No Witnesses

"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of EducationAre witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.

Thread copied here from the No Witnesses thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

That is the most asinine thing I ever heard. lol!
Witnesses are not necessary to count evolution as a legit theory, just scientific facts presented as evidence suffice.
Any how abiogenisus has nothing to do with evolution.

I think the Alabama SBoE needs a refresher course on the proper usage of those two words.

Well, that is obviously stupid.There is something to be said about the origin of life, and a non-crazy person might phrase it like this: "There is insufficient evidence to confirm any hypothesis about the origin of life on earth. Therefore, these hypotheses should be regarded as hypotheses and not elevated to the status of theories." Well of course not. I like to imagine creationists trying to use their bogus epistemology in a court case: "Yes, members of the jury, the prosecution may have presented you with fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, gunshot residue, a signed confession, the fact that my client was arrested while standing over his victims holding a smoking gun, and video footage of him killing all the eyewitnesses. But they haven't produced any eyewitnesses."

The "stones will cry out".There were witnesses and those witnesses left evidence behind for those with eyes to see and stories for those with ears to hear.

No witness was present when the victim was murdered so the suspect should be called a killer not a murderer.This is basicly what they said. Are witnesses necessary to convict someone of murder?In terms of a court trial the evidence we curently have is
The gun found in the suspects belongings
Bullets found in the suspects belongings
Fingerprints of the suspect on the gun
Fingerprints of the suspect in the victims house
DNA of the suspect on the victim
The bullet recovered from the victims body matching the suspects gun
A pattern of behaviour of the suspect seen killing other people numerous of times
No Alibi
Videotape of the suspect being in the vicinity of the murder douring the time of the murder
motive
And statements of police officers of finding the suspect looking over the victims corpse with a gun in his hand.The defence argues that the suspect dint kill the victim but a magic invisible undetectable man did.

I completely agree- I was looking more for creationists to back up the Alabama Board. You can read the quote in context at: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/dec95/textbook.html

The information in your link suggests that the Alabama label for biology texts is at least 15 years old.

Interestingly, that label exists till today- Creationism in the Alabama standards? | National Center for Science Education.You're still correct that the referenced version of the disclaimer is outdated and almost everyone already knows better- my objective is to find the few people the answer has not reached (there are always a handful) for a paper because the prompt itself references this label from late 1995. This argument should still be in use by the uninformed (searching up something like "no one there to see evolution").

I don't think there is any problem with the use of the word observation, and I'd take issue with the your statement that macroevolution has been witnessed.Witnessed implies direct observation by a human witness. The evidence for gradual processes that take longer than a human lifetime cannot possibly be direct. Evolution is supported by the evidence, and absent a time machine, we won't ever have observations of human evolution.In the end, statements like the one on the Alabama sticker are just personal expressions of incredulity projected unto the rest of us. A person obligated to take the Bible literally because alternative is having his potentially immortal soul destroyed in Hell, isn't going to accept evidence for evolution, regardless of its strength or Faustian persuasive power, as long as there is even a scintilla of hope of that Genesis is literally true. Of course personal incredulity is not a valid reason for rewriting a science course.I wouldn't bet any money on the currently constructed Supreme Court upholding the first amendment.

Hm, I still figure the problem of a lack of witnesses has to do with a misconception of observations and thus evolution not following the scientific method (the opposition probably believes observation is limited to direct witnessing).I see where you're going. Plants are hermaphroditic, so as soon as reproductive isolation occurs in one (without disabling fertility) it can begin its own population. Under 5.0 a few examples are listed, beginning with Hugo de Vries: Observed Instances of SpeciationAt this point I doubt I'll find anyone on this forum who still agrees with the label's statement.Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.

I think they are right about that. I observe that litmus turns blue, and I conclude that the solution in question is basic. I'm not capable of observing directly that there are more hydroxyl ions than hydronium ions in the solution.The problem is that some want to limit science to things that are directly witnesses/observed or to things were the chain of inference from observation is very short and inescapable, at least when the conclusions are contrary to their beliefs. Yes, you can find such people.You may not find anyone who will admit it directly, but there are participants who agree with it and don't want to be trolled. Because surely a dressing down will follow shortly after any defense of the statement.But you can find posts where people express essentially the same sentiment if you read through some past thread.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.
  —ookuay

---

To me this also seems quite ridiculous as creationists exclude themselves from this same little "test" they want to impose on science. Witness accounts.For example, Christians get their "information" on "creation" from the first book or two of the Bible. Nobody knows who even wrote those books. These books were not written by Adam and Eve. So, what is written down in there is hearsay. Not eyewitness accounts.Hearsay is not accepted as evidence. Not in any court or anywhere else in civilised countries. It is only done in countries where they can kill you for not breathing in tone with the dictator or Mullah.Their 'argument' also means that we can't deduct that any snow in Antartica before the 1820's fell from the sky, due to the fact that nobody was there to witness it. They want to indicate that snow being poofed into existence in Antartica is on equal footing with the deduction that the snow fell from the sky. It isn't.In the end, verifiable, empirical evidence is a lot more reliable than eyewitness accounts. For example, just look at all those people who were convicted for crimes on eye-witness accounts; then later set free when empirical, verifiable evidence for their innocence was provided.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake

NoNukes writes:

quote:

---

I'd take issue with the your statement that macroevolution has been witnessed.

---

Except that it has. We have seen speciation happen both in the lab and in the field. That's "macroevolution."Note, there is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." "Microevolution" are evolutionary processes that happen below the species level while "macroevolution" are processes that happen above the species level. You will note that there is no distinction as to what those processes are. In essence, "macroevolution" is nothing more than a whole lot of "microevolution."After all, if 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?Exactly what do you mean by "macroevolution" and why do you think we haven't seen it directly?