tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7848859427168278895..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New Research Continues to Point to a Super ProgenitorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66442900327298140282011-11-02T09:18:39.151-07:002011-11-02T09:18:39.151-07:00Blas: You can find both evidence in an orchard mod...<b>Blas</b>: <i>You can find both evidence in an orchard model. </i><br /><br />No. In an orchard, you don't expect branches from different trees to converge. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>But the nested hierarchy of broken genes make as related with guinea pigs. That is evidence against common descent? </i><br /><br />No they don't. The broken GULOP gene in apes is broken in the same way, but the broken gene in guinea pigs is broken in a different way. When examining the sequences, the guinea pig is clearly in the out-group, with the sequence of the broken gene supporting the familiar nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Common descent means that actual species will change independant of the changing enviroment. </i><br /><br />You had asked about prediction of the Theory of Evolution. Descent with modification is intrinsic to the Theory of Common Descent. Not all changes are going to be adaptive, and lineages may split without adaptation, but the environment is still important for most such divergences by isolating the subpopulations. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>They are going to select the best fitted mutants. Which mutants the theory is especting to see? </i><br /><br />Mutation can be shown to be largely random with respect to fitness. In large populations, you may see every possible mutation occurring. If small populations, more contingency is involved. However, it's important to understand that all natural populations are diverse, some organisms will be taller, or have a slower metabolism, or narrower leaves. It's among this diversity that natural selection works.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34214043241951763492011-11-02T08:17:04.228-07:002011-11-02T08:17:04.228-07:00Zachriel said...
"The fossil record provides ...Zachriel said...<br />"The fossil record provides snapshots in time of the transitions that are entailed in descent with modification, a key component of the Theory of Common Descent."<br /><br />"If humans are related to chimpanzees, then we would expect that there once existed more primitive human-like organisms that more closely resemble primitive apes. For instance, we would predict a transition in brain sizes. And that is what we see." <br /><br /> <br />You can find both evidence in an orchard model. And when you find that Australopithecus sediba and Homo ergaster do not fit the sequence of growing brains is evidence against common descent? <br /><br /><br />Zachriel:In fact, the pattern of sequences in broken genes fit the same nested hierarchy, even though they are not tied to phylogenetic traits. <br /><br />But the nested hierarchy of broken genes make as related with guinea pigs. That is evidence against common descent?<br /><br />Zachriel:"That they will continue to adapt to the changing environment or go extinct." <br /><br /><br />No Zachriel, Common descent means that actual species will change independant of the changing enviroment. They are going to select the best fitted mutants. Which mutants the theory is especting to see?<br /><br />Zachriel: "Similarly, even if we have complete understanding of all the mechanisms of evolution doesn't mean we can make long term predictions with any certainty. <br /><br />Because the trajectory of complex systems can be inherently unpredictable, i.e. chaotic, over the long term."<br /><br />That is why evrithing we find in the past fit the ToE. But really seems to me we do not have complete understanding of all the mechanisms of evolution.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20690223180496081152011-11-01T07:50:58.259-07:002011-11-01T07:50:58.259-07:00Zachriel: There's also the succession of fossi...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>There's also the succession of fossils. </i><br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Please can you explain which is the entailment that implies a Common Descent? </i><br /><br />The fossil record provides snapshots in time of the transitions that are entailed in descent with modification, a key component of the Theory of Common Descent. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Is another trait “broken genes” and the nested hierarchy of broken genes do not fit the nested hierarchy of traits, you have to claim exceptions in both. </i><br /><br />In fact, the pattern of sequences in broken genes fit the same nested hierarchy, even though they are not tied to phylogenetic traits. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Too be precise I think is not a fact that are related, if you want an example: Man and chimpanzee. </i><br /><br />If humans are related to chimpanzees, then we would expect that there once existed more primitive human-like organisms that more closely resemble primitive apes. For instance, we would predict a transition in brain sizes. And that is what we see. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>That doesn't mean the long term predictions are influenced by magic. </i><br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>I do not understand why you are bringing magic here </i><br /><br />We have ready explanations for why the long term trajectory of complex systems are unpredictable without having to invoke mysterious causes. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>What can ToE predict about the evolution of actual species? </i><br /><br />That they will continue to adapt to the changing environment or go extinct. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Similarly, even if we have complete understanding of all the mechanisms of evolution doesn't mean we can make long term predictions with any certainty. </i><br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Why?</i><br /><br />Because the trajectory of complex systems can be inherently unpredictable, i.e. chaotic, over the long term.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50340502003158542612011-10-31T11:11:25.852-07:002011-10-31T11:11:25.852-07:00Zachriel said: “Because it is empirical confirmati...Zachriel said: “Because it is empirical confirmation of an entailment from the Theory of Common Descent.” <br /><br />Please can you explain which is the entailment that implies a Common Descent?<br /><br />Zachriel said: “Broken genes drift in accordance with neutral evolution, and exhibit a nested hierarchy—even though they are not connected to phylogenetic traits.”<br /><br />Is another trait “broken genes” and the nested hierarchy of broken genes do not fit the nested hierarchy of traits, you have to claim exceptions in both.<br /> <br />Zachriel said: “You suggested an orchard. When pressed, you can't provide any specifics. Please point to two organisms that you do not think are related”.<br /><br />Too be precise I think is not a fact that are related, if you want an example: Man and chimpanzee.<br /><br />Zachriel said:“That doesn't mean the long term predictions are influenced by magic.”<br /><br />I do not understand why you are bringing magic here<br /><br />Zachriel said:“It's just the nature of complex systems that individual trajectories exhibit chaos.” <br /><br />Well as you said you cannot predict the position of a molecule of water but can predict the the flow of the river, can you predict the flow of evolution? Maybe I was too specific in my question before. Can you predict flow of the evolution of the actual fishes? There will be another try to breath air in the future? What can ToE predict about the evolution of actual species?<br /><br />Zachriel said:“Similarly, even if we have complete understanding of all the mechanisms of evolution doesn't mean we can make long term predictions with any certainty.”<br /><br />Why? If you can go back to one LUCA, and also as you said “ Turns out that the Theory of Evolution fits the evidence very well, and makes all sorts of verifiable predictions.”Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4901013607536747152011-10-31T10:37:16.984-07:002011-10-31T10:37:16.984-07:00Blas: Why this is evidence of common ancestor?
B...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Why this is evidence of common ancestor? </i><br /><br />Because it is empirical confirmation of an entailment from the Theory of Common Descent. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>If you have nested morphological characters is expected nested molecular traits, unless the morphological can be not related to molecular. </i><br /><br />Broken genes drift in accordance with neutral evolution, and exhibit a nested hierarchy—even though they are not connected to phylogenetic traits. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Well I can´t rule out any hypotesis, maybe each animal is just a branch that goes directly to “one of a great diversity of organisms present at that time(LUCA´s time)". </i><br /><br />You suggested an orchard. When pressed, you can't provide any specifics. Please point to two organisms that you do not think are related. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>So looking at short term events, you cannot predict the future, but based on that short term events can describe past events in a way that “it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” </i><br /><br />Even accounting for language differences, your position just doesn't seem coherent. Let's try this again. We can have knowledge of all the relevant mechanisms, yet not be able to make long term predictions of complex systems such as weather. That doesn't mean the long term predictions are influenced by magic. It's just the nature of complex systems that individual trajectories exhibit chaos. Similarly, even if we have complete understanding of all the mechanisms of evolution doesn't mean we can make long term predictions with any certainty. <br /><br />In order to untangle the historical patterns, and the mechanisms involved, we have to look at the evidence, propose and test hypotheses. Turns out that the Theory of Evolution fits the evidence very well, and makes all sorts of verifiable predictions.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49626678169671817812011-10-31T10:22:37.479-07:002011-10-31T10:22:37.479-07:00Zachriel said:“There's also the succession of ...Zachriel said:“There's also the succession of fossils”. <br /><br />Why this is evidence of common ancestor?<br /><br />Zachriel said:“ And the nested hierarchy applies not just to morphological characters, but molecules traits, as well”.<br /><br />If you have nested morphological characters is expected nested molecular traits, unless the morphological can be not related to molecular. You are counting twice the same evidence nested hierarchy of traits, one of that traits is molecular traits, always with exceptions.<br /><br />Zachriel said: "In any case, you agree that many fundamental taxa have a common ancestor. Metazoa? Plants? Just dogs? How many trees? Which trees?” <br /><br />Well I can´t rule out any hypotesis, maybe each animal is just a branch that goes directly to “one of a great diversity of organisms present at that time(LUCA´s time)". <br /><br />Zachriel said: "Yes, we'll consider that once we have some common ground." <br /><br />Big extrapolation!<br /><br />Zachriel said:”Yes, so can weather science, but because weather is a complex phenomena, long term predictions are only statistical in nature.” <br /><br />“Short term predictions are easy. Long term predictions can be nigh impossible. That's normal for any complex system. Consider something as simple as turbulent flow. You can't predict where a molecule of water will be in a river, even though you can watch the river's flow to the sea.”<br /><br />So looking at short term events, you cannot predict the future, but based on that short term events can describe past events in a way that “it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48192639536880870352011-10-31T09:51:37.954-07:002011-10-31T09:51:37.954-07:00Blas: Again, the only evidence in favour of the co...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Again, the only evidence in favour of the common descent and that do not rule out the orchar model is the nested hierarchy of traits with exceptions. </i><br /><br />There's more than just the nested hierarchy. There's also the succession of fossils. And the nested hierarchy applies not just to morphological characters, but molecules traits, as well. <br /><br />In any case, you agree that many fundamental taxa have a common ancestor. Metazoa? Plants? Just dogs? How many trees? Which trees? <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>That was my first question in this discussion, this is the evidence that "Before the diversification that led to extant life, but more than likely the LUCA was only one of a great diversity of organisms present at that time. </i><br /><br />Yes, we'll consider that once we have some common ground. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>But ToE is the theory that explain the weather not only his mechanisms. ToE says he can explain step by step the changes of the weather. </i><br /><br />Yes, so can weather science, but because weather is a complex phenomena, long term predictions are only statistical in nature. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>You have to be able to predict where, better to what, the organism are evolving now. </i><br /><br />Short term predictions are easy. Long term predictions can be nigh impossible. That's normal for any complex system. Consider something as simple as turbulent flow. You can't predict where a molecule of water will be in a river, even though you can watch the river's flow to the sea.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40347690335398545892011-10-31T09:14:36.028-07:002011-10-31T09:14:36.028-07:00Zachriel said...
"Yes. In particular, the nes...Zachriel said...<br />"Yes. In particular, the nested hierarchy is strongly supported for most taxa except the most primitive."<br /><br />Again, the only evidence in favour of the common descent and that do not rule out the orchar model is the nested hierarchy of traits with exceptions. That was my first question in this discussion, this is the evidence that "Before the diversification that led to extant life, but more than likely the LUCA was only one of a great diversity of organisms present at that time. "<br /><br />"As the niche is filled, it is unlikely fish could invade it. Not sure your point. Perhaps you are trying to say that it is difficult to predict the future course of evolution?"<br /><br />No, the point is that evolution do not know the niche is filled (neither you) and if it is ramdom in 400 Mya should be more attempts <br />to breath air that is big advantage .<br /><br />"If so, it's difficult to predict the future course of weather, but that doesn't mean weather isn't due to air pressure, evaporation, and such mechanisms."<br /><br />But ToE is the theory that explain the weather not only his mechanisms. ToE says he can explain step by step the changes of the weather. <br /><br />"No more than we can always predict the color of a baby's eyes with certainty. That doesn't mean there aren't laws of heredity involved. There is an interplay of normal variation within a population, mechanisms of novel variation, and chance."<br /><br />That examples can be predicted by every theory of the origin of the species. If your affirmation that . <br /><br />"Of course we do (see organism evolving). And we can measure it quantitatively, just as we do the movement of continents." <br /><br />You have to be able to predict where, better to what, the organism are evolving now.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65466500671366890692011-10-31T08:21:31.761-07:002011-10-31T08:21:31.761-07:00Blas: And common descent has more confirmed entail...<b>Blas</b>: <i>And common descent has more confirmed entailments than an orchard model of evolution? </i><br /><br />Yes. In particular, the nested hierarchy is strongly supported for most taxa except the most primitive. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Lungfish” evolved 400Mya, I was asking when your “quantitativly measured observation of evolution” predicts the NEXT attempt of fishes to breath air, following the “non ramdom variation·</i><br /><br />As the niche is filled, it is unlikely fish could invade it. Not sure your point. Perhaps you are trying to say that it is difficult to predict the future course of evolution? If so, it's difficult to predict the future course of weather, but that doesn't mean weather isn't due to air pressure, evaporation, and such mechanisms. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Them we have to predict which and when will be the future variations. </i><br /><br />No more than we can always predict the color of a baby's eyes with certainty. That doesn't mean there aren't laws of heredity involved. There is an interplay of normal variation within a population, mechanisms of novel variation, and chance.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6492551080410513862011-10-31T07:55:49.772-07:002011-10-31T07:55:49.772-07:00Zachriel said “In science, it means the hypothesis...Zachriel said “In science, it means the hypothesis has specific, confirmed entailments.”<br /><br />And common descent has more confirmed entailments than an orchard model of evolution? Has more confirmed antailments than flogisto had?<br /><br />Zachriel said “Lungfish. “<br /><br />Lungfish” evolved 400Mya, I was asking when your “quantitativly measured observation of evolution” predicts the NEXT attempt of fishes to breath air, following the “non ramdom variation·<br /><br /><br /><br />Zachriel said “Adding "by chance" misconstrues the terms. Variation is hardly random, but observed in all natural populations. Selection is no more random than a planet orbiting its star.”<br /><br />So if variation is not ramdom is fixed. Them we have to predict which and when will be the future variations. Can you do that?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73557525786784677122011-10-31T07:16:02.461-07:002011-10-31T07:16:02.461-07:00Blas: Scientifically speaking what does "reas...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Scientifically speaking what does "reasonable" means? </i>c<br /><br />In science, it means the hypothesis has specific, confirmed entailments. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>You are saying this now. If you have lived in that time you would taked it as a scientific fact. </i><br /><br />No, but perhaps as a working assumption. A better example would be Galileo's claim that the Sun was the center of the Universe. A good working hypothesis, consistent with the available evidence, but not completely accurate. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Also were filled the sea, but a pakicetus become a whale in less than 50?Mya. </i><br /><br />Mammals fill a different niche than fishes. They are warm-blooded, large brained and highly active organisms due to larger amounts of oxygen they can utilize. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>I´m just looking for the intermediates sort of mutant fishes? Intermediates forms? Transitional forms? Any kind that could fit to evolution. </i><br /><br />Lungfish. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Observing dinosaurs bones is testing bones not testing dinosaurs. </i><br /><br />Quite the contrary. Observing dinosaur bones is not observing dinosaurs, but it is testing dinosaurs. If the fossils are the remains of actual organisms, then we can look for additional evidence, such as additional fossils, partially digested food, coprolites, eggs, immature members of the species, entire ecosystems! <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Variation by chance, selection by chance and historical contingency (chance) accounts for all the living world we see. </i><br /><br />Adding "by chance" misconstrues the terms. Variation is hardly random, but observed in all natural populations. Selection is no more random than a planet orbiting its star.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9790348353470680462011-10-31T06:42:07.501-07:002011-10-31T06:42:07.501-07:00 Zachriel said...
“That's right, but some clai... Zachriel said...<br />“That's right, but some claims are so well established that it is reasonable to give provisional assent.”<br /><br />Scientifically speaking what does "reasonable" means?<br /><br /> Zachriel said...“The problem with philostogen is that it didn't produce clear entailments. Consequently, it was appropriate to consider it tentatively, but not to consider it demonstrated.”<br /><br />You are saying this now. If you have lived in that time you would taked it as a scientific fact.<br /><br /> Zachriel said...“It possible, but not likely as the niche is already filled. In any case, such transformations can take millions of years, so we wouldn't expect to see such a sudden transformation.”<br /><br />Also were filled the sea, but a pakicetus become a whale in less than 50?Mya. We are waiting for a breathing fish for 400Mya. And I´m not asking for a population of breathing air fishes, I´m just looking for the intermediates sort of mutant fishes? Intermediates forms? Transitional forms? Any kind that could fit to evolution. <br /><br /> Zachriel said...“You are observing evidence of past events. Remember? Dinosaurs roamed the Earth.”<br />Observing dinosaurs bones is testing bones not testing dinosaurs. You test the bones and give plausibility to the dinosaurs roaming the Earth in the past.<br /><br /> Zachriel said...”Mechanisms of variation and selection, as well as historical contingency.”<br /><br />Variation by chance, selection by chance and historical contingency (chance) accounts for all the living world we see.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44121607303836858842011-10-31T06:06:23.813-07:002011-10-31T06:06:23.813-07:00Blas: findings that as you said "All scientif...<b>Blas</b>: <i>findings that as you said "All scientific findings are tentative" </i><br /><br />That's right, but some claims are so well established that it is reasonable to give provisional assent. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>In the same way scientist could make factual claims about flogisto. </i><br /><br />The problem with philostogen is that it didn't produce clear entailments. Consequently, it was appropriate to consider it tentatively, but not to consider it demonstrated. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>I was asking for the NEXT fish that will start to breath air again. </i><br /><br />It possible, but not likely as the niche is already filled. In any case, such transformations can take millions of years, so we wouldn't expect to see such a sudden transformation. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>What can you predict as you "can measure it quantitatively"? </i><br /><br />From the evidence he compiled for macroevolutionary changes, Darwin posited, but could not directly observe, microevolution. We can now observe microevolution—and not just in the lab. Indeed, very patient researchers have now been able to observe and measure rates of evolutionary adaptation in the wild. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>So you are testing hypothesis in the actual enviroment, that is not testing past events. </i><br /><br />You are observing evidence of past events. Remember? Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>So chance accounts for all the living world we see? </i><br /><br />Mechanisms of variation and selection, as well as historical contingency.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26736761821092608362011-10-31T05:54:37.391-07:002011-10-31T05:54:37.391-07:00Zachriel said: "Because most everyone underst...Zachriel said: "Because most everyone understands that "Dinosaurs roamed the Earth" is a strongly supported scientific finding." <br /><br />findings that as you said "All scientific findings are tentative"<br /><br /> Zachriel said:"Hence, we CAN make factual statements about history absent human witnesses or records." <br /><br />In the same way scientist could make factual claims about flogisto. Why you do not want I give the example?<br /><br /> Zachriel said: "Some fish do breathe air. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish"<br /><br />Yes, off course 400Mya ago, more or less the same period when according to ToE other fish started to breath air got legs and became an amphibian. I was asking for the NEXT fish that will start to breath air again. We have been waiting for 400Mya. What can you predict as you "can measure it quantitatively"?<br /><br />Zachriel said: "By proposing and testing hypotheses. So, if you posit there was a global flood a few thousand years ago, you not only have to account for the quantity of water, but the hypothesis should entail specific empirical consequences, such as deposits across the Earth's surface. Turns out that those predictions are inconsistent with the evidence."<br /><br />So you are testing hypothesis in the actual enviroment, that is not testing past events. That tested hypotesys may make plausible the past events not tested.<br /><br />Blas said: Wich mechanism? Chance? <br /><br />Zachriel said: "Mechanisms of variation and selection, as well as historical contingency."<br /><br />So chance accounts for all the living world we see?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8158402009363177282011-10-29T07:19:23.278-07:002011-10-29T07:19:23.278-07:00Blas: Why bother you bring an example?
Because m...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Why bother you bring an example? </i><br /><br />Because most everyone understands that "Dinosaurs roamed the Earth" is a strongly supported scientific finding. Hence, we CAN make factual statements about history absent human witnesses or records. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Well tell me when will an actual fish will start to breath air. </i><br /><br />Some fish do breathe air. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish<br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>How do you test objectively test a past event? </i><br /><br />By proposing and testing hypotheses. So, if you posit there was a global flood a few thousand years ago, you not only have to account for the quantity of water, but the hypothesis should entail specific empirical consequences, such as deposits across the Earth's surface. Turns out that those predictions are inconsistent with the evidence.<br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>I bet we can find a dinosaurs denier. </i><br /><br />Of course you can. Some people think they are Napoléon Bonaparte. And maybe he is, but we're talking about what can be shown to have scientific validity. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Wich mechanism? Chance? </i><br /><br />Mechanisms of variation and selection, as well as historical contingency.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79285672584511877982011-10-28T13:17:06.243-07:002011-10-28T13:17:06.243-07:00Zachriel said...
"Say scientific findings are...Zachriel said...<br />"Say scientific findings are provisional doesn't add anything, as all scientific findings are provisional."<br /><br />Why bother you bring an example? <br /><br /> Zachriel said...<br />"Of course we do. And we can measure it quantitatively, just as we do the movement of continents."<br /><br />Well tell me when will an actual fish will start to breath air.<br /><br /> Zachriel said...<br />"The testing of scientific hypotheses is not a subjective process, but the heart of the scientific method."<br /><br />How do you test objectively test a past event? <br /><br /> Zachriel said...<br />"Dinosaurs roamed the Earth."<br /><br />I bet we can find a dinosaurs denier. <br /><br /> Zachriel said...<br />"Well, no. We also have the observation of mechanisms sufficient to account for the historical record."<br /><br />Wich mechanism? Chance?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3371333014868983272011-10-28T12:04:47.307-07:002011-10-28T12:04:47.307-07:00Blas: All that observations are provisional as wer...<b>Blas</b>: <i>All that observations are provisional as were the observations supporting flogisto theory. </i><br /><br />Say scientific findings are provisional doesn't add anything, as all scientific findings are provisional. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>We do not see organism evolving. </i><br /><br />Of course we do. And we can measure it quantitatively, just as we do the movement of continents. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>This discussion can go ahead for a very long time because for the events in the past, no matter the use of the historical method, there is always room for subjectivity. </i><br /><br />The testing of scientific hypotheses is not a subjective process, but the heart of the scientific method. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>So historical are never as facts as scientific facts. </i><br /><br />Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>The only evidence avaiable for common descent is the nested hierarchy of traits(with exceptions) </i><br /><br />Well, no. We also have the observation of mechanisms sufficient to account for the historical record.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19221744378390389552011-10-28T10:09:46.283-07:002011-10-28T10:09:46.283-07:00"We do not see organism evolving.
This discus..."We do not see organism evolving.<br />This discussion can go ahead for a very long time because for the events in the past, no matter the use of the historical method, there is always room for subjectivity. The confidence on witnesses, the interpretation of the documents, the grade of plausibility is never objective. So historical are never as facts as scientificfacts. Think in recent events, there is people that do not believe the man was on the moon or people that beleive the 911 was an conspiracy of US goverment."<br /><br />But of course religious fairy tales should not be subjected to the same scrutiny of subjectivity and lack of direct observation, right? <br /><br />Maybe one of you ID pushers can show that you were actually there when your chosen god designed and created the universe, the Earth, life, man and woman, animals, bacteria, minerals, chemicals, plants, angels, demons, the devil, everlasting life, consciousness, heaven, hell, rainbows, death, morality, the words in the bible, miracles, and all the other stuff you give him credit for? <br /><br />And no, I'm not agreeing that we do not see organisms evolving.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33967428322217958632011-10-28T09:40:57.943-07:002011-10-28T09:40:57.943-07:00Zachriel said...
"Apparently, you don't u...Zachriel said...<br />"Apparently, you don't understand the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution proposes that it takes thousands or millions of years for such transformations. As we can't make observations over such long time spans, instead, we use the hypothesis to deduce empirical predictions, then we test those empirical predictions. How did you think science worked? <br /><br />Consider continental drift. There was circumstantial evidence in geology that continents once fitted together. The discovery of mechanisms involving the currents in the Earth's interior supports this theory. The posited origin of the Earth as a condensate from the primordial nebula supports the theory. The direct measurements of continental drift add additional support. Nothing "proves" that the continents have drifted for millions of years, but all the observations are consistent with continental drift over long eons of time."<br /><br />All that observations are provisional as were the observations supporting flogisto theory. <br /><br />"Similarly, we can observe organisms evolve at rates consistent with the transformations seen in the fossil record. We have the nested hierarchy generally supporting bifurcating descent. The Theory of Common Descent guides research in non-trivial ways, including in the discovery of heretofore unknown fossil forms. All available evidence supports the Theory of Common Descent."<br /><br />We do not see organism evolving. <br />This discussion can go ahead for a very long time because for the events in the past, no matter the use of the historical method, there is always room for subjectivity. The confidence on witnesses, the interpretation of the documents, the grade of plausibility is never objective. So historical are never as facts as scientificfacts. Think in recent events, there is people that do not believe the man was on the moon or people that beleive the 911 was an conspiracy of US goverment.<br /><br />The only evidence avaiable for common descent is the nested hierarchy of traits(with exceptions) All the other evidence is based on this and assuming Common descent. No one of the evidence rule out an orchard model of evolution without common descent.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60900245718127278562011-10-28T09:20:55.690-07:002011-10-28T09:20:55.690-07:00Blas: To say we observe something that can make pl...<b>Blas</b>: <i>To say we observe something that can make plausible the Common Descent we have to observe a fish becaming an air breathing fish, a land mammal becaming a sea swimming mammal or similar things. </i><br /><br />Apparently, you don't understand the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution proposes that it takes thousands or millions of years for such transformations. As we can't make observations over such long time spans, instead, we use the hypothesis to deduce empirical predictions, then we test those empirical predictions. How did you think science worked? <br /><br />Consider continental drift. There was circumstantial evidence in geology that continents once fitted together. The discovery of mechanisms involving the currents in the Earth's interior supports this theory. The posited origin of the Earth as a condensate from the primordial nebula supports the theory. The direct measurements of continental drift add additional support. Nothing "proves" that the continents have drifted for millions of years, but all the observations are consistent with continental drift over long eons of time. <br /><br />Similarly, we can observe organisms evolve at rates consistent with the transformations seen in the fossil record. We have the nested hierarchy generally supporting bifurcating descent. The Theory of Common Descent guides research in non-trivial ways, including in the discovery of heretofore unknown fossil forms. All available evidence supports the Theory of Common Descent.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55849211614806309052011-10-28T08:54:14.481-07:002011-10-28T08:54:14.481-07:00"Blas: we do not see transformation of one sp..."Blas: we do not see transformation of one specie in other, <br /><br />Zachriel:In fact, we observe speciation, and the process of speciation."<br /><br />To say we observe something that can make plausible the Common Descent we have to observe a fish becaming an air breathing fish, a land mammal becaming a sea swimming mammal or similar things.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38079099971345298702011-10-28T08:37:22.988-07:002011-10-28T08:37:22.988-07:00Blas: we do not see transformation of one specie i...<b>Blas</b>: <i>we do not see transformation of one specie in other, </i><br /><br />In fact, we observe speciation, and the process of speciation.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56480860698550739442011-10-28T06:27:42.809-07:002011-10-28T06:27:42.809-07:00Zachriel said...
"Right. Furthermore, we can ...Zachriel said...<br />"Right. Furthermore, we can study those bones to make many determinations about what they ate, how they reproduced, and so on. We do this by proposing and testing hypotheses. Similarly with the Theory of Common Descent."<br /><br />Yes, as we do not see transformation of one specie in other, on the contrary we witnesses conservation of traits, the hypotheses of Common Descent lacks the attribute of plausibility to be an "historical fact".Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19877503537339897872011-10-27T10:12:28.724-07:002011-10-27T10:12:28.724-07:00Blas: I can observe the bones of an animal, that i...<b>Blas</b>: <i>I can observe the bones of an animal, that it is not of a living animal. This bones corresponds to a reptil animal. Today animals go extint. Applying the historical method it is plausible that in the past existed an animal we call dinosaurs. </i><br /><br />Right. Furthermore, we can study those bones to make many determinations about what they ate, how they reproduced, and so on. We do this by proposing and testing hypotheses. Similarly with the Theory of Common Descent.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68746688664089747902011-10-27T09:48:12.096-07:002011-10-27T09:48:12.096-07:00Zachriel said...
Well, no. It was a working hypoth...Zachriel said...<br />Well, no. It was a working hypothesis, but had only vague supporting evidence, such as the loss of weight of most burnt materials. <br /><br />In any case, such is the nature of science. Findings can change, even those once accepted as fact. <br /><br />Then I will wait before accept the findings of Common Descent.<br /><br />"Zachriel: Let's start with a simple historical claim, one without witnesses or documents. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. <br /><br />Blas: Agree <br /><br />Zachriel:Which undercuts your suggestion about not accepting historical findings because they are "not observable or reproducible."<br /><br /><br />I can observe the bones of an animal, that it is not of a living animal. This bones corresponds to a reptil animal. Today animals go extint. Applying the historical method it is plausible that in the past existed an animal we call dinosaurs.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.com