Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 31 of 78 (715441)
01-05-2014 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 2:39 PM


HI Andrew, I hope the new year finds you well.
I don't see why we must have an explanation for the origin of species and why it would be possible.
It's called intellectual curiosity.
I can accept that there may be truths that are hard or impossible to access...
I agree. Some truths are impossible to know in practice. It may be that there are truths that it is impossible to know in principle. Either way, that is precisely the point of the scientific method. It allows us to construct the most reliable theories possible in a world that is is full of uncertainties.
... I don't think we have permission to concoct a theory on the grounds that somehow a theory is demanded.
That's an odd way of putting it. Why should any scientist seek permission to study nature? And whose permission ought they ask?
I don't have to believe the moon is made of cheese just because I haven't proffered an alternate explanation.
Funnily enough, this is a criticism frequently levelled at creationism.
As it happens, the reason you don't need to believe in a moon made of cheese is because you have other evidence available. Not all explanations are equal. Some have better evidence than others. Whether you personally believe in the Theory of Evolution or not doesn't change the fact that there is evidence in favour of that theory. That makes it preferable to unevidenced "moon-is-made-of-cheese" type hypotheses.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 2:39 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 78 (715445)
01-05-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:59 PM


"Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:"
Whoever wrote it seems to be making a distinction without a difference. What's the difference, really, between knowing that something is accurate, and knowing that it's well-supported by the evidence? Evidence is how we know things.
There is a limit to how much I could refute genetic claims but I would not surprised that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them.
That hardly explains why a crocodile is genetically closer to a hummingbird than it is to a Komodo dragon, or why a coelacanth is more like a dog than it is like a dogfish.
Take for example the Jack The Ripper case. It happened relatively recently in history but we are unlikely to be able to prove the perpetrator despite quite a lot of preserved evidence.
The reasoning, such as it is, seems to be "If we can't know one thing, concerning which we have no evidence, then we can't know something else, completely different, about which we have a lot of evidence". That hardly seems to hold water, does it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:59 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 78 (715446)
01-05-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 2:39 PM


I don't see why we must have an explanation for the origin of species and why it would be possible.
I can accept that there may be truths that are hard or impossible to access I don't think we have permission to concoct a theory on the grounds that somehow a theory is demanded.
I don't have to believe the moon is made of cheese just because I haven't proffered an alternate explanation.
Sure, sometimes we have to learn to live with our ignorance. But also, sometimes we have to learn to live with our knowledge. This is one of those times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 2:39 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 34 of 78 (715448)
01-05-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:59 PM


approximation of reality vs known truths
Do you agree with this claim on wikipedia?
"Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:"
Not Found
Curiously they do explain what the problems are and the scientific methods to resolve them as accurately as possible from the known information.
Of course I would agree. This is stating scientific tentativity, that nothing is proven in stone, scientific concepts, hypothesis and theories can be invalidated by contrary evidence. The accuracy would extend to knowing that there is no intermediates or other branches in the phylogeny as well as not knowing that the best explanation of all the evidence is the actual phylogeny. If we knew all that stuff it wouldn't be science it would be fact.
Accuracy refers to the ability to hit the bulls eye of the target, so if you don't know where that bulls eye is it is difficult to measure the accuracy.
Precision on the other hand refers to the ability to hit the same place over and over, and so what we see are fairly precise derivations of phylogenic relationships that hit the same places.
Science approximates reality by testing it and discarding notions that don't work, the end result is not a known fact but a tentative conclusion, one we can have high confidence in the more it is tested.
These phylogenies are tested by every new piece of information, and so far -- since Linnaeus -- all known life fits this overall pattern. This is not a surprise if evolution is true.
In this case there is no contrary evidence to date in testing the phylogenic trees and high consilience between two independent systems.
Perhaps you have an alternate explanation that also covers all the evidence? If so please present it, if not then accept that this is the best explanation to date and that you can expect further refinement as time and new information becomes available.
There is a limit to how much I could refute genetic claims but I would not surprised that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them. ...
So you don't know but you are willing to make up stuff? In science we require evidence to substantiate assertions.
And this still doesn't explain the consilience -- different errors in different systems would not be consilient. Perhaps you don't know what consilience means?
consilience:
quote:
In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.
The principle is based on the unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures the distance between the Great Pyramids of Giza by laser rangefinding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick - in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.
Bold for emphasis.
For example if I have three tree dendrochronologies (tree ring chronologies) that extend to 8000 BCE and we measure the amount of 14C in each tree ring in each chronology and find that there is the same amount of 14C in each ring of the same tree ring count (age) in each of the chronologies but see that the amount of 14C varies with age in each chronology, it would be an extraordinary coincidence that those identical 14C measurements for identical tree ring counts occurred for every ring count due to pure chance, random error, and misalignment of tree samples used when making each chronology -- would you not agree?
Consilience means taking two or more systems that have strong correlations -- such as morphology with evolutionary lineages and genetics with evolutionary lineagess -- and showing how they all point to the same result, thus consilience is stronger than any single set of evidence.
... Just like a car and a bus have similar wheels without a reproductive link. ...
Which is stunningly obvious unless you know of wheels that are capable of reproduction. Because they are products of manufacturing by wheel making companies I would be stunned if they weren't similar in basics (with some variations in size, materials, treads, etc etc etc).
But how does this apply in any way to biology? Planets orbit the sun and they are similar in general characteristics, so should I include them in a phylogenic tree of biological life?
... I think there is a limit to what kind of valid claims we can make about the past.
Curiously, opinion has been shown to be relatively unable to alter reality in any way shape or form.
Rather than "think there is a limit" why don't you show evidence of it -- at what point don't we know that life is descended from life?
Take for example the Jack The Ripper case. It happened relatively recently in history but we are unlikely to be able to prove the perpetrator despite quite a lot of preserved evidence. ...
Again I don't see how this applies to biology ... but we could draw a pretty good time sequence of events, locations where and when each murder took place, how similar the murders were, what differences (if any) occurred, who the victims were, etc etc etc ... and we can do this without knowing who the ripper was, yes? We can approximate the truth from the facts we know.
Historical biology necessarily works with incomplete information, but it is still able to draw strong conclusions from the information that is available. It is an approximation, but every new test -- and it is tested every year -- brings that approximation closer to reality.
... So I would not make large claims about things with no hope of really proving them conclusively.
So I guess we should chuck all of science and go back to chewing on roots and living in caves eh? Can you prove conclusively that you exist?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:59 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 78 (715461)
01-05-2014 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 2:39 PM


Permission?
I don't see why we must have an explanation for the origin of species and why it would be possible.
So you think there should be a list of subjects that are not to be addressed?
Who is to make that list? And why should anyone follow that list?
I can accept that there may be truths that are hard or impossible to access I don't think we have permission to concoct a theory on the grounds that somehow a theory is demanded.
Again, permission? Permission from whom?
I don't have to believe the moon is made of cheese just because I haven't proffered an alternate explanation.
You don't have to believe anything. But there is considerable evidence for many things, and for those you'd be foolish to bet the rent money otherwise.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 2:39 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:13 AM Coyote has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2496 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 36 of 78 (715539)
01-07-2014 6:07 AM


The Jack The Ripper cases shows how vital evidence can be destroyed or inaccessible leaving us not knowing who the serial killer was which leaves the case a mystery. The surrounding evidence is not sufficient to gloss over this crucial absence.
I think it is important to look closely at the nature of a theory and the effect of having a theory. A theory or hypothesis can effect the way you view the evidence and create confirmation bias or limiting paradigms.
For instance if someone is assaulted in a local park the park becomes a crime scene and things like peoples activities and cigarette butts become part of the evidence. Without the crime everything becomes innocuous.
If you posit evolution you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't. And cases like eugenics are the worst examples of this. You start to interpret things through a paradigm and impose interpretations on things.
There are varying degrees of falsifiability and plausibility of claims but some claims are giving plausibility by dint of association with the paradigm (see evolutionary psychology)
On the case of the consillience of morphological/homological and molecular trees I have noticed that the initial refutation of this is that similar morphology would be linked to similar biochemistry then this claims is apparently refuted by notions like common pseudogenes.
This article says:
The term ‘pseudogene’ was originally coined to describe a
degenerated RNA- or protein-coding sequence that is
incapable of being transcribed or translated into functional
RNA or protein products. The key in this definition is that
pseudogenes are biologically nonfunctional. However, in practice, it is virtually impossible to experimentally establish nonfunctionality; the lack of any observable phenotypic effect upon the deletion of a putative pseudogene does not necessarily mean that the deletion has no phenotypic effect, because the effect may be too subtle to observe.
http://www.umich.edu/...blications/2010/Podlaha_2010_ELS.pdf
Are these issues presented to the lay person? I would prefer not to have to do a degree in every subject to get a decent sample of the issues involved.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2014 8:32 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 01-07-2014 11:21 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 01-07-2014 11:53 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2496 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 37 of 78 (715541)
01-07-2014 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
01-05-2014 6:04 PM


Re: Permission?
Again, permission? Permission from whom?
Logical or rational permission.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 01-05-2014 6:04 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 01-07-2014 7:06 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2014 1:19 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 38 of 78 (715542)
01-07-2014 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:13 AM


Re: Permission?
Logical or rational permission.
So your view is that logic and rationality would preclude a theory from growing up out of the preponderance of the evidence? That in itself is irrational.
Theories do not poof themselves nor are "concocted" into existence. When the multitude of evidence becomes such that the mechanism hypothesized is shown to be consistently right, then we have a theory. Rationality demands, by force of logic, that the theory exists.
The resultant theory was not concocted (in the negative usage of that term) by anything other than the weight of the evidence. When the evidence is lacking, inconclusive or contradictory then there cannot be a theory. When the evidence is verbose, pointed and consistent then the result is termed "theory".
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:13 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 78 (715545)
01-07-2014 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:07 AM


For instance if someone is assaulted in a local park the park becomes a crime scene and things like peoples activities and cigarette butts become part of the evidence. Without the crime everything becomes innocuous.
But everything that doesn't relate to the crime remains innocuous.
If you posit evolution you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't. ...
You sure have a funny idea of how science works.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
This has been observed in all breeding populations of all living organisms, so it is a fact that this happens to life as we know it.
(2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
This is also called the process of speciation, as this results in a non-arbitrary division into two diverging species. This is the process that forms branches in the tree of life.
This too has been observed happening, so it is a fact that this happens to life as we know it.
(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Once you develop an hypothesis the next step is to test it and specifically to see if you can falsify it, and a theory is a tested hypothesis.
.. you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't. ...
Curiously what scientists try to do is to falsify theories not make up support for them. In science anyone caught manipulating data in any way to bias the results is out of a career.
To date, after over 150 years of trying, no evidence has been found that falsifies the theory of evolution.
... And cases like eugenics are the worst examples of this. You start to interpret things through a paradigm and impose interpretations on things.
But eugenics is not a result of evolution, but of biased sociological thinking and using evolution as a justification.
Typical creationist pablum, AndrewPD.
There are varying degrees of falsifiability and plausibility of claims ...
You need to explain this further -- it seems muddled to me. Falsification is a yes\no proposition.
... but some claims are giving plausibility by dint of association with the paradigm (see evolutionary psychology)
Which again has nothing to do with the science of biological evolution. You need to learn what you are attacking so that you don't keep making mistakes. I suggest a thorough reading of evolution 101 before you proceed and then see if your arguments are mentioned there.
On the case of the consillience of morphological/homological and molecular trees I have noticed that the initial refutation of this is that similar morphology would be linked to similar biochemistry then this claims is apparently refuted by notions like common pseudogenes.
This article says:
The term ‘pseudogene’ was originally coined to describe a degenerated RNA- or protein-coding sequence that is incapable of being transcribed or translated into functional RNA or protein products. The key in this defnition is that pseudogenes are biologically nonfunctional. However, in practice, it is virtually impossible to experimentally establish nonfunctionality; the lack of any observable phenotypic effect upon the deletion of a putative pseudogene does not necessarily mean that the deletion has no phenotypic effect, because the effect may be too subtle to observe.
Scientific tentativity again. Also note that the emphasis is that you cannot prove a positive, which is why falsification is used to eliminate concepts that don't work.
If a function is found for a gene then THAT gene is not non-functional, but that would say nothing about the others.
So far you are just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks.
Are these issues presented to the lay person? I would prefer not to have to do a degree in every subject to get a decent sample of the issues involved.
A good high school education should suffice to give you a working knowledge, but if you didn't get that, then either you or your school are at fault. For remedial study you can read
evolution 101
and I strongly recommend it.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:07 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 78 (715552)
01-07-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:07 AM


AndrewPD writes:
A theory or hypothesis can effect the way you view the evidence and create confirmation bias or limiting paradigms.
The key word there is "you".
In science, "you" is plural. If one person views the evidence and sees relatedness there are forty others viewing the evidence who may or may not see relatedness. For confirmation bias to be a fatal problem, everybody would have to have exactly the same biases, which isn't likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:07 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 41 of 78 (715553)
01-07-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 2:39 PM


I don't see why we must have an explanation for the origin of species and why it would be possible.
The same could be said of most any scientific endeavor. Why go to the moon? Why explore outer space? Did we gain something by landing on the moon? Not really, but it was the process of getting to the moon that benefited us so greatly. Do you have any idea of the technology that came with the space exploration programs? NASA claims more than 1,600 spin-off technologies. See also: NASA Spinoffs.
The same could be said of the search for answers about origins. Once it was understood that there was a mechanism of inheritance, the search began for what that mechanism was. Would we have discovered DNA without the context of origins? Perhaps, but it is the drive to answer questions that inspires innovation. I would argue that our questions about biological evolution and origins has driven much of our understanding of our world and is a significant part of the reason why our knowledge has grown exponentially in the last century.
I can accept that there may be truths that are hard or impossible to access I don't think we have permission to concoct a theory on the grounds that somehow a theory is demanded.
Actually, any scientific endeavor requires a framework within which to operate. This is what theories and models provide - the framework. Without this framework scientists would just be taking stabs in the dark. Even an incorrect theory is better than no theory. An incorrect theory can be corrected and adjustments made to provide a better framework; however, having no theory at all would make it virtually impossible to conduct scientific investigations.
I don't have to believe the moon is made of cheese just because I haven't proffered an alternate explanation.
However, if I proposed to you that the moon was made of cheese, what framework would you use to decide whether my assertion had any merit? You would test that hypothesis against the model that planetary bodies are made from rocky materials (or gasses for some of them) rather than food products. Testing competing hypotheses is crucial to scientific investigation. It is simply not enough to say this particular theory is supported by the evidence, it must explain the data better than competing models.
In another post you mention phylogenetic trees and quoted from Wikipedia:
quote:
Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, ...
This is correct, but what we really want is to compare a particular phylogenetic hypothesis against other hypotheses and show that it is the BEST fit, that a particular hypothesis explains the data better than any other hypothesis.
This is one of the problems I have with people who suggest that evolutionary theory should be abandoned because a couple of details don't seem to fit perfectly or leave some uncertainty. The problem is, what model or theory should we replace it with? Is there a model that fits the data better? Scientists are not going to abandon a theory unless there is a better theory to replace it. Biological evolution has provide us with one of the most comprehensive and effective theories in the history of science. What to replace it with???? Nothing???
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 2:39 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:35 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 42 of 78 (715557)
01-07-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:07 AM


Science IS very complicated
Are these issues presented to the lay person? I would prefer not to have to do a degree in every subject to get a decent sample of the issues involved.
Science has advanced to the point where it is very difficult for the lay person to understand all of the issues involved. People study for years to learn a very narrow focused field of study. That's what can be insulting to scientists when a layperson who has browsed some websites suddenly knows so much more than scientists do and can expose all the flaws in scientific theories with ideas that don't even fit the data, but are based on preconceived and ill-informed notions.
If you posit evolution you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't.
One doesn't start with a theory and then find data to fit it. One uses the theory to explain the data and then as data accumulates, that theory may have to be adjusted or abandoned for a better one.
Now, on the other hand, a creationist starts with a theory that is immutable and looks to find data that supports the theory. What does one then do with data that doesn't fit this immutable theory? Well it can just be dismissed as irrelevant or erroneous since it contradicts the unquestionable theory.
So, which way do you operate?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:07 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 78 (715576)
01-07-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:13 AM


Re: Permission?
Logical or rational permission.
Well, we always have permission to construct a theory about anything. The question is, do we have "permission" to believe it? Does the theory fit the facts? In the case of evolution, yes, it does. The question would be, when a few simple premises explain all the observations, is it rational not to believe it?
By analogy, suppose someone denied the theory that lightning causes thunder. If we ask him, then, why they are found in association, he replies that it's just one of those things, it's a coincidence. Is that a rational stance?
Getting back to the actual topic, we have a method which produces the right answer when we can test it. Genetic analysis reveals that I'm closely related to my brother, less closely related to a white person chosen at random, still less closely to a Japanese person. It tells me that dogs are related to wolves, it tells me that domesticated strawberries are related to wild strawberries, things that no-one doubts. It tells me that donkeys are related to horses, a proposition which is even believed by about 50% of creationists. So, is it rational to refuse to believe the results of the exact same method when it tells creationists something they don't want to hear? On what basis?
By analogy (I like analogies, sue me) suppose someone acknowledged that trigonometric methods of surveying are perfectly accurate every time we use them to measure the distance to a mountain peak or a church spire, that in these cases they are always correct, and always give the same answer as we get when we use a tape measure; but then he insists that the same method is always wrong when we use it to measure the distance to the stars, which he is convinced are very close to us. Now, does he have "rational permission" to reject this method when it starts giving him answers he doesn't like? Or do we have "rational permission" to follow this method where it leads us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:13 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2496 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 44 of 78 (716469)
01-17-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
01-05-2014 4:02 PM


Re: approximation of reality vs known truths
This is stating scientific tentativity
The link I quoted says
"Ultimately, THERE IS NO WAY to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not.."
This is not a case of tentatively it is an acknowledgement of a real conceptual limit. I am talking about whether of homology or relation claim can be logically or validly proven.
I think you are clearly overstating the case for the evidence.
Take the case of a finger print. A clear fingerprint is likely to be linked to a person. A smeared fingerprint, whilst being a fingerprint is largely useless. There is not a simple continuum from a clear fingerprint to different degrees of clarity. Some evidence looses all its strength unless it is very clear.
So a close genetic pattern in families benefits from lots of shared features. Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.
You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or being that of and African male. The DNA has to be actually their DNA to make a claim with that kind or level of ramification.
So I guess we should chuck all of science and go back to chewing on roots and living in caves eh? Can you prove conclusively that you exist?
This is a horribly dishonest straw person. Why does accepting a limitation in one area of study imply that you are wanting to invalidate the whole of science? I have not said anything remotely likely that. This implies you are trying to force evolution on science like an inseparable package for reasons I couldn't fathom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 4:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2014 2:23 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2014 4:29 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 01-17-2014 5:56 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2496 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 45 of 78 (716471)
01-17-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by herebedragons
01-07-2014 11:34 AM


Would we have discovered DNA without the context of origins?
DNA and inheritance via Miescher and Mendel respectively were discovered independently of evolution.
The claims in natural selection have been abused by the Social Darwinist eugenicists. The Nazis, Lysenko and others. A scientific theory can be abused and unjustified far reaching conclusions drawn from it.
For example the Nazis "Alles Leben is Kampf" (All life is struggle) and Das erbe
The short movie Das Erbe (1935), which leads over from the animals' struggle for survival and natural selection to a plea for forced sterilization of the mentally ill, marks exactly the point where Social Darwinist biologism turns into Fascist racial policy providing the reasoning for the necessity of euthanasia.
Das Erbe - Wikipedia
Explanations of evolution are ideologically and conceptually loaded. A trip to the moon is not. And just because science can do something such as create a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it should unless you don't want science to abide by an ethical standards.
People especially in evolutionary psychology feel entitled to make certain dubious claims "Evolution is true therefore" This is helping yourself via unspoken false premises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 01-07-2014 11:34 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 01-17-2014 2:24 PM AndrewPD has replied
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2014 2:57 PM AndrewPD 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