codons that most certainly aren't 'incompatible forms of DNA'"
Substituting glutamine for two types of stop codon is most certainly incompatible. Are you telling me you don't understand what would happen?
Thorton: "and you didn't provide an objective definition of 'kind'."
and unless you do your own work, how could you say this established a falsification criteria? As you can see, the onus is on you to provide your own definitions, which in this case need to factor in algae and humans. Good luck.
Thorton: "Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones."
This is a great criteria also, but I'm afraid you will just claim "micro-evolutionary changes" is just more creation rhetoric if I provide and example. So maybe we should go through one exercise at a time, ok? Also, by moving on, you makes it look like you conceded that the first condition was met, which makes finding more falsifications of ToE pointless. I'm not trying to anger you, but you should be more careful in your discussions as many of the things you say are not even arguments.
Hey John, why don't you you link to the scientific literature that shows the DNA chemistry from the 'dog' kind is completely different and incompatible with DNA from the 'cat' kind. That would falsify modern evolutionary theory in an instant.
Oops! Looks like evolutionary theory is falsifiable after all! Guess you'll have to find something else to lie about.
Thorton: "Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones."
This is a great criteria also, but I'm afraid you will just claim "micro-evolutionary changes" is just more creation rhetoric if I provide and example. So maybe we should go through one exercise at a time, ok?
The exercise is determining if evolutionary theory is falsifiable. I say it is and have provided numerous examples of things which if found would easily falsify the current theory. You claim it isn't but haven't been able to explain why the examples wouldn't falsify the theory.
If you wish to stop with the blustering dishonest rhetoric about what was presented and concede that ToE is indeed falsifiable we can proceed.
Thorton: "Hey John, why don't you you link to the scientific literature that shows the DNA chemistry from the 'dog' kind is completely different and incompatible with DNA from the 'cat' kind. That would falsify modern evolutionary theory in an instant."
because you hadn't moved the goalposts yet. Err.. I mean me, uhhh, me not you. *I* hadn't moved the goalposts yet, after being a liar, painting myself into a corner, and changing gears. I should try to be more careful shouldn't I? I should also try to make certain I understand the implications of the first example I was given before expecting my opponent to give me more examples of a similar type, because to demand otherwise would be insane. I'm sure you agree.
Thorton: "The exercise is determining if evolutionary theory is falsifiable. I say it is and have provided numerous examples of things which if found would easily falsify the current theory."
I found an example that fulfilled your first criteria and I contend that getting you to concede the point is as *easy* as it would be for any future examples you are likely to provide.
Thorton: "You claim it isn't but haven't been able to explain why the examples wouldn't falsify the theory."
The claim on this thread was to highlight your behavior in light of uncooperative data. The general gist of it is this; (evolutionist can't admit he falsified evolution by his own criteria) = (reason why evolution is unfalsifiable). You're still focused on the data as if I should just move on to the next one. I understand that no one likes being under the microscope themselves, so I won't push it. My goal is not to humiliate you, but if you want to keep talking about it or exemplifying it, I won't stop you.
Thorton: "If you wish to stop with the blustering dishonest rhetoric about what was presented and concede that ToE is indeed falsifiable we can proceed."
I fully acknowledged that you falsified it in the last thread. Does that mean you are ready to proceed? Get the point? If you won't accept that you falsified ToE *by YOUR OWN ORIGINAL STANDARD* then how will you convince someone it can be falsified by some additional standard?
Scott Ha! I stared out with ... "quantum physicists are instrumentalists in the case of ..... " but edited it to the above. Forgot to swap "quantum physicists" with "quantum mechanics."
However, I think you figured that out.
No offense intended, that question just struck me as funny, maybe 70 days over 100 degrees f is taking its toll
John, I found an example that fulfilled your first criteria and I contend that getting you to concede the point is as *easy* as it would be for any future examples you are likely to provide
Not to intrude on y'all's fun but for the casual observer,could you lay out your example in some detail? That way it won't look like you are just trying to bait Thorton and playing semantic games, thanks
Thorton: "If you wish to stop with the blustering dishonest rhetoric about what was presented and concede that ToE is indeed falsifiable we can proceed."
I fully acknowledged that you falsified it in the last thread.
LOL! Sorry liar, but just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it has been falsified. But keep lying about it if it makes you feel better. The scientific community sure won't pay any attention to your unsubstantiated bluster.
John, I found an example that fulfilled your first criteria and I contend that getting you to concede the point is as *easy* as it would be for any future examples you are likely to provide
Not to intrude on y'all's fun but for the casual observer,could you lay out your example in some detail? That way it won't look like you are just trying to bait Thorton and playing semantic games, thanks
He can't, because he is just another dishonest Creationist playing silly semantic games. It's all liars like him have.
Neal: Scott, before moving into quantum physicists, I would like to know if you still equate the observation of gravity with the observation of evolution?
Neal,
We do not observe gravity. We observe its effects.
However, there are parts of the universe where we have not actually tested or observed the effects of gravity. In fact, we've only observed gravity's effects in a fraction of the entire universe. This is because the vast majority of the universe consists of dark and empty vacuum between galaxies. Furthermore, we've estimated that the universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old. However, for much of this time, we have no direct observations of gravity. Most of our scenarios suggest that our universe could last another 13+ billion years.
So, on one hand, we have an overwhelming number of observations of gravity here on earth and a great number of galaxies that we can observe. But this is merely a fraction of the entire universe. Even if our universe is not infinite, and we assume that gravity held unobserved for most of the 13.75 billion years, that is roughly half of predicted possible observations.
In other words, we have little reason to think that gravity will hold merely based on induction. We're looking a fractional percentage that gravity will hold everywhere and a very very generous 50% assuming gravity held unseen over the entire 13.75 billion years.
However, in reality, we don't really know exactly how many future observations we could make. I'm merely using our best assumptions. Again, this is formally known as the problem of induction.
So, my question for you is one I've posed here several times…
Q: Do you think there is a solution to the problem of induction. If so, what is it?
John: That's because you probably want to go back and discuss the specifics of the criteria he set for falsification, which would be a good idea.
Actually, I'm referring to variants one can hold in regards to epistemology, philosophies of science, etc.
Scott: "For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe,"
John: I suppose not in the arena of origins, as I disagree with the evaluation that, "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality." I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
I'm not clear what you mean here by "opposed." Opposed by what: observations?
In the case of quantum mechanics, one could say that the theory of the atom is one of the most successful theories in the history of science. However, there are aspects of the Copenhagen Interpretation which are highly successful mathematical models that predict observations, but are not assumed to represent reality.
To quote the same Wikipedia entry….
Instrumentalism avoids the realism / anti-realism debate, and may be better characterized as non-realism. Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena.
In other words, it's not clear how you get "objective reality" from "observed phenomena" or how you think we can "side with objective reality" to find better theories.
More specifically, how should we rationally change our definition of what represents "objective reality" when presented with observations?
Thorton: "Here is what John the liar claims is a 'falsification' of evolutionary theory:"
Actually, it's what you claimed was falsification. But it's good to see you started finally doing your homework. I noticed you still haven't addressed the incompatibility I mentioned, namely the difference between algae and humans. Substituting stop codons for glutamine or vice versa would have extremely detrimental effects on the entire genome of the organism that it first occurred in because all the proteins that contained that sequence would either be cut short, or on the other hand, continue being translated past where they originally stopped. Of course, I assumed you knew this and that this was the reason you proposed the criteria you did. Apparently, due to the focus you are placing on the similarity in the rest of the genome, you seem to think that "close enough" is ok... perhaps in the way I could understand a sentence if you misspelled a word. Is that a fair representation of your new position?
Scott: "I'm not clear what you mean here by "opposed." Opposed by what: observations?"
Wikipedia: "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality."
So I mean "opposed" by whatever makes you think they are opposed enough for the wikipedia author to write this definition. Honestly, I didn't try to imagine all the ways one might find that out. But apparently this author believes there are ways.
John: That's because you probably want to go back and discuss the specifics of the criteria he set for falsification, which would be a good idea.
More specifically, I'd suggest discussing the difference between prophecy and predictions of scientific theories.
For example, prophecy represents special knowledge in that it supposedly accounts for an infinite number of possible unrelated, yet parallel possible effects that could change the outcome of what we observe. It does this through either supposed foreknowledge of what will occur in the future or by revealing the will of a being that supposedly can overcome any obstacle. In both cases, if the prophecy does not come true, it must be false.
However, the predictions of scientific theories do not claim to take into account either of these things. They cannot take into account an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel effects that could change what we experience. Nor are they based on the supposed will of an omnipotent being.
As such, we must evaluate them in respect to their underlying explanation for phenomena and our best explanations at the time. To do otherwise is to mistake the predictions of scientific theories for prophecy.
In this light, before we can talk of what it would take to falsify evolutionary theory, we must first understand the underlying explanation, then evaluate it using our best explanations we have today, rather than the explanations of 30 or even 150 years ago.
To summarize, I'd suggest that the genome is a biological replicator, in that it contains the knowledge of how to cause it's environment to replicate itself. Modern evolutionary theory is an explanation of how this knowledge found in the genome is created: RM and NS. This is in contrast to, say Lamarckian inheritance, which didn't survive long enough to be updated to include the discovered mechanism of DNA.
However, If it somehow did manage to survive, Neo-Lamarckian inheritance would represent a different way of creating this knowledge. For example it would posit that Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves in high trees somehow managed to create knowledge how to build a longer necks, and that this knowledge was somehow deposited in its genome to be passed on to future generations. However, no such explanation for how this might occur exists.
John: So I mean "opposed" by whatever makes you think they are opposed enough for the wikipedia author to write this definition.
The phrase "as opposed to" in the Wikipedia entry is synonymous with the phrase "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". As such, this paragraph isn't referring to opposition of instrumentalism.
John: Honestly, I didn't try to imagine all the ways one might find that out. But apparently this author believes there are ways.
You response seems to suggest that you're unaware of how one might get "objective reality" from "observed phenomena" or how one could "side with objective reality" to find better theories.
John, would you agree with the following from the same Wikipedia entry?
Theories about unobservable phenomena are regarded as having no scientific meaning. Scientists may make claims about unobservable objects, but these claims should not be regarded as meaningful. Evidence is necessarily limited in any scientific enquiry, and this means underdetermination is a common result, where competing theories are posited on the same set of evidence.
Thorton: "If you think known minor variations in DNA codons somehow falsified evolutionary theory, why don't you write up a paper and submit it to the appropriate scientific journals?"
Because it was your criteria and I don't care as much as you apparently.
Thorton: "Similarly, if you think you can finally demonstrate an objective method for demonstrating what 'kind' an animal is, by all means write it up!"
I don't really care what you meant by kind. Apparently it was concrete enough for you to think it set some kind of falsification criteria for evolution. It's not my problem if you didn't know what you were talking about.
John: "Actually, it's what you claimed was falsification."
Thorton: "Tsk tsk tsk John, you just can't stop yourself from lying. You really should seek professional psychiatric help for your problem."
Tsk tsk tsk Thorton, you just can't stop yourself from lying. You said it right here. Continued attempts to move the goalposts from incompatible to dissimilar have failed you. What is left?
Scott: "The phrase "as opposed to" in the Wikipedia entry is synonymous with the phrase "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". As such, this paragraph isn't referring to opposition of instrumentalism."
I'm not sure of the distinction you're making. I feel the meaning of what I said would not be changed by substituting "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". The point is I feel it is useless to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B. It seems a little incoherent. But didn't we have a discussion a few months ago about how reliable induction is? I saw above that you said this is a common issue you like to discuss.
Thorton: "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
I showed you multiple incompatible forms in algae and humans. Game over troll.
Actually you didn't do either there liar. You showed some known small variations in the single existing genetic code, variations that the evidence indicates are the result of the code itself evolving over time
"Abstract: The genetic code evolved in two distinct phases. First, the ‘canonical’ code emerged before the last universal ancestor; subsequently, this code diverged in numerous nuclear and organelle lineages. Here, we examine the distribution and causes of these secondary deviations from the canonical genetic code. The majority of non-standard codes arise from alterations in the tRNA, with most occurring by post-transcriptional modifications, such as base modification or RNA editing, rather than by substitutions within tRNA anticodons."
Oops! Big FAIL for John the liar!
You also didn't show any objective criteria for determining that two life forms are different 'kinds'. FAIL again there liar.
What's really funny is the fact you have flip-flopped on your Creationist trolling several times. First you claimed ToE is unfalsifiable, then you claim it is falsified! Which is it there liar? It you're going to keep lying about things John-boy you're going to need a lot better memory.
Thorton: "...variations that the evidence indicates are the result of the code itself evolving over time"
Sorry friend, but your type always reason in this way, "since evolution happened, and we imagine mechanism X might have been able to produce it, therefore this uncooperative data is evidence of method X"
Thorton: "Oops! Big FAIL for John the liar!"
Actually, I did not see your name on this paper, so I'm curious to know which of their 3 hypotheses is your new position? My prediction was that you would change to either small genome or codon rarity or both, but instead you started all this silly wailing.
Thorton: "You also didn't show any objective criteria for determining that two life forms are different 'kinds'. FAIL again there liar."
'kinds' was in YOUR falsification criteria for ToE there champ. So the FAIL is all yours!
Thorton: "What's really funny is the fact you have flip-flopped on your Creationist trolling several times. First you claimed ToE is unfalsifiable, then you claim it is falsified! Which is it there liar?"
Behold the corner you have painted yourself into; if you cede defeat according to your original criteria, then you claim to have falsified evolution, if you do not even though your criteria have been satisfied, you demonstrate by your actions why no-one can ever falsify evolution. The choice sir, is up to you.
But at least you got around to goalpost moving. It seemed like this day would never come.
Double LOL! I wonder how long John the liar's ego will keep him making his same pitiful bellyache?
Hey John, how do you objectively determine that two different life forms (say, algae and humans) are different 'kinds'? You apparently have this sooper-secret Creationist knowledge. Won't you share it? It would net you a Nobel Prize for sure.
When will you be demonstrating the magic barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary change to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones? You bragged about being able to do so before, why are you so quiet on the subject now? Make good on your boast and you'll get a second Nobel, guaranteed.
Unless you're just another mouthy Creationist who's all talk, no action. There's no shortage of them around here.
John: The point is I feel it is useless to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B. It seems a little incoherent.
It seems we've veered off track. I'm asking you for your position on instrumentalism, not the author. Furthermore, It would be inappropriate for the author to present his personal opinion in a Wikipedia definition. So, the author is not claiming something should be evaluated by A instead of B.
Your response was: I suppose not in the arena of origins, as I disagree with the evaluation that, "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality." I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
However, a instrumentalist position isn't necessarily opposed to objective reality. Rather it's a position one holds in regards to whether objective reality is included in science.
To quote Wikipedia entry on the the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM….
The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that the wave function is anything more than a theoretical concept, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity.
The subjective view, that the wave function is merely a mathematical tool for calculating the probabilities in a specific experiment, is a similar approach to the Ensemble interpretation.
And why does this denial take place?
There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a "real" wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with logical positivism and/or with some of Bohr's statements. Bohr emphasized that science is concerned with predictions of the outcomes of experiments, and that any additional propositions offered are not scientific but meta-physical. Bohr was heavily influenced by positivism. On the other hand, Bohr and Heisenberg were not in complete agreement, and they held different views at different times. Heisenberg in particular was prompted to move towards realism.[4]
So, the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't necessarily in opposition to objective realty. Rather it separates and prioritizes between effective explanations and predictions of phenomena and objective realty in science. The wave function in QM could represent objective reality, but the Copenhagen Interpretation represents instrumentalism because it denies having knowledge that it actually does represent objective reality. As such, it defines it's success as merely effective mathematical models and predictions of phenomena.
This is why I asked if you agreed with….
Theories about unobservable phenomena are regarded as having no scientific meaning. Scientists may make claims about unobservable objects, but these claims should not be regarded as meaningful. Evidence is necessarily limited in any scientific enquiry, and this means underdetermination is a common result, where competing theories are posited on the same set of evidence.
If you're a theist, I'm guessing you think the "designer" of the biological complexity we observe is unexplainable beyond abstract design. Therefore the best we could hope for in regards to falsifying evolutionary theory is merely effective mathematical models and predictions of evolution, to be positively supported by observations.
Thorton: "You bragged about being able to do so before, why are you so quiet on the subject now?"
Can you provide a quote?
Yep.
Thorton: "Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones."
John: "This is a great criteria also, but I'm afraid you will just claim "micro-evolutionary changes" is just more creation rhetoric if I provide an example."
Go ahead John, show us the magic barrier that makes macro-evolution impossible in every case.
Looks like your mouth wrote another check your scientific evidence can't cash. One would think Creationists like you who argue solely on empty blustering rhetoric would have learned a lesson by now, but no...
Scott: "It seems we've veered off track. I'm asking you for your position on instrumentalism, not the author."
I'm trying to understand the definition you provided but it seems incoherent. I have no idea what the opinions of the author are.
I will try to start from the other side of the bridge and ask you this;
Do you believe he did not falsify ToE because; (1) something to do with the word 'incompatible' (2) something to do with the word 'kind' (3) you disagree with his criteria as falsifying ToE, or (4) you don't think falsification of any hypothesis is possible in principle
Do you believe he did not falsify ToE because; (1) something to do with the word 'incompatible' (2) something to do with the word 'kind' (3) you disagree with his criteria as falsifying ToE, or (4) you don't think falsification of any hypothesis is possible in principle
or something else I did not list?
You left out (5) John is a boring Creationist troll just out to sling whatever mud he can at the scientific theory that frightens him.
John: I'm trying to understand the definition you provided but it seems incoherent. I have no idea what the opinions of the author are.
John,
I didn't provide the definition. I merely linked to it. Nor does it represent the opinion of the author. Again, it would be inappropriate for the author to present his personal opinion in a Wikipedia definition. Are you suggesting otherwise?
As such, the author is not claiming something *should* be evaluated by A instead of B. In fact, the entry says that ..Instrumentalism avoids the realism / anti-realism debate all together. Rather, if anyone has presented opposition, it was you when you said…
I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
Which is why I asked what you meant by "opposed", since it seem to be the deciding factor in your position on how science should evaluate a concept or theory.
However, when I pressed you on this question you first said you didn't try to imagine all the ways how we could determine if these methods were opposed. But then strangely latter suggested that: The point is I feel it is useless to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B.
But having just previously said I feel the meaning of what I said would not be changed by substituting "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". it would seem you've done just this since 'in contrast to' is not necessarily the same as 'in opposition to'. In fact, that's one of the key concepts of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.
Again, the Copenhagen Interpretation thinks that we cannot know if wave function model represents objective reality. So, it's not in opposition to it being objective reality. Rather it's denies that science could justify claiming the wave function model actually is objective reality. But it still accepts the wave function model's ability to predict phenomena as representing scientific knowledge regardless.
In other words, it could be objective reality, but that's beyond what an instrumentalist position of science could speak of. Again, this is not opposition. It's in contrast to.
So, if you mean 'in contrast to' then I'm still in the dark as you your criteria.
And if you mean "in opposition to" I'd return to my earlier question. If effectively modeling and predicting observed phenomena is opposed to objective reality, then how could one "side with objective reality" to find better theories given this opposition?
John: Do you believe he did not falsify ToE because...
First, Thortion doesn't define the ToE or what falsifies it. Rather, Thorton is pointing to known positions in the field of evolutionary theory as to what would represent a falsification of the theory. Your claim that 'Thortion falsified ToE' is a common tactic among creationists.
Second, you seem to be treating this prediction as if it was prophecy, rather than being based on the underlying explanation Neo-Darwinism provides for the creation of knowledge in biological replicators: random mutation and natural selection.
Specifically, not only should we assume that this explanation is true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, we should also assume that all of our best explanations since said prediction was original made are also true. This includes the explanation that DNA original started out as a simpler form and "evolved" into what we observe today. In other words, the knowledge of how to encode genetic instructions, repair them, etc. was also created over time. A such, small variations in a single genetic code would not conflict with the incremental creation of said code. In fact, we should expect said variations to follow our best explanations as to the history of how organisms evolved, which is exactly what the link Thorton provided does.
Furthermore, we might discover that some earlier form of life that was somehow completely geographically isolated before anything near the standard code evolved. if it remained isolated, it could have evolved to create a significantly different code due to some specific events or conditions in it's isolated environment. Again, the problem of induction comes into play as predictions we make today cannot take into account an infinite number of possible future discoveries that would change what we experience without falsifying the underlying explanation.
Rather, what Thorton is referring to would be the discovery of significantly different forms of DNA between species that existed in the same environment, but are claimed to represent the supposed boundaries of "kinds" that creationist claim cannot be crossed. Dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats, etc.
The notions of "kinds" only appears vague because such definitions appear ad-hoc. In other words, we expect creationists to take their own claims seriously. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. While the locations of these mythical boundaries may change, the claim that such boundaries exist does not.
Answer = Evo-Did-It don't ask how, it just did.
ReplyDeleteYour Blog may be under attack? Or possibly the
ReplyDeletegoogle Blog format is 'being auto upgraded'. I
tried a couple times last week to Reply a comment. And it showed posted then never 'came
through'. This morning..it took one HELL of a long time, just to 'load' your Blog, which before only took a few seconds. With me, generally if a Site/Blog is a slooow loader or has added-on extra Cookies or video crap, I kill it and think twice about revisiting any such sites. Just a thought..
Several years ago, I worked in a call center with several hundred operators for awhile. It was usually pretty busy, and when it wasn't the operators would talk amongst themselves, so it was always quite loud.
ReplyDeleteOne day it suddenly became deathly quiet for no apparent reason. Everyone was looking around at everyone else, trying to see figure out why. No one wanted to be the dumba-- that started talking when something important had so obviously just happened. About fifteen seconds later one operator finally said rather loudly (or maybe it only seemed loud after the long silence) "Thank you for calling ------, this is ------ how may I help you?" That broke the spell, and everyone finally realized that nothing imporant had happened at all. In fact every phone call and every conversation in the entire call center had just happened to end at the exact same instant creating a sound vaccuum that no one wanted to be the one to break.
I bring this up in the hope that that's what has happened on this blog. It's been extremely quiet for a few days, and I'm hoping it's because no one has anything more to add at the moment. The alternative is that Rhod is right, and the blog is broken or under attack in some way so that no one can post a comment. Here's hoping it's the former.
Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....
ReplyDeleteThese included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus".
Predation filtered out these before arriving at the highly successful Indonesian species.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteIf you've come to this conclusion, it would seem that you're unable or unwilling to think outside the narrow box of your world view.
We do not think the any species of Octopus spontaneously appeared, which could strongly mimic any particular species local to its environment. Rather this ability occurred, due to incremental changes which were gradually more like specific species in their environment.
Specifically, the knowledge of how to successfully mimic other species in its environment was *created* via the process of darwinian evolution: RM & NS. It's a feedback system.
Given that Groucho Marx, Richard Nixion and Elvis Presley were not present in the environment, the mimic would be unable to create the knowledge of how to mimic them.
This is in contrast to creationism, which ironically tells us nothing of how the ability to mimic other species in its environment was created. Rather it merely claims this knowledge was previously located in an abstract designer's mind. Of course, the question becomes, where did the knowledge the designer used to create the Indonesian Mimic come from? Where did the knowledge used the design the designer come from?
Did it spontaneously appear out of nothing?
A which point the creationist tells us that, in the case of the biological complexity we observe, we simply cannot know this. Of course, this is due to the creationist's underlying claim that the creator is an unexplainable supernatural being that exists in an unexplainable supernatural realm, rather than due to a lack of explanations that are tested by empirical observations.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....
These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus".
Predation filtered out these before arriving at the highly successful Indonesian species.
It obviously skipped right over the Neal Tedford Mimic Octopus, which was born with a sack of pus where its brain should be. The poor NTMO therefore had no thoughts of its own but could only mimic slimy dishonest Creationist leaders.
Answer = Evo-Did-It don't ask how, it just did.
ReplyDeleteI think the more accurate answer tends to be something like "Evo did it, don't ask how if you're not actually interested in the answer."
In my experience very few questions asked about evolution on sites like this are intended to clarify ones understanding of evolution. Rather they tend to be purely rhetorical questions for which the answer is not of any interest to the questioner except insofar as it can be used as a "Gotcha" against the person attempting to answer it. Just look at how rarely a question is asked by someone who has actually tried to find an answer on their own first. In many cases a simple Google search turns up a detailed answer on the first page of results. If one were really interested in answers, one would think that that would be a good place to start.
It's essentially the same as asking "Why?" over and over again. One can ask "Why?" and genuinely be interested in the answer. One can also ask "Why?" only to ask "Why?" about the answer to that question, then ask "Why?" about the answer to that question, then ask "Why?" about the answer to that question, and so on. Eventually you get to a question that can only be answered with "We don't know." This is the goal of anti-evolutionist questions. They're not trying to understand evolution through questioning, and they are genuinely uninterested in the answer anyway. What they're really trying to do is force evolutionists to say "We don't know." at which point they can claim "victory".
When you encounter that over and over again, you learn that it's no use trying to give an answer in the first place if it's just going to be ignored. Demonstrate that you are actually willing to listen to and at least attempt to understand the answer and more in depth answers will be forthcoming. Demonstrate that you will just ignore the answer anyway, and as a short cut the answer will be something along the lines of "Evo did it, don't ask how." because you'll accept that answer just as thoroughly as you will accept the real answer.
Venture,
ReplyDeleteEocene's "argument" appears to be that intentional outcomes cannot be caused by things that lack intent. But this begs the question that the outcomes are in fact intentional. This is likely due to his assumption that the "correct" interpretation of the Bible reveals intent though divine revelation.
Eocene has a God shaped hole in his scheme of things. Evolution is not God. Therefore, evolution couldn't possibly have done it.
So, in other words, "don't ask how" intentional outcomes could be brought about by processes that lack intent because (surprise!) no answer will be forthcoming. His belief is "safe" because he has internally framed the argument in a way that evolution must be false and can never be answered.
As for Neal and Nat, I think they use Google extensively. However, the "answer"s they're looking for is how to attack a theory that threatens their theological views, rather than an honest attempt to understand it.
Scott and Venture Free,
ReplyDeleteSimply saying, as Scott does, "Specifically, the knowledge of how to successfully mimic other species in its environment was *created* via the process of darwinian evolution: RM & NS. It's a feedback system"...
This is a less helpful of an explanation than saying the Space Shuttle was constructed via the process of SD & SI. That's "Screw Driver" and "Soldering Iron". We don't have to know all the details! Stop asking why!
If a Chinese spy in search of advanced technology from the USA brought back as much hard information about our technology to his government as evolutionists do regarding their theory, would he keep his job? Would he end up in the laogai?
We've come to expect soft answers (with a lot of bluster) from evolutionists regarding details. If the details are falsified, then Que Sera, Sera, evolution is still a fact. Right?
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteWe've come to expect soft answers (with a lot of bluster) from evolutionists regarding details. If the details are falsified, then Que Sera, Sera, evolution is still a fact. Right?
Hey there Mr. Always-run-your-mouth-with-nothing-to-say, why don't you give us your details of the situation? Tell us the details about how the octopus, and the flounder and lion fish it impersonates, managed to survive the Great NOAH'S FLUD. If this was DESIGNED, tell us why only some octopuses have this ability and not all.
Speak up there Tedford the idiot, we can't hear you.
Neal: Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....
ReplyDeleteScott: Specifically, the knowledge of how to successfully mimic other species in its environment was *created* via the process of darwinian evolution: RM & NS. It's a feedback system.
Neal: This is a less helpful of an explanation than saying the Space Shuttle was constructed via the process of SD & SI. That's "Screw Driver" and "Soldering Iron". We don't have to know all the details! Stop asking why!
My explanation wasn't "helpful", so we should expect more blatant misrepresentations of evolutionary theory as in your original comment?
Again, I just pointed out either a disingenuous claim regarding what evolutionists propose (you knowingly presented a falsehood), or a concrete illustration of how you simply do not understand evolutionary theory (you can't use a feedback loop to increasingly more accurately mimic something that doesn't exist in your environment)
In other words, something is clearly amiss here. You either just lied or you're blatantly ignorant of evolutionary theory.
Your response?
Act as if your previous comment simply never happened by complaining that my explanation wasn't "helpful" - which in itself is another indication that is something clearly amiss here.
So, what gives Neal? What do you have to say for yourself?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
ReplyDeleteAgain, if one holds the presupposition that the biological complexity we observe was the result of intent, then nothing could "help" explain how a process which lacked intent could account for it. It's impossible. We could present explanations until we're blue in the face and It would make no difference.
But there's no need to assume this in your case as you can clearly speak for yourself...
Q: As a confessing Christian, do you think the Bible reveals the biological complexity we observe is the result of intent?
Q: Where do you put divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction (observations) and philosophy?
You could easily put this to rest by clearly answering these questions.
However, should you refuse to disclose your position I see no reason why we should take any of your objections seriously.
In case it's not clear, I'll put this in the sort of form that Cornelius uses regularly in regards to supernatural explanations.
ReplyDeleteIf you [1] put divine revelation above induction (observations) and [2] conclude that the Bible represents true divine revelation (in that the biological complexity we observe was the result of intent) then you're limited to explanations that include intent.
On the other hand, since I accept neither [1] or [2] I'm under no such limitation. I'm free to accept explanations that lack or include intent.
So, again, it would come to no surprise that you find my explanation "unhelpful" as it would be unavailable to you. It's literally impossible for a process that does not exhibit intent to exhibit intent.
Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Feel free to deny [1] and [2] , which would allow you to accept explanations that do not include intent.
Evolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning that skeptics have no legitimate grounds to criticize evolution without offering an alternate.
ReplyDeleteThis argument at its heart a fallacy.
Why should a theory get such automatic immunization from criticism?
While the principle of "don't criticize me unless you have a better solution" is a good one in some situations, it shouldn't be carried over into scientific methodology. In fact, good scientific methodology should be unbiased in its testing to proactively look for problems and issues.
In the court of law, the defense does not need to find the real criminal in order to defeat the prosecution's case. It just needs to poke enough holes in the prosecution's case. It would be a kangaroo court indeed if people were presumed guilty on the basis that the defense couldn't produce an alternative crook.
Trying to insulate evolution by such reasoning is another ploy by evolutionists to defend a weak hypothesis.
Neal:
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning that skeptics have no legitimate grounds to criticize evolution without offering an alternate.
Just like to poke the bear,Neal? Yadda yadda peer review,yadda yadda not a court of law, yadda yadda facts to back up criticism or as Thronton might say yadda yadda idiot.
Apologies for screwing up your name,Thorton
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning among themselves that their skeptics are not as smart as they are and typically move the conversation off topic and into silly name calling.
ReplyDeleteTrying to insulate evolution by such empty bluster is another ploy by evolutionists to defend a weak hypothesis.
Neal: Evolutionists commonly defend their theory by reasoning that skeptics have no legitimate grounds to criticize evolution without offering an alternate.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
Again, I've pointed out a concrete example of "criticism" that is based on knowingly presenting a falsehood or ignorance. Your response does not address either of these things. Rather it seems to be an attempt to change the subject yet again.
Furthermore, I'm pointing out that your criteria for adequacy appears to be based on the smuggled assumption that the biological complexity we observe was due to intent. And this is justified via divine revelation, rather than, say, induction, which is inadequate to justify conclusions on it's own as well. So, your constant claims of inadequacy are really rejection due to the lack of intent in disguise.
So in the case of the former, your "criticism" is legitimate due to disingenuous misrepresentation or ignorance. In the latter, your "criticism" is appears to be legitimate exclusion due to hidden assumptions based on divine revelation. It's begging the question.
Evolution can't explain the "intentional" biological complexity we observe because it lacks intent. Of course, you just so happen to leave out the "intentional" part. It's smuggled into your argument.
Why else would you complain that we ascribe "powers" to nature which it does not have? The power you're referring to here is "intent."
Scott,
ReplyDeleteAn example from Wiki regarding induction:
"The following is an example of probabilistic reasoning, which is a type of weak induction:
90% of humans are right-handed.
Joe is a human.
Therefore, Joe is probably right-handed.
This is an example of inductive reasoning:
90% of humans are right-handed.
Joe is a human.
Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90%."
--
With the myriad of exceptions that evolution accommodates it leaves its inductive arguments in tatters. Every inductive argument it makes must be qualified with exceptions. Normally such flawed inductions would get the boot, but evolution is protected from falsification. They kid themselves with silly little examples of how their theory can be falsified while ignoring all the examples that do indeed falsify it.
Scott, evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe. If it did, this blog would not exist.
ReplyDeleteNeal: An example from Wiki regarding induction:…
ReplyDeleteWhy, thank you Neal.
It seems you've help pave the way to answering the second of my two questions by looking up the definition of induction.
However, what you appear not to realize is that all claims that X caused Y based on empirical observations alone are based on inductive reasoning, not just evolution.
For example, one might start out testing a drug in a lab on 2,000 of samples in a petri dish. If we obtain the results we want, we may conclude the drug was the cause of the reaction in each case the test was performed. However, this is probabilistic in nature because this same test could fail on sample 2,001 for some unknown reason. For example, it could be that some supernatural agent decided to bring about the desired result, rather than the drug, for the 2,000 times the test was run, but would have changed it's mind at sample 2,001.
Should this actually be this case, inductive reasoning alone would have caused you to reach the wrong conclusion because you didn't run enough tests. Using merely observations alone (induction), the best one can say is that it's highly probable that the drug was the cause.
Eventually, the drug is tested on a particular number of actual patients. However, it could be that this same supernatural agent decides to bring about the desired result for every person who is administered this particular drug during the test. The agent would have decided to stop interceding at patient 1,015, but if there were only 1,000 patients, Induction alone would result in the wrong conclusion. Again, we simply didn't run enough tests.
However, by now you should have realize there is no "right" number of tests to run as this same agent could chose some other number at which to stop interceding. It could be 1,000, 1 million or 1 billion, etc. We could use the drug for hundreds of years and still get the wrong conclusion via induction alone.
This is what I mean when I say that we cannot use mere observations to justify conclusions. And this includes all fields of science, not just evolution. Formally, this is known as the problem of induction.
In fact, the primary reason a drug makes it to the testing phase in the first place is because someone has created an *explanation* as to how the desired result could be caused by the drug in the first place.
Or, to use my earlier example, it's unlikely that anyone is testing if standing on one's head cures cancer. Why is this? It not because it's logically impossible. Nor is it because it's unfalsifiable, as it would be trivial to test. Again, the reason is because we lack an explanation as to how standing on one's head cures cancer. As such we discard it.
In other words, in science, a claim that is merely logically possible and falsifiable isn't sufficient. We reject a near infinite number of possibilities all the time. Rater, in practice, what's important is an *explanation*.
So, now that it's clear inductive reasoning would be a problem not only for evolution, but science as a whole, we can return to my original question. I'll rephrase in an attempt to clarify.
Q: When engaged in the process of justifying conclusions, which do you give priority: divine revelation, deduction, induction or philosophy?
If, as you say, "Every inductive argument it makes must be qualified with exceptions.", then what is left? Deduction? But deduction depends on it's premies being correct in the first place. So, a best, we can say a deductive argument is only as sound as its premies.
So, it would seem that you have some hidden answer to the problem of induction which you have yet to disclose, otherwise, you'd be objecting to the entirety of science.
What is this answer?
Neal: Scott, evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe. If it did, this blog would not exist.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
Again, I'm suggesting you've failed to disclose your real position, as has Cornelius, etc.
Your real objection is that a process that does not exhibit intent (evolution) does not explain biological complexity caused by intent. However, that the biological complexity we actually observe was actually caused by intent is begging the question.
Evolution is silly because it assumes that a process that does not exhibit intent could explain biological complexity caused by intent. Evolution is "scientifically unlikely" because it assumes that a process that does not exhibit intent could end up gradually building biological complexity that was caused by intent. Etc.
The assumption that it's even possible to blindly follow evidence without putting it into some sort of explanatory framework in the first place indicates a blindness to the sort of naive empiricism that permeates every argument on this blog.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteScott, evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe.
What you really mean is that evolution does not explain the biological complexity we observe to the asinine level of detail your ignorance demands. But that's your problem there idiot, not science's. To the actual scientific community ToE is an excellent explanation that fits the observed data far better than any other.
If it did, this blog would not exist.
This blog exists because Cornelius is getting paid to write his politically motivated anti-science swill just to pander to Creationist idiots like you Tedford, nothing more.
Scott said, "Q: When engaged in the process of justifying conclusions, which do you give priority: divine revelation, deduction, induction or philosophy?"
ReplyDelete--
I used to be an evolutionist but the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale. The evidence points to creation and in my search for the creator I found the Bible to be reliable and life changing.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteI used to be an evolutionist but the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale.
Funny that every time you present this 'evidence' it turns out instead to be your pitiful ignorance and/or misunderstanding of the actual science involved. Remember how you thought 'Mitochondrial Eve' evidence meant there was only one woman alive at that time in the past?
The evidence points to creation and in my search for the creator I found the Bible to be reliable and life changing.
Like the part that says you can make cattle produce striped calves by having them stand in front of a striped pole? That was sure reliable. Or the part about how all languages in the world were created at the same time during the Babel incident? The evidence sure backs that one up too.
Sorry Tedford, but the plain fact is that you're an idiot. If you need the Bible to be your guidebook for moral decisions, more power to you. But to think its moral teachings somehow make the Bible an accurate science book is pure stupidity.
More bad news from CERN for the pseudo-science elites:
ReplyDeletehttp://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteMore bad news from CERN for the pseudo-science elites:
Hey idiot, weren't you the guy who just last week told us global warming wasn't happening? That the polar bears on ice floes photos were staged and the scientists were being investigated for fraud?
Now you say GW is happening, but that cloud formation due to reduced cosmic rays is the cause?
You're just as clueless an idiot when it comes to AGW as you are with ToE. You don't understand the science behind either even a little, but just love to flap those idiot gums.
What the AGW denier crowd 'forgot' is that if the cosmic rays effect was causing GW, there should be a direct correlation between measured GW and measured cosmic ray intensity over the last 5 decades. But there isn't
CERN/CLOUD results
Just like evolution deniers, you AGW deniers will grasp at any teeny straw to 'prove' your idiotic claims.
Neal: I used to be an evolutionist but the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale. The evidence points to creation and in my search for the creator I found the Bible to be reliable and life changing.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
Again, there is something clearly amiss here as this strongly conflicts with your previous comment.
You wrote: Evolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus".
However, as we've pointed out, you'd know this wasn't the case if you understood how the theory explains the evidence (observations). This either this represents ignorance of evolutionary theory or it represents willingly presenting a falsehood.
If the latter, it's unclear how you could conclude "the evidence against it turned me away from the fairy tale" when you don't understand the theory. And if it's the former, then why not just present the evidence, rather than lie about it?
In other words, your "explanation" for your behavior here simply doesn't add up.
Furthermore, on multiple occasions you've claim that Evolution requires attributing "magical" attributes to natural causes. But we do no such thing.
However, if you have an intentional being-shaped hole in your scheme of things, then any explanations we provide will be inadequate unless they exhibit intent. The details of the theory would therefore be irrelevant.
To use an analogy, imagine someone had a RV shaped hole in their vacation plans. In an attempt to fill this hole, they visit a store that only sells campers. They would ask, does it have a kitchen? Yes. Does it have a bathroom and shower. Yes. Does it have a bed, doors, wheels, break lights, etc. Yes.
But all of these things would be irrelevant because campers are not self-propelled. Which also makes the details of how they work are irrelevant as well. Why even bother learning about how the camper works if you know it can't possibly fill the RV sized hole in your vacation plan? Not being self propelled is a deal breaker.
Furthermore, it would be "silly" to assume that one could replace a RV with a camper. One would have to attribute "magical properties" to a camper to replace an RV, etc.
In case it's not clear, I'm suggesting that your ignorance of evolutionary theory is due to the fact that you have a hidden assumption that the biological complexity we observe could only be explained by a being that exhibits intent. As such, the details of the theory are irrelevant. And if the details are irrelevant than this so called "evidence" you speak of is irrelevant as well.
However, if this isn't the case, then how do you explain your comments here? What other conclusion should we reach?
Scott said, "This either this represents ignorance of evolutionary theory or it represents willingly presenting a falsehood."
ReplyDelete--
Scott, the Elvis Presley mimic octopus comment was just in humor, not as a technical reply. Okay? Do you see how you OFTEN frame "A or B" questions in which neither choices are good ones?
Nature shows patterns of top-down design, which is intent. It's not a hidden assumption, it is one of the expected properties of design.
Complex systems are by their very nature unable to be produced in a gradual step-wise manner in which each incremental step yields a fundamentally useful system.
Back to a relatively simple system like the mouse trap. How do you produce a mouse trap in such a way in which each additional component yields a functioning system of some kind? Evolutionists are fond of making everything a crude and impractical door stop, paper weight, or tie clip. Even if we gave them a free pass on the impractical examples, their still leaving out many of the incremental steps of the building process. Their answer to irreducible complexity is throwing out a couple impractical examples and add some bluster and poof their problems are gone. Someone needs to bring out a duck that squeaks quack, quack.
Neal: Scott, the Elvis Presley mimic octopus comment was just in humor, not as a technical reply. Okay?
ReplyDeleteNo, Neal. It's not OK.
The problem is, this wouldn't be the only time where you've made an argument that reveals what appears to be ignorance or misrepresentation on your part. In fact, it happens quite often.
Is in really necessary for me to go back and point them out?
Neal: Do you see how you OFTEN frame "A or B" questions in which neither choices are good ones?
Again, mocking evolutionary theory isn't much different than calling it "silly" or claiming we attribute "magical" properties to natural processes. Again if you have a valid argument based on a tested theory, then present it.
Neal: Nature shows patterns of top-down design, which is intent. It's not a hidden assumption, it is one of the expected properties of design.
That what we observe was actually designed, and therefor the result of an intentional designer, is begging the question. As such, assuming it's designed is the hidden assumption.
Neal: Complex systems are by their very nature unable to be produced in a gradual step-wise manner in which each incremental step yields a fundamentally useful system.
Of course, you cannot know this based on observations, due to the problem of induction. So, we're back to your hidden assumption. Or do you have a theory of how this designer actually did it?
Furthermore, are you humoring us again? Because evolution doesn't supposed each step must be functional - it could be neutral or even mildly detrimental. We point this out time and time again, yet you keep repeating it. So how can you say you reject evolution based on the evidence, when you're clearly either misrepresenting it in your argument or bound and determined to remain ignorant of it?
So, what gives Neal? Why do your comments keep conflicting with your claims?
Neal
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists propose that before the Indonesian Mimic Octopus natural selection had experimented with several versions of the Mimic Octopus which ended in failures....These included the "Groucho Marx Mimic Octopus", the "Richard Milhous Nixion Mimic Octopus", and the "Elvis Presley Mimic Octopus
Neal, wrongheaded but slightly amusing.
Scott
ReplyDeleteIntent is the cause of the physical events, not the other way around.
If I want to nail two pieces of wood I can describe the physical event to a deepest detail. All the masses, forces, trajectories of the physical objects can be explained.
I don't think describing physical event explains my intent to build the shed.
All that being said I cannot confirm some bio physical events are caused by intent although there are high suspects at the cell level.
Scott, here's a interesting link from Science Daily:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822154752.htm
The study said, "It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species."
While the article assumes evolution to be a fact, big picture evolution is lost in the fog of time and fossil interpretation based on evolution being an assumed fact.
What we actually observe in real time is evolution within limits... just what creationists have been saying for years.
So equating Gravity and Water Erosion processes with evolutionary processes is a gross fallacy... something that evolutionists on this blog are fond of doing repeatedly.
We can determine the amount of gravity from a little mass all the way up to cosmic size masses. We can observe a little water erosion all the way up to canyon size erosion. However, we can't do this with evolution. What we observe is rapid small change that has limits and doesn't stick. This is devastating to the examples of evolutionary observations.
With this finding evolutionary assumptions are removed further from reality... the examples of evolution we observe don't continue, but we are assured that the ones a million years ago did. How convenient! We know that they did from the tree of life. Quack Quack... LOL
Neal: Scott, here's a interesting link from Science Daily:
ReplyDeleteAnd yet another attempt to change the subject. No surprise here.
And the link?
In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn't mean that process will continue and we'll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.
Neal,
Do you think this conflicts with evolutionary theory? If so, this would be another example of either misrepresentation or ignorance on your part.
If not, then what's your point? Diversion?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/22/1014503108.abstract?sid=64bdb9d8-523b-470b-b777-1652fa359f5a
ReplyDeleteAbstract
We lack a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary pattern and process because short-term and long-term data have rarely been combined into a single analytical framework. Here we test alternative models of phenotypic evolution using a dataset of unprecedented size and temporal span (over 8,000 data points). The data are body-size measurements taken from historical studies, the fossil record, and among-species comparative data representing mammals, squamates, and birds. By analyzing this large dataset, we identify stochastic models that can explain evolutionary patterns on both short and long timescales and reveal a remarkably consistent pattern in the timing of divergence across taxonomic groups. Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time. The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales. We suggest that these rare bursts reflect permanent changes in adaptive zones, whereas the short-term fluctuations represent local variations in niche optima due to restricted environmental variation within a stable adaptive zone. "
"Rare but substantial bursts"... that's just what Darwin meant to say after he said just the opposite. LOL
...And God said let there be...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/22/1014503108.abstract?sid=64bdb9d8-523b-470b-b777-1652fa359f5a
ReplyDelete"Abstract
We lack a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary pattern and process because short-term and long-term data have rarely been combined into a single analytical framework. Here we test alternative models of phenotypic evolution using a dataset of unprecedented size and temporal span (over 8,000 data points). The data are body-size measurements taken from historical studies, the fossil record, and among-species comparative data representing mammals, squamates, and birds. By analyzing this large dataset, we identify stochastic models that can explain evolutionary patterns on both short and long timescales and reveal a remarkably consistent pattern in the timing of divergence across taxonomic groups. Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time. The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales. We suggest that these rare bursts reflect permanent changes in adaptive zones, whereas the short-term fluctuations represent local variations in niche optima due to restricted environmental variation within a stable adaptive zone. "
"rare but substantial bursts"... just what Darwin meant after he said the opposite. LOL
...and God said, let there be...
I used to be an evolutionist but...
ReplyDeleteStatements like this always amuse me. They're usually followed by statements of pure ignorance about the positions they claim they used to hold.
"I used to be an atheist. I used to worship Satan and eat babies."
"I used to be a liberal. I used to long for the day when China would conquer the U.S. and unite us all under communist rule."
"I used to be an evolutionist. I used to believe that the Big Bang accidentally caused monkeys to turn into humans."
In fairness to Neal he went with inanity about his current beliefs rather than his "previous" beliefs.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/22/1014503108.abstract?sid=64bdb9d8-523b-470b-b777-1652fa359f5a
"rare but substantial bursts"... just what Darwin meant after he said the opposite. LOL
...and God said, let there be...
And God said, let there there be idiots like Tedford to amuse the rest of us.
Only a true blithering fool would provide a paper outlining the evidence for regular periods of punctuated equilibrium over the last 360 million years and say it somehow disproves evolution. A paper that argues normal population genetics processes become less important than the emergence of novel genotypes every million years or so, and claim it supports Biblical creationism.
Amazing how Tedford never seems to run out of truly stupid things to say. Magic!
Neal: "Rare but substantial bursts"... that's just what Darwin meant to say after he said just the opposite. LOL
ReplyDeleteFirst, please cite where Darwin "said just the opposite"
Second, just as there are a great number of people who today better understand Einstein's theory of general relativity than Einstein ever did, there are a great number of people who today better understand Darwin's theory better than Darwin ever did. This isn't anything new. In fact, it's the norm, rather than the exception.
So even if Darwin did "say the opposite" modern evolutionary theory isn't bound to whatever Darwin might have thought or said. Nor would it matter if Darwin went around torturing puppies, worshiping Satan, etc. Darwin isn't evolutionary theory.
Third, the quote from the paper doesn't conflict with the summary I posted from the article. For example, when the paper says….
Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time.
it means…
In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn't mean that process will continue and we'll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.
"do not accumulate over time" doesn't mean that significant changes do not occur or that neutral or mildly detrimental mutations do not accumulate. It means that significant changes are not used as a foundation to build on when forming future changes.
To give an example similar, the size of our ancestor's brains grew significantly the recent past. However, within the last 30,000 years our brains have become smaller. We're not getting less intelligent, we're becoming more specialized.
In other words, just because the size of the homo genius brain grew larger in the last 500,000 years, this doesn't mean this process must continue and that our brains will be significantly bigger in the next 200,000 years or even as big one million years from now. We're still evolving. however, this doesn't mean that the changes in our brain structure in the short term were not significant.
Again, this doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory.
Fourth, "That's just what the designer must have wanted" isn't an explanation of what we observe. Rather it's merely an attempt to explain away evolutionary the prevalent theory.
In other words, it clams that evolution merely appears to be true, but is actually false, while never getting around to actually explaining the concrete biological complexity we observe in the first place.
"Again, this doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory."
ReplyDeleteThorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable.
John said...
ReplyDelete"Again, this doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory."
Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable.
John shows he is another Creationist liar, as I actually provided numerous examples of things that would falsify current evolutionary theory.
Here is one: positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones.
John, why do you tell such blatant lies? Does your religion teach you it's OK to lie?
Thorton: "John shows he is another Creationist liar, as I actually provided numerous examples of things that would falsify current evolutionary theory."
ReplyDeleteI did not say you didn't provide examples. I was referring to what happened when one of your examples turned out to be true. You resorted to obfuscation and when that didn't work, you ran away.
Thorton: "John, why do you tell such blatant lies? Does your religion teach you it's OK to lie? "
You can have as much fun as you want putting words in my mouth, but at the end of the day, you know you were wrong and you still will have to deal with it at some point.
John said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "John shows he is another Creationist liar, as I actually provided numerous examples of things that would falsify current evolutionary theory."
I did not say you didn't provide examples. I was referring to what happened when one of your examples turned out to be true.
No, you blatantly lied about what was presented and claimed I showed evolutionary theory is not falsifiable. That's not a misunderstanding, not a difference of opinion, it's an an out an out lie.
I'm content to show Creationists like you for the lying scum you are. So keep breaking those Commandments there John, I'm sure you're making Jesus proud.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn: Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I'd disagree. Of course, before any such discussion would be fruitful, we'd need to address some rather fundamental assumptions about science first.
For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe, just as the classic Copenhagen intepretation represents instrumentalism in the field of quantum physicists.
Would this be a reasonably accurate assessment?
Scott, before moving into quantum physicists, I would like to know if you still equate the observation of gravity with the observation of evolution? Can observations of constrained evolution be valid evidence for unconstrained evolution that we are assured took place millions of years ago?
ReplyDeleteDo we need to redefine evolution (definition #7 or 9... I lost count), as a creation or saltation event so that it actually matches the evidence?
Whoever believed in gradualism anyway? Perhaps definition #9 would go something like this, such as "rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales."
Scott:
ReplyDeleteFor example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe, just as the classic Copenhagen intepretation represents instrumentalism in the field of quantum physicists
Now that's funny.
Ha! I stared out with ... "quantum physicists are instrumentalists in the case of ..... " but edited it to the above. Forgot to swap "quantum physicists" with "quantum mechanics."
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think you figured that out.
Velikovsky meet Pedantski,
ReplyDeletePedantski meet Velikovsky
Thorton: "No, you blatantly lied about what was presented"
ReplyDeleteNo, I specifically said, "Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable." And last week you did that precisely the way many evolutionists do when confronted with uncooperative data. You tried moving the goalposts, then you tried changing the subject, then you finally fled. In no case did you agree that you had falsified evolution by your own standards. That is a perfect example of why evolution is never falsifiable. You're free to pick up the discussion where it was left off at any time.
Thorton: "That's not a misunderstanding, not a difference of opinion, it's an an out an out lie... I'm content to show Creationists like you for the lying scum you are."
If you're supposed to be sounding content right now, then I'm definitely a liar :D
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThat is a perfect example of why evolution is never falsifiable.
When you get tired of breaking the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness", feel free to explain why the following
Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones.
wouldn't falsify current evolutionary theory.
Should be easy for you, all you have to do is pull another lie out of your butt. Lying comes easy for you Creationists. It's your only discernible talent.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "No, you blatantly lied about what was presented"
No, I specifically said, "Thorton showed last week that ToE is unfalsifiable." And last week you did that precisely the way many evolutionists do when confronted with uncooperative data.
Sorry liar, but your attempts to rewrite history just won't fly. The criteria I gave for falsification was multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' as Creationists define the term. You came back with known minor variations in codons that most certainly aren't 'incompatible forms of DNA', and you didn't provide an objective definition of 'kind'. So your claim that I showed evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable is a big fat lie.
Keep up the lying for Jesus there John. Show us how a good Christian Creationist behaves.
Scott: "I'd disagree."
ReplyDeleteThat's because you probably want to go back and discuss the specifics of the criteria he set for falsification, which would be a good idea. I was hoping to continue that discussion here as it seemed to be abandoned in a very poor manner in the Cod immune system thread. But the reason I said he showed ToE was unfalsifiable was because of his behavior, not his falsification criteria.
I was also hoping to point up that it seems a little inefficient to care what Thorton thinks about other people's arguments when he has so little respect for his own.
Scott: "For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe,"
I suppose not in the arena of origins, as I disagree with the evaluation that, "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality." I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Sorry liar, but your attempts to rewrite history just won't fly. The criteria I gave for falsification was multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' as Creationists define the term."
ReplyDeleteand therefore your criteria is just as concrete as what you believe the Creationist's definitions of 'kinds' is. As you laugh at the creationists definition of kinds evaporate, you laugh at your own criteria for falsification evaporating as well. Should I ask forgiveness for taking you seriously?
Thorton: "You came back with known minor variations in codons that most certainly aren't 'incompatible forms of DNA'"
Substituting glutamine for two types of stop codon is most certainly incompatible. Are you telling me you don't understand what would happen?
Thorton: "and you didn't provide an objective definition of 'kind'."
and unless you do your own work, how could you say this established a falsification criteria? As you can see, the onus is on you to provide your own definitions, which in this case need to factor in algae and humans. Good luck.
Thorton: "Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones."
This is a great criteria also, but I'm afraid you will just claim "micro-evolutionary changes" is just more creation rhetoric if I provide and example. So maybe we should go through one exercise at a time, ok? Also, by moving on, you makes it look like you conceded that the first condition was met, which makes finding more falsifications of ToE pointless. I'm not trying to anger you, but you should be more careful in your discussions as many of the things you say are not even arguments.
LOL! Wow, look at John the liar go!
ReplyDeleteHey John, why don't you you link to the scientific literature that shows the DNA chemistry from the 'dog' kind is completely different and incompatible with DNA from the 'cat' kind. That would falsify modern evolutionary theory in an instant.
Oops! Looks like evolutionary theory is falsifiable after all! Guess you'll have to find something else to lie about.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones."
This is a great criteria also, but I'm afraid you will just claim "micro-evolutionary changes" is just more creation rhetoric if I provide and example. So maybe we should go through one exercise at a time, ok?
The exercise is determining if evolutionary theory is falsifiable. I say it is and have provided numerous examples of things which if found would easily falsify the current theory. You claim it isn't but haven't been able to explain why the examples wouldn't falsify the theory.
If you wish to stop with the blustering dishonest rhetoric about what was presented and concede that ToE is indeed falsifiable we can proceed.
Eugen:
ReplyDeleteVelikovsky meet Pedantski,
Maybe that should be velikovskyski
Thorton: "Hey John, why don't you you link to the scientific literature that shows the DNA chemistry from the 'dog' kind is completely different and incompatible with DNA from the 'cat' kind. That would falsify modern evolutionary theory in an instant."
ReplyDeletebecause you hadn't moved the goalposts yet. Err.. I mean me, uhhh, me not you. *I* hadn't moved the goalposts yet, after being a liar, painting myself into a corner, and changing gears. I should try to be more careful shouldn't I? I should also try to make certain I understand the implications of the first example I was given before expecting my opponent to give me more examples of a similar type, because to demand otherwise would be insane. I'm sure you agree.
Thorton: "The exercise is determining if evolutionary theory is falsifiable. I say it is and have provided numerous examples of things which if found would easily falsify the current theory."
I found an example that fulfilled your first criteria and I contend that getting you to concede the point is as *easy* as it would be for any future examples you are likely to provide.
Thorton: "You claim it isn't but haven't been able to explain why the examples wouldn't falsify the theory."
The claim on this thread was to highlight your behavior in light of uncooperative data. The general gist of it is this; (evolutionist can't admit he falsified evolution by his own criteria) = (reason why evolution is unfalsifiable). You're still focused on the data as if I should just move on to the next one. I understand that no one likes being under the microscope themselves, so I won't push it. My goal is not to humiliate you, but if you want to keep talking about it or exemplifying it, I won't stop you.
Thorton: "If you wish to stop with the blustering dishonest rhetoric about what was presented and concede that ToE is indeed falsifiable we can proceed."
I fully acknowledged that you falsified it in the last thread. Does that mean you are ready to proceed? Get the point? If you won't accept that you falsified ToE *by YOUR OWN ORIGINAL STANDARD* then how will you convince someone it can be falsified by some additional standard?
Scott
ReplyDeleteHa! I stared out with ... "quantum physicists are instrumentalists in the case of ..... " but edited it to the above. Forgot to swap "quantum physicists" with "quantum mechanics."
However, I think you figured that out.
No offense intended, that question just struck me as funny, maybe 70 days over 100 degrees f is taking its toll
John,
ReplyDeleteI found an example that fulfilled your first criteria and I contend that getting you to concede the point is as *easy* as it would be for any future examples you are likely to provide
Not to intrude on y'all's fun but for the casual observer,could you lay out your example in some detail? That way it won't look like you are just trying to bait Thorton and playing semantic games, thanks
August 17, 2011 10:22 PM on the cod immune system thread.
ReplyDeleteJohn the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "If you wish to stop with the blustering dishonest rhetoric about what was presented and concede that ToE is indeed falsifiable we can proceed."
I fully acknowledged that you falsified it in the last thread.
LOL! Sorry liar, but just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it has been falsified. But keep lying about it if it makes you feel better. The scientific community sure won't pay any attention to your unsubstantiated bluster.
velikovskys said...
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I found an example that fulfilled your first criteria and I contend that getting you to concede the point is as *easy* as it would be for any future examples you are likely to provide
Not to intrude on y'all's fun but for the casual observer,could you lay out your example in some detail? That way it won't look like you are just trying to bait Thorton and playing semantic games, thanks
He can't, because he is just another dishonest Creationist playing silly semantic games. It's all liars like him have.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNeal: Scott, before moving into quantum physicists, I would like to know if you still equate the observation of gravity with the observation of evolution?
ReplyDeleteNeal,
We do not observe gravity. We observe its effects.
However, there are parts of the universe where we have not actually tested or observed the effects of gravity. In fact, we've only observed gravity's effects in a fraction of the entire universe. This is because the vast majority of the universe consists of dark and empty vacuum between galaxies. Furthermore, we've estimated that the universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old. However, for much of this time, we have no direct observations of gravity. Most of our scenarios suggest that our universe could last another 13+ billion years.
So, on one hand, we have an overwhelming number of observations of gravity here on earth and a great number of galaxies that we can observe. But this is merely a fraction of the entire universe. Even if our universe is not infinite, and we assume that gravity held unobserved for most of the 13.75 billion years, that is roughly half of predicted possible observations.
In other words, we have little reason to think that gravity will hold merely based on induction. We're looking a fractional percentage that gravity will hold everywhere and a very very generous 50% assuming gravity held unseen over the entire 13.75 billion years.
However, in reality, we don't really know exactly how many future observations we could make. I'm merely using our best assumptions. Again, this is formally known as the problem of induction.
So, my question for you is one I've posed here several times…
Q: Do you think there is a solution to the problem of induction. If so, what is it?
John: That's because you probably want to go back and discuss the specifics of the criteria he set for falsification, which would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm referring to variants one can hold in regards to epistemology, philosophies of science, etc.
Scott: "For example, I'm guessing you're an instrumentalist in case of biological complexity we observe,"
John: I suppose not in the arena of origins, as I disagree with the evaluation that, "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality." I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
I'm not clear what you mean here by "opposed." Opposed by what: observations?
In the case of quantum mechanics, one could say that the theory of the atom is one of the most successful theories in the history of science. However, there are aspects of the Copenhagen Interpretation which are highly successful mathematical models that predict observations, but are not assumed to represent reality.
To quote the same Wikipedia entry….
Instrumentalism avoids the realism / anti-realism debate, and may be better characterized as non-realism. Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena.
In other words, it's not clear how you get "objective reality" from "observed phenomena" or how you think we can "side with objective reality" to find better theories.
More specifically, how should we rationally change our definition of what represents "objective reality" when presented with observations?
Thorton: "Here is what John the liar claims is a 'falsification' of evolutionary theory:"
ReplyDeleteActually, it's what you claimed was falsification. But it's good to see you started finally doing your homework. I noticed you still haven't addressed the incompatibility I mentioned, namely the difference between algae and humans. Substituting stop codons for glutamine or vice versa would have extremely detrimental effects on the entire genome of the organism that it first occurred in because all the proteins that contained that sequence would either be cut short, or on the other hand, continue being translated past where they originally stopped. Of course, I assumed you knew this and that this was the reason you proposed the criteria you did. Apparently, due to the focus you are placing on the similarity in the rest of the genome, you seem to think that "close enough" is ok... perhaps in the way I could understand a sentence if you misspelled a word. Is that a fair representation of your new position?
Scott: "I'm not clear what you mean here by "opposed." Opposed by what: observations?"
ReplyDeleteWikipedia: "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality."
So I mean "opposed" by whatever makes you think they are opposed enough for the wikipedia author to write this definition. Honestly, I didn't try to imagine all the ways one might find that out. But apparently this author believes there are ways.
John: That's because you probably want to go back and discuss the specifics of the criteria he set for falsification, which would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteMore specifically, I'd suggest discussing the difference between prophecy and predictions of scientific theories.
For example, prophecy represents special knowledge in that it supposedly accounts for an infinite number of possible unrelated, yet parallel possible effects that could change the outcome of what we observe. It does this through either supposed foreknowledge of what will occur in the future or by revealing the will of a being that supposedly can overcome any obstacle. In both cases, if the prophecy does not come true, it must be false.
However, the predictions of scientific theories do not claim to take into account either of these things. They cannot take into account an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel effects that could change what we experience. Nor are they based on the supposed will of an omnipotent being.
As such, we must evaluate them in respect to their underlying explanation for phenomena and our best explanations at the time. To do otherwise is to mistake the predictions of scientific theories for prophecy.
In this light, before we can talk of what it would take to falsify evolutionary theory, we must first understand the underlying explanation, then evaluate it using our best explanations we have today, rather than the explanations of 30 or even 150 years ago.
To summarize, I'd suggest that the genome is a biological replicator, in that it contains the knowledge of how to cause it's environment to replicate itself. Modern evolutionary theory is an explanation of how this knowledge found in the genome is created: RM and NS. This is in contrast to, say Lamarckian inheritance, which didn't survive long enough to be updated to include the discovered mechanism of DNA.
However, If it somehow did manage to survive, Neo-Lamarckian inheritance would represent a different way of creating this knowledge. For example it would posit that Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves in high trees somehow managed to create knowledge how to build a longer necks, and that this knowledge was somehow deposited in its genome to be passed on to future generations. However, no such explanation for how this might occur exists.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJohn the liar said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Here is what John the liar claims is a 'falsification' of evolutionary theory:"
Actually, it's what you claimed was falsification.
Tsk tsk tsk John, you just can't stop yourself from lying. You really should seek professional psychiatric help for your problem.
John: So I mean "opposed" by whatever makes you think they are opposed enough for the wikipedia author to write this definition.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "as opposed to" in the Wikipedia entry is synonymous with the phrase "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". As such, this paragraph isn't referring to opposition of instrumentalism.
John: Honestly, I didn't try to imagine all the ways one might find that out. But apparently this author believes there are ways.
You response seems to suggest that you're unaware of how one might get "objective reality" from "observed phenomena" or how one could "side with objective reality" to find better theories.
Is this an accurate assessment?
John, would you agree with the following from the same Wikipedia entry?
ReplyDeleteTheories about unobservable phenomena are regarded as having no scientific meaning. Scientists may make claims about unobservable objects, but these claims should not be regarded as meaningful. Evidence is necessarily limited in any scientific enquiry, and this means underdetermination is a common result, where competing theories are posited on the same set of evidence.
Thorton: "If you think known minor variations in DNA codons somehow falsified evolutionary theory, why don't you write up a paper and submit it to the appropriate scientific journals?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it was your criteria and I don't care as much as you apparently.
Thorton: "Similarly, if you think you can finally demonstrate an objective method for demonstrating what 'kind' an animal is, by all means write it up!"
I don't really care what you meant by kind. Apparently it was concrete enough for you to think it set some kind of falsification criteria for evolution. It's not my problem if you didn't know what you were talking about.
John: "Actually, it's what you claimed was falsification."
Thorton: "Tsk tsk tsk John, you just can't stop yourself from lying. You really should seek professional psychiatric help for your problem."
Tsk tsk tsk Thorton, you just can't stop yourself from lying. You said it right here. Continued attempts to move the goalposts from incompatible to dissimilar have failed you. What is left?
Scott: "The phrase "as opposed to" in the Wikipedia entry is synonymous with the phrase "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". As such, this paragraph isn't referring to opposition of instrumentalism."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure of the distinction you're making. I feel the meaning of what I said would not be changed by substituting "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". The point is I feel it is useless to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B. It seems a little incoherent. But didn't we have a discussion a few months ago about how reliable induction is? I saw above that you said this is a common issue you like to discuss.
LOL! Poor John the liar for Jesus. Caught up in his web of lies and childish rhetorical games, too big an ego to back out.
ReplyDeleteLet us know when you publish your falsification of evolutionary theory and your method for distinguishing 'kinds', OK?
No one will be holding their breath.
No language allowed. That includes abbreviations.
ReplyDeleteThorton: "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
ReplyDeleteI showed you multiple incompatible forms in algae and humans. Game over troll.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
I showed you multiple incompatible forms in algae and humans. Game over troll.
Actually you didn't do either there liar. You showed some known small variations in the single existing genetic code, variations that the evidence indicates are the result of the code itself evolving over time
REWIRING THE KEYBOARD: EVOLVABILITY OF THE GENETIC CODE
"Abstract: The genetic code evolved in two distinct phases. First, the ‘canonical’ code emerged before the last universal ancestor; subsequently, this code diverged in numerous nuclear and organelle lineages. Here, we examine the distribution and causes of these secondary deviations from the canonical genetic code. The majority of non-standard codes arise from alterations in the tRNA, with most occurring by post-transcriptional modifications, such as base modification or RNA editing, rather than by substitutions within tRNA anticodons."
Oops! Big FAIL for John the liar!
You also didn't show any objective criteria for determining that two life forms are different 'kinds'. FAIL again there liar.
What's really funny is the fact you have flip-flopped on your Creationist trolling several times. First you claimed ToE is unfalsifiable, then you claim it is falsified! Which is it there liar? It you're going to keep lying about things John-boy you're going to need a lot better memory.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton: "...variations that the evidence indicates are the result of the code itself evolving over time"
ReplyDeleteSorry friend, but your type always reason in this way, "since evolution happened, and we imagine mechanism X might have been able to produce it, therefore this uncooperative data is evidence of method X"
Thorton: "Oops! Big FAIL for John the liar!"
Actually, I did not see your name on this paper, so I'm curious to know which of their 3 hypotheses is your new position? My prediction was that you would change to either small genome or codon rarity or both, but instead you started all this silly wailing.
Thorton: "You also didn't show any objective criteria for determining that two life forms are different 'kinds'. FAIL again there liar."
'kinds' was in YOUR falsification criteria for ToE there champ. So the FAIL is all yours!
Thorton: "What's really funny is the fact you have flip-flopped on your Creationist trolling several times. First you claimed ToE is unfalsifiable, then you claim it is falsified! Which is it there liar?"
Behold the corner you have painted yourself into; if you cede defeat according to your original criteria, then you claim to have falsified evolution, if you do not even though your criteria have been satisfied, you demonstrate by your actions why no-one can ever falsify evolution. The choice sir, is up to you.
But at least you got around to goalpost moving. It seemed like this day would never come.
Double LOL! I wonder how long John the liar's ego will keep him making his same pitiful bellyache?
ReplyDeleteHey John, how do you objectively determine that two different life forms (say, algae and humans) are different 'kinds'? You apparently have this sooper-secret Creationist knowledge. Won't you share it? It would net you a Nobel Prize for sure.
When will you be demonstrating the magic barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary change to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones? You bragged about being able to do so before, why are you so quiet on the subject now? Make good on your boast and you'll get a second Nobel, guaranteed.
Unless you're just another mouthy Creationist who's all talk, no action. There's no shortage of them around here.
John: The point is I feel it is useless to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B. It seems a little incoherent.
ReplyDeleteIt seems we've veered off track. I'm asking you for your position on instrumentalism, not the author. Furthermore, It would be inappropriate for the author to present his personal opinion in a Wikipedia definition. So, the author is not claiming something should be evaluated by A instead of B.
Your response was: I suppose not in the arena of origins, as I disagree with the evaluation that, "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality." I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
However, a instrumentalist position isn't necessarily opposed to objective reality. Rather it's a position one holds in regards to whether objective reality is included in science.
To quote Wikipedia entry on the the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM….
The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that the wave function is anything more than a theoretical concept, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity.
The subjective view, that the wave function is merely a mathematical tool for calculating the probabilities in a specific experiment, is a similar approach to the Ensemble interpretation.
And why does this denial take place?
There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a "real" wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with logical positivism and/or with some of Bohr's statements. Bohr emphasized that science is concerned with predictions of the outcomes of experiments, and that any additional propositions offered are not scientific but meta-physical. Bohr was heavily influenced by positivism. On the other hand, Bohr and Heisenberg were not in complete agreement, and they held different views at different times. Heisenberg in particular was prompted to move towards realism.[4]
So, the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't necessarily in opposition to objective realty. Rather it separates and prioritizes between effective explanations and predictions of phenomena and objective realty in science. The wave function in QM could represent objective reality, but the Copenhagen Interpretation represents instrumentalism because it denies having knowledge that it actually does represent objective reality. As such, it defines it's success as merely effective mathematical models and predictions of phenomena.
This is why I asked if you agreed with….
Theories about unobservable phenomena are regarded as having no scientific meaning. Scientists may make claims about unobservable objects, but these claims should not be regarded as meaningful. Evidence is necessarily limited in any scientific enquiry, and this means underdetermination is a common result, where competing theories are posited on the same set of evidence.
If you're a theist, I'm guessing you think the "designer" of the biological complexity we observe is unexplainable beyond abstract design. Therefore the best we could hope for in regards to falsifying evolutionary theory is merely effective mathematical models and predictions of evolution, to be positively supported by observations.
Thorton: "Hey John, how do you objectively determine that two different life forms (say, algae and humans) are different 'kinds'?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know, ask this guy;
Thorton : "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
He's a Creationist, and he recently falsified ToE, but he's hard to understand because he acts like he's only five years old.
Thorton: "To science the term 'kind' has no meaning. It's something only five year olds and Creationists use"
Hope your conversation is fruitful, let me know what you all decide.
Thorton: "You bragged about being able to do so before, why are you so quiet on the subject now?"
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a quote?
John the liar said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Hey John, how do you objectively determine that two different life forms (say, algae and humans) are different 'kinds'?"
I don't know
Alright then! So you admit when you said this
Thorton: "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
John: I showed you multiple incompatible forms in algae and humans.
...you have no way to objectively determine if algae and humans are different 'kinds'. When you claimed to have met the criteria you were lying.
How does that foot taste Mr Oh-So-Clever Creationist?
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "You bragged about being able to do so before, why are you so quiet on the subject now?"
Can you provide a quote?
Yep.
Thorton: "Positively identify a barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones."
John: "This is a great criteria also, but I'm afraid you will just claim "micro-evolutionary changes" is just more creation rhetoric if I provide an example."
Go ahead John, show us the magic barrier that makes macro-evolution impossible in every case.
Looks like your mouth wrote another check your scientific evidence can't cash. One would think Creationists like you who argue solely on empty blustering rhetoric would have learned a lesson by now, but no...
Scott: "It seems we've veered off track. I'm asking you for your position on instrumentalism, not the author."
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to understand the definition you provided but it seems incoherent. I have no idea what the opinions of the author are.
I will try to start from the other side of the bridge and ask you this;
Do you believe he did not falsify ToE because;
(1) something to do with the word 'incompatible'
(2) something to do with the word 'kind'
(3) you disagree with his criteria as falsifying ToE, or
(4) you don't think falsification of any hypothesis is possible in principle
or something else I did not list?
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteDo you believe he did not falsify ToE because;
(1) something to do with the word 'incompatible'
(2) something to do with the word 'kind'
(3) you disagree with his criteria as falsifying ToE, or
(4) you don't think falsification of any hypothesis is possible in principle
or something else I did not list?
You left out (5) John is a boring Creationist troll just out to sling whatever mud he can at the scientific theory that frightens him.
John: I'm trying to understand the definition you provided but it seems incoherent. I have no idea what the opinions of the author are.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I didn't provide the definition. I merely linked to it. Nor does it represent the opinion of the author. Again, it would be inappropriate for the author to present his personal opinion in a Wikipedia definition. Are you suggesting otherwise?
As such, the author is not claiming something *should* be evaluated by A instead of B. In fact, the entry says that ..Instrumentalism avoids the realism / anti-realism debate all together. Rather, if anyone has presented opposition, it was you when you said…
I feel that if these methods are found to be opposed, that we should side with objective reality and try to find a better theory.
Which is why I asked what you meant by "opposed", since it seem to be the deciding factor in your position on how science should evaluate a concept or theory.
However, when I pressed you on this question you first said you didn't try to imagine all the ways how we could determine if these methods were opposed. But then strangely latter suggested that: The point is I feel it is useless to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B.
But having just previously said I feel the meaning of what I said would not be changed by substituting "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to". it would seem you've done just this since 'in contrast to' is not necessarily the same as 'in opposition to'. In fact, that's one of the key concepts of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.
Again, the Copenhagen Interpretation thinks that we cannot know if wave function model represents objective reality. So, it's not in opposition to it being objective reality. Rather it's denies that science could justify claiming the wave function model actually is objective reality. But it still accepts the wave function model's ability to predict phenomena as representing scientific knowledge regardless.
In other words, it could be objective reality, but that's beyond what an instrumentalist position of science could speak of. Again, this is not opposition. It's in contrast to.
So, if you mean 'in contrast to' then I'm still in the dark as you your criteria.
And if you mean "in opposition to" I'd return to my earlier question. If effectively modeling and predicting observed phenomena is opposed to objective reality, then how could one "side with objective reality" to find better theories given this opposition?
John: Do you believe he did not falsify ToE because...
ReplyDeleteFirst, Thortion doesn't define the ToE or what falsifies it. Rather, Thorton is pointing to known positions in the field of evolutionary theory as to what would represent a falsification of the theory. Your claim that 'Thortion falsified ToE' is a common tactic among creationists.
Second, you seem to be treating this prediction as if it was prophecy, rather than being based on the underlying explanation Neo-Darwinism provides for the creation of knowledge in biological replicators: random mutation and natural selection.
Specifically, not only should we assume that this explanation is true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, we should also assume that all of our best explanations since said prediction was original made are also true. This includes the explanation that DNA original started out as a simpler form and "evolved" into what we observe today. In other words, the knowledge of how to encode genetic instructions, repair them, etc. was also created over time. A such, small variations in a single genetic code would not conflict with the incremental creation of said code. In fact, we should expect said variations to follow our best explanations as to the history of how organisms evolved, which is exactly what the link Thorton provided does.
Furthermore, we might discover that some earlier form of life that was somehow completely geographically isolated before anything near the standard code evolved. if it remained isolated, it could have evolved to create a significantly different code due to some specific events or conditions in it's isolated environment. Again, the problem of induction comes into play as predictions we make today cannot take into account an infinite number of possible future discoveries that would change what we experience without falsifying the underlying explanation.
Rather, what Thorton is referring to would be the discovery of significantly different forms of DNA between species that existed in the same environment, but are claimed to represent the supposed boundaries of "kinds" that creationist claim cannot be crossed. Dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats, etc.
The notions of "kinds" only appears vague because such definitions appear ad-hoc. In other words, we expect creationists to take their own claims seriously. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. While the locations of these mythical boundaries may change, the claim that such boundaries exist does not.
Would incompatible DNA in different species falsify the ToE? If not, why would different species be different than different kinds?
ReplyDelete