Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(148)
-
▼
August
(7)
- A Journalist Gets it Right
- The Indonesian Mimic Octopus
- Octopus Swims Like a Flounder
- Incredible Examples of Camouflage: Octopus Perfect...
- Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign
- The Cod’s Unlikely Immune System and Evolutionary ...
- Of and About TEs: How Evolutionists Interpret Tran...
-
▼
August
(7)
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.
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/
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?
ReplyDeleteThorton: "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."
ReplyDeleteI thought kingdom level differences would qualify. But apparently plants and animals are of the same 'kind' in your book. Please enlighten us which different 'kinds' would falsify ToE if they were found to have incompatible DNA. Or perhaps your distinction was meaningless after all.
Thorton: "Thorton: "You bragged about being able to do so before"
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."
This statement does not take a position either way. It is known as a hypothetical. It means you get no further work from me on future criteria until you cede that your first criteria was met. Nice try though.
Scott: "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?"
ReplyDeleteNope.
Scott: "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…"
from article: "A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality."
If I read this with "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to" instead of "as opposed to" it means the same thing to me. If you come away with a more nuanced impression, I'm afraid my methods of conversation will prove too crude for your tastes.
Scott: "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."
I don't see why it's strange. In the words of the definition above, if you can never discover "how accurately" a "concept or theory" "describes objective reality", then you can never distinguish between whether or not you are evaluating predictions and phenomena or describing objective reality. If it's an imaginary difference, then it's pointless for the purposes of truth discovery. If it's not an imaginary difference, then I side with objective reality.
Scott: "First, Thortion doesn't define the ToE or what falsifies it."
ReplyDeleteTell that to Thorton.
Scott: "Rather, Thorton is pointing to known positions in the field of evolutionary theory as to what would represent a falsification of the theory."
It's enough to cause Craig Venter to question common ancestry. From what I hear, he's already got his money.
Scott: "Your claim that 'Thortion falsified ToE' is a common tactic among creationists."
I'm certain of it. But try to remember who's claiming what. I did not set up the criteria.
Scott: "Second, you seem to be treating this prediction as if it was prophecy"
What prediction?
Scott: "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."
Yes, he is now. It's called goal post moving. But I won't accuse him of the additions you made.
Scott: "While the locations of these mythical boundaries may change, the claim that such boundaries exist does not."
Here's an even better way to say it, if the boundaries are mythical, how could the criteria be coherent? Your criteria appeals to 'kinds' to be evaluated.
Sorry, *his* criteria. That was a misappropriation.
ReplyDeleteThorton,
ReplyDeleteSince the creationist term "kinds" is in always in opposition to common ancestry by nature of being, well, a creationist term. Would it be safe to say one could pick any set of boundaries that oppose common ancestry and have a working definition of "kinds"?
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "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."
I thought kingdom level differences would qualify.
Above you said you didn't know how to objectively determine what 'kind' an animal belongs to. Now you say it's 'kind means kingdom'. How do you expect anyone to swallow your trolling when you contradict yourself every other post? Better keep working on that liar's memory.
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."
John: "It means you get no further work from me on future criteria until you cede that your first criteria was met."
LOL! Translation: Your bluff was called, and as predicted you've got nothing but hot air and bluster. Nothing. Typical mouthy Creationist. I love exposing hypocritical Creationist frauds like you John-boy, I really do! Please, do keep up the lies and silly rhetorical games - they're very entertaining!
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteScott: "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."
Yes, he is now. It's called goal post moving. But I won't accuse him of the additions you made
Too many LOLs! I haven't changed a single thing in my statements this whole time Mr. Liar for Jesus. Funny how Scott had no trouble understanding the nature of the falsification I gave. Seems like you, liar for Jesus John, are the only one commenting who had trouble with it. It's sorta like you deliberately misrepresented and lied about what was presented. Exactly like it actually.
Do you think lying for Jesus buys you "get into heaven free" points with your Big Guy? Is that why you do it?
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThe definition of kinds might be kind of hazy, but I think everyone is in agreement that humans and algae are different kinds.
Scott said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
Since the creationist term "kinds" is in always in opposition to common ancestry by nature of being, well, a creationist term. Would it be safe to say one could pick any set of boundaries that oppose common ancestry and have a working definition of "kinds"?
I have no idea - I gave science's take on the term. The Creationist definition of 'kind' seems to be "that which can't evolve". Just like all Creationist and ID terms, it is purposely kept vague and undefined so dishonest Creationist like liar for Jesus John here always have wiggle room when the word is used.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that your definition of something that can falsify evolution is based on something that cannot be defined? Doesn't that mean that evolution can't be falsified?
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
The definition of kinds might be kind of hazy, but I think everyone is in agreement that humans and algae are different kinds.
Wrong nat. The scientific community doesn't agree because the term 'kind' has no scientific meaning. That's the whole point of Liar for Jesus John's silly rhetorical game.
Did'nt you just say that you where giving science's take on the term? Why would science have a take on a term that has no meaning?
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
Are you saying that your definition of something that can falsify evolution is based on something that cannot be defined? Doesn't that mean that evolution can't be falsified?
No nat, the particular falsification Liar for Jesus John is playing stupid over is actually based on two parts. Probably why it confused you:
1) Creationists finally rigorously define their term 'kind'.
2) Creationists positively identify something (like wildly different chemistry for the DNA) that differentiates one kind from another.
Do that and you falsify ToE. Liar for Jesus John didn't meet the criteria with his known simple DNA variants.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteDid'nt you just say that you where giving science's take on the term? Why would science have a take on a term that has no meaning?
To emphasize what a disgustingly dishonest Creationist rhetorical device it is.
John: If I read this with "in contrast to" or "as an alternative to" instead of "as opposed to" it means the same thing to me.
ReplyDeletePlease see my comment above.
Now, if I had said '"kinds" as an alternative to common ancestry' then, yes, this would be vague as I would be merely be referring to my holding one view rather than another (not both) instead of indicating that "kinds" is in opposition to common ancestry.
Specifically, 'as opposed to' would refer to having selected one view, rather than another. While '"kinds" in opposition to common ancestry' would refer to views that are in opposition to each other. The former is referring to myself and the latter is referring to the relationship between the views.
I could be in opposition to "kinds", but we're short a second contrasting view as in the Wiki definition.
The way I understand it, kinds means closely related species that evolved from separately created archtypes. It would be roughly the equivalent of a genus or family.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThe way I understand it, kinds means closely related species that evolved from separately created archtypes. It would be roughly the equivalent of a genus or family.
Great. Now all you have to do is 1) provide evidence for the creation of separate archtypes and 2) get the rest of the Creationist community to agree with you.
Good luck with both of those.
Why doesn't finding different DNA in different families, or different phyla falsify the ToE the way finding it in different kinds would?
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThe way I understand it, kinds means closely related species that evolved from separately created archtypes. It would be roughly the equivalent of a genus or family.
Do you realize you just defined humans, chimps, and gorillas as the same 'kind'?
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't finding different DNA in different families, or different phyla falsify the ToE the way finding it in different kinds would?
If you found vastly different incompatible DNA (with vastly different chemistry perhaps) in different phyla you would have a good argument for falsifying ToE. Merely finding simple variations of the single known genetic code won't do it.
John: I don't see why it's strange.
ReplyDeleteI've pointed out several times that Instrumentalism isn't necessarily in opposition to objective reality, yet it still represents an alternative. In other words, your refusal to clarify what you mean by "these methods are found to be opposed" would also render it "useless" given your own criteria.
John: In the words of the definition above, if you can never discover "how accurately" a "concept or theory" "describes objective reality", then you can never distinguish between whether or not you are evaluating predictions and phenomena or describing objective reality. If it's an imaginary difference, then it's pointless for the purposes of truth discovery. If it's not an imaginary difference, then I side with objective reality.
John, your continued responses suggest you're having difficultly grasping the concept of Instrumentalism, bound and determined to be willfully ignorant of it, despite multiple concrete examples, or simply attempting to avoid the question.
Instrumentalism is a position of science that intentionally decides to eschew objective reality while favoring accurate models and predictions of phenomena. It considers them two separate and things that can exist independent of each other, rather than in opposition.
The wave function in QC might represent objective reality, but Instrumentalism is the position that science has nothing to say one way or the other. It's merely a model that is very successful at predicting phenomena.
So, when you say that your criteria for rejecting Instrumentalism would be "opposition" I'm at a loss to what you mean.
For example you wrote: If it's an imaginary difference, then it's pointless for the purposes of truth discovery.
But Instrumentalism is the position that science should only be in the business of models that are 'true' in that they accurately predict phenomena, rather than 'true' in that they actually reflect objective reality.
You then wrote: If it's not an imaginary difference, then I side with objective reality.
John,
By asking if you're an Instrumentalist in the case of origins, I'm essentially asking if there is such a difference in the case of origins. That's the question I'm asking you, not the author of the Wikipedia entry.
John: Tell that to Thorton.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Your the one who keeps claiming Thorton falsified the ToE.
John: It's enough to cause Craig Venter to question common ancestry. From what I hear, he's already got his money.
Careful, John, you're getting sloppy. Furthermore, I've already addressed this in an earlier comment. Venter was referring to organisms that were in extreme conditions / isolation.
John: I'm certain of it. But try to remember who's claiming what. I did not set up the criteria.
If your certain, then you'd know that Thorton didn't setup the criteria either. You seem to be stuck in the script.
John: Here's an even better way to say it, if the boundaries are mythical, how could the criteria be coherent? Your criteria appeals to 'kinds' to be evaluated.
Are you suggesting that the creationist term "kinds" is incoherent? Must one accept that "kinds" defined by creationism is in fact coherent before referencing it's claims in a prediction?
Thorton: "Above you said you didn't know how to objectively determine what 'kind' an animal belongs to. Now you say it's 'kind means kingdom'"
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't say 'kind means kingdom'. I said I thought it would qualify for your definition without knowing how specific your definition was. As you'll see below, you've now switched to phyla. So it's obvious my example qualified perfectly. THANKS!
Thorton: "How do you expect anyone to swallow your trolling when you contradict yourself every other post? Better keep working on that liar's memory."
More projecting?
Thorton: "LOL! Translation: Your bluff was called, and as predicted you've got nothing but hot air and bluster. Nothing."
Seems like you were the one bluffing, I satisfied your first criteria and then you want me to move on and satisfy another criteria. One at a time champ. I told you that's how it was gonna be. Try to pay attention.
Thorton: "I haven't changed a single thing in my statements this whole time Mr. Liar for Jesus."
You changed criteria from "incompatibility" to focusing on the level of 'similarity'. And now you've changed from 'kind' to phyla! Amazing! You did have a concrete definition in mind after all! Doesn't it feel good to get it out there?
Thorton: "Funny how Scott had no trouble understanding the nature of the falsification I gave. Seems like you, liar for Jesus John, are the only one commenting who had trouble with it. It's sorta like you deliberately misrepresented and lied about what was presented. Exactly like it actually."
Funny for all the misrepresenting and lying I'm doing, I keep feeling the need to repost your original statement. He's clearly accepted your goalpost moving and even tried adding a few patches of his own. Pedant also tried helping you after seeing that "the issue is not what 'kinds' refers to. The issue is what 'multiple incompatible forms of DNA' refers to." Apparently he didn't get the memo about how I was supposed to define 'kinds' for you before your criteria meant anything. But now we know that doesn't matter anymore.
Thorton: "it is purposely kept vague and undefined so dishonest Creationist like liar for Jesus John here always have wiggle room when the word is used."
ahhhh of course!, when pressed to give a falsification criteria, you made sure to use a word that "is purposely kept vague and undefined". You didn't have anything in mind like phyla for example.
Thorton: "Wrong nat. The scientific community doesn't agree because the term 'kind' has no scientific meaning. That's the whole point of Liar for Jesus John's silly rhetorical game."
Like someone using the word 'kind' when they were thinking about phyla and then pretending they didn't have to have a definition when it was discovered that different phyla did have incompatible DNA? Was it maybe something like that?
Compare this;
Thorton: "1) Creationists finally rigorously define their term 'kind'.
2) Creationists positively identify something (like wildly different chemistry for the DNA) that differentiates one kind from another."
To the original;
Thorton: "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
And he claims no goalpost moving.. incredible!
And now this?;
Thorton :"If you found vastly different incompatible DNA (with vastly different chemistry perhaps) in different phyla you would have a good argument for falsifying ToE."
Unbelievable. So it was phyla after all? Are you sure this time? Look at all the progress we've made! Now perhaps you can spend a few days defining 'vast'. I'm sure you'll have fun!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScott: "I've pointed out several times that Instrumentalism isn't necessarily in opposition to objective reality, yet it still represents an alternative"
ReplyDeleteHow would you know?
Scott: "In other words, your refusal to clarify what you mean by "these methods are found to be opposed" would also render it "useless" given your own criteria."
Having trouble understanding what the pronoun 'it' refers to here.
Scott: "John, your continued responses suggest you're having difficultly grasping the concept of Instrumentalism"
I believe I stated that explicitly. But I'm glad you were able to glean it as a suggestion. The concept seems incoherent to me. It might be easier if you just get to the point instead of make sure I stay on some 'track'.
Scott: " bound and determined to be willfully ignorant of it"
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Scott: "... or simply attempting to avoid the question"
You'd have nothing to read if that was true.
Scott: "Instrumentalism is a position of science that intentionally decides to eschew objective reality while favoring accurate models and predictions of phenomena."
Ok, then what is the position that decides not to eschew objective reality? Does that have a name, cause I think I would be that. Does this make me not an instrumentalist?
Scott: "So, when you say that your criteria for rejecting Instrumentalism would be "opposition" I'm at a loss to what you mean."
See my comment above.
Scott: "But Instrumentalism is the position that science should only be in the business of models that are 'true' in that they accurately predict phenomena, rather than 'true' in that they actually reflect objective reality."
Again, I don't understand how those things could be different. Are the phenomena non-real?
Scott: "By asking if you're an Instrumentalist in the case of origins, I'm essentially asking if there is such a difference in the case of origins."
I want to know what happened in objective reality. Does that make me an instrumentalist or not?
Scott: "First, Thortion doesn't define the ToE or what falsifies it."
John: "Tell that to Thorton."
Scott: "Huh? Your the one who keeps claiming Thorton falsified the ToE."
He did set criteria in another thread.
Scott: "Careful, John, you're getting sloppy. Furthermore, I've already addressed this in an earlier comment. Venter was referring to organisms that were in extreme conditions / isolation."
So what? He says that unlike his colleagues, he doesn't believe there is only one life form on this planet. He then makes an argument similar to the one we're having here. Later statements of his in the same context make it sound like he believes in strong self organizing principles which in the context of the discussion would by definition be "uncommon descent".
Scott: "If your certain, then you'd know that Thorton didn't setup the criteria either. You seem to be stuck in the script."
He did right here.
Scott: "Are you suggesting that the creationist term "kinds" is incoherent? Must one accept that "kinds" defined by creationism is in fact coherent before referencing it's claims in a prediction?"
You might have had to but thankfully Thorton let us know that phyla will work just fine. Crisis averted!
Neal said:
ReplyDelete"We don't have to know all the details!"
What, in your opinion, are the details of the origin and diversity of life on this planet?
"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?"
And what happens when the details of your chosen religion are falsified? Most or all of the "details" of your religion, as stated in the bible, are absolute fairy tale crap, and anyone with the slightest amount of common sense knows it, but I doubt that you or any other christian would accept or admit that that falsifies your entire religion.
If you expect the ToE to be thrown out on the basis of a falsification of one or several particulars (details) then you should throw out your religious beliefs on the same basis. You don't want to be accused of having double standards, do you?
"Why should a theory get such automatic immunization from criticism?"
The ToE (or anything else in science) is not immunized against reasonable, informed criticism. What you and other religious zealots assert though is not reasonable, informed criticism. It's just malicious attacks that are based on your fear that science has shown and will continue to show your beliefs to be completely imaginary and non-evidential.
"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."
You must be joking. Why don't you be honest and admit that you desperately want your religious beliefs to be THE ONLY "solution" that is even considered and accepted.
"In fact, good scientific methodology should be unbiased in its testing to proactively look for problems and issues."
And that's exactly what good science does. It's you religious zealots who want your biased religious agenda to be THE ONLY "methodology".
Tell me, what problems and issues are religious zealots proactively looking for and testing scientifically?
Also, please show me the unbiased scientific methodology used to verify the alleged creation (by your chosen god) of the universe, the alleged creation of humans, the alleged creation of eve from a rib from adam, the alleged creation and intentional, designed diversification of all other organisms, the verification of an alleged talking snake, the verification of a person allegedly being turned into a pillar of salt, the verification of a sea allegedly being parted, the verification of the alleged existence of a guy named jesus, the alleged resurrection of a guy named jesus, the alleged immaculate conception, the verification of people allegedly living for several hundred years, the verification of an alleged world wide flood, the alleged ark, alleged dinosaurs on the ark, and allegedly two of every creature on the ark, and the verification of alleged miracles.
I'd really like to see the details of the unbiased scientific methodology used to determine the alleged veracity of your or anyone else's religious beliefs.
This is just too funny! John the Liar for Jesus had his bluff called and FAILED miserably, has a few dozen cartons' worth of egg on his face, but his ego just won't let him shut up!
ReplyDeleteKeep blithering there John-boy. Tell us how you falsified modern ToE but ToE is still unfalsifiable. Tell us how you can't define a 'kind' but yet you can. Tell us how you can provide positive evidence for the magic barrier that makes macro-evolution impossible but can't do it.
Mouthy ignorant Creationists like you are a dime a dozen Liar for Jesus John. If you're going to be the new board clown with your childish rhetoric, at least try to be original.
John the Liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton :"If you found vastly different incompatible DNA (with vastly different chemistry perhaps) in different phyla you would have a good argument for falsifying ToE."
Unbelievable. So it was phyla after all? Are you sure this time?
Wow John-boy, you just can't stop lying even for one post. Natschuster asked the question about finding different DNA in different phyla, not me. I merely answered his question. Maybe you should follow him around for a while, lie about and twist what he says too just for variety.
Scott: "I've pointed out several times that Instrumentalism isn't necessarily in opposition to objective reality, yet it still represents an alternative"
ReplyDeleteJohn: How would you know?
Know the definition of instrumentalism? John, It's a reasonably well defined position one can hold on what is or is not science. I've already illustrated how many physicists hold this position in regards to the wave function found in the >Copenhagen interoperation of quantum mechanics. It's right there in the Wikipeida entry.
It's a highly successful scientific theory in terms of modeling and predicting phenomena, yet it denies specific aspects of it represent objective reality.
I'm asking if you share that scientific criteria in regards to origins and science. Specifically, could we have a scientific theory of origins that was highly successful in modeling and predicting the biological complexity we observe, yet deny aspects of this same model was anything more than a theoretical concept, or was at least non-committal about it representing objective reality.
Do you separate the two in the case of origins as most physicists do in regards to quantum mechanics?
John: Ok, then what is the position that decides not to eschew objective reality? Does that have a name, cause I think I would be that. Does this make me not an instrumentalist?
John, an instrumentalist position doesn't deny objective reality exists. Rather it says that science is limited in that it can only create accurate models and predictions, which do not necessarily represent objective reality. It disconnects these two things for the sake of making scientific progress. Again, see quantum mechanics.
John: Again, I don't understand how those things could be different. Are the phenomena non-real?
Gee John, that's the question I'm asking you.
John: I want to know what happened in objective reality. Does that make me an instrumentalist or not?
I'm sure Instrumentalists want to know as well. However an Instrumentalist position on a particular subject assumes that science is limited to successfully modeling and predicating phenomena. This is due to limits based on the scientific value they place on what they define as un-observed theoretical entities or concepts that are key to that theory.
Returning to QM, the wave function has limited value because it is defined as an un-observed theoretical entity.
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]
You might want to look at the Wikipedia definition of Logical positivism
The whole truth,
ReplyDeleteYour just deflecting.
Creation by an eternal God is the best explanation as to the origin of the universe. It is a very reasonable starting point that can lead one to God. Creation by nothing and such are absurd alternatives.
The historical method does not use the same approach as the scientific methodology utilized within the fields of biology and physics. So asking for it regarding historical characters shows a basic misunderstanding of the purpose and extent of scientific methodology.
You're also showing a misunderstanding of some scriptures (i.e. "talking snake", etc). LOL
Scott said, "However, for much of this time, we have no direct observations of gravity"
ReplyDeleteHogwash.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteYou might want to start out with a more complete quote. Then again, you'd probably rather not. For the sake of clarity...
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.
If this is hogwash, then please enlighten us as to who was performing these direct observations for the majority of these 13+ billion years?
And while we're at it, exactly what is a direct observation, anyway?
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteYou're also showing a misunderstanding of some scriptures (i.e. "talking snake", etc).
Another Christian who doesn't know his own Bible.
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.
What part of that did he misunderstand?
Scott, you're making a mockery of astrophysics. Your attempt to dumb down astrophysics to prop up evolutionary biology is a dead-end argument.
ReplyDeleteProjections and predictions involving space travel and the orbits of satellites and celestial objects based on our understanding of gravity is highly accurate.
Evolutionists having nothing that approaches this. As the research mentioned previously points out, "http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/22/1014503108.abstract?sid=64bdb9d8-523b-470b-b777-1652fa359f5a
"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. "
The changes we see now are the "non-stick" variety that don't lead to big changes. We are assured that the big changes a million years ago happened by evolutionary processes. How do we know? The "tree of life" says so. Given the recent plagues of problems with the TOL, this is absolutely devastating research to all the evolutionary examples that are hyped.
So much for the finch beaks and big tomatoes... can't use them anymore to show the path of big picture evolution.("BOUNDED")
"rare but substantial BURSTS of phenotypic change with BOUNDED fluctuations on shorter timescales"
Just what creationists have said for the last 3,500 years.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDelete"rare but substantial BURSTS of phenotypic change with BOUNDED fluctuations on shorter timescales"
Just what creationists have said for the last 3,500 years.
Really Tedford? Creationists for the last 3500 years have been saying that the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of evolution going back at least 360 million years is correct?
Who'd have thought.
The whole truth: And what happens when the details of your chosen religion are falsified? Most or all of the "details" of your religion, as stated in the bible, are absolute fairy tale crap, and anyone with the slightest amount of common sense knows it, but I doubt that you or any other christian would accept or admit that that falsifies your entire religion.
ReplyDeleteBut we can be more specific and objective that this. The details of Neal's theological views on origins are easy to vary and are very shallow. As such, we can objectively say they represent a bad explanation for the biological complexity we observe.
By nature of being based on prophecy and divine revelation, they are concerned about what we will experience, which disconnects them from a specific means by which they are brought about.
These are two side of the same coin.
Prophecy that a man would leave the country could be varied to represent floating off shore beyond territorial waters, being on a domestic flight that is hijacked to an international destination, or even dying and having his body shipped to his home town on that hijacked domestic flight. It's easy to vary.
it's about what we'll experience, rather than a particular expiation of how things *are*, in reality.
Our explanation for our relatively recent jump in our ability to create knowledge is a tendency to seek better explanations for phenomena which are deep and hard to vary, which leads to better question, etc. And why would this lead us to creating more knowledge?
To quote David Deutsch...
That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It's a fact that is, itself, unseen, yet impossible to vary.
In other words, this explanation is highly falsifiable because it's impossible to vary.
To illustrate this point, if you have a box that contains 2 cupcakes. Then you latter add 2 more cupcakes you'd expect to have 4 cupcakes in the box. However, if this wasn't' the case, would you say that 2+2 = 4 has been falsified?
No, you'd mostly likely conclude that the cupcake box has been falsified as accurately representing the process of addition. This is because 2+2=4 is an example of a explanation that is essentially impossible to vary.
However, I'd guess that Neal has no explanation for our recent growth in creation knowledge beyond a possible vague "desire to study God's creation."
Neal,
ReplyDeleteAs I expect, you didn't answer either of my questions.
Are you retracting your "hogwash" claim? or trying to change the subject?
Scott, no. Still hogwash.
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteScott, no. Still an idiot making the baseless and unsupported assertion that it's hogwash.
Fixed it for you Tedford.
Again, Neal, what's hogwash about it?
ReplyDeleteIt merely conflicts with your intuition of how you justify conclusions?
Was it God who directly observed gravity over the majority of those 13+ billion years and then informed you of it though your preferred holy book?
"Hogwash" simply doesn't cut it.
Perhaps you think such a belief is justified based on your theological belief that God creating gravity as a secondary cause so human beings can exist on earth - therefore it's uniform natural force?
Such a justification wouldn't be induction. it would be placing divine revelation over indiction. Gravity would be uniform across time and space because God supposedly wants it to be uniform across time and space. And what supposedly God wants God supposedly gets.
Should you hold this view, exactly where is induction is found in this line of justification?
John: Yes, he is now. It's called goal post moving. But I won't accuse him of the additions you made.
ReplyDeleteNo, he's not moving the goal posts. Rather, you're evaluating the prediction in isolation from it's underlying explanation: random mutation and natural selection.
In case it's not clear, I'm asking if you're an instrumentalist because you appear to be evaluating the prediction of having compatible DNA in a manner that is independent from whether the underlying explanation the prediction it's founded on in the first place is objectively true, in reality.
Instead, you seem to be merely attacking a theory you personally object to by "slinging mud at it"
Again, to quote my previous comment…
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.
In over words, you keep saying that instrumentalism appears incoherent, yet you seem to be interpreting this particular prediction in a manner that you yourself have defined as incoherent.
This Is why I keep asking for clarification.
So my question is this…Can we evaluate predictions as if the underlying explanation for that prediction isn't objectively true in reality?
If not, then wouldn't we need to take the underlying explanation for that prediction - along with the rest of our best explanations of today - into account by assuming they represent objective reality and that all observations should conform to them?
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThe whole truth,
Your just deflecting.
Creation by an eternal God is the best explanation as to the origin of the universe. It is a very reasonable starting point that can lead one to God. Creation by nothing and such are absurd alternatives.
The historical method does not use the same approach as the scientific methodology utilized within the fields of biology and physics. So asking for it regarding historical characters shows a basic misunderstanding of the purpose and extent of scientific methodology.
You're also showing a misunderstanding of some scriptures (i.e. "talking snake", etc). LOL
---------------------------------------------
Neal, I'm not deflecting, you are.
Creation by a god may be the "best explanation" in your unsupported opinion, but it is not the "best explanation", scientifically. It is not an explanation at all, scientifically.
This blog and participants like you attack science, and you constantly harp on scientific methodology, and it is you who expects perfect answers about life and our universe to be revealed through a credible scientific methodology, but even if the answers were perfect and were all available right now you would dismiss them anyway. You condemn well established scientific methodology and want to throw it out and replace it with some sort of religious agenda. It ain't gonna happen.
We're not talking about history, at least not in the sense that you're bringing it up. Science is science. It is not religion. It is not about historical characters. This site isn't about historical characters, at least not openly.
You obviously see science, and especially the ToE, as a challenge to your religious beliefs, even though you enjoy and take advantage of many things that science has figured out and made available. If you're going to challenge science and the ToE, you should use scientific methodology, scientifically testable evidence, and sound scientific arguments to do so. Arguing against science with religious beliefs is a lost cause.
Regarding the "historical method": Your assertions about the existence of a god or any other religious mumbo jumbo are only "historical" in the sense that some people have believed that stuff for a long time, but there's no historical evidence (or any other kind of evidence) that verifies the existence of any god. A good historical method is a lot like a good scientific method. It relies on facts, which are based on evidence. Religious beliefs are not evidence or facts.
Of course you have the right to imagine and believe whatever you want but you should realize that science doesn't care what you imagine and believe.
Thorton: "Natschuster asked the question about finding different DNA in different phyla, not me. I merely answered his question."
ReplyDeleteWho asked this question is irrelevant to the truth of the answer.
Scott: "I've pointed out several times that Instrumentalism isn't necessarily in opposition to objective reality, yet it still represents an alternative"
ReplyDeleteJohn: "How would you know?"
Scott: "Know the definition of instrumentalism?"
No, how could you know it represents an alternative to something without being aware it is an alternative to anything?
Scott: "Instrumentalism is a position of science that intentionally DECIDES TO ESCHEW OBJECTIVE REALITY while favoring accurate models and predictions of phenomena."
John: "Ok, then what is the position that DECIDES NOT TO ESCHEW OBJECTIVE REALITY?"
Scott: "John, an instrumentalist position doesn't deny objective reality exists."
I thought if I used your own terms it would be helpful. Sometimes it seems like you're trying to misunderstand me.
Scott: "Rather it says that science is limited in that it can only create accurate models and predictions, which do not necessarily represent objective reality. It disconnects these two things for the sake of making scientific progress."
Wouldn't that just make progress a model or prediction that more accurately represented objective reality? You see my difficulty?
John: "Again, I don't understand how those things could be different. Are the phenomena non-real?"
Scott: "Gee John, that's the question I'm asking you."
Then of the two sentences of mine that you quoted, my answer would be the first one wouldn't it?. I'll rephrase just to be sure; I believe phenomena are.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Natschuster asked the question about finding different DNA in different phyla, not me. I merely answered his question."
Who asked this question is irrelevant to the truth of the answer.
It's not irrelevant when you falsely accused me of being the one who introduced 'phyla' as an equivalent to 'kind', then used that lie to claim I was moving goalposts.
Keep lying with every post John-boy. You make Creationists look mighty fine.
John: No, how could you know it represents an alternative to something without being aware it is an alternative to anything?
ReplyDeleteJohn, instrumentalism is, in part, a definition of what is or is not science. I'm asking if you hold a similar distinction between what is or is not science in the case of origins. That is a scientific theory can be highly successful while containing key concept or theoretical elements that are not scientifically accepted as reflecting objective reality.
However, I'm having difficult with your response, as it seems to suggest your acceptance is somehow contingent on whether there are other opposing positions on what is or is not science, or whether observations are somehow in opposition to what instrumentalism defines as science and what instrumentalism does not define as science. But this doesn't seem to make much sense. In other words, either of these criteria seem to claim something should be evaluated by A instead of B without having a way to define B.
In the case of the latter, how would we determine if these theoretical entities and models - which are claimed to be scientific by instrumentalism since they allow for highly accurate modeling and prediction of phenomena - are in opposition to objective reality? In fact, the reason why quantum physicists suggest the wave function in QM is not a representation of objective reality is because [1] they consider it an "unobservable" by the definition of logical positivism and [2] it seemed to conflict with their intuitions about objective reality.
Einstein made two famous objections to the acceptance of the wave function as objective reality..
"I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"
Bohr, who developed the CIoQM along with Hesenburg, replied, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".
Yet Bohr, wanted to make scientific process. And QM has been extremely successful in modeling and predicting phenomena, which is exactly what the term "instrumentalism" refers to. In the case of the CIoQM, the wave function is merely an scientific instrument to determine how we can truly make progress, not necessarily revealing what is true in objective reality.
I'd note that some of these conflicts that Einstein was referring to have been resolved by treating the observer as a non-classical as well as the observed. However, this doesn't change the fact that Bohr's position on QM represented instrumentalism for reasons which I've already illustrated.
Scott: "John, an instrumentalist position doesn't deny objective reality exists."
ReplyDeleteJohn: I thought if I used your own terms it would be helpful. Sometimes it seems like you're trying to misunderstand me.
No, I'm being precise, which is necessary when describing different philosophies of science and different philosophies in general.
For example, did you mean eschew objective reality in the case of scientific "T" terms in as defined in instrumentalism? That objective reality exists, but science cannot say anything about it? Or that objective reality doesn't actually exist at all, which means that there would be nothing for science to say anything about objective reality in the first place?
Rather, it seems that you're being intentionally evasive as if you have no well defined definition of what is or is not science and/or reality, or that you're attempting to hide your true criteria of justifying conclusions.
John: Wouldn't that just make progress a model or prediction that more accurately represented objective reality? You see my difficulty?
Please seem my previous comment. Can we make scientific progress without necessarily revealing objective reality in the case of the wave function in QM? Bohr seemed to think so. Einstein didn't.
In contrast to Bohr's interpretation of QM, Einstein assumed space-time really does warp in the presence of mass in objective reality, despite the fact that we cannot actually "observe" space-time warping. This unobserved assumption was the underlying explanation behind his prediction of the variation of Mercury's orbit. As such, to evaluate them independently would be a mistake.
John: I'll rephrase just to be sure; I believe phenomena are.
That's an incomplete sentence. Exactly what is it that you believe phenomena are, John? Again, it would seem you lack a comprehensive position.
I wrote: Einstein made two famous objections to the acceptance of the wave function as objective reality..
ReplyDeleteIn case it's not clear, Einstein wasn't an instrumentalist. He objected to the CIoQM as a whole because he thought the wave function did not represent objective reality.
The whole truth,
ReplyDeleteI rejected evolution BEFORE I had faith in God because it fails as a scientific theory. One doesn't need an alternative theory to call out ToE as a failed theory. It's a theory that was born out of ignorance of biology and weaned among the social elites because they wanted it to be true. Like other failed theories of the past that have become bloated by an ever increasing pile of exceptions and anomalies it is ready for the dust bin of history. This past decade has not been good for evolution.
Neo-Darwinism probably won't survive another decade. Perhaps that is too generous a timeframe. Perhaps the ideas of evolutionist Shapiro or Wallace will temporarily replace neo-darwinism among the elite class looking for an alternative to special creation.
(http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.1997.BostonReview1997.ThirdWay.pdf)
Neo-Darwinists will become as scarce as Nazis in post WWII Germany.
I would recommend the above link by Shapiro to the evolutionists on this blog. Perhaps we can stop arguing about outdated stuff that Dawkins and his fellow commrades are clinging to and at least move into the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteScott: "That's an incomplete sentence."
ReplyDeleteIs it?
Neal Tedford: Neo-Darwinism probably won't survive another decade.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean the views of Fisher et al. from the 1930's? Evolutionary biology has come a long way since then.
Zachriel, welcome back... I mean gradualism, ns+rm, and such. Biology has come a long way since then, but evolutionary biology really hasn't. I mean they have a lot of new buzz words that ultimately have no real value and more questions and issues than ever before. Did you read Shapiro's article from the link above. Do you agree with him?
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteNeo-Darwinism probably won't survive another decade.
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
Creationists have been predicting the imminent collapse of the Theory of Evolution since at least 1860. You'd think the morons would have learned by now...
Scott: "That's an incomplete sentence."
ReplyDeleteJohn: Is it?
For the purpose of whether you're an instrumentalist or not, yes it is.
Scott: "No, he's not moving the goal posts.
ReplyDeleteYes he has already.
Scott: "Rather, you're evaluating the prediction in isolation from it's underlying explanation: random mutation and natural selection."
It is possible that Thorton did not originally consider a version of the underlying explanation that you would have found sufficient. But that's one reason why people move goal posts. In any case, it's not my job to divine what Thorton thought would explain why different 'kinds' would not have incompatible DNA.
Scott: "In case it's not clear, I'm asking if you're an instrumentalist because you appear to be evaluating the prediction of having compatible DNA in a manner that is independent from whether the underlying explanation the prediction it's founded on in the first place is objectively true, in reality."
You're equivocating. You can pretend that the paper he cited was Thorton's original theory all along if you want (even though it tells 3 different stories), but if so, you'll have to explain why he thought incompatible DNA in different 'kinds' would falsify ToE, as according to the paper, it doesn't
"It's a theory that was born out of ignorance of biology and weaned among the social elites because they wanted it to be true. Like other failed theories of the past that have become bloated by an ever increasing pile of exceptions and anomalies it is ready for the dust bin of history."
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a pretty good description of religions.
Thorton: "It's not irrelevant when you falsely accused me of being the one who introduced 'phyla' as an equivalent to 'kind', then used that lie to claim I was moving goalposts."
ReplyDeleteI never claimed you introduced it. I claimed you, "switched to phyla", "you've changed from 'kind' to phyla", and used "the word 'kind' when they were thinking about phyla". No where did I say you used the word phyla first or introduced it.
Anyone can see from your response to nat, that you were just being obtuse in your claims that I needed to define 'kinds' when you show that phyla was just fine. Thanks again!
And it's not just making ME define 'kinds' for the record, you've added "vastly different incompatible DNA (with vastly different chemistry perhaps)" in place of "incompatible forms of DNA" which was what you stated originally.
So you moved the goalposts twice, and lied about me lying again.
John: It is possible that Thorton did not originally consider a version of the underlying explanation that you would have found sufficient.
ReplyDeleteGee, John, why don't you just ask Thorton? Oh that's right, you'd probably rather just assume he didn't.
John: You're equivocating.
Exactly what term am I equivocating? Please be specific.
John: You can pretend that the paper he cited was Thorton's original theory all along if you want (even though it tells 3 different stories), but if so, you'll have to explain why he thought incompatible DNA in different 'kinds' would falsify ToE, as according to the paper, it doesn't.
As I've pointed out earlier, what Thorton actually thought is irrelevant. This is because Neo-Darwinism's underlying explanation for the particular form of DNA wouldn't change based on what Thorton did or did not think. Of course, you've already demonstrated you're not actually interested in engaging the theory itself, so this would come as no surprise.
Scott: "So my question is this…Can we evaluate predictions as if the underlying explanation for that prediction isn't objectively true in reality?
ReplyDeleteIf not, then wouldn't we need to take the underlying explanation for that prediction - along with the rest of our best explanations of today - into account by assuming they represent objective reality and that all observations should conform to them?"
Scott, I'm pretty sure you know that when someone moves the goalposts due to uncooperative data and then cites a paper positing explanations for said data, it's pretty silly to claim his opponents haven't evaluated the explanations made by the paper, and how AMAZINGLY they predict just where the goalposts now sit!
To bad you said all that instead of first clarifying which theory I was evaluating. Man, what a weight off your shoulders right?
Scott: "Gee, John, why don't you just ask Thorton? Oh that's right, you'd probably rather just assume he didn't."
ReplyDeleteIt's irrelevant to me because whatever it was, he used it to come up with a criteria that was testable. To be honest, since he provided no in depth reason for why he thought this, only Thorton knows for sure what got falsified. But, one thing we all know for sure, it wasn't the *REAL* ToE. :D
Scott: "Exactly what term am I equivocating? Please be specific."
No term specifically, but you are drawing a line from my reasoning (about the old criteria) back to the new theory which we all know points to the new criteria.
Scott: "As I've pointed out earlier, what Thorton actually thought is irrelevant. This is because Neo-Darwinism's underlying explanation for the particular form of DNA wouldn't change based on what Thorton did or did not think.
Scott, not everyone would just assume that what you think is the right version of Neo-Darwinism is truly what happened. Thorton has the right to make his own falsification criteria for the way he sees ToE... be that Neo-Darwinism or whatever version he chooses. Your claim is that I should have known the version you claim is the authority is the REAL version, and not faulted Thorton for not adhering to it while developing his criteria.
Scott: "Of course, you've already demonstrated you're not actually interested in engaging the theory itself, so this would come as no surprise."
I'll bet that YOUR theory of Neo-Darwinism is THE theory right?
I believe phenomena were, I believe phenomena are, and I believe phenomena will be. They are becoming. Isn't this the philosopher talk you like?
ReplyDeleteIf you can't dazzle them with brilliance, eh John?
ReplyDeleteOn another note entirely, I'm happy to see that my conversational seed has borne such rich and interesting fruit. I knew that if I could just get people talking about anything, anything at all, someone would eventually say something controversial enough to kick start a debate.
ReplyDeleteJohn the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteScott: "Gee, John, why don't you just ask Thorton? Oh that's right, you'd probably rather just assume he didn't."
It's irrelevant to me
Of course it's irrelevant to you liar John because all you want to do is continue you childish semantic games. You didn't want any clarification because then you couldn't dishonestly twist words and lie about what was said. What a clever clever little Creationist you are for sure! How will modern evolutionary theory ever withstand your mighty rhetorical onslaught?
When you get tired of patting yourself on the back, maybe you could finally demonstrate the magic barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary change to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones. You know, the one you bragged about having but keep avoiding? Don't do it for me lazy boy, do it for the lurkers. Do it for the good of all science.
Time to put up or shut up liar John. But you won't, because you're just another boring Creationist liar and fraud.
Venture Free said...
ReplyDeleteOn another note entirely, I'm happy to see that my conversational seed has borne such rich and interesting fruit.
LOL! I don't know about the 'rich and interesting' part. Dealing with our new oh so clever Creationist John-boy here seems more like scraping the dog dirt off the bottom of your shoe.
Thorton: "How will modern evolutionary theory ever withstand your mighty rhetorical onslaught"
ReplyDeleteGoalpost moving and appeals to authority seem to be working quite well. Maybe its proponents will resort to insult and rhetoric when their predictions fail. Who knows!
Hey liar for Jesus John, you forgot to demonstrate the magic barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary change to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones. You know, the one you bragged about having but keep avoiding? Don't do it for me lazy boy, do it for the lurkers. Do it for the good of all science.
ReplyDeletePut up or shut up John-boy.
Neal Tedford: I mean gradualism, ns+rm, and such. Biology has come a long way since then, but evolutionary biology really hasn't.
ReplyDeleteSure it has. Neo-Darwinism was developed 80 years ago. They hadn't even determined the molecular basis of heredity at that point, but they knew about genes as a particulate unit of heredity. Evolutionary biology has changed remarkably since then. For a simple instance, the study of complex systems leads us to say that most changes in evolution are small, some a bit more sudden, along with the rare revolution. This statement is completely consistent even with a naïve view of neo-Darwinism, and furthermore, even with Darwin's original theory.
Neal Tedford: Did you read Shapiro's article from the link above. Do you agree with him?
To be honest, we're not sure of Shapiro's point. He seems to be saying that people shouldn't be stuck in the past, and should be open to new ideas. Hard to argue with that. However, non-Darwinian mechanisms have been under investigation generations, so it's not as if scientists are ignoring the question. He seems to mostly rail against simplified views of evolution, such as we might see in evolutionary algorithms, gene, mutation, selection, drift. But this, like Bohr's atom, are useful tools for teaching and understanding—as long as we remember that they are simplified models.
Thorton: "Of course it's irrelevant to you liar John because all you want to do is continue you childish semantic games"
ReplyDeleteNo, it's irrelevant to me, because I don't care which version of a discredited theory you wish to dispose of in light of the evidence. Is it relevant to you whether I believe in a pre-trib or post-trib rapture before you can evaluate predictions I might make about Christian eschatology? NO because you consider it all crap. Well, newsflash, it's no responsibility of mine to make sure you're toeing the Neo-Darwinist party line of the month or are doing your own thinking before I evaluate your predictions either. Apparently I respect you MORE THAN YOU DO! You don't need their gold stars Thorton. Besides, before the evidence came in, they believed the same thing. It's in the very first sentence of the article. You shouldn't think it was an unreasonable assumption, and you certainly can't fault me for thinking you may have been clinging to ToE because of it.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Of course it's irrelevant to you liar John because all you want to do is continue you childish semantic games"
No, it's irrelevant to me, because I don't care which version of a discredited theory you wish to dispose of in light of the evidence.
"In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." --William J. Bennetta
John the liar for Jesus stays true to Creationist form. Great job showing the world just how disgustingly dishonest you Creationist clowns can be.
BTW liar for Jesus John, you forgot AGAIN to demonstrate the magic barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary change to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones. You know, the one you bragged about having but keep avoiding? Don't do it for me lazy boy, do it for the lurkers. Do it for the good of all science
ReplyDeleteC'mon John-boy, make good on your big mouthed claim. Why do you keep stalling?
On closer inspection, it appears that you're attempting to conflate a prediction with it's underlying explanation. You wrote...
ReplyDeleteJohn: You can pretend that the paper he cited was Thorton's original theory all along if you want (even though it tells 3 different stories), but if so, you'll have to explain why he thought incompatible DNA in different 'kinds' would falsify ToE, as according to the paper, it doesn't.
But these are two different things. Non-Instrumentalist predictions are formed based on our explanation of how things *are* in objective reality, not what we'll experience. As such, you sill seem to be holding an instrumentalist approach to origins or even science as a whole.
To return to Einstein's theory of GR, the prediction of Mercury's orbit was based on the unseen explanation that space-time warps in the presence of mass, in objective reality. However, this is focused on one specific explanation in one specific area of objective reality. Nor does it claim to take into account a near infinite number of un-conceived possibilities about how other things *are.* That would be prophecy.
For example, at some point in the future we might discover some other material that has a mediating effect on mass based on some unseen explanation. How we proceed again depends on whether we take an instrumentalist approach or not. If we assume that both space-time warps in the presence of mass, in objective reality, and that this unseen force actually mediates mass, in objective realty, then the way things *are* will change what we will experience. However, it would not necessarily falsify GR.
To rephrase, if we really want to seriously engage GR, we'd have to assume both GR and this mass mediating theory are true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to them. Should observations collaborate our new best explanation for how things *are* this means our predictions would change with out falsifying these theories.
However, in the case of modern evolutionary theory, you don't seem to be interested in this in the case of the least. Rather you seem to merely attacking a theory you personally disagree with.
Why do you expect us to take your arguments seriously?
John: No, it's irrelevant to me, because I don't care which version of a discredited theory you wish to dispose of in light of the evidence.
ReplyDeleteTranslated. I don't care about seriously engaging evolutionary theory.
Need you say more?
John: It's irrelevant to me because whatever it was, he used it to come up with a criteria that was testable.
ReplyDeleteJohn, this is a common attack vector by creationists, which has probably occurred here several times. As such, it's unlikely that Thoron wasn't aware.
However, my point is that whether Thoron knew or not was irrelevant. This is because Thoron, like all scientists, is not an omniscient being. Nor is evolutionary theory based on special communication from a being that has foreknowledge of what we will experience or the ability to overcome any logically possible counter force. As such, he cannot account for an infinite number of un-conceived explanations of how things *are* when making predictions.
Yet you seem to demand that we do just this.
There is little difference between having a divine revelation-sized hole in one's scheme of things and believing divine revelation is a valid means of justifying conclusions.
Scott: "Exactly what term am I equivocating? Please be specific."
John: No term specifically, but you are drawing a line from my reasoning (about the old criteria) back to the new theory which we all know points to the new criteria.
I'm making a relevant point about the relationship between how we evaluate criteria of a theory and and instrumentalist approach to science. This isn't equivocation. It's an argument.
John: I'll bet that YOUR theory of Neo-Darwinism is THE theory right?
Again, that depends on whether one is an instrumentalist or not. Apparently, you cannot or refuse to see the connection between the two.
Thorton: "Hey liar for Jesus John, you forgot to demonstrate the magic barrier that makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary change to accumulate into macro-evolutionary ones. You know, the one you bragged about having but keep avoiding?"
ReplyDeleteJohn: "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."
As you can see, I did not brag about having one. I'll repeat it for you, "This statement does not take a position either way. It is known as a hypothetical." The point is, why are you asking for evidence when you don't care about evidence?
But if you must know, I personally see no reason all the atoms in your body couldn't have spontaneously come together just seconds ago. More likely than this is the chance that you could have been birthed by an ape with the right macro mutations and probably much less help from the previous spontaneous atom arrival theory. In no case could I disprove this idea. So according to the laws of physics, your second criteria is probably safe from falsification.
Scott: "Why do you expect us to take your arguments seriously?"
ReplyDeleteI guess if he says X will falsify theory Y, and I provide X and it doesn't falsify theory Y, the I guess I don't expect you have or will take my arguments seriously.
Scott: "Translated. I don't care about seriously engaging evolutionary theory.
Need you say more?"
Will you keep mistranslating it if I do?
Scott: "John, this is a common attack vector by creationists, which has probably occurred here several times. As such, it's unlikely that Thoron wasn't aware."
You would think.
Scott: "As such, he cannot account for an infinite number of un-conceived explanations of how things *are* when making predictions.
Yet you seem to demand that we do just this."
I did not demand it, he offered it, here;
Thorton: "ToE is quite falsifiable. Finding multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it."
So is it falsifiable or not?
John: I'll bet that YOUR theory of Neo-Darwinism is THE theory right?
Scott: "Again, that depends on whether one is an instrumentalist or not. Apparently, you cannot or refuse to see the connection between the two."
Intriguing. So which position on instrumentalism would choose to consider your theory as authoritative over Thorton's? Since you've not described yours (besides RMNS, which I assume Thorton also accepts), I don't see how I could have done this anyway.
In an attempt to clarify….
ReplyDeleteTo contrast the warping of space-time in GR, the wave function in the Copenhagen interoperation of QM has no unseen, yet objective reality counterpart. It's merely instrument to create more accurate models of observed phenomena and describes what we'll would experience, not present an explanation of how things *are* in reality. The moon would merely seem to not be there when no one isn't looking at it, rather than actually not be there in objective reality, when not observed.
In other words, in a non-instrumentalist position, If all of the particles of the moon became a wave when no one was observing it, in reality, this would have consequences, in reality. But the CIoQM doesn't think this actually occurs. We'd have no way of connecting the theory's explanation to changes in the rest of our best explanation of how things *are*, in reality, and the wave function.
As such, we'd need to evaluate it's predictions differently.
Of course, I'd agree with Thorton in that we only tentatively hold these explanations as how things *are* in objective reality. Future observations may require modifications or entirely new explanations. But this does not mean that we should not assume they are true, in objective realty, for the purpose of evaluating predictions. To do otherwise represents an instrumentalist position or confuses scientific predictions with prophecy.
In fact, I'd suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia entires for Fallibilism and Critical Rationalism for further reference.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteScott: "Why do you expect us to take your arguments seriously?"
I guess if he says X will falsify theory Y, and I provide X and it doesn't falsify theory Y, the I guess I don't expect you have or will take my arguments seriously.
Problem is liar you didn't provide X. You provided Z and claimed it was X, despite being shown the scientific references that prove you wrong. Now all you can do is continue to lie about the events despite being corrected half a dozen times. You're a Creationist, so lying comes easy to you.
Your latest hand-waving excuse about why you can't back up your big bluster about the magic barrier to macro-evolution is a beaut too. You're doing a great job being the new board clown here John-boy. That big red nose fits you perfectly.
John: I guess if he says X will falsify theory Y, and I provide X and it doesn't falsify theory Y, the I guess I don't expect you have or will take my arguments seriously.
ReplyDeleteI'm pointing out problems in our argument in regards to the problem of induction, instrumentalism etc., which you seem to keep ignoring or evading. As such, it appears that you're "serious" about attacking a theory that disagrees with your personal theology by what ever means necessary.
John: Will you keep mistranslating it if I do?
So, John, what part of No, it's irrelevant to me, because I don't care which version of a discredited theory you wish to dispose of in light of the evidence. suggests you're actually interested in engaging evolutionary theory? Please be specific.
John: I did not demand it, he offered it, here;
Your continued and transparent presentation of this simplistic view of scientific predictions suggests further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.
In addition to the links above, take a look at the Philosophy of Science entry on Wilkipedia or the Scientific Progress section of the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Come back when you've determined if your an instrumentalist, and if not, what your position is.
If you don't take your own argument seriously, it's unclear why you'd expect me to take it seriously as well.
Zachriel, biology has advanced and evolution has moved beyond some of the bizarre concepts of Charles Darwin (like pangenesis, black people being between gorillas and white Englishmen, and women being inferior to men, etc). What evolution has done is merely accommodate advances in biology to its interpretation of the data.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the fossil record doesn't show gradualism. What to do? Assume evolution is still a fact, and make up a term called punctuated equilibrium. Change the expectation to perserve the fact. So the evidence points to the original creationist expectation, but since that is not allowed, evolution is accommodated.
I really believe that if a herd of buffalo fossils were found in the Cambrian layer, evolution would still be regarded as a fact by its devotees.
Bobby get's a 0% on a test, but instead of giving him an F, the teacher changes the grading scale so that 0% is still an A+. Bobby is no longer failing, but a great student.
Scott do you take these philosophical rabbit trails with Alice in Wonderland because you don't want to discuss the objective evidence against evolution theory?
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteFor example, the fossil record doesn't show gradualism.
Yes idiot, it does. Some lineages show long term gradualism, some lineages show punk eek. Science has known for decades that evolution does not always proceed at the same rate across every species, that it depends on many factors like the rate of environmental change too.
See, when that's your best "objective evidence against evolution theory" why are you surprised when you're considered an idiot?
John: I guess if he says X will falsify theory Y, and I provide X and it doesn't falsify theory Y, the I guess I don't expect you have or will take my arguments seriously.
ReplyDeleteA theory is a framework comprising a number of interrelated scientific claims. Even assuming you provide a falsification of *a* theory of evolution doesn't mean that *all* evolutionary theories are falsified, especially as evolutionary theory has historical aspects. It may just mean a modification of the current framework.
Neal Tedford biology has advanced and evolution has moved beyond some of the bizarre concepts of Charles Darwin (like pangenesis, black people being between gorillas and white Englishmen,
Supposed racial differences weren't findings of Charles Darwin, and pangenesis was a speculative hypothesis distinct from the Theory of Evolution.
Neal Tedford For example, the fossil record doesn't show gradualism.
Sure it does, though not for every transition—nor would we expect it to.
Neal Tedford What to do? Assume evolution is still a fact, and make up a term called punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium is distinct from saltationism, and generally refers to relatively rapid cladogenesis, but the overall pattern is still one of gradual change, with changes occurring in small, isolated populations over a number of generations.
"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." — Charles Darwin
Neal Tedford So the evidence points to the original creationist expectation, but since that is not allowed, evolution is accommodated.
No. Creationism doesn't explain a nested hierarchy of diverging forms through hundreds of millions of years of geological history.
Neal Tedford I really believe that if a herd of buffalo fossils were found in the Cambrian layer, evolution would still be regarded as a fact by its devotees.
Then your belief is inaccurate. This is something we can predict. You won't find buffalo fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata. No bovids are found before the first Artiodactyla. No Artiodactyla are found before the first mammals. If buffalo were found in Cambrian strata, they would predate any plausible ancestor.
John: So which position on instrumentalism would choose to consider your theory as authoritative over Thorton's?
ReplyDeleteYou're conflating theories and predictions again. Thorton provided a prediction, which you've chosen to evaluate in isolation from the underlying theory it was based on. I'm suggesting this is a mistake.
Furthermore, I'm a technologist, in that I solve problems with creative use of technology. As such I'm interested in explanations for our relatively resent explosion in the creation of knowledge. One such explanation presented by David Deutsch is that the physical world consists of unseen, yet hard to vary chains of assertions about reality. If this explanation is true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, then it tells us something about how knowledge is created, in reality.
Darwin had no idea about DNA, but his theory was still fundamentally based on the creation of knowledge in regards to variation between species. This is because Darwin's theory was in contrast to Lamarckian inheritance, which posited a different underlying form of knowledge creation. So, again, I'm suggesting that we better understand Darwin's theory than he did.
However, when I say, "we" I should probably say I'm presenting the commonly accepted theory of Neo-darwinism though Deutsch's wider knowledge-based view of explaining progress in solving problems by preferring deep chains of hard to vary explanations. This includes the creationism section in his recent book, "The Beginning of Infinity." Deutsch is also a Popperian, but likely better understands Karl Popper's theory that he did - just as we now better understand GR better than Einstein did.
However, Thorton may not agree with this sort of knowledge-based view on induction, Critical Rationalism, etc. Nor is writing my forte, so I'm not sure if I've been formulate it effectively here in comments. In fact, Critical Rationalism isn't based on justificaitonism, which you seem to be referring when you asked if my theory was "authoritative".
Rather, I'm suggesting that there is an error in the way you're evaluating predictions of scientific theories. And I've prested an argument to that effect.
Neal: Scott do you take these philosophical rabbit trails with Alice in Wonderland because you don't want to discuss the objective evidence against evolution theory?
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting we can have a reasonable discussion about scientific predictions without first defining what a scientific predictions is, how they are formed, and how they are evaluated?
If so, then you're probably not interested in having a reasonable discussion either.
Zachriel, Punctuated equilibrium is a clever way to justify evolution when the fossil evidence doesn't exist!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the nested hierarchy... where in your hierachy is the sea squirt. Remember, your hierarchy all depends on your selection criteria. Morphology or genetics, or what?
--
Buffalo's in Cambrian? --- Your response is what an evolutionist would say now, but your tune would change like it did for the "exceptions" to the nested hierarchy. Evolution is protected from falsification. Worst case, you would just say that its just something unexplained or a corruption of the fossil record. Kinda of like when soft dinosaur tissue were found. Oh, is was bacteria contamination.... no that was ruled out... well its one of those unexplained things, but look at all the other evidence we have!
Zachriel: This is something we can predict. You won't find buffalo fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata. No bovids are found before the first Artiodactyla. No Artiodactyla are found before the first mammals. If buffalo were found in Cambrian strata, they would predate any plausible ancestor.
ReplyDeleteRight, but this is based on a particular history of how live evolved on our planet. We constantly make revisions to our accepted ancestry, yet this doesn't falsify evolution either. This is because such a prediction doesn't take into account a near infinite number of parallel, yet unrelated possibilities that could cause just this to occur.
For example, aliens could have beamed down those buffalos from orbit during the Cambrian and this still wouldn't change the larger knowledge-based view of how the instructions of how to build buffalos was created in their genome.
Rather it would merely shift the creation of knowledge elsewhere, which is "why aliens did it" is just as much of a bad explanation as "God did it". Did the aliens create the knowledge to create buffalos, or did buffalos evolve on the alien's home planet? How about the knowledge used to create the aliens? Did the they evolve or where they designed instead? If not, what about the knowledge used to design alien's designer, etc.?
In other words, I'd suggest that Neo-Dariwnism is fundamentally an explanation about how knowledge in the genome is created. This is in comparison to "explanations " of Lamarckian inheritance or creationism. Species are different from each other because their genome contains different instructions on how to create different species. How that knowledge was created the question we're trying to answer.
A particular history falls under the umbrella of evolutionary theory, but it's not the driving explanation.
Despite being found in error by observations, at least Lamarckian inheritance had *some* sort of explanation - which is much more than we can say for creationism.
Apparently the designer "just was", complete with all of the knowledge to create each species already in place. From the perspective of providing an explanation, one can more economically say that each spices "just appeared", complete with the necessarily knowledge already present in the DNA.
Creationism merely pushes the problem into some unexplainable realm, then claims it's solved it. It fails to explain that which it supposedly claims to explain in the first place. It's a non-explanation.
Note I'm not suggest there isn't an overwhelming number of observations that collaborate evolutionary theory. Rather I'm pointing out that creationism and ID fails before it even gets out of the gate.
Neal Tedford: Regarding the nested hierarchy... where in your hierachy is the sea squirt.
ReplyDeleteHybridization is a well-established phenomena. Nevertheless, there is a strong nested hierarchy across most animal taxa.
Neal Tedford: Remember, your hierarchy all depends on your selection criteria.
The nested hierarchy is an objectively observed pattern. We've discussed this before. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean the overall pattern disappears.
Neal Tedford: Worst case, you would just say that its just something unexplained or a corruption of the fossil record.
If we can show the strata is disturbed, then the dating would be in question. That's not much of an argument.
Neal Tedford: Kinda of like when soft dinosaur tissue were found.
The possible existence of "soft dinosaur tissue" doesn't impact the theory of evolution, that is, unless you are really disputing that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.
Scott: Right, but this is based on a particular history of how live evolved on our planet. We constantly make revisions to our accepted ancestry, yet this doesn't falsify evolution either.
ReplyDeleteYes, and we may make new discoveries about Jefferson's descendants without overthrowing the basics of genealogy either.
Scott: This is because such a prediction doesn't take into account a near infinite number of parallel, yet unrelated possibilities that could cause just this to occur.
Some historical facts are very strongly established, such as that bovids evolved from more primitive mammals, or that dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago.
Scott: For example, aliens could have beamed down those buffalos from orbit during the Cambrian and this still wouldn't change the larger knowledge-based view of how the instructions of how to build buffalos was created in their genome.
There are any number of fanciful ideas, especially when they are not constrained by facts.
Scott: Species are different from each other because their genome contains different instructions on how to create different species. How that knowledge was created the question we're trying to answer.
The most important explanation is heredity. You are what you are because of what your ancestors were.
Zachriel said, "If we can show the strata is disturbed, then the dating would be in question. That's not much of an argument. "
ReplyDeleteAnd so it begins with the evolutionists ability to adapt to even buffalo fossils... "unless someone can show that there was no possible circumstance where the strata could not have been disturbed..." and so forth. The quality of the answer is not important, only that evolution is protected from falsification.
Evolutionists comfort themselves in saying that such and such would falsify evolution, but the history of their actions says that whatever is found will simply be accommodated in one way or another. Worst case, they'll just say they don't understand, and point to the mountain of evidence.
Zachriel you're really still in denial about the extent of the contradictions between classifications based on morphology and genetics. The objective part is the exception, not vice versa.
Zachriel said, "The possible existence of "soft dinosaur tissue" doesn't impact the theory of evolution"
ReplyDeletePossible existence? You have a tendency to put question marks on stuff your uncomfortable with and stretch the other stuff... like the nested hierarchy. While the sea squirt is answered with "Hybridization is a well-established phenomena", the hard evidence of soft tissue from a dinosaur is "possible".
Do you see your bias now?
Neal Tedford: And so it begins with the evolutionists ability to adapt to even buffalo fossils...
ReplyDeleteIf you dig a hole and bury a rabbit in your backyard, it doesn't assume the age of the ground it's buried in.
Neal Tedford: you're really still in denial about the extent of the contradictions between classifications based on morphology and genetics.
Of course the nested hierarchy is not always exact: Hybridization and convergence are two mechanisms known to Darwin that distort the pattern.
Neal Tedford: Remember, your hierarchy all depends on your selection criteria.
Let's start by some simple groupings. What is the most parsimonious grouping of fish, dolphin, cat?
Neal Tedford: Possible existence? You have a tendency to put question marks on stuff your uncomfortable with and stretch the other stuff... like the nested hierarchy.
Soft tissue is still subject to some controversy. Hybridization can be directly observed.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists comfort themselves in saying that such and such would falsify evolution, but the history of their actions says that whatever is found will simply be accommodated in one way or another. Worst case, they'll just say they don't understand, and point to the mountain of evidence
What Tedford's teeny idiot mind just can't grasp is that any explanation to account for new discoveries (like his herd of Cambrian buffaloes) still has to account for the consilience of all the other collected evidence for the last 150 years. That evidence doesn't vanish every time science makes a new discovery which changes our understanding of some little detail.
Zachriel: The most important explanation is heredity. You are what you are because of what your ancestors were.
ReplyDeleteRight. And who my ancestors were, and who their ancestors were, and so on, represents the explanation for the creation of knowledge found in my genome.
It's a specific theory of knowledge creation; just as creating deep and hard to vary explanations via conjecture, testing them with observations and discarding those with errors is the explanation for our relatively recent advance in the creation of knowledge. These theories are testable.
For example, we no longer need to say all explanations are created equal. Rather, we can objectively and retroactively identify which past theories are deep and hard to vary, then compare their results with shallow and easily varied explanations. And we can do the same going forward.
In the case of Neo-Darwinism, it would be falsified by the discovery of a species that mainly utilizes some sort of neo-Lamarckian explanation of knowledge creation that includes the discovery of DNA. But no such theory exists, let alone corresponding discoveries. Or the presence of a beneficial feature in an organism that has no selection pressure in its ancestor, such as the appearance of a bear-like species that can access and interpret internet weather forecasts to determine when it should hibernate.
Either of these observations would require some completely new theory of how knowledge was created in the genome.
So, while I agree that a hard to vary explanation of heredity is important, I'd suggest it's important because it fundamentally represents a specific, hard to vary process of knowledge creation. And it's a theory that has become more and more hard to vary over the last 150 years with the advent of molecular biology, etc.
This is one of the reasons why Cornelius' typical claim that the failure of science to predict each and every complex feature has supposedly yet again falsified evolution is fallacious. What he needs to show is how a specific discovery of molecular biology that would require a new explanation for the creation of knowledge in the genome. Saying "a designer did it" merely refers to where the knowledge was located before it was supposedly moved into the genome. It doesn't explain how that knowledge found in the designer's "mind" was created, how the knowledge to create the designer was created, etc.
Specifically, he's appealing to induction in the case of things that supposedly contain "CSI" having been observed as created by a designer, yet assuming that the "CSI" necessary for the designer to actually design that something in the first place didn't need to be designed.
Furthermore, the whole idea that Neo-Darwinism's theory for knowledge creation is "scientifically unlikely ", "silly" or "absurd" falls prey to the problem of induction in the same way of saying that gravity is "scientifically likely" based on mere observations alone.
As illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buffalo fossils in the Cambrian WOULD NOT be allowed to falsify evolution. Evolution stands as long as other positive evidence still exists for evolution and there wasn't any possible scenario in the universe were the fossilized strata could have been corrupted.
ReplyDeleteGot it.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteAs illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buffalo fossils in the Cambrian WOULD NOT be allowed to falsify evolution. Evolution stands as long as other positive evidence still exists for evolution and there wasn't any possible scenario in the universe were the fossilized strata could have been corrupted.
Got it.
Tedford's still an idiot. Got it.
There are two different scenarios here that Tedford is equivocating over:
1) What discoveries if made when it was first being investigated would have falsified the ToE
2) What discoveries if made today would falsify ToE given our current state of knowledge.
Answers to 1) are easy and many have been given - the fossil phylogenetic tree being wildly different from the genetic one, or some evidence that 'kinds' are real and represent a barrier which makes speciation impossible. But the exact opposite of those things were discovered. That's why ToE is falsifiable; it just hasn't been falsified.
2) is much harder. Finding a single anomaly today (like the Cambrian buffalo) wouldn't negate all the other positive evidence. At worst it would necessitate a rethinking of geology and possibly radiometric dating methods. If you want to falsify ToE with what we already know *today* it's going to take a demonstration of long term systematic errors in all our sciences over the last 150 years.
Prediction: the important difference between the two cases will zoom right over the idiot's head.
Neal Tedford: As illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buffalo fossils in the Cambrian WOULD NOT be allowed to falsify evolution.
ReplyDeleteIf we could reliably date buffalo fossils to the Cambrian, it would significantly undermine the Theory of Evolution. So, now all you have to do is find buffalo fossils that reliably date to the Cambrian.
Neal: As illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buffalo fossils in the Cambrian WOULD NOT be allowed to falsify evolution.
ReplyDeleteNot be allowed? I'm not following you.
Why would you falsify a theory based on an observation that dosen't actually conflict with the underlying explanation the prediction is actually based on in the first place, given our best explanations of today?
Are you an instramentalist in that you're approaching random variation and natural selection as if it's nothing more than theoretical model designed to successfully predict phenomena, and does not represent objective reality?
If not, then why would you disconnect the two when evaluating predictions of Neo-Darwinism?
Because you're merely attacking a theory you personally object to?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps another example is in order. Take the following hypothetical thought experiment.
ReplyDeleteA very large diamond has been stolen in NYC. Hypothetically, let's say that smaller stolen diamonds are easy to sell in the United States, but large stolen diamonds are not. On the other hand, large stolen diamonds are much easier to sell over seas. In addition, the heist took significant planning and skill beyond most jewel theirs. This leads investigators to predict that who ever stole the diamond is probably a known pro and will likely leave the US shortly after the heist to fence the diamond.
As such, the investigators search for flights out of the US by well known jewel thieves. Sure enough, one of these well known thieves has scheduled a flight in to South Africa, which hypothetically happens to be one of the easiest locations to fence large stolen diamonds.
Shortly before the flight is scheduled to leave, the investigators arrive at the airport and wait to apprehend the jewel thief when he catches his flight. However, this time comes and goes. The jewel thief does't leave the country. The investigators wonder, was this all a ruse to fool them? Was their conclusion that this particular man was the thief justified by their prediction after all?
However, not long after, they are informed that the jewel thief was involved in a fatal car accident and was killed near by. Sure enough, the jewel was found in his possession along with a suit case, plane ticket, hotel reservations in South Africa, etc.
Now, it would seem that according to Neal we should say that the investigator's conclusion that this particular man was the thief was *not* justified because merely because we did not actually experience the man leaving the country. This is in contrast to being justified due to the way things *were* in reality.
Specifically, the investigator's prediction did not account for a near infinite number of possible parallel yet unrelated events that could actually prevent the man from leaving the country, *in reality*, such as a heart attack, being killed at a convenient store robbery. Slipping in the shower and dying from a head injury. A compound leg break due to falling down a flight of stairs with his luggage, etc. Yet they were part of the way things *were* in reality.
On the other hand, it would seem that according to Neal the investigator's conclusion that this particular man was the thief *would* have been justified should we have experienced the man actually leaving the country for any reason at all. For example, the man could have stolen the diamond, yet had no intention of leaving the country, died for some unrelated reason, had willed that his body be flown to his home town in SF on a domestic flight independent of the heist, but then that domestic flight was hijacked to mexico.
Only prophecy could take into account a near infinite number of possible events that could prevent the man from leaving the country. Yet this appears to be the sort of criteria that Neal, John and others hear expect from scientific conclusions.
Again, there is little difference between having a divine revelation-shaped hole in one's scheme of things and believing that divine revelation is a valid means of justifying conclusions.
As Zachriel said:
ReplyDelete"If we could reliably date buffalo fossils to the Cambrian, it would significantly undermine the Theory of Evolution. So, now all you have to do is find buffalo fossils that reliably date to the Cambrian."
So, you ID pushers better get busy and find some buffalo (or rabbit) fossils (in situ) in Cambrian sediments.
You might as well look for Bigfoot.
Zachriel :"A theory is a framework comprising a number of interrelated scientific claims. Even assuming you provide a falsification of *a* theory of evolution doesn't mean that *all* evolutionary theories are falsified, especially as evolutionary theory has historical aspects. It may just mean a modification of the current framework."
ReplyDeleteThis is my meaning exactly. Perhaps they will hear it from you.
Scott: "However, not long after, they are informed that the jewel thief was involved in a fatal car accident and was killed near by. Sure enough, the jewel was found in his possession along with a suit case, plane ticket, hotel reservations in South Africa, etc."
But then upon further examination, it was discovered that the jewel was a fake and the body turned up missing!.
See Scott, you can always imagine that new evidence will come along. In the case you gave (excluding my modification), the investigators will have to adjust their criteria or move the goalposts so to speak, to accommodate the new data. If you want to inform Thorton to be more careful in case evidence comes along that makes multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' more likely, that might prevent him future embarrassment. But you see, since 'likeliness' is meaningless to you, you can do this for any falsification criteria can't you?
John: "I guess if he says X will falsify theory Y, and I provide X and it doesn't falsify theory Y, the I guess I don't expect you have or will take my arguments seriously."
ReplyDeleteZachriel: "A theory is a framework comprising a number of interrelated scientific claims. Even assuming you provide a falsification of *a* theory of evolution doesn't mean that *all* evolutionary theories are falsified, especially as evolutionary theory has historical aspects. It may just mean a modification of the current framework."
Perhaps they will hear it from you.
Thorton: "Problem is liar you didn't provide X."
False. I did provide X. You said multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it. I provided multiple incompatible forms of DNA in multiple 'kinds'.
Thorton: "You provided Z and claimed it was X, despite being shown the scientific references that prove you wrong"
False. See above. The link you provided nowhere shows the DNA I linked to to be compatible. In fact, one of the main purposes of the article is to try to imagine how the DNA could have become incompatible. Perhaps you should read your own article. So false and false.
With you're track record of truth telling, I'm delighted to be called a liar by you.
Scott: "However, not long after, they are informed that the jewel thief was involved in a fatal car accident and was killed near by. Sure enough, the jewel was found in his possession along with a suit case, plane ticket, hotel reservations in South Africa, etc. "
But then the jewel was discovered to be a fake, and then the body turned up missing! See Scott, one can always imagine more evidence will turn up.. like in the fossil record for example. But at some point you have to ask yourself, "Why do all my theories keep invoking dead jewel thieves?" If something is not likely to be what it appears to be, then nothing can ever be believed to be real, because it will always 'appear to be' something. That is the problem I'm having with the definition of instrumentalism. It seems to be self refuting. Perhaps you will provide evidence that it is not, but then you might find evidence later that it is yet. I will leave you to your ruminating.
John the liar for Jesus said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Problem is liar you didn't provide X."
False. I did provide X. You said multiple incompatible forms of DNA in different 'kinds' would do it. I provided multiple incompatible forms of DNA in multiple 'kinds'
No you didn't liar John. You provided know examples of small evolved variations in the single existing code. You didn't provide evidence of different 'kinds' because there is no scientific category as 'kind'.
Give it up liar John, you lost. No one cares about your lies anymore.
Thorton: "You provided know examples of small evolved variations in the single existing code."
ReplyDeleteThey are incompatible. Yes, I knew about them, that's why I posted them. If you want me to believe that YOU knew about them, you'll have to make sure you don't set forward falsification criteria that depend on them not existing.
Thorton: "You didn't provide evidence of different 'kinds' because there is no scientific category as 'kind'."
Which would have been your problem had you not admitted later that phyla would be fine. Humans and algae are in different phyla.
Just face it, your bluff was called and you moved the goal posts when you were shown something your theory predicts would be unlikely.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteNot sure your point, though we haven't been following your entire conversation. Could you state your position?