Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,614 Year: 4,871/9,624 Month: 219/427 Week: 29/103 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 647 of 697 (916420)
03-03-2024 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by K.Rose
03-03-2024 6:17 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
K.Rose in Message 637 writes:
Okay, Percy, you got it. Though the eyeball evolution should come over to Faith and Belief with me. Maybe all of evolution, but certainly the eyeball evolution.
That depends. If you'd like to discuss your faith that God created all life, including hearts and livers and eyes, then that belongs in Faith and Belief. But if you'd like to discuss the creationist evidence for an alternative explanation to evolution then that would seem to belong in a science thread.
Maybe not this one, though. This thread's topic about the definition of evolution has already been answered. It's the nature of threads to drift off-topic, but this one seems permanently so now that it's discussing the evidence for evolution. It would be nice if someone would go to the trouble of proposing a new thread.
As I’m sure you’ve gathered my contention is that evolutionary biology, at some point, wanders out of science and into the world of faith. I’m interested in what governs that faith, and also whether there is any room at all in ToE-Abiogenesis-Big Bang, among their adherents, for a supreme being/deity. On to Faith and Belief.
That would be a good topic for the Faith and Belief forum, the extent to which acceptance of the theory of evolution is based upon faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by K.Rose, posted 03-03-2024 6:17 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 677 of 697 (917772)
04-16-2024 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by sensei
04-16-2024 1:05 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei in Message 676 writes:
Taq:
The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory.
Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even.
Saying this a little more formally, theories are never proven because of the principle of tentativity. All theories, indeed all knowledge, remains tentative. A theory can never be proven. All that can happen is that a consensus builds around a theory as evidence accumulates. If the consensus within the relevant scientific community becomes strong enough then the theory is said to have become accepted.
But acceptance of a theory is not permanent. A theory is always open to change in light of new knowledge or improved insight, and can even be rejected, has happened with the ether theory of light.
Anyone can decide they do not accept the scientific consensus on something. A couple years ago someone perished in his desert launch area proving to himself the world was flat. He's dead and the scientific consensus of an oblate spheroid remains intact.
But he was correct in his belief that challenging the consensus required evidence, and he died trying to gather that evidence. You're taking a different approach, mocking the data and working hard to misunderstand it. Proving that your mistaken understanding of a nested hierarchy is wrong will not accomplish your goal of demonstrating that the scientific consensus on evolution is wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by sensei, posted 04-16-2024 1:05 AM sensei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 680 by Taq, posted 04-16-2024 10:42 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 689 of 697 (918548)
05-08-2024 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by sensei
05-07-2024 4:25 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei in Message 685 writes:
Taq:
sensei:
Show me where I said this.
According to you, it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if:
1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
...
No, you claimed that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And you said that was nonsense:
sensei in Message 676 writes:
Taq:
The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory.
Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even.
Moving on:
I asked you for your evidence and reasoning.
You support it by stating that it is the preferred theory.
That doesn't accurately characterize the discussion. People have presented evidence in this thread, in Taq's case of a nested hierarchy.
And yeah, it is nonsense, that being the preferred theory, makes the theory proven beyond reasonable doubt.
By reversing the definition Taq provided you've stated a fallacy. When Taq says a theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt he only means that it has enough evidence to have developed a consensus within the relevant scientific community and has become broadly accepted within that community. But instead of using all those words, people speaking casually usually just say a theory is proven or accepted.
That is your ad hoc nonsense rule. You have plenty of such rules, and you just cannot stick to facts.
Parading ignorance isn't an effective approach.
Here, I needed to spell it all out for you yet again. But I doubt, that you will get it now even, as you rarely do.
Becoming personal isn't an effective approach, either.
But let me ask you this. Suppose we find extraterrestrial life. And we analyze life on Earth and the lifeforms we found from other planet(s). And we find that single celled lifeforms on other planets have similarities with those on Earth. Then we could fit all into a single hierarchical tree, could we not?
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that if alien life is discovered that it will absolutely fit into the nested hierarchy of life on Earth. That's not true. Only if alien and terrestrial life shared a common ancestor would that be true, something that is possible only if life on Earth was seeded from space. But that common ancestor would be from billions of years ago.
Would that, in your opinion, prove beyond reasonable doubt, that we share common ancestor with life on those other planets?
No, of course not. It would be a possibility. Even if it were a fact that life on Earth came from space, we likely wouldn't be able to uncover evidence of that fact sufficient to create a broad consensus. That's because the common ancestor existed billions of years ago, and both alien and terrestrial life have been evolving for all the billions of years since. The hypothesis that life on Earth came from space would be competing with the hypothesis that conditions conducive to the formation of life based upon nucleotides on a backbone of sugar-phosphate existed on more planets than just Earth.
And of course if this alien life used a non-DNA blueprint for life then we would know from the outset that it wasn't related to life on Earth.
If you are consistent in your reasoning, you would not doubt that you are related to the aliens in this case.
We can only reason from evidence. If the evidence strongly supports that life on Earth was seeded from space then a consensus will form and that theory will become accepted. Proven, in the vernacular.
If you do have doubts for whatever reason, then you gonna have to admit that your whole reasoning that leads to believing in common ancestry, is shaky at best. And that the hierarchical tree itself does not prove common ancestry at all.
Doubt is fundamental to science. The underlying principle is tentativity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by sensei, posted 05-07-2024 4:25 PM sensei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Taq, posted 05-08-2024 10:47 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 692 of 697 (918558)
05-08-2024 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by sensei
05-08-2024 2:51 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei in Message 691 writes:
Taq:
That's not what I said. I said that the theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt makes it the preferred theory.
Yes, that was what you said. If it was not, then your argument was pointless.
Quoting Taq's exact words from when he first stated it in Message 674:
Taq in Message 674 writes:
The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory.
While the exact words may vary each time he says it, I haven't noticed Taq saying anything different. I think somehow you got it backwards in your mind and didn't verify your recollection.
Even so, your changed "statement" that the proven theory beyond doubt, is the preferred theory, is not even useful.
"Proven" is just a casual shorthand way of saying, "Supported by a great deal of evidence." All accepted theories, including the theory of evolution, fulfill this criteria. Theories can't actually be certain or proven in any mathematical sense because of the principle of tentativity.
If a theory is proven beyond doubt, why even compare to other theories and deciding which is more preferred?
As mentioned a couple times now, tentativity is an important concept in science. Nothing is certain in science. All theory is open to change or even rejection in light of new information or improved insight.
But that was not what you said. You said it was the preferred theory, because you think it makes good or better predictions.
Making successful predictions is the second criteria Taq listed. Being supported by the evidence, or to put it another way, placing the evidence into a rational interpretive framework, was the first. Here are Taq's exact words from Message 679:
Taq in Message 679 writes:
  1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [supported by the evidence]
  2. Makes specific predictions no other theory makes, and those predictions are supported by observations.
Moving on:
You cannot even follow along with your own line of reasoning.
I think it's clear that you're either making up things Taq never said, or you just don't understand the information Taq has provided.
Taq:
Instead, it would branch off at the very base of the tree of life on Earth.
Exactly, branching off still makes it one tree as a whole. And that does not prove common ancestry with the alien species.
You've lost the plot. Taq was responding to the possibility that life on Earth was seeded from space, in which case of course it's one tree. That's implicit in what Taq said.
So if any general rule holds, it is that hierachical tree does not always mean common ancestry.
You left out the word "nested." A nested hierarchical tree. And you're right, a nested hierarchy does not conclusively prove common ancestry. For example, an omniscient creator could create all life with all the evidence of common ancestry included, even though there was not any actual common ancestry.
But for natural processes, only evolution can produce a nested hierarchy
You can continue making up rules and apply them inconsistently, only where it fits your narrative. And then call it evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But those rules don't hold in general.
No one's making up any rules. If you reread the posts carefully enough to make sure you understand what's being said then you'll be able to see that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by sensei, posted 05-08-2024 2:51 PM sensei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Theodoric, posted 05-08-2024 8:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024