For scientists who accept evolution

[jj]

While there is a great deal that of TOE that falls into #1-3, the skeptics maintain that somethings cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection alone.

Their claims, however, completely fail to stand up to the evidence presently available.

Therein lies the problem with their claims.

I can stand up right now and shout: INTERESTING IAN MADE US ALL 5 millseconds before you read this statement! (sorry, Ian, I'm not saying you assert that, just using you as an example)

But you can't produce any evidence to that effect. I've made a claim, but there is no evidence. Every claim that evolution deniers make that I've seen is similar, it's an unsupported claim of this or that, most often based on either on argument ad ignorantum, or on argumentup ad populum. Sometimes ID'ers and other creationists simply deny or ignore evidence in their claims, as well.

For instance, were I to stand up and shout: THE SUN NEVER SHINED, the sun is not very likely to go out, never mind it might not be shining where I can see it at the minute. People can SAY just about literally anything.

Even criticism has to have some support. Otherwise, we get into the deconstructionist paradigm that there are no facts. None the less, when you let go of the rock, it falls on your toe.

 

[stamenflicker]

I think it's quite a pointy point. Living dinosaurs are not observable.

It's not. Dinosaurs would fall under category #3, not category #4, specifically due to the fossil record which is observable. Without the observable fossil record, you couldn't reasonably demonstrate that they existed.

Flick

 

[drkitten]

I don't know enough about either blood cascading or flagellum motors to make a reasonable argument. However, I am in agreement that what is "irreducibily complex" today, may not be tomorrow. However, for today's skeptic, it would remain in category #4 above until proven otherwise.

Then your "skeptics" have little sense of pattern recognition, and are perhaps not as rational as you might hope.

Technically speaking, the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is unproven and subject to disbelief by a "skeptic." Few people, however, take their skepticism to that level -- and those that do are mocked.

 

[drkitten]

It's not. Dinosaurs would fall under category #3, not category #4, specifically due to the fossil record which is observable. Without the observable fossil record, you couldn't reasonably demonstrate that they existed.

Living dinosaurs would be category 4. They are not empirically observable. It's certainly a plausible inference that where you find (dead) bones there was once a living organism, but it's an inference, not an observation.

 

[stamenflicker]

For instance, were I to stand up and shout: THE SUN NEVER SHINED, the sun is not very likely to go out, never mind it might not be shining where I can see it at the minute. People can SAY just about literally anything.

That is far, far different from this:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwianian theory should be encouraged.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Living dinosaurs would be category 4. They are not empirically observable. It's certainly a plausible inference that where you find (dead) bones there was once a living organism, but it's an inference, not an observation.

Sigh. I guess I'm going to have to tell my living T-Rex that he's not an observation. This is a ridiculous converstation. The existence of dinosaurs is based on literal observable evidence. Period. If one is to be skeptical they must be skeptical of a real observable thing, the fossil record. The existence of nanobacteria is not based on literal observable evidence, it is based on the absence of material in an observable thing (scarring patterns). The absence of something can arise from numerous different sources, however the presence of something is pretty damn good indication that it was really there. Therefore, I would categorize dinosaurs as #3 and nanobacteria as currently, #4. Feel free to disagree, it's just a silly scale that I work out of and doesn't have to be yours.

Flick

 

[chipmunk stew]

That is far, far different from this:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwianian theory should be encouraged.

Flick

How 'bout this, then:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of the sun to rise tomorrow. Careful examination of the evidence for future sunrises should be encouraged.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's not. Dinosaurs would fall under category #3, not category #4, specifically due to the fossil record which is observable.

They're an inference from the evidence combined with how we think the world works (which is also an inference from the evidence). But what is there in evolutionary biology of which this statement is not true? Whenever I read something about evolution (unless it's written by a creationist, of course) the author has some sort of observable evidence to back up what he's saying.

 

[hammegk]

Interesting thinking, flick:

1) Empirically observable and experimentally repeatable
2) Empirically unobservable but experimentally repeatable

Covers micro-ev

3) Empirically observable but experimentally unrepeatable

The entire fossil record.

4) Empirically unobservable and experimentally unrepeatable

The formation of new "species" -- a term which remains undefinable.

[5) A collection of all these things used to deduce (logically) a tenable theory

Every piece of evidence, new or old, is analyzed based on the acceptance that the Theory must be true. Logical? Perhaps. Correct? Unknown.

 

[drkitten]

Interesting thinking, flick:

The formation of new "species" -- a term which remains undefinable.

On the contrary. There are several competing definitions of "species" -- and the formation of
new "species" has been observed under every one of them.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Every piece of evidence, new or old, is analyzed based on the acceptance that the Theory must be true. Logical? Perhaps. Correct? Unknown.

Funny how each new piece fits so well with little or no need to modify the theory. And funny that some of those pieces were predicted to exist before they were discovered.

 

[stamenflicker]

But what is there in evolutionary biology of which this statement is not true?

Which statement? I just don't want to respond to the wrong one since this thread is already taking up more time than I feel like giving it.

Whenever I read something about evolution (unless it's written by a creationist, of course) the author has some sort of observable evidence to back up what he's saying.

I agree for the most part. For starters, I couldn't begin to tell you the first thing about what ID theorists are really saying. I take that back, I can tell you they have an agenda. I skimmed Behe's book, bounced a few ideas around people I know (and this forum I think), and thought to myself, what do I really know? Not much. I'm dead set on knowing more, believe me.

In the meantime, I believe I am reasonable enough to discern that on the scale of certainty, the existence of dinosaurs currently operate with more certainty than the existence of nanobacteria. And as I have unsuccessfully argued with you before, that the existence of gravity operates with more certainty than say transmutationism. And further that "diseases" such as ADHD are even further down the chain of reason.

So the subject is complexity, returning to the point at which this post was derailed. There are skeptics out there with an agenda, big deal. What kinds of questions are they asking? Why is one side of the scientific community so biligerent about the questions as to try to ruin a man's career? What's the difference between an ID'r asking the question and a fellow TOE scientist asking it? Is the question not equally as valid, in spite of the fact the ID theorist answers his own question in a premature ejaculation of "knowing?" In the end, as I have stated to you many times before, the issue for me comes down to who gets to ask the questions and why.

It is classic CS Lewis "The Abolition of Man." Picture perfect example of everything he was communicating.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Every piece of evidence, new or old, is analyzed based on the acceptance that the Theory must be true. Logical? Perhaps. Correct? Unknown.

Exactly. Logic is a mental exercise, and a great one at that. But correct is a totally different question altogether. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. And the jury is still out on just about all of it.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

On the contrary. There are several competing definitions of "species" -- and the formation of
new "species" has been observed under every one of them.

And this has been explained to the halfwitted troll about a dozen times that I've seen since I joined the forums. Either he has a genuine and severe impairment to his long term memory, or he's just messing us about. What do you think?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Exactly. Logic is a mental exercise, and a great one at that. But correct is a totally different question altogether. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. And the jury is still out on just about all of it.

To one degree or another, the jury is out on all science. That very idea is built in to science. So, so what? The theory works, so it can be considered correct until evidence is presented that shows it's not. Hasn't happened.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Which statement? I just don't want to respond to the wrong one since this thread is already taking up more time than I feel like giving it.

That it's "an inference from the evidence combined with how we think the world works (which is also an inference from the evidence)".

Why is one side of the scientific community...

Could you paint with an even broader brush?

... so biligerent about the questions as to try to ruin a man's career?

He was unable to get on with his colleagues, and there were several of them and only one of him. Doubtless words were spoken at heated moments. He quit. To say that they are "trying to ruin his career" is an extrapolation too far.

What's the difference between an ID'r asking the question and a fellow TOE scientist asking it?

The difference is that the real scientist wants to know the answer, will try to find the answer, and won't publish until he has an answer. Whereas the IDer in effect says: "I don't know how this happened. Therefore this is impossible. But it has happened. Impossible things which happen are miracles. Therefore goddidit." If instead he spent years of painstaking research trying to find out how it actually happened --- well, not only is that difficult, but the poor fellow might actually find the answer if he looks for it.

Science is knee-deep in unanswered questions. This is exactly why we hire research scientists. The last I heard, no-one knows where blue whales go outside of the breeding season. The largest animals that ever lived, and scientists manage to lose them. Well, no-one's perfect. But this does not incline me to believe anyone who comes along with a "theory" of Intelligent Miraculous Whale Moving which suggests that an Unseen Whale Mover moves them in Mysterious Ways: and if any scientist tried publishing a paper saying so, I should just think that he'd given up being a scientist. His job is to try to find out, not to claim that the fact that he hasn't found out proves the existence of hypothetical metaphysical entities.

 

[jj]

That is far, far different from this:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwianian theory should be encouraged.

Flick

How, we have done careful examination, and the evidence is immense, massive, overwhelming, etc. Claiming otherwise is an act of inexplicable denial. Skepticism is one thing, denial is another.

 

[stamenflicker]

He was unable to get on with his colleagues, and there were several of them and only one of him. Doubtless words were spoken at heated moments. He quit. To say that they are "trying to ruin his career" is an extrapolation too far.

That is a gross simplification of the evidence. Even an independant investigation found his claims to be legitimate.

http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm

He broke an unwritten rule regarding who gets to ask the questions and the frenzy that transpired afterwords was not only unscientific, it was a damn shame to the field. My only point in the matter.

Flick

 

[hammegk]

On the contrary. There are several competing definitions of "species" -- and the formation of
new "species" has been observed under every one of them.

Indeed, and every one of them is predicted by mutation and genetics, classic micro-ev. Moving goalposts to define species as wanted at least makes things much easier.

Funny how each new piece fits so well with little or no need to modify the theory. And funny that some of those pieces were predicted to exist before they were discovered.

As we all know, the Theory has been modified countless times, and significant disagreements are still in play even among the most fervid believers in the Theory.

And predictions? Blind pig finds an acorn is more apt. Is anyone keeping score of failed predictions, or "predictions" tweaked and re-tweaked to meet current "Facts as Interpreted"?

 

[Mojo]

On the contrary. There are several competing definitions of "species" -- and the formation of new "species" has been observed under every one of them.

Indeed, and every one of them is predicted by mutation and genetics, classic micro-ev.

Could you clarify what you mean by "micro-ev?" From the post I'm quoting here it seems that you are including speciation within your definition.

You seem to be accepting in this response to new drkitten's post that speciation has been observed. Do you accept that the cumulative effect of a series of small changes over a long period of time can amount to a larger change? There is no suggestion in the theory of evolution by natural selection that large changes come about within a couple of generations. The idea that evolution is anything other than gradual is a creationist strawman.