tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8804428052638623143..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here is Why the DNA Code is a ProblemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger252125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46668182403159533292014-11-06T19:23:08.593-08:002014-11-06T19:23:08.593-08:00Thank you! I couldn't find the 1993 edition.Thank you! I couldn't find the 1993 edition.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07856737297410536189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4490761992927587382014-11-06T17:38:49.297-08:002014-11-06T17:38:49.297-08:00The Ridley quote is this:
"Homologous simila...The Ridley quote is this:<br /><br />"Homologous similarities between species provide the most widespread class of evidence that living and fossil species have evolved from a common ancestor. The anatomy, biochemistry, and embryonic development of each species contains innumerable characters like the pentadactyl limb and the genetic code: characters that are similar between species, but would not be if the species had independent origins." [Mark Ridley, *Evolution,* Blackwell, 1993, pp 48-9]Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5803205749776021602014-11-06T17:19:46.719-08:002014-11-06T17:19:46.719-08:00Any way you could give me the exact quote from Mar...Any way you could give me the exact quote from Mark Ridley that you mention?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07856737297410536189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27868238377740541402013-03-21T10:52:12.897-07:002013-03-21T10:52:12.897-07:00Jeff: You've admitted that those degrees of ev...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>You've admitted that those degrees of evolution are assumed as axioms for your inferences. </i><br /><br />Admit? A hypothesis is a tentative assumption held in order to test its empirical implications. That's how science works. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You can not generate evidence for a high-level claim by USING the very high-level claim axiomatically if that hypothesis, when analyzed, is equivalent to literally MILLIONS of ad-hoc SPECIFIC hypotheses which, individually, have no intuitive or analogical warrant. </i><br /><br />The nested hierarchy is not ad hoc, but a direct result of divergence from common ancestors. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37791136616631847642013-03-21T08:21:42.349-07:002013-03-21T08:21:42.349-07:00J1: The only real way to demarcate is in terms of ...J1: The only real way to demarcate is in terms of normal inductive relatively criteria<br /><br />J2: I meant so way "inductive relative plausibility criteria" ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50941965775179964002013-03-21T07:54:04.638-07:002013-03-21T07:54:04.638-07:00Jeff: And astronomers are troubled by positing dar...Jeff: And astronomers are troubled by positing dark matter without providing INDEPENDENT evidence of it (independent, i.e., in the sense that the current gravitational theory is not the only "evidence" for it).<br /><br />Z: Sure, they want additional evidence.<br /><br />J: Because evidence is just another word for that which renders a belief more PLAUSIBLE. Consider this quotation:<br /><br />--<br /><br />Richard Panek, in a March 11, 2007 New York Times article said "'You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,' meaning dark matter, 'but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,' meaning dark energy." In an April 11, 2007 article in Nature, Jenny Hogan described the mood at a recent cosmology conference; one astronomer said, "There is a sense of desperation…. The standard model is horribly ugly, but the data support it." Dark energy was called "a profound problem from the viewpoint of fundamental physics."<br /><br />--<br /><br />Notice words like "tooth fairy," "ugly," and "profound problem." By your view, as long as we can tack on another ad-hoc hypothesis to keep a theory non-contradictory, all is well. But by that view, solipsism is a scientific theory. <br /><br />And Quine was right about the impossibility of falsification per se as a scientific demarcator. Extremely nutty theories can be salvaged from falsification with enough ad-hoc hypotheses. The only real way to demarcate is in terms of normal inductive relatively criteria, like parsimony, less ad-hoc hypotheses, greater analogy, etc. But by those criteria, you don't know whether UCA is more PLAUSIBLE than SA. <br /><br />And that's all rational people care about. There's an infinite set of conceivable, coherent histories that have ZERO plausibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5704057745002606052013-03-21T07:32:31.915-07:002013-03-21T07:32:31.915-07:00...and the windbag keeps up his clueless blitherin......and the windbag keeps up his clueless blithering.<br /><br />You'd think the clown would spend 5 minutes and research at least the basics of evolutionary theory. But no, nothing can penetrate the <b>Wall of Creationist Willful Ignorance.</b><br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77061365555405835482013-03-21T07:27:58.148-07:002013-03-21T07:27:58.148-07:00Z: Of course there's evidence for common desce...Z: Of course there's evidence for common descent. <br /><br />J: There's observations for trivial common descent. My siblings and I were commonly descended from our parents. But that's hardly relevant to the hyothesis of UCA. <br /><br />The minute you get past what we can predict from our knowledge of natural causality (mutational effects, etc), there is no evidence. You've admitted that those degrees of evolution are assumed as axioms for your inferences. You can not generate evidence for a high-level claim by USING the very high-level claim axiomatically if that hypothesis, when analyzed, is equivalent to literally MILLIONS of ad-hoc SPECIFIC hypotheses which, individually, have no intuitive or analogical warrant. <br /><br />At that point, you're doing what the 5-minute theorist does. A conclusion inherits the plausibility of it's grounds. Your grounds (all millions of them) have no plausibility whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10341673549971847022013-03-20T09:24:42.417-07:002013-03-20T09:24:42.417-07:00Jeff: And astronomers are troubled by positing dar...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>And astronomers are troubled by positing dark matter without providing INDEPENDENT evidence of it (independent, i.e., in the sense that the current gravitational theory is not the only "evidence" for it). </i><br /><br />Sure, they want additional evidence. But that doesn't address the point, which was that making predictions means predicting observations. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No one is gonna pay me good money to sit around and conjure up the requisite ad-hoc hypotheses to generate the relevant SA predictions, Z. </i><br /><br />Pfft. You could, but you won't, because no one will pay you. Einstein worked at the patent office when he wrote some of his most important works. Darwin worked on his theory in between paying gigs, such as classifying barnacles. Galileo worked under house arrest. And everyone just loves to camp out in the Arctic for months on end because paleontologists get paid so well. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>I don't have to provide an alternative explanation to know you ASSUME UCA and UCA-style trajectories are logically possible in terms of natural laws. This means you have no evidence for THOSE beliefs. </i><br /><br />Of course there's evidence for common descent. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74458601556852689582013-03-20T07:47:06.123-07:002013-03-20T07:47:06.123-07:00Z: You have not provided anything close to the pow...Z: You have not provided anything close to the power of evolutionary theory to make such predictions<br /><br />J: No one is gonna pay me good money to sit around and conjure up the requisite ad-hoc hypotheses to generate the relevant SA predictions, Z. That's why nobody does it. We (SA'ists) all realize that even if we took the time to demonstrate that less ad-hoc hypotheses are required for our view, it would still be rejected by true believers in UCA for purely metaphysical reasons. <br /><br />That doesn't mean you've come close to showing that the number of ad-hoc hypotheses about geology, taphonomy, and biology required to imply your implications are less than the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required to imply every conceivable SA scenario.<br /><br />And people ARE paid good money to sit around a concoct ad-hoc hypotheses that imply evolutionary trajectories. If they weren't paid so well, they'd all quit wasting their time thus. Such implications have no value to anyone except those being paid to generate them and those with minds weak enough to think they have anything to do with plausibility criteria.<br /><br />Most people, including Moronton, don't even realize that UCA is an axiom in your theory rather than an evidence-based inference. That's how clueless they are. If you get off on kudo's from that fideistic ilk, get after it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33696892428660636772013-03-20T06:57:00.633-07:002013-03-20T06:57:00.633-07:00Z: Most of astronomy is about past events. Are you...Z: Most of astronomy is about past events. Are you saying astronomy is not a science?<br /><br />J: And astronomers are troubled by positing dark matter without providing INDEPENDENT evidence of it (independent, i.e., in the sense that the current gravitational theory is not the only "evidence" for it). They realize that the more ad-hoc a theory is, the less valuable it is. <br /><br />Your view is that your theory can be as ad-hoc as the five minute theory as long as I can't prove to you that I have a less ad-hoc theory. But that just means your view is no better than the 5 minutes theory. How worthless is that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36562294621031984652013-03-20T06:47:25.679-07:002013-03-20T06:47:25.679-07:00You do realize, Z, that your belief that you exper...You do realize, Z, that your belief that you experience anything empirically is ad-hoc, right? There's no way to test non-circularly such beliefs as:<br /><br />1) Some apparent memories are actual memories.<br /><br />2) Some of my inferences to 3-D-extended entities are true.<br /><br />The only question is, who uses LESS ad-hoc hypotheses when explaining things? Apart from that, there is no relative plausibility criteria whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63195906245788705752013-03-20T06:31:20.106-07:002013-03-20T06:31:20.106-07:00Z: Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence...Z: Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence.<br /><br />J: But you've already admitted that you have no evidence for the logical possibility of naturalistic UCA and UCA-style trajectories. You ASSUME them axiomatically. That's all I'm saying there is no evidence for. And you agree with me.<br /><br />Z: A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical implications. For instance, Newton proposed three axioms as the basis for his mechanics, Axiomata sive Leges Motus.<br /><br />Jeff: Z, an ad-hoc assumption is just an ad-hoc assumption. I could, if I thought there was any value to it, do what you do. I could generate ad-hoc assumptions to render SA the implication of my ad-hoc assumptions. So what? Empiricism per se doesn't even require causality other than the mental causation entailed in the laws of thought, Z! The five minute theory works just fine empirically so long as you're willing to disregard certain assumptions about causality.<br /><br />Z: You haven't provided an alternative explanation, certainly not one sufficient to explain how Shubin and his team made such a successful prediction—a beautiful result never thought of in your philosophy. <br /><br />J: I don't have to provide an alternative explanation to know you ASSUME UCA and UCA-style trajectories are logically possible in terms of natural laws. This means you have no evidence for THOSE beliefs. <br /><br />I don't have to provide an alternative set of ad-hoc assumptions that imply some SA scenario to know you haven't demonstrated that your theory requires LESS of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18058265581963942312013-03-20T06:28:38.567-07:002013-03-20T06:28:38.567-07:00Jeff: I didn't word it clearly. I meant "...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>I didn't word it clearly. I meant "FUTURE states of affairs that have yet to have occurred." That a fish existed is a past event. </i><br /><br />It's still a scientific prediction. Most of astronomy is about past events. Are you saying astronomy is not a science? <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>And you missed the more relevant point: </i><br /><br />Well, no. The relevant point is that, like a magician, Shubin and his team said they would travel to a specific location in the Arctic, and pull out a fishapod. Except it wasn't magic. They explained exactly why they thought a fishapod could be found there, based on the theory of evolution, common descent, and the plethora of other research having provided a historical overview. <br /><br />You have not provided anything close to the power of evolutionary theory to make such predictions. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66683562266146246502013-03-20T06:20:07.186-07:002013-03-20T06:20:07.186-07:00Jeff: But it proves nothing in the "implicati...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>But it proves nothing in the "implication" sense of proving. </i><br /><br />Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You've already admitted that you assume axiomatically that UCA, and therefore extreme common ancestry lineages, are just willy-nilly possible given the laws of nature. </i><br /><br />Gee whiz, Jeff, don't they teach science in your country? A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical implications. For instance, Newton proposed three axioms as the basis for his mechanics, <i>Axiomata sive Leges Motus</i>. <br />http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Axioms.shtml<br /> <br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>And you missed the more relevant point: "and we have no other more parsimonious explanation for it, the theory is corroborated." </i><br /><br />You haven't provided an alternative explanation, certainly not one sufficient to explain how Shubin and his team made such a successful prediction—a beautiful result never thought of in your philosophy. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60759123418264612652013-03-20T06:14:55.093-07:002013-03-20T06:14:55.093-07:00Jeff: Predictions that corroborate are theoretical...Jeff: Predictions that corroborate are theoretically-implied states of affairs that have yet to be observed.<br /><br />Z: That's right. Tiktaalik had never been observed—but it was predicted. You didn't predict it. You didn't find it. You never could.<br /><br />J: I didn't word it clearly. I meant "FUTURE states of affairs that have yet to have occurred." That a fish existed is a past event.<br /><br />And you missed the more relevant point: "and we have no other more parsimonious explanation for it, the theory is corroborated." You're ever changing pile of ad-hoc hypotheses is not known to be more parsimonious or less ad-hoc than SA. Thus, the fact that you're ad-hoc hypotheses imply a handful (remember, you posit that the VAST majority of species are not observed) of correlations which have yet to be linked to natural causation is no more impressive than that the 5 minute theory can work the EXACT SAME WAY!<br /><br />J: My bad. By "yet to be observed," I meant that the predicted event is yet to have OCCURRED, and therefore yet to be observed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88741941465266141922013-03-20T06:11:33.793-07:002013-03-20T06:11:33.793-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64905085260890176362013-03-20T06:06:10.043-07:002013-03-20T06:06:10.043-07:00But it proves nothing in the "implication&quo...But it proves nothing in the "implication" sense of proving. Because we don't know that actual existential range of tetrapods or Tiktaalik. And we have no idea whether historical mutations would have produced either from a precambrian single-celled organism in the posited time-frame.<br /><br />You've already admitted that you assume axiomatically that UCA, and therefore extreme common ancestry lineages, are just willy-nilly possible given the laws of nature. That is as credulous as one can get given our exceedingly limited knowlege of mutational effects. You're a true believer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52176307213786459162013-03-20T06:03:19.206-07:002013-03-20T06:03:19.206-07:00Jeff: Predictions that corroborate are theoretical...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Predictions that corroborate are theoretically-implied states of affairs that have yet to be observed. </i><br /><br />That's right. Tiktaalik had never been observed—but it was predicted. You didn't predict it. You didn't find it. You never could. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11031914731927594792013-03-20T05:58:52.550-07:002013-03-20T05:58:52.550-07:00In physics, predictions are typically future impli...In physics, predictions are typically future implications. That's why when we observe what was predicted, and we have no other more parsimonious explanation for it, the theory is corroborated. <br /><br />Your theory implies things about the past. But the fossils don't even tell you the actual existential range of their species, so there are never ACTUAL implications even about the remote past. There are only guesses that seem more or less subjectively plausible to the theorist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77795911829080595892013-03-20T05:58:04.202-07:002013-03-20T05:58:04.202-07:00Jeff: not the ad-hoc kind that cause nut jobs to b...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>not the ad-hoc kind that cause nut jobs to believe the 5 minute theory, etc. </i><br /><br />They spent years on the Tiktaalik expedition, years of planning, years in the field, years of analysis, and all that founded on generations of research in geology and evolutionary biology. Such discoveries are what distinguishes science from some much hooey. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32730489394819259692013-03-20T05:54:55.765-07:002013-03-20T05:54:55.765-07:00Z: In any case, this is the locus of your confusio...Z: In any case, this is the locus of your confusion. A singular nested hierarchy is discernible for most taxa. This was noted before Darwin.<br /><br />J: Which is why Darwin didn't "predict" it in any sense in which it corroborated his view. Predictions that corroborate are theoretically-implied states of affairs that have yet to be observed. WHEN they're observed, they corroborate the theory. <br /><br />The theory you're talking about never does that. The relevant events are all past events. There are a handful of correlations, none known to involve actual real-world causality. But all the relevant (in the sense of ruling out SA) causality is explained in a totally ad-hoc fashion, just as you complain of teleological explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78884316977934567782013-03-20T05:53:23.688-07:002013-03-20T05:53:23.688-07:00Jeff: what you're calling a prediction is not ...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>what you're calling a prediction is not a prediction in the sense of a future event. </i><br /> <br />Of course it's a prediction, a very beautiful result, something that can't be found within the confines of your philosophical discourse. <br /> <br />Please, use your notions, philosophy, whatever you call it, and make some novel empirical predictions that are distinct from the Theory of Evolution. We have our magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84337704460240339242013-03-20T05:48:40.690-07:002013-03-20T05:48:40.690-07:00Z, what you're calling a prediction is not a p...Z, what you're calling a prediction is not a prediction in the sense of a future event. You're talking about implications of ad-hoc assumptions. As Quine explained, if you're willing to pile up more and more ad-hoc assumptions to generate the relevant implications, you can explain the 5 minute theory, too. So what? No sane person is impressed with such dedication to sheer useless futility. Your dedication per se is impressive. That you would waste it on a theory that has no value to human flourishing is astonishing. <br /><br />It would be much more useful to spend that same effort actually doing experiments on the causes of variation and the types of variation that can be caused. That knowledge would be useful to health science, etc. If it ended up rendering the logical possibility of UCA plausible, then we would have scientific reasons to believe UCA, not the ad-hoc kind that cause nut jobs to believe the 5 minute theory, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58791635430686693072013-03-20T05:36:04.341-07:002013-03-20T05:36:04.341-07:00Zachriel: What does "temporally-ordered pheno...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>What does "temporally-ordered phenotypic/morphological/extinction effects of mutations" even mean? </i><br /><br />You didn't answer. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So given all the articles about phylogenies that contradict prior expectations, do you think those researchers are idiots, or is the single tree changing all the time along with the ad-hoc assumptions themselves?</i><br /><br />Gee whiz. Next thing you know astronomers will have to redraw their cosmic maps, which means planets don't really orbit stars. <br /><br />It has to do with resolution. Many transitions are difficult to discern. As methods become better, these transitions are resolved with more certainty. Sometimes that means old maps are discarded and replaced with newer maps. That's the way it works in science. How did you think it worked? <br /><br />In any case, this is the locus of your confusion. A singular nested hierarchy is discernible for most taxa. This was noted before Darwin. <br /><br />Well, that, and ignoring the success of empirical prediction. Evolutionary biologists went to a specific place in an Arctic wasteland, and found a fishapod in an outcrop of rock. Please, use your notions, philosophy, whatever you call it, and make some novel empirical predictions that are distinct from the Theory of Evolution. We have our magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com