tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post248610007270043359..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Indonesian Mimic OctopusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69000956256776486722011-09-06T06:50:23.789-07:002011-09-06T06:50:23.789-07:00Hi John,
Not sure your point, though we haven...Hi John, <br /><br />Not sure your point, though we haven't been following your entire conversation. Could you state your position?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27089179315854326722011-09-06T05:30:22.620-07:002011-09-06T05:30:22.620-07:00Thorton: "You provided know examples of small...Thorton: "You provided know examples of small evolved variations in the single existing code."<br /><br />They 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.<br /><br />Thorton: "You didn't provide evidence of different 'kinds' because there is no scientific category as 'kind'."<br /><br />Which would have been your problem had you not admitted later that phyla would be fine. Humans and algae are in different phyla.<br /><br />Just face it, your bluff was called and you moved the goal posts when you were shown something your theory predicts would be unlikely.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42467752499824249182011-09-05T09:38:50.595-07:002011-09-05T09:38:50.595-07:00John the liar for Jesus said...
Thorton: "Pr...<i>John the liar for Jesus said...<br /><br />Thorton: "Problem is liar you didn't provide X."<br /><br />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'</i><br /><br />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'.<br /><br />Give it up liar John, you lost. No one cares about your lies anymore.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10275130915182962712011-09-04T22:45:39.209-07:002011-09-04T22:45:39.209-07:00John: "I guess if he says X will falsify theo...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."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Perhaps they will hear it from you.<br /><br />Thorton: "Problem is liar you didn't provide X."<br /><br />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'.<br /><br />Thorton: "You provided Z and claimed it was X, despite being shown the scientific references that prove you wrong"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />With you're track record of truth telling, I'm delighted to be called a liar by you.<br /><br />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. "<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7958302923793874752011-09-03T20:15:18.163-07:002011-09-03T20:15:18.163-07:00Zachriel :"A theory is a framework comprising...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."<br /><br />This is my meaning exactly. Perhaps they will hear it from you.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />But then upon further examination, it was discovered that the jewel was a fake and the body turned up missing!.<br /><br />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?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24235479170329564442011-09-03T06:35:52.081-07:002011-09-03T06:35:52.081-07:00As Zachriel said:
"If we could reliably date...As Zachriel said:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />So, you ID pushers better get busy and find some buffalo (or rabbit) fossils (in situ) in Cambrian sediments. <br /><br />You might as well look for Bigfoot.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82861901874599531512011-09-01T08:05:02.772-07:002011-09-01T08:05:02.772-07:00Perhaps another example is in order. Take the foll...Perhaps another example is in order. Take the following hypothetical thought experiment. <br /><br />A 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <b>we did not actually experience the man leaving the country.</b> This is in contrast to being justified due to the way things *were* in reality. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <b>should we have experienced the man actually leaving the country for any reason at all</b>. 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31795552804583940842011-09-01T08:02:18.771-07:002011-09-01T08:02:18.771-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41790944990327825202011-09-01T06:33:41.151-07:002011-09-01T06:33:41.151-07:00Neal: As illustrated by the comments here, a herd ...Neal: As illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buffalo fossils in the Cambrian WOULD NOT be allowed to falsify evolution.<br /><br />Not be allowed? I'm not following you.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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? <br /><br />If not, then why would you disconnect the two when evaluating predictions of Neo-Darwinism?<br /><br />Because you're merely attacking a theory you personally object to?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36938584689209245332011-08-31T18:04:15.234-07:002011-08-31T18:04:15.234-07:00Neal Tedford: As illustrated by the comments here,...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>As illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buffalo fossils in the Cambrian WOULD NOT be allowed to falsify evolution. </i><br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1698041252113865922011-08-31T15:01:54.220-07:002011-08-31T15:01:54.220-07:00Tedford the idiot said...
As illustrated by t...<i>Tedford the idiot said...<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> Got it.</i><br /><br />Tedford's still an idiot. Got it.<br /><br />There are two different scenarios here that Tedford is equivocating over:<br /><br />1) What discoveries if made <b>when it was first being investigated</b> would have falsified the ToE <br /><br />2) What discoveries if made <b>today</b> would falsify ToE given our current state of knowledge.<br /><br />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. <b>But the exact opposite of those things were discovered. </b>That's why ToE is falsifiable; it just hasn't been falsified.<br /><br />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 <b>all</b> our sciences over the last 150 years.<br /><br />Prediction: the important difference between the two cases will zoom right over the idiot's head.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76160158262555012792011-08-31T13:48:35.425-07:002011-08-31T13:48:35.425-07:00As illustrated by the comments here, a herd of buf...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.<br /><br />Got it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28942667333748333782011-08-31T13:32:07.553-07:002011-08-31T13:32:07.553-07:00Zachriel: The most important explanation is heredi...Zachriel: The most important explanation is heredity. You are what you are because of what your ancestors were.<br /><br />Right. 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Either of these observations would require some completely new theory of how knowledge was created in the genome. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73686650441838820752011-08-31T12:42:15.220-07:002011-08-31T12:42:15.220-07:00Tedford the idiot said...
Evolutionists comfo...<i>Tedford the idiot said...<br /><br /> 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</i><br /><br />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) <b>still has to account for the consilience of all the other collected evidence for the last 150 years.</b> That evidence doesn't vanish every time science makes a new discovery which changes our understanding of some little detail.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68725809207347687612011-08-31T12:31:23.507-07:002011-08-31T12:31:23.507-07:00Neal Tedford: And so it begins with the evolutioni...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>And so it begins with the evolutionists ability to adapt to even buffalo fossils...</i><br /><br />If you dig a hole and bury a rabbit in your backyard, it doesn't assume the age of the ground it's buried in. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>you're really still in denial about the extent of the contradictions between classifications based on morphology and genetics. </i><br /><br />Of course the nested hierarchy is not always exact: Hybridization and convergence are two mechanisms known to Darwin that distort the pattern. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Remember, your hierarchy all depends on your selection criteria. </i><br /><br />Let's start by some simple groupings. What is the most parsimonious grouping of fish, dolphin, cat? <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Possible existence? You have a tendency to put question marks on stuff your uncomfortable with and stretch the other stuff... like the nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />Soft tissue is still subject to some controversy. Hybridization can be directly observed.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79283017246265537832011-08-31T12:08:57.121-07:002011-08-31T12:08:57.121-07:00Zachriel said, "The possible existence of &qu...Zachriel said, "The possible existence of "soft dinosaur tissue" doesn't impact the theory of evolution"<br /><br />Possible 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". <br /><br />Do you see your bias now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21197209179092632832011-08-31T12:03:05.473-07:002011-08-31T12:03:05.473-07:00Zachriel said, "If we can show the strata is ...Zachriel said, "If we can show the strata is disturbed, then the dating would be in question. That's not much of an argument. "<br /><br />And 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64632667810829030992011-08-31T11:51:45.222-07:002011-08-31T11:51:45.222-07:00Scott: Right, but this is based on a particular hi...<b>Scott</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />Yes, and we may make new discoveries about Jefferson's descendants without overthrowing the basics of genealogy either. <br /><br /><b>Scott</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>Scott</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />There are any number of fanciful ideas, especially when they are not constrained by facts. <br /> <br /><b>Scott</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />The most important explanation is heredity. You are what you are because of what your ancestors were.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52220955298510107322011-08-31T11:44:47.193-07:002011-08-31T11:44:47.193-07:00Neal Tedford: Regarding the nested hierarchy... wh...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Regarding the nested hierarchy... where in your hierachy is the sea squirt. </i><br /><br />Hybridization is a well-established phenomena. Nevertheless, there is a strong nested hierarchy across most animal taxa. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Remember, your hierarchy all depends on your selection criteria. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Worst case, you would just say that its just something unexplained or a corruption of the fossil record. </i><br /><br />If we can show the strata is disturbed, then the dating would be in question. That's not much of an argument. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Kinda of like when soft dinosaur tissue were found. </i><br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30188983380171187112011-08-31T11:29:58.890-07:002011-08-31T11:29:58.890-07:00Zachriel: This is something we can predict. You wo...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.<br /><br />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. 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />A particular history falls under the umbrella of evolutionary theory, but it's not the driving explanation. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77674480252360328522011-08-31T10:48:38.519-07:002011-08-31T10:48:38.519-07:00Zachriel, Punctuated equilibrium is a clever way t...Zachriel, Punctuated equilibrium is a clever way to justify evolution when the fossil evidence doesn't exist!<br /><br />Regarding 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? <br /><br />--<br /><br />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!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23817955537362385032011-08-31T10:44:47.041-07:002011-08-31T10:44:47.041-07:00Neal: Scott do you take these philosophical rabbit...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?<br /><br />Are 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?<br /><br />If so, then you're probably not interested in having a reasonable discussion either.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73152571396500872952011-08-31T10:41:26.566-07:002011-08-31T10:41:26.566-07:00John: So which position on instrumentalism would ...John: So which position on instrumentalism would choose to consider your theory as authoritative over Thorton's? <br /><br />You'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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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". <br /><br />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.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6796114685660183192011-08-31T10:24:28.327-07:002011-08-31T10:24:28.327-07:00John: I guess if he says X will falsify theory Y, ...<b>John</b>: <i>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. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b> <i>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, </i><br /><br />Supposed racial differences weren't findings of Charles Darwin, and pangenesis was a speculative hypothesis distinct from the Theory of Evolution. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b> <i>For example, the fossil record doesn't show gradualism. </i><br /><br />Sure it does, though not for every transition—nor would we expect it to. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b> <i>What to do? Assume evolution is still a fact, and make up a term called punctuated equilibrium. </i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b> <i>So the evidence points to the original creationist expectation, but since that is not allowed, evolution is accommodated. </i><br /><br />No. Creationism doesn't explain a nested hierarchy of diverging forms through hundreds of millions of years of geological history. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b> <i>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. </i><br /><br />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.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59594578581998513782011-08-31T10:06:45.583-07:002011-08-31T10:06:45.583-07:00Tedford the idiot said...
For example, the fo...<i>Tedford the idiot said...<br /><br /> For example, the fossil record doesn't show gradualism. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />See, when that's your best "objective evidence against evolution theory" why are you surprised when you're considered an idiot?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com