What Goes Around Comes Around
When I pointed out this basic problem an evolutionist scathingly criticized me for issuing “propaganda” and ignoring “scientific facts.” And what were those “scientific facts” that I was ignoring? He cited a paper describing the evolution of these types of machines. The paper is even entitled “The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases: reversals in function and changes in the H+/ATP coupling ratio.”
From the title it might appear that evolutionists have already solved the problem of how these fantastic molecular machines evolved. After all, does the paper not demonstrate “the evolution of … ATP synthases and ATPases”?
Unfortunately this is an all too common misinterpretation of the evolution literature. It is important to understand evolutionary thought and the genre of literature that has grown around it. Evolutionists believe evolution is a fact, no less than gravity, cancer or the roundness of the earth. In other words, evolution may be false but only if our entire existence is some sort of fiction.
Such certainty that the world arose spontaneously from random chance events lies at the foundation of evolutionary thought and its literature. From popular works to textbooks to research papers, evolution is simply assumed from the outset. The evolution literature does not demonstrate or prove that evolution occurred. It does not confirm the fact of evolution. Rather it presupposes the fact of evolution.
This explains how research papers such as the one above can speak of “The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases” without explaining how such wonders actually evolved. The machines are simply assumed to have evolved.
From there, this paper explores what must have occurred in order for such evolution to occur. Functions were gained, functions were lost, genes evolved, devolved, turned on and off, and so forth. It would be like explaining that automobiles evolved from motorcycles by adding some tires, increasing the engine size, and making a few other changes.
Of course this does not prove or demonstrate evolution. Rather, it is a high-level discussion of how evolution must have worked, assuming that it did work.
Unfortunately students too often misunderstand the evolution genre. They see research papers such as this one and think that evolution has been demonstrated and confirmed. Instead, the initial belief that evolution is true drives the interpretation of empirical evidence and its presentation, leading readers to false conclusions. There is no “fact” of ATPsynthase evolution, in this or any other paper. Rather, it is the ultimate example of blowback.
Religion drives science and it matters.
Zachriel, himself, admitted that naturalistic UCA is basically assumed to get to the conclusion that the nested hierarchy is IMPLIED by evolutionary "theory." IOW, naturalistic UCA is always an assumption. The inferences are to specific lineages based on millions of ad-hoc assumptions that are made to render certain higher-level assumptions, e.g. that sequence similarity is more probably indicative of common ancestry than convergence, valid as working hypotheses.
ReplyDeleteThe higher-level assumptions make analysis easier. Unfortunately, the whole approach is totally unfalsifiable however a-plausible the whole approach is. After all, when you're already invested to the tune of millions of ad-hoc SPECIFIC assumptions, what's the big deal adding more to keep the tree-generation industry afloat? Isn't that industry too big to fail, after all? Wouldn't exposing the ridiculous circularity of it all involve the same moral hazard entailed in not bailing out the filthy rich during market crashes?
ATPsynthase is a fantastic machine and it hardly conjures up images of chance mutation and spontaneous evolution doing the creating.
ReplyDeleteBy describing ATPsythase as a "machine" you are implying that it was designed, a claim that has yet to be demonstrated. In other words, you are committing the same error you impute to evolutionists, that of presuming your conclusion.
It is important to understand evolutionary thought and the genre of literature that has grown around it. Evolutionists believe evolution is a fact, no less than gravity, cancer or the roundness of the earth. In other words, evolution may be false but only if our entire existence is some sort of fiction.
Yet again, as I know you are well aware, the process of evolution is a fact by Gould's definition:
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
Even some creationists and EID proponents admit that living things do change over time, even if they want to limit it to variation within species.
Such certainty that the world arose spontaneously from random chance events lies at the foundation of evolutionary thought and its literature.
Here we glide effortlessly from biology to cosmology. The theory of evolution is not about how the universe began, however. Darwin constructed a theory to explain only how life had changed over time after it had appeared. He speculated in private about ponds but he also doubted that we would ever know about the origins of everything.
From popular works to textbooks to research papers, evolution is simply assumed from the outset. The evolution literature does not demonstrate or prove that evolution occurred. It does not confirm the fact of evolution. Rather it presupposes the fact of evolution.
Living things change over time. It is an observation made so often that it would be perverse to deny it. As above, by Gould's definition the process of evolution is a fact. You may reject Darwin's explanation of how it happens but that doesn't stop it happening.
Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.
The charge against you is that you are doing exactly what Gould warned against in is essay, conflating observation and explanation, fact and theory.
This explains how research papers such as the one above can speak of “The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases” without explaining how such wonders actually evolved. The machines are simply assumed to have evolved.
Tsk, there's that word again. You can only reasonably claim that ATPsynthase is a "machine" if you can provide a theory and evidence for it. The inability to imagine how it could have come about by any other means is not, in itself, nearly sufficient.
Ian, save yourself some typing time. No one disagrees that biological variation over time does and has occurred. But scientists constantly say that there is overwhelming evidence for lineages that imply vast plasticity for time-frames for which that claim is absurd. The issue is NOT whether science should research the kinds, degrees, and tempo's of biological variation. The issue is about saying things in the name of science that are obviously false.
Delete"By describing ATPsythase as a "machine" you are implying that it was designed, a claim that has yet to be demonstrated. In other words, you are committing the same error you impute to evolutionists, that of presuming your conclusion."
DeleteSped this is silly. If I could go to a planet where automobiles reproduce and adhere to evolution I would still call an automobile a machine. IDist call molecular structures all the time in discussions and then go on to discuss the possibility of the machine evolving to its present state.
You made up that using the word machine excludes evolution just to suit your argument against it.
"Ian, save yourself some typing time. No one disagrees that biological variation over time does and has occurred."
Deletebut they know this. Anyone involved in debating knows no one denies all variability. Thats why its very hard to believe they are not just being deceptive when they continue conflating the kinds of variations discussed as if IDist or creationists reject all variation.
Elijah20 12May 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM
Delete[...]
Sped this is silly. If I could go to a planet where automobiles reproduce and adhere to evolution I would still call an automobile a machine.
You can call an automobile whatever you want but the only reason we know it's a machine is because we design and build them ourselves. The reason why we would recognize Paley's watch as a machine, even if we'd never seen one before, is because it looks like machines we design. We recognize design only insofar as it resembles what we design.
Calling some biological structures "machines" just because they bear a passing resemblance to things we design is misleading at the least. It implies they were designed because all the things we classify as machines are designed. Yet the only designers we know of are ourselves and we're pretty sure we didn't design them.
You made up that using the word machine excludes evolution just to suit your argument against it.
I didn't say using the word "machine" excludes evolution. I said that calling some biological structure a "machine" is an inappropriate use of the word because it implies a designer other than ourselves where we have no evidence for one.
Elijah2012 May 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Delete"Ian, save yourself some typing time. No one disagrees that biological variation over time does and has occurred."
but they know this. Anyone involved in debating knows no one denies all variability.
The only variability EID/creationists will allow is what they call "micro-evolution", meaning variation within a species. The only reason they've conceded that much is because the evidence is basically irresistible. That's pretty much as far as they're prepared to go, however. They fight tooth-and-nail against the idea of "macro-evolution" or new species evolving.
"The only reason they've conceded that much is because the evidence is basically irresistible."
DeleteYes Sped they only "conceded it" when irresistible evidence was presented because of course when creation theories were originally formed no one noticed that Horses or dogs or cats had variations.
Pure silliness.
"You can call an automobile whatever you want but the only reason we know it's a machine is because we design and build them ourselves. "
more nonsense. Are you telling me if we discover an alien race and see their craft we will not be able to identify them (even with study) as machines because we did not build them ourselves?
"Calling some biological structures "machines" just because they bear a passing resemblance to things we design is misleading at the least."
Sorry but you don't get to redefine machine to what you want in order to make your then circular argument. As long as a system has multiple parts that operate together toward an end goal it can be referred to as a machine. Its not misleading at all. Further if it appears based on observation that it has an intelligent function we have all the more reason to call it a machine.
Jeff: IOW, naturalistic UCA is always an assumption.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain the term hypothesis, and how it is used in science?
Z: Can you explain the term hypothesis, and how it is used in science?
DeleteJ: I can tell you how it used to be used. An hypothesis is a claim that can be articulated in one or more propositions. Those propositions are used to deduce implications. When those implications constitute what can potentially be novel observations, such an implication is a prediction that can potentially falsify the hypothesis. If there are no such predictions, the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
If there are no such falsifications, and if there is an impressive corroboration to assumption ratio (greater than that for competing hypotheses), then analogical enumeration kicks in and establishes warrant for the inference that the hypothesis is true.
No one yet has defined what observation could possibly falsify the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA. A Cambrian rabbit would do no such thing. A strato-cladistic approach could easily accommodate it, however arbitrarily. All you have to do is say that the transitions for that lineage didn't get fossilized. And that's not falsifiable by anything we know.
And as the article I quoted to you admitted, non-strato-cladistic approaches don't correlate to stratigrahic ranges near as well. And no one has committed to a falsification criteria for such correlation. Thus, the whole falsification criteria for science has no relevance to whether naturalistic UCA is a "scientific" hypothesis.
J1: All you have to do is say that the transitions for that lineage didn't get fossilized.
DeleteJ2: It's actually much easier than that. We could say that either:
1) Cambrian rabbits evolved explosively as did many other Cambrian animals and went extinct shortly thereafter because of some environmental contingency, and thus left no fossil record.
2) The Cambrian rabbit lineage left a bit of a fossil record, but it either got eroded, or eroded to the extent that we have been unsuccessful thus far at finding the few fossils that still exist.
One can always play the taphonomic, geological (erosion, etc), and ecological (environments, population sizes and distribution) factors as one needs since we have precious little certainty about any of it, given our ignorance at this time.
And this is why both SA and UCA approaches are unfalsifiable.
Jeff: No one yet has defined what observation could possibly falsify the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA. A Cambrian rabbit would do no such thing.
ReplyDeleteDemonstrating the existence of a Precambrian rabbit would substantially undermine common descent, as a Precambrian rabbit would precede any plausible ancestor. It would certainly falsify the existing historical reconstruction. Whether a new theory of evolution could be reconstructed from the ashes of the old theory would depend on the specifics.
You seem to think that theories are static things. Theories are collections of related claims, and parts of a theory can be falsified, then modified or discarded. Many theories of evolution have been falsified in this sense. It's an everyday occurrence.
Z, when current theory already requires more ad-hoc hypotheses than anyone has had time to enumerate, and when that set of ad-hoc hypotheses is modified constantly, there is no relative plausibility criteria that is relevant to the research program. You can throw around words like "evidence" and "plausible" til the cows come home, but until you're doing COMPARABLE, CALCULABLE probabilities, you're just spewing non-sense. Personal credulity and incredulity has nothing to do with science as it has been traditionally understood.
DeleteOnce you require of a tree that it correlates with stratigraphic ranges, you have to set a falsification criteria in that regard to render a particular tree falsifiable. That has not been done, and it will not be done. Because everyone knows that the contingencies of geology, taphonomy, and ecology render the falsification of trees by that criteria quite likely.
When theories require utterly enormous numbers of ad-hoc hypotheses and are unfalsifiable, they are no better than the 5-minute theory. They have no HUMAN value. It's not that they're vacuous. They have intelligible meaning. Rather, they have no INDUCTIVE plausibility or HUMAN problem-solving value.
If you give 5 minutes thought to it, you'll see why hypotheses that have INDUCTIVE plausibility are the very ones that have HUMAN problem-solving/effort-saving value.
DeletePretty amazing that after six months of non-stop inane philosophical blithering Liar For Jesus Jeff still doesn't understand even the basics of evolutionary theory.
DeleteZachriel said
Delete"Demonstrating the existence of a Precambrian rabbit would substantially undermine common descent, as a Precambrian rabbit would precede any plausible ancestor. It would certainly falsify the existing historical reconstruction. Whether a new theory of evolution could be reconstructed from the ashes of the old theory would depend on the specifics.
You seem to think that theories are static things. Theories are collections of related claims, and parts of a theory can be falsified, then modified or discarded. Many theories of evolution have been falsified in this sense. It's an everyday occurrence."
This is the admission that ToE is unfalsifiable. Many ToE has been falsified and still we have a ToE. Waiting to be falsified to build a new ToE. ToE is true by default, we fill it with what the data fits better. Never we will consider the alternative. That it is not acience.
Oh dear, another Cornelius Goebbels fib-fest.
ReplyDeleteATPsynthase is a fantastic machine and it hardly conjures up images of chance mutation and spontaneous evolution doing the creating. Yet that is precisely how evolutionists reflexively describe it.
Fib #1. No one in science says or thinks ATPsynthase arose through just "chance mutation and spontaneous evolution".
From the title it might appear that evolutionists have already solved the problem of how these fantastic molecular machines evolved.
Fib #2. The paper is presenting evidence for the evolutionary pathways for one particular piece of the ATP process, not the entire evolutionary history.
Such certainty that the world arose spontaneously from random chance events lies at the foundation of evolutionary thought and its literature
Repeat Fib #1.
The evolution literature does not demonstrate or prove that evolution occurred.
Fib #3. The entire literature when taken as a whole conclusively demonstrates that evolution has occurred. It's a common dishonest Creationist tactic to demand that every paper present all the previous 150+ years of evidence.
It would be like explaining that automobiles evolved from motorcycles by adding some tires, increasing the engine size, and making a few other changes.
Fib #4. Automobiles don't reproduce on their own, don't use an iterative feedback process to amass heritable traits.
There is no “fact” of ATPsynthase evolution, in this or any other paper.
Repeat Fib #3. In any one paper no, in all the papers taken together yes.
Rather, it is the ultimate example of blowback.
More like an example of Creationist blowhard.
Thorton:
DeleteFib #1. No one in science says or thinks ATPsynthase arose through just "chance mutation and spontaneous evolution".
I agree. I was referring to evolutionists.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteI was referring to evolutionists.
So was I. No one in any of the evolutionary sciences thinks anything even remotely like your silly Creationist claim.
Why don't you list for us the research that Creation "scientists" have done on ATPsynthase. Shouldn't take you long.
CH: ATPsynthase is a fantastic machine and it hardly conjures up images of chance mutation and spontaneous evolution doing the creating. Yet that is precisely how evolutionists reflexively describe it.
ReplyDeleteATPsynthase doesn't conjure up images of a strawman? I wonder why that might be?
DNA represents information that tends to remain when embedded in the material medium of genes. While it disappears when previous generations die, it remains in future generations. The contents of books represent information that tends to remain when imbedded in a material medium. While old books are thrown out, new copies are printed, converted to digital form and their contents are retained in individual's brains.
It's in this sense that both the information in DNA and the contents of books represent knowledge. Both fall under our current, best, universal explanation for the growth of knowledge, which is a form of epistemology: conjecture and refutation.
What is the relevance of all this? What images ATPsynthase "conjures up" depends on your conceptions of knowledge - which includes human knowledge in particular. It depends on how do you explain it, or the lack thereof.
If you think it has been divinely revealed that knowledge in specific domains comes from supernatural automative sources, then it could come as no surprise that you conclude the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into ATPsynthase came from a supernatural authoritative source.
That human beings know this is true because it was divinely revealed is in itself a supernatural conception of aspects of human knowledge. (Our knowledge of the cosmos, mortality, biological complexity, etc. The claim that evolutionary thought in human beings represents thought corrupted by sin or evil forces would represent yet another facet of a particular conception of human knowledge.)
Furthermore, ID doesn't present an expiation for how this knowledge was created. It merely pushes the problem into some unexplainable realm.
What do I mean by this? Human knowledge falls under our current, best, explanation for the growth of knowledge. Human beings are good explanations for human designed things because they reflect trade offs baed on the growth of hunan knowledge, including our preferences. However, nothing can be known about ID's designer. It represents merely the abstract idea of something that "designs things" and has no defined limitations. This leaves a hole one can drive their supernatural designer of choice.
No explain is given as to how the designer created the knowledge in genes, how the designer knew how to encode that knowledge into DNA, why that particular knowledge, rather than some other knowledge, etc. Under the current crop of ID, we can make no progress regarding the designer - only what the designer supposedly deigned.
Your previous post implies that the "basic problem" with biological Darwinism is that it's obvious that ATPsynthase was designed. Therefore such criticism was obviously wrong.
However, as I've pointed out, the "obviousness" of what images are conjectured by ATPsynthase is based on one's particular explanation for the creation of knowledge. If you think design is the obvious choice, then apparently, you think your particular expiation for the creation of knowledge is also obvious. But this ignores the growth of knowledge in the field of epistemology, which represent ideas that are subject to criticism.
The idea that the options are either design or spontaneous random chance events ignores progress in epistemology as well. Apparently, you think we can make no progress about the growth of knowledge because everyone supposedly know this is obvious as well.
The implicit suggestion that everyone knows that ATPsynthase was designed is not an argument.
Scott:
DeleteATPsynthase doesn't conjure up images of a strawman?
Actually it's not a strawman.
If it's not a strawman, then exactly who are these evolutionists you keep referring to?
DeleteI'm asking because, if it's not a strawman then, apparently, I'm not an evolutionist despite thinking biological Darwinism is the best explanation for the biological complexity we observe.
Am I an evolutionists even if I do not realize it? If so, how do you know this? What is your explanation for how you know it and I don't or, that I know it but deny it? (hint: your explanation would reflect an particular conception of human knowledge)
For example, I've pointed out that your dichotomy of either design or randomness is parochial given the progress we've made in the field of epistemology.
Specifically, are you also denying that progress can or has been made in the field of epistemology as well? As such, all I'm left with is your dichotomy of either design or randomness?
Otherwise, it seems you're tilting at windmills.
Scott, what consensus-thinking biologist ever claimed most organisms have adaptive mutations because of knowledge gain? Or that having gained an adaptive mutation, said organisms are more knowledgeable? Why is consciousness even required for adaptive gains in lineage longevity? And without consciousness, what does knowledge even mean?
DeleteJeff, I'm pointing out how biological Darwinism fits into our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge and that a dichotomy of design or randomness reflects a narrow view of how knowledge is created.
DeleteFor example, imagine I claimed you clearly must like *coconut flavored* ice-cream since, at some point in the past, you hypothetically said you "enjoyed enjoy eating ice-cream with your family on Sundays". This is a parochial argument in that it assumes there is only one flavor of ice-cream that you could have ate: coconut. My argument hinges on this assumption, yet one can go to any ice-cream shop and note that there is more than one flavor of ice-cream, including vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, etc. So, either I was presenting a disingenuous argument, in that I knew full well there was more than one flavor of ice-cream, but chose to make the argument anyway, or that in making that argument, I would have illustrated gross ignorance about the field of ice-cream as a whole.
I'm simply pointing out the same thing in regards to the field of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
While "consensus-thinking biologist[s]" may not actually refer to the information in DNA as "knowledge", this doesn't mean their position must represent either either complete randomness or design. Nor does necessitate their position is incompatible with our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.
To clarify, the term "knowledge", as I'm using it here, is significant in that it represents information that tends to remain in a medium once put there, and is created by a form of conjecture and refutation. In this sense the genome contains the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into concrete biological adaptations. Furthermore, there are two kinds of knowledge: non-explanatory knowledge and explanatory knowledge.
Biological Darwinism is an error correcting process that creates what are essentially useful rules of thumb in the form of non-explanatory knowledge. While genes and even chimpanzees have problems from our perspective, such as getting copied into the next generation or requiring food to survive, they do not conceive of them as problems as people do.
People, in the sense that I'm using the term here, are unique in the universe in that not only can they create non-explanatory knowledge, which are useful rules of thumb, but they can create explanatory knowledge, which is based on explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality. As such, this could include alien forms of life on other planets. People are are unique in that they have made the jump to universal explainers.
Biological Darwinism is the theory that knowledge in the genome is genuinely created though a process of conjecture, in the form of mutations that are random to any problem to be solved, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. A process that cannot conceive of problems cannot intentionally conjecture explanations for how to solve them. Nor can a process that cannot conceive of explanations conjecture explanations of how the world works, in reality, that might solve them.
However, this does not necessitate that an error correcting process that is random to any particular problem to solve must be a completely random process that does not result in the genuine creation of non-explanatory knowledge. This is a false dichotomy.
CH: Unfortunately students too often misunderstand the evolution genre. They see research papers such as this one and think that evolution has been demonstrated and confirmed.
ReplyDeleteEquivocate much?
The evolution of biological organisms has been observed. Biological Darwinism is the hard to vary explanation for those observations. It's really simple.
As someone who supposedly teaches or taught biology at a college level, it would seem you're either grossly incompetent or knowingly misrepresenting evolutionary theory. Which is it?
What else are we supposed to conclude?
Jeff: That has not been done, and it will not be done.
ReplyDeleteYou just provided a potential falsification. You ignored our other point, but Blas picks up the torch.
Blas: Many ToE has been falsified and still we have a ToE.
A theory of gravity has been falsified and still we have a theory of gravity.
Zachriel said
Delete"A theory of gravity has been falsified and still we have a theory of gravity."
True. But gravity describe the fact that masses move as attracters by other masses. The name of the theory is the same but both theories of gravity postulate different hypothesis explainig the same facts.
On the contrary Evolution is the name of the hypothesis not the facts. So in this case you keep the hypothesis accomodating the facts to it.
It is not the same.
Blas, "masses move as [attracted] by other masses" is actually a hypothesis, introduced to explain why we see objects falling down here on Earth and planets orbiting up there in space.
DeleteJeff: That has not been done, and it will not be done.
DeleteZ: You just provided a potential falsification.
J: Yes, one could commit to such a pre-defined falsification criteria. But it will never be done. Because naturalistic UCA is a metaphysical belief that functions as an axiom for naturalists, not an inference.
Z: You ignored our other point,
J: You've never made a point that refutes my points. We agree on some things, but those things are irrelevant to the point of contention. No one is arguing against research into the tempos, kinds, and degrees of biological variation. What is clearly false is the claim that there is overwhelming evidence for naturalistic UCA. Naturalistic UCA functions as an AXIOM for you and other naturalists, not as an evidenced conclusion. That's why it will remain unfalsifiable per your approach.
Jeff,
DeleteAre you suggesting that if we had observed organisms appearing in the order of most to least complex, Darwinism wouldn't have been falsified?
What if we had observed appearing simultaneously? Wouldn't Darwinism wouldn't have been falsified then either?
Yes, it's logically possible that life could have evolved elsewhere and been brought here by some highly advanced alien species. As such, they could have merely appeared to come into existence simultaneously. However, we do not know if any alien species exist at all, let alone that one had the ability to go around populating planets with life.
Furthermore, we wouldn't think no progress could be made about these aliens. Why? Because there would be some explanation as to why those particular forms of life were transported here, rather than some other forms of life, how they were transported, etc. While we could never have an exhaustive explanation, we could make significant progress on these about these aliens, in practice.
On the other hand, ID is designed in just such a way that no progress about the designer, in principle. Why do you think that is?
Specifically, do you think we can make progress about ID's designer?
Note: I'm not referring to making progress about what the designer designed, but making progress about the designer. For example, how did the designer know how to encode the knowledge of to build biological adaptions from raw materials into the genes of organisms? What means and method did the designer use? When did he intervene and how often?
In the current crop of ID, is progress about the designer even possible, in principle?
Scott: In the current crop of ID, is progress about the designer even possible, in principle?
DeleteJ: Per induction, all inductive inference is, in principle, subject to a greater approximation to truth by applying parsimony, etc to ever increasing sets of data. We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling.
Liar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteWe're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling.
You mean you, personally, are so far from understanding the data set it's mind boggling. But we understand.
If there's one thing the internet has taught us it's never underestimate the ignorance of your average Creationist.
Oh, BTW, we've actually falsified at least two theories of gravity. The second (or rather first) would be the Aristotelian notion that elements naturally seek their proper place. I.e stuff made of the Earth element "wants" to be on Earth, so it falls. Air-stuff wants to be in the Sphere of Air, so it goes there. Etc.
DeleteJeff,
DeleteIs that a "Yes" or a "No"? For example, leaving aside the problem of induction, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, it's unclear how it would be included in a set of ever increasing data beyond "that's just what the designer must have wanted."
Furthermore, if mere parsimony is the criteria, then why isn't "Some abstract designer with no defined limitations must have wanted it that way" the most simple in all fields?
For example, why not simply state that objects move they way they do because some abstract designer with no defined limitations must want them to move that way? The weather changes the way it does because some abstract designer with no defined limitations must want it to change in that way, etc?
Note: human designers are good explanations for human designed things because human beings are constrained in specific ways. And we have individual preferences that reflect the acceptance of ideas that are available to us. Specifically, when we change our preferences, we are choosing to accept ideas about how the world works.
The evolution of human designs reflect trade-offs based on the knowledge we had yet to create in the past, the current set knowledge we have in the present and the knowledge that we will eventually create in the future. And the particular trade-offs we chose to implement at any time are based on our preferences, which are based on the available ideas that have been adopted. Natural laws are also constrained in specific ways.
However, ID's designer has no such constraints. Why is this exception made for ID, but not all other fields?
Jeff: We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling.
This sort of denial that we have made progress is precisely my point.
Given that we have and continue to make exponential progress regarding what would have supposedly been designed, what else does your claim that "We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling" refer to other than the aspects of Darwinism that intersect with ID's designer?
IOW, I'm suggesting that many ID proponents object to progress in this area because it assumes no progress can be made about the designer in principle, rather than practice. But, by all means, feel free to provide an alternate explanation.
Scott: Furthermore, we wouldn't think no progress could be made about these aliens.
DeleteWhat do I mean by this?
For example, It's possible that, even staring out with 10 years of incremental improvements from our current level of technology, we could do the same thing if we made it our top priority, pooled all of our resources and the journey took millions of years. As such, there would be good explanations behind what organisms we took, rather than others. It could be explained, in principle. Staring with our current technology sightly scaled up, we would be limited to the number of organisms we could bring due to size and weight constraints, food supplies, etc.
However, if we were able to make enough continuous progress in transit to actually allow the journey to continue for millions of years, this would have necessitated making enough progress in biology that we could eventually design new organisms ourselves. And after millions of years, our preferences of what organisms should be actually deposited would have progressed as well given the adoption of new ideas. As such, this knowledge created in transit would have a significant effect on the organisms that were eventually placed on the target planet.
However, If some highly advanced alien culture could travel near the speed of light or faster, they would have created significantly less knowledge in transit. And this knowledge would have significantly less effect on the organisms they originally decided to bring vs what was eventually deposited.
If these organisms originally evolved on some other planet, journeys with very short travel times would result in organisms that could be explained by darwinism, with the exception of appearing simultaneously. However, In the case of much longer journeys, organisms couldn't be explained by Darwinism alone.
So, despite the fact that we cannot go back in time, we could create many different hypothesis about both organisms and aliens that would have necessary consequences for the current state of the system (the organism supposedly eventually deposited). And we could test them using observations.
Scott: Are you suggesting that if we had observed organisms appearing in the order of most to least complex, Darwinism wouldn't have been falsified?
ReplyDeleteWhat if we had observed appearing simultaneously? Wouldn't Darwinism wouldn't have been falsified then either?
J: Those cases are irrelevant, because we observed neither.
Liar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteThose cases are irrelevant, because we observed neither.
Another Creationist too ignorant to understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.
No, genius, they're not irrelevant. They are ways the theory could be falsified. Another would be no consistent pattern in the fossil record. I.e., organisms just show up randomly. Rabbits and T-Rex's in the Precambrian. A handful of bats and some conifer trees in the Cambrian. And so on.
DeleteYo, genius, even if there was no fossil succession, naturalists would infer SA's from separate instances of abiogenesis, which, again, is a species of evolutionary explanation. But from what we know about all the contingencies involved in taphonomic, geological, and ecological factors, it's almost inconceivable that a history of SA's wouldn't result in SOME kind of fossil succession, anyway. This in turn would allow for a UCA interpretation.
DeleteYou see, genius, you're so clueless you think there's some calculable non-zero probability for abiogenesis and subsequent putative evolution. But there's not. And there is nothing we know that indicates or implies there is a non-zero probability for what you believe. With such an ability to blindly believe with utter dogmatism, ANY fossil succession will do.
DeleteRight. So a theory incorporating SA would still somehow incorporate UCA. Um, yeah, no. That's not how ancestry works. SA by definition excludes UCA. Sheesh.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJeff: Those cases are irrelevant, because we observed neither.
DeleteExcept you haven explained why not observing neither makes them irrelevant. Perhaps you're assuming that science is about positively observed predictions positively proving theories true? If so, how would that work, in practice?
From the NCSE article: What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution? ...
"What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system."
Having observed neither in the current state of the system is relevant as the absence of these cases would be necessary consequences of Darwinism.
Blas: But gravity describe the fact that masses move as attracters by other masses.
ReplyDeleteYes, and evolution describes the fact that the heritable composition of populations change over time.
Blas: The name of the theory is the same but both theories of gravity postulate different hypothesis explainig the same facts.
The name of the theory is the same, but different theories of evolution postulate different hypotheses, explaining the same facts.
Blas: Evolution is the name of the hypothesis not the facts.
Gravity is a fact and a theory.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Jeff: You've never made a point that refutes my points.
He says as he admits to ignoring our argument. Don't worry. Blas picked up the baton.
Jeff: Yo, genius, even if there was no fossil succession, naturalists would infer SA's from separate instances of abiogenesis, which, again, is a species of evolutionary explanation.
You had claimed that universal common ancestry was unfalsifiable. Here you admit otherwise.
Zachriel said
Delete"Yes, and evolution describes the fact that the heritable composition of populations change over time.
The name of the theory is the same, but different theories of evolution postulate different hypotheses, explaining the same facts.
Gravity is a fact and a theory.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html"
Oh no again! The old darwinian trick to use the different meanings of the same word.
Let me put corectly the similarities and differences:
Gravity: Facts mass bodies falls on earth, planets orbits around the stars.
Theory of gravity: Explains how and why bodies fall on earth and planets orbits around the stars
Evolution:Facts heritable composition of populations change over time.
Theory of evolution: Should be how and why heritable composition of populations change over time. But it isn`t.
So your example of falsification keeping the theory do not fits.
Blas: Theory of gravity: Explains how and why bodies fall on earth and planets orbits around the stars
ReplyDeleteNewton's theory didn't explain why, only how. Einstein's theory explains both how and why.
Blas: Theory of evolution: Should be how and why heritable composition of populations change over time.
Darwin's theory explained how heritable composition of populations change over time. This explanation included natural selection and common descent, but lacked a mechanism of heredity and variation. Modern evolutionary theory more broadly explains the how and why.
Zachriel said
ReplyDelete"This explanation included natural selection and common descent,"
Common descent it is not required to explain how and why eritable composition of populations change over time, you want to add it because is the way you can start the trick evolution is a fact and a theory.
Blas: Common descent it is not required to explain how and why eritable composition of populations change over time, you want to add it because is the way you can start the trick evolution is a fact and a theory.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. How do organisms change? By diverging and diversifying.
You see. Always the same trick again and again. Don`t you realize that you lose credibility.
DeleteDiveging and diversifying, change of heritable composition it is not the same that common descent. Common descent means a pig became a whale.
Blas: Diveging and diversifying, change of heritable composition it is not the same that common descent.
ReplyDeleteIf organisms diverge and diversify, that means the resultant organisms share a common ancestor.
Well Zachriel I will never buy the car of a darwinist.
Delete