Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,639 Year: 4,896/9,624 Month: 244/427 Week: 54/103 Day: 12/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 691 of 698 (918557)
05-08-2024 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Taq
05-08-2024 10:47 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
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.
Even so, your changed "statement" that the proven theory beyond doubt, is the preferred theory, is not even useful.
If a theory is proven beyond doubt, why even compare to other theories and deciding which is more preferred?
But that was not what you said. You said it was the preferred theory, because you think it makes good or better predictions.
You cannot even follow along with your own line of reasoning.
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.
So if any general rule holds, it is that hierachical tree does not always mean common ancestry.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Taq, posted 05-08-2024 10:47 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Percy, posted 05-08-2024 3:39 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 693 by Taq, posted 05-08-2024 4:30 PM sensei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22617
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 692 of 698 (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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 693 of 698 (918560)
05-08-2024 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by sensei
05-08-2024 2:51 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei writes:
Yes, that was what you said. If it was not, then your argument was pointless.
What I was trying to do is show you how theories are assessed. For example:
Theory A makes very specific predictions.
Theory B can accommodate any possible observation.
In this case, Theory A is the preferred theory. In the case of the theory of evolution and common design, the theory of evolution makes a very specific prediction which is a nested hierarchy. Common design does not. Common design can accommodate any and all combinations of features and DNA sequences. On its face, the theory of evolution is already ahead. This is before we even look at the evidence.
Your response to this basic explanation of assessing theories was to say that I had downgraded evolution from proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) to just the preferred theory. This is a complete mischaracterization.
If a theory is proven beyond doubt, why even compare to other theories and deciding which is more preferred?
Because that is what ID/creationists are asking us to do. We are explaining why common design doesn't measure up to the theory of evolution, both from a theoretical basis (makes better predictions) and from an evidentiary basis (proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
This was all hashed out 140 years ago:
quote:
For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
. . .
Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
Exactly, branching off still makes it one tree as a whole. And that does not prove common ancestry with the alien species.
It would be strong evidence for common ancestry. As mentioned by Percy, panspermia is a thing. It could also be that aliens seeded our planet with life by bringing in a microorganism from their planet, or seeded both planets.
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.
They are applied consistently.
I also find it rather telling that you use imagined evidence against the theory. Why not look at the evidence that actually exists?

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9283
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 694 of 698 (918561)
05-08-2024 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by Percy
05-08-2024 3:39 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
I think somehow you got it backwards in your mind and didn't verify your recollection.
Or sensei is a liar and/or a troll.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up, why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Percy, posted 05-08-2024 3:39 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Taq, posted 05-09-2024 11:15 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 695 of 698 (918562)
05-09-2024 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by Theodoric
05-08-2024 8:49 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Theodoric writes:
Or sensei is a liar and/or a troll.
I tend to think that this type of behavior in general is a mixture of cognitive dissonance and conditioning from ID/creationist literature.
ID/creationism is almost entirely rhetoric and semantics. This is why we see them arguing over the semantics of how theories are described instead of actually addressing the data. In fact, they will use imaginary evidence as a rhetorical device, as seen in this very thread. ID/creationist literature is all about how words are defined, so that is what they are conditioned to do. For example, they will argue incessantly that DNA is designed because they have defined DNA as a code. What they won't do is reference actual DNA sequence data.
What we have is two groups with different purposes. Science is trying to explain the data using the scientific method. ID/creationism is trying to justify their religious beliefs using rhetoric and semantics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Theodoric, posted 05-08-2024 8:49 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
popoi
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-14-2024


Message 696 of 698 (918721)
05-20-2024 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by sensei
05-07-2024 4:25 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei writes in Message 685:
If you are consistent in your reasoning, you would not doubt that you are related to the aliens in this case. 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.
The reasoning was never "If it fits in a hierarchical tree it was produced by common ancestry". Obviously we can put a lot of things in a tree that don't even have ancestors much less a single one, and you could already do it with life since it's a subcategory of matter.
The reasoning is that if the diversity of life was produced by a series of populations diverging and changing, we would expect all of life to fit in a nested hierarchy defined mostly by those points of divergence. But there are also a lot of specific features we would expect that tree to have that wouldn't be present in one you could make about galaxies or cars or whatever non-living thing.
So to go back to the previous question:
sensei writes in Message 685:
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?
That depends on the nature of the similarities. We could classify both sets as life by virtue of the alien set also satisfying the definition of "life", but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will share the sort of things in common that are predicted by common descent and found in all Earth-based life.
Different theories would have different predictions at that point. Panspermia would predict those similarities since it does propose that both sets of life actually do have a common origin. Multiple origins wouldn't, and would probably propose a level of classification below "Life" to encompass the products of each of those multiple origins and the characteristics that apply within that group but not to the other. The functional design theory might predict some degree of similarity but wouldn't necessarily expect it to fall in to a single tree, which would be a fresh opportunity for that explanation to predict anything with any kind of specificity.

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 697 by Taq, posted 05-20-2024 12:59 PM popoi has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 697 of 698 (918724)
05-20-2024 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by popoi
05-20-2024 11:48 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
popoi writes:
The reasoning is that if the diversity of life was produced by a series of populations diverging and changing, we would expect all of life to fit in a nested hierarchy defined mostly by those points of divergence. But there are also a lot of specific features we would expect that tree to have that wouldn't be present in one you could make about galaxies or cars or whatever non-living thing.
You can force any group of items into a tree. The big question is how good is the fit. For scientists, it needs to have a number on it in order to be science. This is why scientists constructed several methods for objectively measuring how well a data set fit a tree-like structure. As it turns out, complex life gets a much higher score than random distributions of characters, as we would expect to see if common ancestry is true.
The other question we could ask is what we would expect to see if common design is true. The answer is anything. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect to see tree-like structures in the data if common design is true. We would just as likely expect a species to have fur and three middle ear bones as we would a species with feathers and three middle ear bones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by popoi, posted 05-20-2024 11:48 AM popoi has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 698 of 698 (919058)
06-19-2024 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by dwise1
02-22-2024 10:20 AM


Re: "Created Kinds" and Human-Hamster Hybrid
Part of creationist "basic created kinds" nonsense is to identify species as being in the same "basic created kind" depending on whether they can form hybrids. Doesn't matter what kind of hybrid -- fertile, infertile (eg, mules), or limited-fertililty (eg, ligers) -- ; if they can form a hybrid then they're of the same kind.
Yesterday, I just learned about human-hamster hybrids, AKA humsters:
quote:
A humster is a hybrid cell line made from a zona-free hamster oocyte fertilized with human sperm. It always consists of single cells, and cannot form a multi-cellular being. Humsters are usually destroyed before they divide into two cells; if isolated and left alone to divide, they would still be unviable.
Humsters are routinely created mainly for two reasons:
  • To avoid legal issues with working with pure human embryonic stem cell lines.
  • To assess the viability of human sperm for in vitro fertilization
Somatic cell hybrids between humans and hamsters or mice have been used for the mapping of various traits since at least the 1970s.
So then, according to creationists, does that make us members of the "basic created hamster kind"? Or of the larger "basic rodent kind"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by dwise1, posted 02-22-2024 10:20 AM dwise1 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