tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8781265429011977425..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The View From NowhereUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3420387023700855592010-05-13T18:52:21.193-07:002010-05-13T18:52:21.193-07:00I have no problem with your definition of a scient...I have no problem with your definition of a scientific hypothesis. Definitions aren't problems. It's the fact that you aren't consistent with your own definition that is the problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66013808053859277332010-05-09T15:58:43.845-07:002010-05-09T15:58:43.845-07:00As you were wrong on such a fundamental issue, you...As you were wrong on such a fundamental issue, you might want to reconsider the basis of your views. As said, it took nearly a week to get you to acknowledge a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. That's enough progress for now.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26416243756445832102010-05-09T07:21:40.122-07:002010-05-09T07:21:40.122-07:00Jeff: The macroevolutionary hypothesis posits an e...Jeff: The macroevolutionary hypothesis posits an explanation for non-observed, hypothetical events/configurations of matter.<br /><br /><br />Zachriel: Absolutely wrong. <br /><br />Jeff: You either posit that there are hypothetical intermediates that we either haven't or can't discover, or you don't. If you posit the former, you're positing hypothetical events/configurations. Macroevolutionists hypothesize 2 basic propositions:<br />1) that biological reproduction is a necessary condition for the origin of all observed and hypothetical (as per the "theory") phenotypes, excepting, of course, the phenotype of the common ancestor, and<br />2) that no final causes were involved in the total complex of causes of organisms.<br /> <br />Now, what are the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses that we can run out and experience? Your hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis by YOUR definition. And I'm FINE with your definition. Philosophers of science don't like it precisely BECAUSE of its implications for the non-scientific status of the evolutionary hypothesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87399648089150116962010-05-09T05:05:05.085-07:002010-05-09T05:05:05.085-07:00Jeff: The macroevolutionary hypothesis posits an e...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>The macroevolutionary hypothesis posits an explanation for non-observed, hypothetical events/configurations of matter.</i><br /><br />Absolutely wrong. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>I agree. It's when ALL the data is consistent with mutually-exclusive hypotheses that the data is not decisive evidence for either one. </i><br /><br />It took nearly a week to reach this point in the discussion. Hypotheses CAN be supported scientifically with circumstantial evidence. As you were wrong on the fundamentals of the scientific method (and seem to be confused on the specifics of evolutionary theory), perhaps this is a good time for you to reflect on your stated position. We may revisit the specific case at a later date.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32850370367723519232010-05-09T05:03:11.660-07:002010-05-09T05:03:11.660-07:00You're views on science really all get down to...You're views on science really all get down to you're view that a scientific hypothesis is one that entails empirical predictions that can be experienced by humans. All else follows from this. The problem is that with respect to macroevolution, you don't have such a hypothesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59966335979465131802010-05-08T17:24:49.717-07:002010-05-08T17:24:49.717-07:00Zachriel: We're not discussing a specific case...Zachriel: We're not discussing a specific case, but your claim that we can't verify scientific claims through circumstantial evidence. This is not correct. Many important scientific discoveries are made through circumstantial evidence. <br /><br />Jeff: I agree. It's when ALL the data is consistent with mutually-exclusive hypotheses that the data is not decisive evidence for either one. That is the case with respect to ID hypotheses vs. the macroevolutionary hypothesis. This is so because while the respective hypotheses are mutually-exclusive, they don't attempt to explain the same effects. ID hypotheses are positing explanations for EXISTING configurations of matter. The macroevolutionary hypothesis posits an explanation for non-observed, hypothetical events/configurations of matter.<br /><br />Zachriel: You need reach some awareness of this basic aspect of the scientific method before we proceed to the specific case. <br /><br />Jeff: Blast away. It doesn't change the fact that you have no hypothesis with respect to biological origins that entails an empirical prediction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88068234313058283322010-05-08T16:18:52.147-07:002010-05-08T16:18:52.147-07:00Zachriel: By your own definition, you were wrong. ...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>By your own definition, you were wrong. To avoid the problem of multiple consistent hypotheses, a circumstantial case involves various pieces of independently acquired evidence, each testing some aspect or other of the competing theories. </i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No, you're wrong in this case. </i><br /><br />We're not discussing a specific case, but your claim that we can't verify scientific claims through circumstantial evidence. This is not correct. Many important scientific discoveries are made through circumstantial evidence. <br /><br />You need reach some awareness of this basic aspect of the scientific method before we proceed to the specific case. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There is only one reason to modif ythe hypothesis--because it was falsified in its original, simpler form. </i><br /><br />The simpler hypothesis, that the Earth travels in an elliptical orbit is falsified. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Did you know that the Earth does not travel in an elliptical orbit? Does that falsify the Theory of Gravity? </i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No, it doesn't. The math either works or not, regardless of the specific motion. </i><br /><br />Newton's Laws work fine for describing Earth's orbit. It's not an ellipse. Why is that?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78924989576674330272010-05-08T07:23:43.685-07:002010-05-08T07:23:43.685-07:00Jeff: By the way you're using the word "c...Jeff: By the way you're using the word "circumstantial," you're right. By the way I was, it depends. <br /><br /><br />Zachriel: By your own definition, you were wrong. To avoid the problem of multiple consistent hypotheses, a circumstantial case involves various pieces of independently acquired evidence, each testing some aspect or other of the competing theories. <br /><br />Jeff: No, you're wrong in this case. There is NO empirical data that contradicts certain ID hypotheses. And the general macroevolutionary hypothesis is ABSOLUTELY unfalsifiable because it's so general that there are NO entailed empirical predictions therein.<br /><br /><br />Jeff: But none of this changes the fact that the hypothesis of common descent all the way down is NOT a scientific hypothesis by your own definition. <br /><br /><br />Zachriel: Of course it is. If we posit that diverged along uncrossed lines, they should form a nested hierarchy. The hypothesis has to be modified for convergence and hybridization. <br /><br />Jeff: There is only one reason to modif ythe hypothesis--because it was falsified in its original, simpler form. So now state CLEARLY this newer, modified hypothesis and let's look at the empirical predictions ENTAILED in it. You will find that, again, it predicts nothing we can test. You're confusing an hypothesis with empirical data. Data is not an hypothesis.<br /><br />Zachriel: This hypothesis is strongly supported. <br /><br />Jeff: Define "supported."<br /><br /><br />Zachriel: Did you know that the Earth does not travel in an elliptical orbit? Does that falsify the Theory of Gravity? <br /><br />Jeff: No, it doesn't. The math either works or not, regardless of the specific motion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12328886702974887272010-05-07T09:22:08.597-07:002010-05-07T09:22:08.597-07:00Jeff: By circumstantial evidence, I was only meani...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>By circumstantial evidence, I was only meaning data that is consistent with opposing hypotheses ... </i><br /><br />That's often the case. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>By the way you're using the word "circumstantial," you're right. By the way I was, it depends. </i><br /><br />By your own definition, you were wrong. To avoid the problem of multiple consistent hypotheses, a circumstantial case involves various pieces of independently acquired evidence, each testing some aspect or other of the competing theories. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>But none of this changes the fact that the hypothesis of common descent all the way down is NOT a scientific hypothesis by your own definition. </i><br /><br />Of course it is. If we posit that diverged along uncrossed lines, they should form a nested hierarchy. The hypothesis has to be modified for convergence and hybridization. This hypothesis is strongly supported. <br /><br />Did you know that the Earth does not travel in an elliptical orbit? Does that falsify the Theory of Gravity?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88946011684817849892010-05-07T04:29:04.741-07:002010-05-07T04:29:04.741-07:00Zachriel: Circumstantial evidence is indirect evid...Zachriel: Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that is entailed in a hypothesis, and may or may not be consistent with other proposed hypotheses.<br /><br />Jeff: By circumstantial evidence, I was only meaning data that is consistent with opposing hypotheses that are each bona-fide analogical inferences.<br /><br />Zachiel: But your statement is still wrong. We *can* build a scientific case from circumstantial evidence.<br /><br />Jeff: By the way you're using the word "circumstantial," you're right. By the way I was, it depends.<br /><br />But none of this changes the fact that the hypothesis of common descent all the way down is NOT a scientific hypothesis by your own definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28246372276860219882010-05-05T18:08:43.604-07:002010-05-05T18:08:43.604-07:00Jeff: IOW, circumstantial evidence exists when dat...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>IOW, circumstantial evidence exists when data is consistent with multiple hypotheses. </i><br /><br />Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that is entailed in a hypothesis, and may or may not be consistent with other proposed hypotheses. That's why scientific support may require more than one type of test. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIENTIFICALLY until the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are confirmed EMPIRICALLY in a non-circumstantial way. </i><br /><br />But your statement is still wrong. We *can* build a scientific case from circumstantial evidence. In fact, many of the great discoveries were developed through indirect means. Halley did it. Mendel did it. Einstein did it. <br /><br />Instead of sidestepping the issue, you might take a particular case, such as <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/brownian.htm" rel="nofollow">Einstein's explanation of Brownian Motion</a> and explain why this circumstantial case is not scientific support for the Atomic Hypothesis.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84623846200735593182010-05-05T16:48:10.410-07:002010-05-05T16:48:10.410-07:00Zachriel: Circumstantial evidence is also known as...Zachriel: Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence; the opposite is direct evidence.<br /><br />Jeff: I'm emphasizing this sense of the term: "One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt." IOW, circumstantial evidence exists when data is consistent with multiple hypotheses. There is NO data that is inconsistent with certain ID hypotheses. And your hypothesis has no empirical predictions entailed in it.<br /><br /><br />Zachriel: Please quit misrepresenting our position. Every example included an empirical verification. <br /><br />Jeff: That was exactly my point. The hypothesis of common descent all the way down has no empirical predictions entailed in it. It's too general. Thus, it is not testable in any sense. You have to make additional hypotheses to move to a doable degree of specificity. So give me your additional hypothesis(es), and tell me what empirical prediction is entailed in it (them).<br /><br />Zachriel: You need to explicitly correct this before we proceed. <br /><br />Jeff: Unfortunately, I'm the only one that understands what it means for a prediction to be ENTAILED in an hypothesis. For there is no such entailment in the hypothesis that common descent goes all the way down. It's too general of a hypothesis. Those other hypotheses DID have SPECIFIC empirical predictions entailed in them--which we could actually test--else they aren't scientific either, by your definition. But you're right. There is no sense in proceeding if you're not man enough to own up to this state of affairs. <br /><br />Your hypothesis is NOT a scientific hypothesis by your own definition. That's why philosophers of science couldn't care less what you think. They know people like you don't bother to think these things through. They do. <br /><br />They're no more comfortable with the results of their analysis than you are. They're just more intellectually honest about the situation. Personally, I'm fine with your demarcation criteria AND it's implications for the hypothesis of common descent all the way down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76387842476529714782010-05-05T05:09:04.890-07:002010-05-05T05:09:04.890-07:00Jeff: Define what you mean by circumstantial evide...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Define what you mean by circumstantial evidence. </i><br /><br />*You* introduced the term, so we would assume you meant the standard definition. Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence; the opposite is direct evidence. So the <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/brownian.htm" rel="nofollow">Einstein's explanation of Brownian Motion</a> is indirect evidence of the physical existence of atoms. He couldn't observe atoms. He showed their existence indirectly. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>If you think that simply because empirical predictions are entailed in an hypothesis that it still has some greater value than an hypothesis which has no entailed empirical prediction, EVEN WHEN the entailed empirical predictions of the former are not subject to human experience, you have completely abandoned reason for bald pontification.</i><br /><br />Please quit misrepresenting our position. Every example included an empirical verification. And each historical example was originally supported by a number of circumstantial, indirect entailments. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Anyone who could infer that I'm arguing against a non-stationary earth from what I've said in this thread could find any arbitrary claim plausible. </i><br /><br />When you said, "<i>But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIENTIFICALLY until the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are confirmed EMPIRICALLY in a non-circumstantial way</i>, you were saying that Galileo couldn't reasonably marshall evidence for the Earth's motion, or Mendel his theory of genetics, or Einstein's argument for the physical existence of atoms. Many, if not most, of the great scientific discoveries in history were based on indirect, circumstantial evidence. <br /><br />That shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method. You need to explicitly correct this before we proceed.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16620974841826229712010-05-04T19:55:20.144-07:002010-05-04T19:55:20.144-07:00Zachriel: Your original statement was "But hy...Zachriel: Your original statement was "But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIENTIFICALLY until the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are confirmed EMPIRICALLY in a non-circumstantial way" is simply false. Many of the most important scientific discoveries were made through indirect, circumstantial evidence.<br /><br />Jeff: Define what you mean by circumstantial evidence.<br /><br /><br />Jeff: You think because an empirical prediction is entailed in an hypothesis that it has some inherent value whether or not there is any experiment we can do to EXPERIENCE that predicted empiricism. That's utterly assinine. <br /><br /><br />Zachriel: That shows the depth of your confusion. <br /><br />Jeff: Wrong. If you think that simply because empirical predictions are entailed in an hypothesis that it still has some greater value than an hypothesis which has no entailed empirical prediction, EVEN WHEN the entailed empirical predictions of the former are not subject to human experience, you have completely abandoned reason for bald pontification.<br /><br /><br />Zachriel: Until you resolve your confusion ... that the Earth really does move...<br /><br />Jeff: Huh?????? Anyone who could infer that I'm arguing against a non-stationary earth from what I've said in this thread could find any arbitrary claim plausible. What nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72251096505257380392010-05-04T04:48:44.486-07:002010-05-04T04:48:44.486-07:00Jeff: It either was an entailed prediction or it w...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>It either was an entailed prediction or it wasn't. It either was possible to test it (i.e., falsify it) or it wasn't. No hard logic here. </i><br /><br />Your original statement was "<i>But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIENTIFICALLY until the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are confirmed EMPIRICALLY in a non-circumstantial way</i>" is simply false. Many of the most important scientific discoveries were made through indirect, circumstantial evidence. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You think because an empirical prediction is entailed in an hypothesis that it has some inherent value whether or not there is any experiment we can do to EXPERIENCE that predicted empiricism. That's utterly assinine. </i><br /><br />That shows the depth of your confusion. Every example given was based on an empirical observation. Brownian Motion is an observed phenomena, but not an observation of atoms. Mendel observed pea traits and determined the existence of discrete factors, but he could not observe the molecular basis of genes. Halley observed the retardation of the pendulum, but did not observe the rotation of the Earth. <br /><br />Each claim, that the Earth moved, that heredity is comprised of discrete factors, that atoms had physical existence, was supported through indirect, circumstantial evidence. None were directly observed. <br /><br />Until you resolve your confusion on this point, that the Earth really does move, more complex scientific issues will remain beyond reasonable discussion.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49233946111328324712010-05-04T04:26:06.077-07:002010-05-04T04:26:06.077-07:00Jeff: The theories you mention are falsifiable rel...Jeff: The theories you mention are falsifiable relatively easily. <br /><br />Zachriel: Easy? Galileo couldn't see the Earth move.<br /><br />Jeff: There were problems to be sure. And there were dissenters.<br /><br />Zachriel: It took an Einstein to show that atoms were real objects rather than theoretical constructs.<br /><br />Jeff: Average human beings hold to a very common-sensical metaphysic. To the extent that there was no way to account for matter as being solid where it wasn't, a MODEL that explains the observations is all one can infer. <br /><br />Zachriel: The retardation of the pendulum is hardly obvious or direct.<br /><br />Jeff: It either was an entailed prediction or it wasn't. It either was possible to test it (i.e., falsify it) or it wasn't. No hard logic here.<br /><br />Zachriel: And Mendel knew nothing about DNA, but still proposed a valid theory of genetics, <br /><br />Jeff: Mendel's hypothesis had entailed empirical predictions that humans could actually be empirically experienced by humans. And what were the contending analogical inferences as to the explanation of those same phenomena at the time? How consistent were empirical observations with those competing hypotheses, in comparison?<br />Zachriel: just as Darwin proposed a valid theory of evolution lacking knowledge of DNA or even a valid theory of genetics. <br /><br />Jeff: There is no empirical prediction entailed in the general hypothesis of macroevolution, much less that humans can empirically experience. There are plenty of empirical predictions that you predict based on your more specific hypothetical thinking as to HOW, more specifically, certain transitions occurred. But they are either not empirically experiencable by humans or are not indicative of the failure of alternative hypotheses. Moreover, plenty of such predictions have failed. That never falsified the general hypothesis. Macroevolutionists just go back to the drawing board. Because macroevolution is accepted as being true for metaphysical reasons. Dr. Hunter has documented this thoroughly.<br /><br />Jeff: Those other theories have passed test after test of predictions ENTAILED in those theories/hypotheses.<br /><br />Zachriel: That's right. So you have changed your position on this, is that correct? Because we can't discuss scientific evidence when you are confused on what it means to be scientific evidence. <br /><br />Jeff: You're the one confused. You think because an empirical prediction is entailed in an hypothesis that it has some inherent value whether or not there is any experiment we can do to EXPERIENCE that predicted empiricism. That's utterly assinine. I'll assume whatever definitions you want. But by your definition, the hypothesis that common descent goes all the way down is not a scientific hypothesis. And it is ABSOLUTELY unfalsifiable, empirically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74416962124694331692010-05-03T18:04:33.715-07:002010-05-03T18:04:33.715-07:00Jeff: The theories you mention are falsifiable rel...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>The theories you mention are falsifiable relatively easily. </i><br /><br />Easy? Galileo couldn't see the Earth move. He inferred it from indirect observations. It took an Einstein to show that atoms were real objects rather than theoretical constructs. And he did it with indirect evidence. The retardation of the pendulum is hardly obvious or direct. And Mendel knew nothing about DNA, but still proposed a valid theory of genetics, just as Darwin proposed a valid theory of evolution lacking knowledge of DNA or even a valid theory of genetics. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Those other theories have passed test after test of predictions ENTAILED in those theories/hypotheses.</i><br /><br />That's right. So you have changed your position on this, is that correct? Because we can't discuss scientific evidence when you are confused on what it means to be scientific evidence.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60942512712106654102010-05-03T17:21:50.193-07:002010-05-03T17:21:50.193-07:00The theories you mention are falsifiable relativel...The theories you mention are falsifiable relatively easily. Macroevolution is absolutely unfalsifiable, empirically, because exceptions are always allowed. <br /><br />Those other theories have passed test after test of predictions ENTAILED in those theories/hypotheses. The macroevolutionary hypothesis has NO entailed predictions we can empirically experience that are not consistent with alternative hypotheses. <br /><br />There's this analogical tendency of the human mind to extrapolate inductively by enumeration which EASILY explains the well-nigh universal assent to those theories by those who have evaluated them.<br /><br />Nothing we know empirically, however, tells us that mutations produce the magnitude of directional (as opposed to more limited variation on a theme) variation you posit. Analogical extrapolation works for final causes as well as for natural causes. People do both all the time.<br /><br />When there are no discriminating tests available, subjective senses of analogical plausibility is all we have. The scientific method can never eliminate that. That's why there are differences of opinion on non-testable hypotheses even amongst experts in the same subject matter. Welcome to the real world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12166082039017085462010-05-03T04:51:53.869-07:002010-05-03T04:51:53.869-07:00Jeff: But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIE...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIENTIFICALLY until the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are confirmed EMPIRICALLY in a non-circumstantial way. </i><br /><br />That is incorrect. <br /><br />Galileo gathered significant evidence of the Earth's movement. Newton's Theory ended any reasonable doubt about whether the Earth moved. Halley's observation of the retardation of the pendulum in 1677 is just one of many such observations demonstrating the Earth's movement without actually observing the Earth's movement. <br /><br />Scientists had suspected the existence of atoms based on chemistry. Einstein's explanation of Brownian Motion ended most reasonable doubts about the physical existence of atoms, yet they couldn't be directly observed. <br /><br />Mendel showed that heredity was particulate without any knowledge molecular genetics. Significant discoveries concerning the properties of electricity were made without being able to observe the electron. And so on. <br /><br />As most people can read and understand the examples provided, few are going to accept your insistence on what constitutes scientific evidence. The scientific method revolves around hypothesis-testing. There's little point discussing the evidence for Common Descent or most anything in science when you reject the scientific method.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53209872108694216742010-05-03T04:19:46.891-07:002010-05-03T04:19:46.891-07:00Jeff: You have to show THAT there are DNA sequence...Jeff: You have to show THAT there are DNA sequences that will produce all the hypothetical phenoytpes and THAT mutations will produce them in the posited time-frame with realistic probability.<br /><br />Zachriel: There was a perfectly valid theory of evolution before the discovery of DNA. Again, we first have to establish Common Descent. <br /><br />Jeff: Right. Because what you mean by theory is a set of hypotheses about KINDS of events no one has ever observed or modeled from observationally-based causal theory. But hypotheses are not known to be true SCIENTIFICALLY until the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are confirmed EMPIRICALLY in a non-circumstantial way. You can have some subjective sense of plausibility, as do ID'ists for their hypotheses. But the goal of science is to eliminate that very subjectivity. We're nowhere near that on the topic at hand.<br /><br />We may make observations every now and then that challenge our ability to explain them in terms of our long-standing physical theories. But with the macroevolutionary hypothesis. The vast majority of what is hypothesized is not known to even be possible. We don't know by any form of reasoning that there are DNA sequences that produce the kazillions of phenotypes you hypothesize. Thus, to even infer it analogically is an analogical stretch unparalleled in empirically-established theories. <br /><br />This is why there is raging debate amongst macroevolutionists to this day. They can't agree on the causal mode or specific transformational trajectories. They only agree that the causal mode involves no final causes. That's pretty pathetic results for 150 years of research.<br /><br />Zachriel: There are a gazillion possible theories and possible worlds. But substituting your own strawman for the actual hypothesis is a fallacy. Common Descent predicts the nested hierarchy, not your mangled version of "macroevolution." <br /><br />Jeff: Common descent and macroevolution mean the same thing--genealogical relationship all the way down. If you don't mean that, then I have no idea what in particular you're arguing for yet.<br /><br />Zachriel: What competing hypothesis is that? <br /><br />Jeff: ID hypotheses. <br /><br />Zachriel: You couldn't possibly be more vague<br /><br />Jeff: The more specific the hypothesis about some similar cause of ALL life, the more hopelessly unfalsifiable and untestable it gets. That's the problem with your hypothesis. That's why it's not scientific even by your own definition. You're just too confused to realize what the words you're writing even mean. ID'ists are positing the mere possibility that certain configurations of matters can only rise with the aid of finality causality. <br /><br />Those hypotheses are only falsifiable if your hypothesize ever becomes testable. And it will only BECOME testable if in fact it is possible and sufficiently probable, and we know neither. And we know of no way to test either. And there is nothing in the forseeable future that will change that. You and I will die LONG before we're anywhere near any such state of affairs, assuming such a state of affairs is even possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69560994480064821682010-05-02T20:03:08.203-07:002010-05-02T20:03:08.203-07:00Jeff: Adaptive does not equal "transitional&q...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Adaptive does not equal "transitional" in the sense your hypotheses require. The variation has to be directional in the posited direction to be relevant to your hypotheses.</i><br /><br />Once we establish Common Descent, then we can examine the details of some of those transitions. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You have to show THAT there are DNA sequences that will produce all the hypothetical phenoytpes and THAT mutations will produce them in the posited time-frame with realistic probability.</i><br /><br />There was a perfectly valid theory of evolution before the discovery of DNA. Again, we first have to establish Common Descent. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You've already admitted 3 ways that nested hierarchy would not occur even if macroevolution occurred. </i><br /><br />There are a gazillion possible theories and possible worlds. But substituting your own strawman for the actual hypothesis is a fallacy. Common Descent predicts the nested hierarchy, not your mangled version of "macroevolution." <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>What competing hypothesis is that? </i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>ID hypotheses. </i><br /><br />You couldn't possibly be more vague.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79560835558429052352010-05-02T19:49:00.709-07:002010-05-02T19:49:00.709-07:00Zachriel: If you had an adaptation that made you s...Zachriel: If you had an adaptation that made you stronger and more capable of providing for your offspring, you would not consider it trivial, at all.<br /><br />Jeff: Adaptive does not equal "transitional" in the sense your hypotheses require. The variation has to be directional in the posited direction to be relevant to your hypotheses.<br /><br />Zachriel: Genes, even entire genomes, can be duplicated. <br /><br />Jeff: How does that imply there are DNA sequences that produce all the hypothetical phenotypes or can be blindly mutated into with realistic probability in the posited time-frame?<br /><br />Zachriel: We don't have to know every mutational event to determine common ancestry.<br /><br />Jeff: You have to show THAT there are DNA sequences that will produce all the hypothetical phenoytpes and THAT mutations will produce them in the posited time-frame with realistic probability. Why is a hypothesis with an empirical prediction better if you deny me that very empiricism? Hmm?<br /><br />Zachriel: The transition from fish to amphibian is comprised of many small steps, each of which you would consider "trivial" in isolation. <br /><br />Jeff: And you observed or modeled this? What you're claiming IS your hypothesis.<br /><br />Zachriel: That's just silly considering it was posited by Darwin in 1859 and there are entire fields of study concerned with determining the details of that divergence. <br /><br />Jeff: You've already admitted 3 ways that nested hierarchy would not occur even if macroevolution occurred. Now, I'm sorry, but that means the prediction is not ENTAILED in the hypothesis. You can add the hypothesis of nested hierarchy if you want. But then the exceptions would falsify it anyway.<br /><br />Zachriel: We *observe* variation. We *observe* the generation of novelty. We *observe* the nested hierarchy.<br /><br />Jeff: The first two are consistent with ID inferences. The nested hierarchy is not an entailed prediction. Thus, none of the three constitute a test which confirms one hypothesis over another.<br /><br />Zachriel: If the rates of mutations were very fast compared to the time scales involved, the nested hierarchy would not be discernible in the distant past.<br /><br />Jeff: That general hypothesis doesn't predict DNA, mutations, mutations rates, nested hierarchy, etc. If you want to hypothesize, ADDITIONALLY, sufficiently slow mutation rates in the past, what would be the empirical prediction entailed in that hypothesis that we could test?<br /><br />Zachriel: And there are observed variations that are sufficiently robust to account for that phylogenetic tree. <br /><br />Jeff: On the contrary. We have no tested genetic theory from which we can model anything like the transitions you hypothesize.<br /><br />Jeff: Do competing hypotheses entail a prediction that we will not find new species? <br /><br />Zachriel: What competing hypothesis is that? <br /><br />Jeff: ID hypotheses. Even given your definition of a scientific hypothesis, it doesn't follow that other hypotheses are not hypotheses. Moreover, your hypothesis is not scientific by your own definition.<br /><br />Zachriel: Please tell us, what is the prediction about new species? <br /><br />Jeff: Hypothesize what you want about new species. But do you know what the empirical predictions entailed in those hypotheses are and what implications they have for falsifying competing hypotheses? Thus far, you've made it clear you don't.<br /><br />Zachriel: When considered with the rest of the evidence, yes. <br /><br />Jeff: There is no non-circumstantial evidence for common ancestry all the way down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91036686133568712022010-05-02T17:54:41.175-07:002010-05-02T17:54:41.175-07:00Jeff: You observe that such trivial variation fits...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>You observe that such trivial variation fits a pattern of nested hierarchy in enough cases that you infer by analogy that other untested cases do. </i><br /><br />Calling adaptations "trivial" is just a form of handwaving. If you had an adaptation that made you stronger and more capable of providing for your offspring, you would not consider it trivial, at all. You would consider it your most important characteristic. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Other macroevolutionists posit duplicated genes followed by point mutations for such radical transformations. </i><br /><br />Genes, even entire genomes, can be duplicated. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>We have no idea what kind of mutational process would produce birds from theropods. </i><br /><br />We don't have to know every mutational event to determine common ancestry. That's a strawman. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Great, now even saturation is an exception. </i><br /><br />Of course saturation would be an exception. Except that mutation rates tend to be low enough so that the nested hierarchy can be discerned across hundreds of millions of years. (Long branch attraction can be a problem for discerning rapid radiations, however.)<br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You're virtually alone amongst evolutionists in thinking a fish to amphibian transition is as "small" as finch variation.</i><br /><br />The transition from fish to amphibian is comprised of many small steps, each of which you would consider "trivial" in isolation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So again, the nested hierarchy is not a prediction ENTAILED in the general hypothesis. </i><br /><br />Of course it is! That's just silly considering it was posited by Darwin in 1859 and there are entire fields of study concerned with determining the details of that divergence. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Since the general hypothesis is consistent with high rates of mutation or HGT or sufficient losses of biological characters, etc, the general hypothesis is consistent with a pattern CONTRARY to a nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />A nested hierarchy is the necessary consequence of divergence along uncrossed lines. Descent with modification will create a nested hierarchy of traits, as long as rates of change are short of saturation. We *observe* variation. We *observe* the generation of novelty. We *observe* the nested hierarchy. <br /><br />If the rates of mutations were very fast compared to the time scales involved, the nested hierarchy would not be discernible in the distant past. But that's not the universe we live in. There is a nested hierarchy. And there are observed variations that are sufficiently robust to account for that phylogenetic tree. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Do competing hypotheses entail a prediction that we will not find new species? </i><br /><br />What competing hypothesis is that? <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Does the macroevolutionary hypothesis predict what particular kinds of species should exist? </i><br /><br />Absolutely. After this long of a discussion, you shouldn't have to be told. Please tell us, what is the prediction about new species? <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Does this IMPLY there is a genealogical relationship? </i><br /><br />When considered with the rest of the evidence, yes.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26319551510400132492010-05-02T16:05:09.276-07:002010-05-02T16:05:09.276-07:00Zachriel: What analogy? ... So ID posits, by some ...Zachriel: What analogy? ... So ID posits, by some unknown entailment, that Darwin's Finches evolved from mainland birds? <br /><br />Jeff: Simple. You observe that such trivial variation fits a pattern of nested hierarchy in enough cases that you infer by analogy that other untested cases do. I don't even know Europe exists by empirical testing. I've never been there.<br /><br />Zachriel: The problem with your position is that the evolutionary diversification of Darwin's Finches is the same process that leads from theropods to birds. <br /><br />Jeff: Other macroevolutionists posit duplicated genes followed by point mutations for such radical transformations. Is that the cause of all diversification of Darwin's Finches? If so, can you provide me some references for that? We have no idea what kind of mutational process would produce birds from theropods.<br /><br />Zachriel: Descent with variation along uncrossed lines leads to a nested hierarchy (short of saturation). <br /><br />Jeff: Great, now even saturation is an exception.<br /><br />Zachriel: So you agree that Darwin's Finches diversified from a mainland bird. Is that correct?<br /><br />Jeff: That's correct. And the reason is obvious. We have observations of variation and processes (recombination, etc.) that clearly account for this degree of variation by strong analogy.<br /><br />Zachriel: What about reptile to mammals? Fish to amphibian? Funny thing is, when you look closely, the transitions look much like the diversification of Darwin's Finches, small changes over time. <br /><br />Jeff: You're virtually alone amongst evolutionists in thinking a fish to amphibian transition is as "small" as finch variation. In fact, that's why they posit the duplicated gene plus random mutation hypothesis to account for such transformations. But no one knows what a duplicated gene plus random mutations will produce until it happens. That's the problem. It's just an hypothesis whose entailed predictions can not be tested.<br /><br />Jeff: Sufficient losses of biological characters would also prevent a nested hierarchy pattern. <br /><br />Zachriel: That's right, as would extremely high rates of mutation. <br /><br />Jeff: So again, the nested hierarchy is not a prediction ENTAILED in the general hypothesis.<br /><br />Jeff: The hypothesis, PER SE, doesn't predict nested hierarchy.<br /><br />Zachriel: Of course it does, and the hypothesis is strongly supported for most taxa, with few exceptions. <br /><br />Jeff: Since the general hypothesis is consistent with high rates of mutation or HGT or sufficient losses of biological characters, etc, the general hypothesis is consistent with a pattern CONTRARY to a nested hierarchy. The general hypothesis did not predict DNA, much less mutation rates or HGT. Moreover, exceptions to an entailed prediction of a hypothesis FALSIFY the hypothesis.<br /><br />Zachriel: If you find a new species of frog, it won't have mammary glands. <br /><br />Jeff: We believe this by analogy. We don't know it empirically BY DEFINITION of what it means to know something empirically.<br /><br />Zachriel: Every time a new species is discovered, extinct or extant, the hypothesis is tested.<br /><br />Jeff: Do competing hypotheses entail a prediction that we will not find new species? No, they don't. Does the macroevolutionary hypothesis predict what particular kinds of species should exist? No, it doesn't. Thus, no test is entailed in the discovery of new species.<br /><br />Zachriel: We can see the transitions occurring in the strata!<br /><br />Jeff: You see no such thing. What you see is morphological intermediates which may or may not be genealogical intermediates. Let's suppose you find fossil B between fossil A and fossil C. Say fossil B is morphologically intermediate in some respect between A and B. Does this IMPLY there is a genealogical relationship? No it doesn't. It doesn't even imply that the origin times of critters A, B, and C correspond to their known stratigraphic ranges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34782901249383833012010-05-02T12:47:23.008-07:002010-05-02T12:47:23.008-07:00Jeff: From the OBSERVED results of reproduction, w...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>From the OBSERVED results of reproduction, we would infer it by analogy alone. </i><br /><br />What analogy? You said you were going to avoid the concept in favor of scientific terminology in lieu of a clear definition. So ID posits, by some unknown entailment, that Darwin's Finches evolved from mainland birds? <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>We don't know the latter is possible or realistically probable in the posited time-frame. </i><br /><br />The problem with your position is that the evolutionary diversification of Darwin's Finches is the same process that leads from theropods to birds. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>And this means that the hypothesis of common descent all the way down does not ENTAIL an empirical prediction of nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />Descent with variation along uncrossed lines leads to a nested hierarchy (short of saturation). This is mathematical truism. This forms the basis of the hypothesis, which we then test against the evidence. The nested hierarchy is strongly supported for most taxa. Even the exceptions reinforce the hypothesis. <br /><br />As for all the way down, let's try to establish Common Descent where we can do so with some confidence. So you agree that Darwin's Finches diversified from a mainland bird. Is that correct? What about reptile to mammals? Fish to amphibian? Funny thing is, when you look closely, the transitions look much like the diversification of Darwin's Finches, small changes over time. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Sufficient losses of biological characters would also prevent a nested hierarchy pattern. </i><br /><br />That's right, as would extremely high rates of mutation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>The hypothesis, PER SE, doesn't predict nested hierarchy.</i><br /><br />Of course it does, and the hypothesis is strongly supported for most taxa, with few exceptions. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>The natural human classificational impulse IS to classify according to nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />It's completely relevant to the point. The nested hierarchy is not an a artifact of human perception, but leads to specific empirical predictions. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Not from tits alone. </i><br /><br />If you find a new species of frog, it won't have mammary glands. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There is NOTHING empirically predictable per the general hypothesis, per se, that you can run out and test.</i><br /><br />Every time a new species is discovered, extinct or extant, the hypothesis is tested. The nested hierarchy even applies across time. We can see the transitions occurring in the strata! Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, hominids. There is no reasonable scientific doubt about Common Descent.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.com