Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 1 of 67 (476532)
07-24-2008 2:20 PM


In RAZD's forum about dogs and horses, AlphaOmegakid has taken it upon himself to challenge the theory of evolution on the basis of logic. He has presented the following claims:
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Natural selection is a tautology.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.
I would like him to defend these claims, but to do so on RAZD's thread would probably drive RAZD to the psycho ward, so I propose this thread to discuss AOkid's claims about tautologies in evolutionary thought.
I suspect that, when he makes these claims, he is referring to evolutionists’ tendency to find some phenomenon (such as a trait or fossil) in the natural world, interpret it in terms of evolutionary theory, then hold it up as evidence of evolution. Taken as I have laid it out in the preceding sentence, it does indeed appear to be circular logic.
To this, I respond that any study written today about a homology or vestige is resting on a long history of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of similar studies that have already established the pattern that we are using to interpret our new data, and more additions to the pattern are being unearthed every year. Furthermore, when we uncover new data, we sometimes find how our pattern needs to be adjusted, and we adjust it accordingly.
As an example of such a pattern, I present a few examples of transitional fossils that have been highlighted just this summer here at EvC, all of which are very similar in nature to the equid fossil series AOkid is arguing against on RAZD’s thread. There is a definite and distinct pattern of transitional fossils and even extensive transitional series in the fossil record: any competent biologist or cognizant evolution buff could list off several more well-known series of fossils that line up nicely in a transitional series.
FOCAL POINT:
In order for AOkid (or any other creationist) to prove that evolutionary thought is tautological, he must show that a pattern like the one I presented above does not exist. Or, if the pattern does exist, then he must show either (a) how the pattern supports an alternative interpretation better than, or at least as well as, it supports the theory of evolution, or (b) how the pattern is coincidental and meaningless.
Edited by Bluejay, : Added to Title.
Edited by Bluejay, : Changed Title again
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

Darwin loves you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 07-24-2008 3:54 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 4 by bluegenes, posted 07-25-2008 8:37 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2008 1:42 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 07-25-2008 5:21 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 20 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 3:30 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 07-31-2008 7:53 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 67 (476535)
07-24-2008 2:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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


Message 3 of 67 (476544)
07-24-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-24-2008 2:20 PM


A bit of a base to work from
I'm not really biologically inclined. I tend to stick with the more philisophical aspects of this arguement. But I would like to learn
Anyway, I would like to add a (very) short summary as to why each point from AlphaOmegakid is not tautological or cicular reasoning.
Please feel free to correct anything I say, it's just off my own layman's knowledge.
AophaOmegakid writes:
Natural selection is a tautology.
No. Natural selection is simply one of the most popular screening processes in which evolution occurs. It is nothing more than a naturally-occuring selective pressure on a species. The existance of artificial selection should be enough to show that natural selection is not tautological.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
No. Homologies are simply classifications. If things weren't similar to each other, then there wouldn't be any homologies. Every single homology includes aspects that are similar.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
No. Vestigial features are simply no longer required.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
No. The geological column is simply an observation. Specific old things on the bottom, specific young things on top. That's just the way we found it. All over the planet.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.
No. Genetic evidence was examined, and found to be similar. If it wasn't similar, it wouldn't have been evidence. The fact that it turned out to be similar, in all living things, is kind of fantastic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 07-24-2008 2:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2008 5:50 PM Stile has replied
 Message 39 by Beretta, posted 08-11-2008 2:51 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2008 8:35 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 4 of 67 (476604)
07-25-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-24-2008 2:20 PM


Circular reasoned? That's real nice, honey. Who needs adverbs, anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 07-24-2008 2:20 PM Blue Jay 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 5 of 67 (476648)
07-25-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-24-2008 2:20 PM


Bump: AlphaOmegakid
In the absence of creationist comment, I'll put in a little addition of my own.
In my opening post, I chose to focus on the pattern of transitional series, of which there are many in the fossil record. To go along with this, I would like to present an overall picture of the fossil record, as presented by Alfred Russel Wallace:
quote:
...new species come into existence coincident in both time and space with a pre-existing, closely allied species...
This quote is actually taken from Hull, DL (2005). Deconstructing Darwin. Journal of the History of Biology 38:137-152.
Basically, all armadillos, hummingbirds and tarantulas are found in the Americas, all kangaroos are found in Australia, etc. Of course, none of this really deters from the baraminology ideas of creationism. However, when the fossil record is taken as a whole, the pattern continues unabated right across any boundary that can be constructed around a “kind” of any magnitude. Tetrapods don't appear in the fossil record until after Tiktaalik; dinosaurs don't appear until after Euparkeria; mammals don't appear until after therapsids; birds don’t appear until after Archaeopteryx; etc. (insect evolution is even more interesting, and shows such patterns perhaps even better). It’s very hard to support anything but transmutation of “kinds” when the entire geological column shows the same trend: new “kinds” do appear rather often, but they don’t appear until after something else, which is suspiciously similar to them, but allied to a different, pre-existing "kind."
But, do scientists then just assume that there’s a pattern there and stop working on it? No, not really: we go out on expeditions to find more evidence to solidify or modify the pattern, and, next year, we go and do it again, each time building on what we did last year or five years ago or whatever. Eventually, we get to the point where the pattern is so pervasive in all of our studies, that we no longer wonder whether it’s correct, but switch over to wondering how it is manifested in other, as-yet unstudied facets of our science. But, even as we do that, we are still testing, confirming, modifying and building upon the pattern as we already understand it.
That’s how simple observations build into a solid theoretical framework like evolution, and how the framework gives us reason to accept the implications of the framework, such as the observed natural history.
Edited by Bluejay, : I liked "suspiciously" better than "unusually"

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 07-24-2008 2:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 6 of 67 (476699)
07-25-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
07-24-2008 2:20 PM


AlphaOmegakid writes:
Natural selection is a tautology.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.
All of these arguments from Alpha are based off of a belief in a Creator. He has no evidence to support it simply because once he has established that HE sees design, he can invoke that Creator that he has so soundly believed in. So you see the evidence supports his POV, because the evidence supports design...in his opinion.
He uses this statement to support his view,
As jurors, we listen to the "experts" and then we make up our minds.
He believes he is a juror sitting on a panel listening to scientists present evidence that he then may evaluate on his own...how do you make a point with someone who believes that their opinion on a scientific matter is better than the conclusions from experts in the scientific fields?
Or, if the pattern does exist, then he must show either (a) how the pattern supports an alternative interpretation better than, or at least as well as, it supports the theory of evolution, or (b) how the pattern is coincidental and meaningless.
I suspect if he, or other creationist do engage in the thread(which im sure they will), you will get the basic micro/macro argument that floods so many other threads.
Great thread though, I hope he and other creationist stick to the facts and not their opinions.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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 8 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2008 6:17 PM onifre has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 67 (476700)
07-25-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Stile
07-24-2008 3:54 PM


Enough?
You know, you simply state that he is wrong. I don't see that you have actually explained why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 07-24-2008 3:54 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 9:03 AM NosyNed 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 8 of 67 (476701)
07-25-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by onifre
07-25-2008 5:21 PM


Hi, onifre.
onifre writes:
...how do you make a point with someone who believes that their opinion on a scientific matter is better than the conclusions from experts in the scientific fields?
Dude, what a profound insight! Does this happen often when you smoke pot?
Oh wait, that's Bill Hicks, not you.
You know, I've long since given up hope that what I do on this forum will change any creationist's mind: I debate now for the practice for myself and for the hope that someday, some honest searcher will see the logic in evolution and stop criticizing science. I actually won my father over (partially), believe it or not!
onifre writes:
Great thread though, I hope he and other creationist stick to the facts and not their opinions.
This is what concerns me the most. The Kid claims to have produced definitive proof that biogenesis is a valid law in science, even though we've refuted his Huxley quote a good dozen times or so, and he hasn't provided anything else.
The same thing, I fear, is happening with this tautology argument he used. They just don't see beyond what they want to see, so they conclude that our premises are just assumptions and wail about how we're basing our ideas on a belief system, when in fact, our "assumptions" are the work done by people who went before us, whose work is in turn based on the work of people before them.
That's how we've established our pattern, and that's why we're so confident in it that we rarely consider it possible that it's all wrong.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 07-25-2008 5:21 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by onifre, posted 07-25-2008 6:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 9 of 67 (476703)
07-25-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Blue Jay
07-25-2008 6:17 PM


Dude, what a profound insight! Does this happen often when you smoke pot?
Thank you, and YES thats exactly what happens
Oh wait, that's Bill Hicks, not you.
The quote is Hicks', the effects are all mine
Bill Hicks and I have many similarities...including profession
we've refuted his Huxley quote a good dozen times or so, and he hasn't provided anything else.
Honestly I don't think he has anything else
The same thing, I fear, is happening with this tautology argument he used. They just don't see beyond what they want to see, so they conclude that our premises are just assumptions and wail about how we're basing our ideas on a belief system, when in fact, our "assumptions" are the work done by people who went before us, whose work is in turn based on the work of people before them.
As I told Berreta, he(or rather they), put the cart before the horse. They have the belief in the Creator, then they view the evidence and adjust it so that it fits their belief...and not the other way around.
Ego-centric human POVs, that is what you scientist are faced with these days...Sorry
I debate now for the practice for myself and for the hope that someday, some honest searcher will see the logic in evolution and stop criticizing science.
Mines is a much simpler reason. I think creationist are full of shit and take pleasure in telling them
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2008 6:17 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 10 of 67 (476887)
07-28-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
07-25-2008 5:50 PM


Re: Enough?
NosyNed writes:
I don't see that you have actually explained why.
It wasn't meant to be an encyclopedic discussion, only something to start from.
I did more than simply state that he was wrong... that's what all the sentences after each "No." were for. I agree it wasn't much. But, well, I don't really understand his arguement in the first place.
"The geological column is circular reasoned."
What is there to say to such a strange statement? The geological column isn't any sort of reasoning at all (let alone circular). As far as I know, it's just an observation. It's something we find as we dig holes and look at chasms all over the world.
My statements aren't meant to totally refute his position. My statements are geared towards having him discuss his position and hopefully explain it a bit more. Right now, I don't really understand why he thinks any of these things are circular reasoning or tautologies.
And, of course, if you think my post is lacking in information, you're free to add whatever else you'd like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2008 5:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 10:00 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 11 of 67 (476889)
07-28-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stile
07-28-2008 9:03 AM


Re: Enough?
Hi, Stile.
Thanks for your input.
Stile writes:
AlphaOmegakid writes:
The geological column is circular reasoned."
What is there to say to such a strange statement? The geological column isn't any sort of reasoning at all (let alone circular). As far as I know, it's just an observation. It's something we find as we dig holes and look at chasms all over the world.
Well, I think the Kid was just in a bit of a hurry and left off the "-ly" at the end of "circularly," as Bluegenes pointed out with Elvis and "Love Me Tender."
So, I think he's saying that we first build up an evolutionary perspective, then, when we dig up fossils, we automatically try to squeeze it into our already-existing, philosophical mindset of evolution. Then, once we've jammed it crudely into place, we praise the fossil as the new, great proof of evolution.
In some ways, he's quite right: we do try hard to make everything fit the evolutionary picture.
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!"

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 9:03 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 10:52 AM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 12 of 67 (476894)
07-28-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Blue Jay
07-28-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Enough?
Bluejay writes:
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!"
Well said.
It is the well-established foundation of evolution that leads us to question our own falliable ideas before questioning the grounded philosophy. Not to say that it's impossible for the theory to be wrong, but that when something 'appears strange' the liklihood that our interpretation is in error, rather than the philosophy of the theory itself, is quite high.
That's not the point I'm attempting to touch on, though. Neither do I mind that he's forgotten the '-ly'
"The geological column is circularly reasoned" is a strange statement to me because the geological column is simply an observation. No one reasoned (circularly or logically) that certain fossils are on certain layers and others are on different layers still. This was not derived in any way. It was simply observed. People looked at the rock and that's what was found. People dug holes and found the same thing. People dug holes all over the earth, and found the same thing.
That wasn't reasoned by any means. It was simply looked at, simply found. Found in the same way you can find gum on your shoe. The geological column came from discovery, not logical reasoning or philosophy.
I understand his over-all problem lies likely with what you have described. But some of his 'defenses' don't even make sense within that framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 10:00 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 11:24 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 13 of 67 (476896)
07-28-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Stile
07-28-2008 10:52 AM


Bump Again: AlphaOmegakid?
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes:
I understand his over-all problem lies likely with what you have described. But some of his 'defenses' don't even make sense within that framework.
True. I understand where you're coming from, too. I thought about basing this thread on some of what you brought up, but it seemed to me that it was (or would quickly turn into) more of an issue with how he said it than with what I thought he was trying to say, and I didn't want it to turn into a semantics battle like all the bigotry topics that Hoot Mon's involved with (by the way, your line of reasoning with definitions and tomatoes is probably the best attack on Hoot Mon's position that I've seen yet: you got to the heart of it, I think).
Stile writes:
The geological column came from discovery, not logical reasoning or philosophy.
This is really what I'm getting at with this topic. AlphaOmegakid does not agree with you, and I'd sure like to know why, because I'm in full agreement with you, and most of science is in full agreement with you. I'm also having a little trouble getting at his reasons for disagreeing, and I'd sure like to know them.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 10:52 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stile, posted 07-28-2008 11:41 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 67 (476897)
07-28-2008 11:26 AM


Circular Reasoning
Stile writes:
No. Natural selection is simply
one of the most popular screening processes
in which evolution occurs.
It is nothing more than a naturally-occuring
selective pressure on a species.
The existance of artificial selection
should be enough to show that natural selection is not tautological.
It's alive.. Why?..Natural Selection.. How do we know that it was
Naturally selected?... It's alive. That's circular reasoning. Natural
Selection is just "Survival of the fittest" rephrased.
onifre writes:
As I told Berreta, he(or rather they), put the cart before the horse.
They have the belief in the Creator,
then they view the evidence and adjust it so that it fits their belief...and not the other way around.
But
Bluejay writes:
But, do scientists then just assume that there’s a
pattern there and stop working on it?
No, not really: we go out on expeditions to
find more evidence to solidify or modify the pattern,
and, next year, we go and do it again, each time building
on what we did last year or five years ago or whatever.
Well you do assume that there's a pattern there, thats what you
are trying to "solidify", or "modify" but never reject.
Where I come from, we reject a theory if we find anomallies (counter examples).
What do you do with them?
If you expect creationists to reject creation, then you must
also be prepared to reject evolution (whatever evolution means today 29/7/2008).

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 11:48 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 07-28-2008 2:08 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 23 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-28-2008 6:02 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 24 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 6:43 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

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


Message 15 of 67 (476898)
07-28-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
07-28-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Bump Again: AlphaOmegakid?
Bluejay writes:
I didn't want it to turn into a semantics battle like all the bigotry topics that Hoot Mon's involved with..
Thanks for the nod. And yes, staying away from a semantics battle should be the focus of every discussion (I think, anyway). The actual issue is always much more fun to deal with.
This is really what I'm getting at with this topic. AlphaOmegakid does not agree with you, and I'd sure like to know why...
Me too
Guess it's left to the waiting game, now. 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. He may just not be monitoring other threads/forums, especially new ones.
Or have you already tried that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 11:24 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 07-28-2008 11:53 AM Stile 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