Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Patterns and Tautologies (The Circular Logic of Homologies)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 16 of 67 (476899)
07-28-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by LucyTheApe
07-28-2008 11:26 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Hi, Lucy, and welcome to the thread.
LucyTheApe writes:
It's alive.. Why?..Natural Selection.. How do we know that it was
Naturally selected?... It's alive. That's circular reasoning.
Well, I haven't met any scientists that use this reasoning, but, if they did, I would call them on it and come here directly to tell you about it.
We don't say something is alive because of natural selection, and we don't say we know it was naturally selected just because it's alive. True, that second part would be our first hypothesis, but we're always fully willing to accept genetic drift or sexual selection as an alternative.
LucyTheApe writes:
Natural
Selection is just "Survival of the fittest" rephrased.
Actually, you got that backwards: "survival of the fittest" is just natural selection rephrased (and rephrased poorly, I might add). I would accept the phrase as accurate if it said "survival of the fit." Because, you don't have to be the best to survive, you just have to be good enough to survive.
LucyTheApe writes:
Well you do assume that there's a pattern there...
I have suggested that scientists do not assume the pattern: we accept that there is a pattern because there is evidence of a pattern. Do you believe that there is no such pattern? Can you show me why you believe this?
LucyTheApe writes:
...thats what you are trying to "solidify", or "modify" but never reject.
Well, I'd like to think we would reject it if we found it to be completely invalid. But, science will always keep the good parts of any theory, even if the theory at large is rejected.
LucyTheApe writes:
Where I come from, we reject a theory if we find anomallies (counter examples).
What do you do with them?
What kind of work do you do?
To me, a theory is simply a pattern. If a certain model can explain a good portion of the available data (maybe 75%, 85%, even 98% or more) without a ridiculous amount of deviation, the model is considered statistically significant. From there, the remaining work is to find out what other factors or patterns could be incorporated to modify the model until it explains an even greater amount of the data.
So, I don't believe a 25% anomaly is enough to reject a theory. But, I'll agree with you that, if a 25% anomaly could be found, the single pattern is not sufficient to explain enough of the data, and modifications/additions would be required.
Lucy writes:
If you expect creationists to reject creation, then you must also be prepared to reject evolution (whatever evolution means today 29/7/2008).
I would gladly do so if there was enough evidence to reject evolution. As of right now, it appears that just minor modifications to the theory as it currently stands (28 July 2008 in USA) will suffice to explain all the evidence, and a complete rejection of the theory is not needed.
Thanks for your input.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-28-2008 11:26 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 17 of 67 (476902)
07-28-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stile
07-28-2008 11:41 AM


AlphaOmegakid?
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes:
I've always found it best to go back to the topic where the new thread came from and post a link and possible-attention-getter from there to here.
You mean, post off-topic... on RAZD's thread!!?. Have you any idea what he'd do to me?
I have been trying to keep posting with his name in the message title, and reiterating the main focus of the argument, like this:
Bluejay writes:
But, where his argument goes awry is that the assumption of evolution did not predate the evidence for it. We've already published hundreds of solid evidences for evolution and natural history across many subfields of the natural sciences. Therefore, we've already established a good pattern of the history of life on Earth, and it's that pattern that is driving our attempts to fit each fossil into its place, not an over-arching, philosophical presumptions that he is seeing.
He's seeing it as: "We must make it fit! Because our whole philosophy falls apart if it doesn't!"
When it's really more like: "It must fit somehow! Because, everything else fit just fine!"
{AbE: I also changed the topic title now. Maybe he'll see that.}
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition (marked)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 11:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 12:10 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 18 of 67 (476904)
07-28-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
07-28-2008 11:53 AM


Re: AlphaOmegakid?
Heh... don't worry. I'll go do it.
RAZD is cool, he understands being polite along with general message board conduct.
(...already posted)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 11:53 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 67 (476912)
07-28-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LucyTheApe
07-28-2008 11:26 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
If you expect creationists to reject creation, then you must
also be prepared to reject evolution (whatever evolution means today 29/7/2008).
I would reject any theory if a better theory was found. The point is at this time evolution is the best theory to explain the different species of living things.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-28-2008 11:26 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 20 of 67 (476916)
07-28-2008 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-24-2008 2:20 PM


Special Request
Since this thread is in my honor, I would like to focus on what I feel the foundational concept of ToE, that of homologies. If we do a thread on all of these items, then I won't participate as the thread will be way too complicated.
So to clarify, Can we just focus on homologies?
If so, I claim that the widely used definition of homology as listed in Wiki and most science book texts presents a logical fallacy of circular reasoning.
wiki writes:
In evolutionary biology, homology has come to mean any similarity between characters that is due to their shared ancestry.
Homology - Wikipedia(biology)
I will be glad to defend this claim if Bluejay agrees to limit the discussion to homologies. I further agree to defend the other claims in due time, just not all at once.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 07-24-2008 2:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 3:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 07-30-2008 9:23 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 67 (476917)
07-28-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 3:30 PM


Re: Special Request
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes:
I will be glad to defend this claim if Bluejay agrees to limit the discussion to homologies. I further agree to defend the other claims in due time, just not all at once.
Fair enough.
I will change the name of the thread to "The Tautology of Homologies," just to help narrow the focus.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 3:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 4:00 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 22 of 67 (476918)
07-28-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
07-28-2008 3:43 PM


Re: Special Request
Thanks Bluejay, just one more request. The title should be "The Circular Reasoning of Homologies. There is a big difference between a tautology and circular reasoning.
Also , be patient with me as today is just about over, and I won't have time to defend until tommorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 23 of 67 (476934)
07-28-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LucyTheApe
07-28-2008 11:26 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Sorry please ignore my post - I was replying to a question that is now off-topic
Edited by Richard Townsend, : To remove off-topic content

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-28-2008 11:26 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 24 of 67 (476941)
07-28-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LucyTheApe
07-28-2008 11:26 AM


Omphalism yet again.
LucyTheApe writes:
Where I come from, we reject a theory if we find anomallies (counter examples).
What do you do with them?
The same. We're waiting to find our rabbit in the Precambrian, so we can change our basic view, but it hasn't happened yet.
The thing is, if the basic evolutionary view were wrong, such anomalies should have cropped up long ago in their hundreds. Strange, eh? The creator must have been trying to make it look as though evolution was the story.
As for homologies, they sometimes illustrate common descent very well. For example, there are in fact millions of possible genetic "codes" that could be used by nature or a designer to make life, but all known life just uses variations on the same code, a fact that is hard to explain without common descent. Again, a creator could have been restricting himself in order to give an appearance of common descent, to make it look as though evolution was the story.
That evolutionary thinking on homologies is not circular is probably best illustrated by examples of different organisms having similarities that they need not have.
Edited by bluegenes, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-28-2008 11:26 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Binary, posted 07-29-2008 3:44 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Binary
Junior Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 07-12-2008


Message 25 of 67 (476964)
07-29-2008 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by bluegenes
07-28-2008 6:43 PM


Re: Omphalism yet again.
I'm a recent convert to evolution(within the past 45 days), and a large part of what led me to abandon Creationism was homologies like the bat's wing and the cytochrome c protein.
Keep in mind, as a devout creationist, I had no reason to base my decision to accept evolution on circular logic. The evidence simply fits evolution so perfectly that, as a man devoted to truth, I had no other choice but to change my beliefs on the issue.
Just as an example, I find cytochrome c an amazing protein because its structure of about 100 amino acids can be varied in an innumerable number of ways while still retaining it's essential function: the transport of a single electron.
As I understand it, nearly all animals use this protein, and it's structure does indeed vary greatly between different kinds of organisms. This fact isn't remarkable, however, until one considers that organisms which are closer on the evolutionary tree always have more similar cytochrome c than those which are farther apart. To me, the best explanation for this is common descent.
Of course, in order to come to this conclusion, I had to make a reasonable assumption that the cladistic data provided by cytochrome c analysis best fits evolution. This is not circular reasoning, it's normal human decision making.
IMHO, all it would take to shed some doubt on evolution would be to find a species of worm with a cytochrome c indentical to human cytochrome c. Nothing like this has ever been found. Homologies consistently confirm evolutionary theory. Such a find would definitely be "our rabbit in the Precambrain."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 6:43 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RickJB, posted 07-29-2008 3:52 AM Binary has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 26 of 67 (476965)
07-29-2008 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Binary
07-29-2008 3:44 AM


Re: Omphalism yet again.
Welcome Binary!
Binary writes:
This fact isn't remarkable, however, until one considers that organisms which are closer on the evolutionary tree always have more similar cytochrome c than those which are farther apart. To me, the best explanation for this is common descent.
A similar thing happens with the occurrence of Endogenous Retrovirii.
By the way, if you're willing, your experiences might make for an interesting thread at some point...
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Binary, posted 07-29-2008 3:44 AM Binary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Binary, posted 07-29-2008 3:01 PM RickJB has not replied

  
Binary
Junior Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 07-12-2008


Message 27 of 67 (477028)
07-29-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RickJB
07-29-2008 3:52 AM


Re: Omphalism yet again.
I think these retroviruses pose a special problem to creationists. To begin with, I will assume that, according to standard YE creationism, God created these viruses along with everything else, and they served a purpose, perhaps as a source of genetic variation.
In order to account for the homologous virus sequences in the genomes of closely related species, creationists must either assume that(1) chance alone produced them, or(2), God himself is responsible for these genetic homologues.
The obvious question is why God would purposely give us evidence in blatant contradiction to His word if He didn't desire us to believe in evolution.
As far as chance goes, someone would need to figure out the probability of these homologues arising by pure chance. I'd guess the odds are pretty slim.
Is there any circular logic in these conclusions?
Edited by Binary, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RickJB, posted 07-29-2008 3:52 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 3:12 PM Binary has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 28 of 67 (477030)
07-29-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Binary
07-29-2008 3:01 PM


Re: Omphalism yet again.
The obvious question is why God would purposely give us evidence in blatant contradiction to His word if He didn't desire us to believe in evolution.
You are assuming that God gave us the evidence. God didn't give us evidence in blatant contradiction to His word, the Father of Lies has left this evidence to lead man away from God, and it is working.
If the Bible is so far off base with the origin of life then why trust it on anything?
Why trust a book whose very first words are untrue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Binary, posted 07-29-2008 3:01 PM Binary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Binary, posted 07-29-2008 3:39 PM Brian has replied

  
Binary
Junior Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 07-12-2008


Message 29 of 67 (477035)
07-29-2008 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brian
07-29-2008 3:12 PM


Re: Omphalism yet again.
I don't trust it anymore.
quote:
You are assuming that God gave us the evidence. God didn't give us evidence in blatant contradiction to His word, the Father of Lies has left this evidence to lead man away from God, and it is working.
Funny, I've actually heard that argument from my family. It's the only argument they seem able to fall back on when I present the cold hard facts. \
If I say that "the Bible is infallible and any facts which contradict it must not be true," I'm using circular reasoning--this isn't acceptable for rational people. Which is why I can't think like that anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 3:12 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 07-30-2008 3:30 AM Binary has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 67 (477082)
07-30-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Binary
07-29-2008 3:39 PM


Re: Omphalism yet again.
If I say that "the Bible is infallible and any facts which contradict it must not be true," I'm using circular reasoning--this isn't acceptable for rational people. Which is why I can't think like that anymore.
You do also know that circular reasoning also applies to Jesus as Messiah, LORD and Saviour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Binary, posted 07-29-2008 3:39 PM Binary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Binary, posted 07-30-2008 8:38 AM Brian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024