Is a fact something that has been proven?
av...@doctor.com
that has been proven?
Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
rev.goetz
a...@doctor.com wrote:
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
Facts are true even if the facts are never proven or accepted by any
human.
James Goetz
John Harshman
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
Close enough, I would say. "Proven" isn't a word we use much in science,
but if you mean by "proven" that the evidence is so strong we find it
very unlikely that it could be wrong, then sure. In this sense, common
descent is proven, and thus a fact.
topmind
av...@doctor.com wrote:
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
>
> Steve
There is no clear-cut definition of "fact". Thus, don't ask unless you
want a never-ending battle.
-T-
Radix2
It is a fact that organisms show common descent has occurred. I don't
think that really could be debated. The debate comes from what the
process was. We think the Theory of Evolution is the best (and only)
scientific explanation of common descent.
Dave
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
Don't play games with semantics. State your theory.
Alan Morgan
<av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
>that has been proven?
Not in science, no. A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
av...@doctor.com
>
> There is no clear-cut definition of "fact". Thus, don't ask unless you
> want a never-ending battle.
>
> -T-
Hmm, never ending battle. . . sounds good to me.
So, will I hear that a fact is a proven truism? Will I be more likely
to hear someone say that a fact is something which has been established
to have a highly probability of being true? Or maybe it is something
that's been accepted by a majority as having enough evidence to be
widely accepted.
If it's the latter, then wouldn't spontaneous generation have been "a
fact" in the 19th century.
ave1
>
> Not in science, no.
Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
website agrees with you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
> A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
>
> Alan
This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
fallible.
If Louis Pasteur had thought he might look stupid by challenging a fact
of his day, maybe he could have just shut up, right?
Steve
Ian H Spedding
>
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
>From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
assent."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Dave
Blah, blah, blah. Semantics. State your theory.
bullpup
"ave1" <av...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:1148267878.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Alan Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Not in science, no.
>
> Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> website agrees with you:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
You must not have read the article. Besides, your original question was
targeting the word "fact".
>
> > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> >
> > Alan
>
> This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> fallible.
Ah. So it *IS* an argument of semantics.
>
> If Louis Pasteur had thought he might look stupid by challenging a fact
> of his day, maybe he could have just shut up, right?
Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more. And
please don't play the "spontanious generation is the same thing as
abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific meaning,
and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which Pasteur
disproved.
Boikat
--
<42><
guscubed
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When
people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you
think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking
the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put
together."
- Isaac Asimov
ave1
>
> >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
>
> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> assent."
>
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>
> Ian
So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
position for a scientist to take?
Radix2
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> >
> > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > assent."
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
That is not what he is saying at all. He is saying that without
evidence to the contrary, it is perverse to not accept it as a fact.
Seeing as you are puportedly an MD, I would have assumed your
comprehension skills would have been well developed. It would have been
perverse of me to believe otherwise. Now that I have opposing evidence
that challenges my hypothesis, I withdraw my provisional assent of it
as fact.
>
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
Not at all - read above for comprehension.
ave1
>
> Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
claimed that it was as much of a fact as gravity is a fact.
> And please don't play the "spontanious generation is the same thing as
> abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific meaning,
> and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which Pasteur
> disproved.
Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
nonlife. The experiment which confirmed this (and is still confirming
this) was when there were no flies/maggots coming from old meat when
it's sealed from the outside world.
Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
non-living material. It is spontaneous generation, because at some
point along the way in the process of abiogenesis there'd be something
that's not defined as living (maybe something like a virus) crossing a
threshold into having an "offspring" which has all the components
needed to be called a living organism.
Oh, and as far as semantics are concerned, I will say that this "a fact
and a theory" claim came from Evolutionists, and that I'm just shedding
some light on the problems associated with these claims. The way words
are defined have been manipulated by those who for some reason don't
want their theory challenged.
Rich Townsend
>>Ian H Spedding wrote:
>>
>>>From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
>>
>> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
>> a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
>> assent."
>>
>>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>>
>>Ian
>
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
No, facts have nothing to do with theories. Theories are explanations of facts.
By way of an example: it's a fact that the sky during a sunny day is blue, and
it would be perverse -- nay, childish -- to argue otherwise. Whereas, the theory
that explains this fact -- Rayleigh scattering -- remains perfectly open to
questioning and challenge.
>
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
Tell us which 'theory' Gould was a proponent of, and show us how he defined it
to be a 'fact'. Then we can talk about specifics.
cheers,
Rich
>
> Steve
> ---
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
No matter, or Never Mind?
coaster
Yes, proof is important becuase proof is falsification. But do we need
to wait for proof before we consider something a fact? I argue, no.
I view "Fact" as a tenuous assumption necessary for us to carry out the
application of knowledge. Tenuous in the sense that "facts" are merely
substantiated opinions just as vulnerable to falsification as any other
evidence. "Assumption" in the sense that knowledge can never be known
with absolute certainty lest we forget that in order to have confidence
in the first place genuine knowledge must be subject to falsification!
Thus how well a new theory or a new piece of evidence fits within our
"model of our universe" directly corresponds to the level of confidence
we award it.
When you start demanding proof, what precisely are you demanding?
Clearly, even within the strict boundaries of science, evidence does
not need (nor should it need) to be derived from direct observation.
Laboratory experiments are not necessary in order for us to claim a
high level of confidence when indirect observation and logical
inference will suffice. And the reason that it will suffice is the
reason that I gave above. It is impossible for us as a society (or
even as curious individuals) to ignore the application of knowledge
before all knowledge has been gained. Maybe our knowledge is correct,
or maybe a better theory will come to replace it in the years to come.
But this is the theory that best fits the information we have today.
And at the time which it was successfully applied there was no arguing
that it was a Fact.
Scientifically I think we would like to avoid sweeping generalizations
regarding individual pieces of evidence. But despite the explosion of
progress over the past 200 years our knolwedge still advances too
slowly for us not to risk broad assumptions.
coaster
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> >
> > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > assent."
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
Do you not agree that when you turn the knob on your sink water flows?
Do you not agree that when you flick a light switch the circuit
completes and the light turns on? If fact is about confidence then
there is no point in testing these very fundamental things when you
don't gain additional confidence from the test. We can safely say they
are bona fide facts. Personally I'd generalize even further, but
that's basically what Gould is saying.
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
>
> Steve
Yes it would be, but that's not what he's saying.
Steven J.
ave1 wrote:
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> >
> > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > assent."
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
>
is not perverse to bring it forward -- but it is rather perverse to
insist that unsolved problems in a theory constitute evidence *against*
the theory (e.g. the absence of a detailed theory of abiogenesis is not
evidence against evolution, or, indeed, against naturalistic
abiogenesis). It is rather more perverse to insist that evidence *for*
a theory is evidence against it (as ID proponents and creationists have
done when they cite the fact that trout and humans are approximately
genetically equidistant from lampreys as evidence against branching
descent with modification).
>
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
>
make him "the ultimate scientist," and what were the criteria for
awarding the title?
No matter. He was not saying that you ought not question evolutionary
theory. I doubt he meant to say that "evolutionary theory" (the
account of how natural selection, drift, and other forces modify the
distribution of inheritable traits in populations) was a "fact." More
likely, he was saying that "evolution" as such (common descent -- the
idea that you share ancestors with monkeys and marigolds) was a "fact."
Now, he might have gone a bit further, and suggested that "questioning"
these things, given the amount and breadth of evidence for them, is
insufficient -- roughly on a par with "questioning" heliocentric
astronomy. You really need, if you want to revoke the provisional
acceptance of common descent, to come up with some rival explanation
that explains the same data as well, and other evidence that common
descent does not explain.
Side note, since although you didn't raise the question in this post,
but have in other posts: I don't see that spontaneous generation
counted as a "fact" in the 19th century. It was widely accepted,
indeed, and was (at least as far as microorganisms were concerned)
largely consistent with observations. But Pasteur's enterprise in
testing spontaneous generation showed that its predictions had never
been properly tested: that actual evidence for the theory was weak, and
more readily explained by a rival theory (which he had -- bacteria were
in the air, and landed and bred in suitable environments, rather than
forming spontaneously there).
>
> Steve
> ---
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
>
> Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
-- Steven J.
Stuart
av...@doctor.com wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> >
> > There is no clear-cut definition of "fact". Thus, don't ask unless you
> > want a never-ending battle.
> >
> > -T-
>
> Hmm, never ending battle. . . sounds good to me.
>
> So, will I hear that a fact is a proven truism? Will I be more likely
> to hear someone say that a fact is something which has been established
> to have a highly probability of being true? Or maybe it is something
> that's been accepted by a majority as having enough evidence to be
> widely accepted.
>
> If it's the latter, then wouldn't spontaneous generation have been "a
> fact" in the 19th century.
When was spontaneous generation widely accepted.
Stuart
Stuart
ave1 wrote:
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> >
> > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > assent."
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory?
Not at all.
Dispense with your silly preamble and state your evidence.
Stuart
Stuart
ave1 wrote:
> > Boikat wrote:
> >
> > Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
>
> But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
> claimed that it was as much of a fact as gravity is a fact.
>
> > And please don't play the "spontanious generation is the same thing as
> > abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific meaning,
> > and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which Pasteur
> > disproved.
>
> Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
> nonlife.
It showed nothing of the sort.
Stuart
coaster
I don't know if you intend to or not, but you sure are coming across as
rather arrogant. If not then why are you intentionally challenging the
obvious? Pasteur got to work and demonstrated evidence that seemed to
fit nicely within our model of the universe. That's all he did, and
that's all it takes.
Precisely what are you getting at anyway? Does this have something to
do with the theory of Quantum Mechanics pointed to in your sig? I
think most of the sub atomic universe is fairly well understood by the
information garnered from modern particle accelerators, don't you
agree? If this has something to do with origins, the evolution of life
is just as evidenced as QM, if not more so, and just as much of a fact
of our world.
Kermit
ave1 wrote:
> > Boikat wrote:
> >
> > Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
>
> But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
> claimed that it was as much of a fact as gravity is a fact.
So...
Which facts do you think are true, and which there is zero percent
chance you are wrong about?
What's your point? Scientists will tell you that *all assertions of
facts are contingent. The Earth orbits the sun. Do you seriously doubt
this? But you could conceivably be wrong if you don't.
So too is evolution a fact. *Maybe it didn't happen. Maybe an
omnipotent trickster God made everything last Thursday, and the
universe only *looks older, complete with our false memories. Or
perhaps this is a virtual reality, and we are programs, without real
bodies.
But who seriously thinks such things? All statements of fact are
contingent, and they are more or less likely depending on the
directness of our perception of them and supporting facts (which are
also contingent). Etc.
>
> > And please don't play the "spontanious generation is the same thing as
> > abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific meaning,
> > and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which Pasteur
> > disproved.
>
> Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
> nonlife. The experiment which confirmed this (and is still confirming
> this) was when there were no flies/maggots coming from old meat when
> it's sealed from the outside world.
No he didn't. He showed that garbage did not give rise to rats and
worms.
If you think this represents abiogenesis, then you are engaging in a
strawman argument. And I think you know it.
>
> Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
> non-living material. It is spontaneous generation, because at some
> point along the way in the process of abiogenesis there'd be something
> that's not defined as living (maybe something like a virus) crossing a
> threshold into having an "offspring" which has all the components
> needed to be called a living organism.
This is the fallacy of equivocation. Using the phrase "life from
nonlife" in very different ways - shffling the shells, hoping the rubes
won't notice the slight of hand.
Abiogenesis is a presumed event, and people are looking for supporting
evidence and hypotheses to explain it. We may never know for sure. It
is not made less likely be disingenuous strawmen and slight of hand.
>
> Oh, and as far as semantics are concerned, I will say that this "a fact
> and a theory" claim came from Evolutionists,
We typically say that evolution is a fact, and neoDarwinism, the Modern
Syntheis, is the Theory which explains it.
We assume abiogenesis (or do *you think there has always been life?),
considering that Earth seems to have been lifeless 4.55 billion years
ago and now it is not.
We are working on plausible ways that it could have happened. Perhaps
one day soon (decades) we will know with enough confidence that we can
speak of the Theory of Abiogensis, but no yet. Maybe never.
> and that I'm just shedding
> some light on the problems associated with these claims. The way words
> are defined have been manipulated by those who for some reason don't
> want their theory challenged.
Talk about manipulating words - you have bribed, mugged, and held them
for ransom.
>
> Steve
> ---
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
>
There is no evidence of mind without matter. Unless you have some...
> Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
Kermit
Alan Morgan
ave1 <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>>Alan Morgan wrote:
>>
>> Not in science, no.
>
>Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
>website agrees with you:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
It was written by intelligent and thoughtful people. I would expect
nothing less.
>> A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
>> that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
>>
>> Alan
>
>This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
>indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
>fallible.
Welcome to science. Science is about our best guess right now. Always
has been, always will be. That's not just true of evolution, it's true
of physics, chemistry, etc. We can't *prove* that Helium doesn't form
chemical compounds, but I don't lose a lot of sleep worrying over it.
We can't prove that every particle in the universe attracts every other
particle with a force inversely blah blah, but if you are going to
argue with that then you'd better have some pretty impressive evidence
on your side.
>If Louis Pasteur had thought he might look stupid by challenging a fact
>of his day, maybe he could have just shut up, right?
IIRC, Pasteur provided evidence that spontaneous generation was wrong.
Evidence is the key. Disagreeing with the current position when your
only basis is that it *might* be wrong is just... juvenile. Yes, we
might be wrong. Unless you can come up with something better than
half-assed speculation you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.
Yes, evolution and common descent might be completely wrong. I really
doubt it. The evidence is very, very good. If you wish to argue that
it is wrong you are going to need to come up with equally good evidence
that supports an opposing position. Otherwise you are blowing smoke
and spinning your wheels.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Kermit
ave1 wrote:
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> >
> > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > assent."
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
Not at all. It means that it would be perverse to deny the fact - given
the evidence at hand.
Why do I get the impression that you don't actually have any evidence
challenging these facts? You instead are using provacative language to
play the martyr:
"Woe is me! I am a genius, but they have entrenched beliefs, and cannot
handle my insights!"
OK, so put yer money where yer mouth is. What challenging evidence do
you have?
>
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
Do, he is saying that it is perverse to deny clear and overwhelming
evidence. Why do you pretend that it means anything about challenging
theories? It *does* mean that without new evidence, you have nothing.
Or do you have an alternative, testable model that fits the data? Great
fame awaits you if you do. But you might want to "test" it here first.
I assure you , we won't be as harsh as journal editors would be.
Remember Pons and Fleischman.
>
> Steve
> ---
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
>
> Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
Kermit
topmind
Stuart wrote:
> av...@doctor.com wrote:
> > > topmind wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no clear-cut definition of "fact". Thus, don't ask unless you
> > > want a never-ending battle.
> > >
> > > -T-
> >
> > Hmm, never ending battle. . . sounds good to me.
> >
> > So, will I hear that a fact is a proven truism? Will I be more likely
> > to hear someone say that a fact is something which has been established
> > to have a highly probability of being true?
What is the probability threashold? And, who or what decides what the
probability value for a case, and the threashold cutoff is?
> > Or maybe it is something
> > that's been accepted by a majority as having enough evidence to be
> > widely accepted.
> >
> > If it's the latter, then wouldn't spontaneous generation have been "a
> > fact" in the 19th century.
>
> When was spontaneous generation widely accepted.
Unfortunately, it probably depends on how you define "spontaneous". One
could say that it was "spontaneous" for a given size or time range. It
is similar to saying that "magic" is merely something we haven't
figured out the internal workings of yet. Maybe God has a mainframe
computer running the show.
>
> Stuart
-T-
J. J. Lodder
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
Facts don't exists.
There are just people who theoretize
some things to be facts.
BTW, 'proven' is a theory too,
Jan
Jordan
>
>So, will I hear that a fact is a proven truism? Will I be more likely to hear someone say that a fact is something which has been established to have a highly probability of being true? Or maybe it is something that's been accepted by a majority as having enough evidence to be widely accepted. <
>
> If it's the latter, then wouldn't spontaneous generation have been "a fact" in the 19th century. <
Fortunately, it's not the latter -- "factual" implies "true," not
merely "accepted to be true."
- Jordan
Cubist
Alan Morgan wrote:
> In article <1148267878.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> ave1 <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
> >>Alan Morgan wrote:
> >>
> >> Not in science, no.
> >
> >Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> >website agrees with you:
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
>
> It was written by intelligent and thoughtful people. I would expect
> nothing less.
>
> >> A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> >> that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >
> >This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> >indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> >fallible.
>
> Welcome to science. Science is about our best guess right now. Always
> has been, always will be. That's not just true of evolution, it's true
> of physics, chemistry, etc. We can't *prove* that Helium doesn't form
> chemical compounds, but I don't lose a lot of sleep worrying over it.
form compounds! Not under anything resembling normal conditions, mind
you, and said compounds are unstable even under the required exotic
conditions, but nevertheless: If you torture Helium enough, you can
indeed force it to form compounds. See the Wikipedia entry for Helium
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium -- for further details.
bullpup
> > Boikat wrote:
> >
> > Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
>
> But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
> claimed that it was as much of a fact as gravity is a fact.
So what?
>
> > And please don't play the "spontanious generation is the same thing as
> > abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific
meaning,
> > and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which
Pasteur
> > disproved.
>
> Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
> nonlife. The experiment which confirmed this (and is still confirming
> this) was when there were no flies/maggots coming from old meat when
> it's sealed from the outside world.
Yes, that is the *only* context and concept that he was testing, not the
context and concept of the origin of life on earth.
>
> Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
> non-living material. It is spontaneous generation, because at some
> point along the way in the process of abiogenesis there'd be something
> that's not defined as living (maybe something like a virus) crossing a
> threshold into having an "offspring" which has all the components
> needed to be called a living organism.
I knew it. Word games. Sorry, you want to conflate two totally different
throies there is no point in even attempting to discuss it..
>
> Oh, and as far as semantics are concerned, I will say that this "a fact
> and a theory" claim came from Evolutionists, and that I'm just shedding
> some light on the problems associated with these claims. The way words
> are defined have been manipulated by those who for some reason don't
> want their theory challenged.
And you'd be wrong and dishonest.
Boikat
--
<42><
Ron O
Is this Steve AVE of years gone by?
If it is, we can look forward to a series of arguments about as good as
this one for creationism. Why is that? Why can't you defend your
option with anything real? Why do you have to resort to semantic word
games? Why come back after all these years, after the latest
creationist scam has bitten the dust?
Maybe Karl Crawford will start posting again. Abject failure seems to
pull guys like this out of the woodwork.
If you have another explanation put it forward and the evidence that
you have accumulated over the years for it. Pretty much a big zero,
but that hasn't seemed to stop you.
Sorry if you aren't the AVE of years gone by, but the lack of a real
argument and pro creationists stance seems improbable that there would
be someone else using AVE named Steve.
You can take stock in the fact that you are a cut above the
creationists that are currently posting. Look up posts by NashtOn and
Goodrich to see the junk that these guys can manage. Nameless is still
posting.
Ron Okimoto
catshark
>> Boikat wrote:
>>
>> Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
>
>But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
>claimed that it was as much of a fact as gravity is a fact.
Thus demonstrating that you haven't even done cursory investigation of the
actual history of your little fantasy. Here, we can help:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html>
>
>> And please don't play the "spontanious generation is the same thing as
>> abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific meaning,
>> and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which Pasteur
>> disproved.
>
>Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
>nonlife.
No he didn't. As John Wilkins demonstrated in the above article is that:
What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation
demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in
complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the
impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of
a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In
particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then
evolve.
>The experiment which confirmed this (and is still confirming
>this) was when there were no flies/maggots coming from old meat when
>it's sealed from the outside world.
You can't even bother to get this right? Pasteur's experiments involved
germs and their source in flasks of various infusions.
<http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextbook/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27>
>
>Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
>non-living material. It is spontaneous generation, because at some
>point along the way in the process of abiogenesis there'd be something
>that's not defined as living (maybe something like a virus) crossing a
>threshold into having an "offspring" which has all the components
>needed to be called a living organism.
That is part of your problem right there. Even though you claim that there
is some sort of "threshold" between the living and the non-living, you
cannot even begin to describe it.
>
>Oh, and as far as semantics are concerned, I will say that this "a fact
>and a theory" claim came from Evolutionists, and that I'm just shedding
>some light on the problems associated with these claims.
So, just making random statements based on all-but-utter ignorance is
called "shedding some light" in your world?
>The way words
>are defined have been manipulated by those who for some reason don't
>want their theory challenged.
An apt description of most creationist codswallop.
[...]
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
People who are anti-evolution are working
very hard for some excuse to be against it.
- Charles Townes -
Ian H Spedding
> >
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> >
> > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > assent."
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
>
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
Gould was not attempting to shield the theory of evolution from any
form of investigation, he was simply explaining the relationship
between our observations of the world and the explanations we construct
to account for them.
Facts are observations made with such frequency, regularity and
reliability that we are entitled to assume that they are properties or
attributes of the observable universe rather than delusions or
hallucinations or other products of our imaginations. They exist
regardless of what humans believe about them or how they attempt to
explain them.
Theories are provisional explanations we construct around those
observations in an attempt to understand how they are related both to
themselves and to other observations that we have yet to make.
As usual, Gould puts it better than I can:
...[E]volution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts
and theories are different things, not rungs in a
hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the
world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that
explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away
when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but
apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending
the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow
deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty
only because they are not about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of
argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact"
can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose
that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility
does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
I see nothing in what Gould wrote to suggest he was trying to insulate
the theory of evolution from criticism.
Robert J. Kolker
> Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
> nonlife.
No. He showed that complex living organisms do not emerge spontenously
from non living material. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that the earlies
and most primitive replicator came about from non-replicating chemical
compounds.
So it is not the case that flies and maggots emerge from filth. But
maggots are complex things.
Pasteur did not have the knowledge of molecules of the sort that were
the first living (persisten and replicating) things. That would not
happens for another sixty or seventy years after the time of Pasteur.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> A sensible position -- all the more so because Helium actually *can*
> form compounds!
Yes indeed. If the repulsive electric force between positively charged
Helium nuclei can be overcome so the strong force binds helium nuclei
together, you get Carbon! That is how Carbon came to be. The heavier
elements were formed in the heart of billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs in
the Cosmos. We are all made of sturh-stuff created in billyuns and
billyuns of stuhrs.
Bob Kolker
chris.li...@gmail.com
Spontaneous generation, strictly speaking, is widely accepted now as
the origin of life (at least among scientists). The alternative is
creation ex nihilo. It's just that no one thinks spontaneous generation
is still happening.
Chris
Marc
av...@doctor.com wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> >
> > There is no clear-cut definition of "fact". Thus, don't ask unless you
> > want a never-ending battle.
> >
> > -T-
>
> Hmm, never ending battle. . . sounds good to me.
Internet protocols recommend that you "lurk" around a
group before jumping in.... in this sense, do yourself a
favour and read the K/T boundry thread (the one with 2k
messages in just a month and still growing). Should you
*really* want to make hundreds and hundreds of posts
for no gain - and to get "plonked" by many readers - then
go ahead with your effort. A steadfast few here will not
let the ball drop - for the sake of the lurkers - and you are
not enough of an authority to have a final say.
(signed) marc
.
Marc
ave1 wrote:
........... SNiP....
> Oh, and as far as semantics are concerned, I will say that this "a fact
> and a theory" claim came from Evolutionists, and that I'm just shedding
> some light on the problems associated with these claims.
What the hell are "Evolutionists"?
Is there a "Department of Evolutionism" at even one institute
of higher learning, public or private, in the entire world?
You, Sir, are expressing yourself in language most often
found on pseudo-science creationist websites. Is your
outlook on life really that ignorant that you use such a term?
Next, you will suggest that belief in evolution equates with atheism.
The scientific community, made up of people of all faiths and
nations, has explained much about the world around us and there
is extraordinarily good evidence in support of those findings. Are
you making some sort of assertion that the evidence is wrong?
(signed) marc
.
Frank J
av...@doctor.com wrote:
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
First, try to use the language that science uses. In 40 years I have
never heard the phrase "common descent evolution." I guess you mean
"common descent by evolutionary mechanisms" (as opposed to "saltation"
or "independent abiogenesis," the hypothetical formal alternatives). If
you mean something else, please correct me.
"Proven" is technically used only in mathematics. But if you mean the
more colloquial "overwhelmingly supported by evidence, that it makes no
sense to continue questioning it unless some extraordinary new evidence
calls it into question," then yes, it is "proven" beyond reasonable
doubt. But anti-evolution scammers are quite skilled at manipulating
words (quote mining is a chief tool) to create unreasonable doubt.
These are the same scammers that refuse to come up with their own
theory. Not only do they not look for the extraordinary new evidence
that could falsify "common descent by evolutionary mechanisms", they
increasingly avoid stating what formal alternative they have in mind.
Frank J
By the "trollometer" measure, ave1 is "a cut above" the current crop of
drive-bys. But at least those guys trot out the "laundry list." Sure,
they're only cut & pasted, but some thought went into the original
wording, possibly by people who valiantly tried to find an alternate
theory. But ave1 is further evidence that the whole anti-evolution
enterprise is degenerating into mere word games.
I'm not sure if he's the poster from the past, but I can recall my
lurker days when anti-evolution posters had more substance in their
misrepresentations. Even Zoe seems to have completely abandoned (though
not conceded of course) her interesting "isochron" threads. At this
rate, by 2010, Logos may be the best we can get!
SeppoP
<snip>
> I'm not sure if he's the poster from the past, but I can recall my
> lurker days when anti-evolution posters had more substance in their
> misrepresentations. Even Zoe seems to have completely abandoned (though
> not conceded of course) her interesting "isochron" threads. At this
> rate, by 2010, Logos may be the best we can get!
>
Logos is the best creationist we can get? We're in dire straits now...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
CreateThis
>>Alan Morgan wrote:
>>
>>Not in science, no.
>
>
> Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> website agrees with you:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
>
>
>> A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
>>that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
>>
>>Alan
>
>
> This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> fallible.
>
> If Louis Pasteur had thought he might look stupid by challenging a fact
> of his day, maybe he could have just shut up, right?
Somebody else would have made the same discovery pretty quickly anyway -
that's how it goes with *good* ideas whose time has come (whose evidence
has become obvious enough).
On the other hand, *bad* ideas like creationism will get less and less
respect as time goes on because there's less and less ignorance for them
to hide behind. Those who continue to push bad ideas will also get less
and less respect.
With the continuing improvement of public education, many more of us now
know how to tell the difference between cutting edge scientific ideas
like those of Louis Pasteur and crackpot nonsense like antievolutionism
- a skill you apparently have yet to learn.
Your attempt to flatter yourself and your ideas by association with
Pasteur is laughable. Pasteur was the exception, not the rule. Bucking
all of science, especially in this advanced scientific age and about
such an obvious and overworked topic, means you're a moron, not a visionary.
CT
CreateThis
>>Ian H Spedding wrote:
>>
>>>From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
>>
>> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
>> a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
>> assent."
>>
>>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>>
>>Ian
>
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> the foundations of a theory?
Bring some forward, moron.
It's perverse, stupid and dishonest to deny all evidence with no
evidence to oppose it, moron.
Did I mention you're a moron?
CT
Cheezits
>> Ian H Spedding wrote:
>>
>> >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
>>
>> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
>> a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
>> assent."
> the foundations of a theory?
That's not what he said. If something is confirmed to that degree then
there is no such opposing evidence. That certainly is true in the case
of common descent. But don't hesitate to bring some forward.
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Mind came from matter. HTH.
Sue
--
Keeping an open mind doesn't mean permanently being in idiot mode.
- Aaron Clausen
Don Cates
[snip]
>
>You can take stock in the fact that you are a cut above the
>creationists that are currently posting. Look up posts by NashtOn and
>Goodrich to see the junk that these guys can manage. Nameless is still
>posting.
Let's be fair. NashtOn is not a creatiionist, he is a different kind
of moron.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
SeppoP
>> Ian H Spedding wrote:
>>
>> >From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
>>
>> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
>> a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
>> assent."
>>
>>
>> Ian
>
> So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
Of course not. To bring forward opposing *evidence* to a scientific theory is
exactly how science and our understanding of the universe and all that weird and wonderful stuff in it progresses.
Sometimes successfully, sometimes - far more often - not.
Why haven't the creationists produced *any* verifiable evidence for creationism? Why must creationists use organizations
and individuals such as AIG, ICR and "Dr" Hovind to bring forward their case?
Do *you* consider "Dr" Hovind a valid source of science?
Do *you* consider AIG a valid source of science in general?
Do *you* consider AIG's RATE "project" a legitimate science?
Do you consider *other* fundamentalist religionist organizations representing *other* religions (Harun Yahya) valid
scientific sources?
What *legitimate*, verifiable by non-religionists, evidence you can provide that other religionists haven't tried to
peddle a hundred times before?
>
> It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> position for a scientist to take?
Quote of Gould, please. I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at.
>
> Steve
> ---
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
>
> Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
>
Dave
> > Boikat wrote:
> >
> > Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
>
> But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
And yet the truth was available to anyone who was willing to make
careful observations of their own garbage pail. You want to pretend
that this says something about Abiogenesis but all it says is that most
people don't make careful observations.
Oxidized
>>Boikat wrote:
>>
>> Technically speaking spontanious generation was a theory, nothing more.
>
>
> But it's proponents were likely to have scoffed at naysayers, and
> claimed that it was as much of a fact as gravity is a fact.
>
>
>>abiogenesis" game. the term "abiogenesis" has a modern, specific meaning,
>>and has nothing to do with the "spontanious generation" theory which Pasteur
>>disproved.
>
>
> Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
> nonlife. The experiment which confirmed this (and is still confirming
> this) was when there were no flies/maggots coming from old meat when
> it's sealed from the outside world.
>
> Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
> non-living material.
However,
Special Creation is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
non-living material: God.
What's your point?
Abiogenesis and Special Creation are a false dichotomy. Life from
non-life via *chemistry* is much more reasonable than life from
non-life via *some supernatural being*.
Oxidized
bullpup
"Marc" <mbu...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1148301797....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ave's been here before, and his mod of operation is word games (semantics,
context flip-flops, and the like)
Boikat
--
<42><)
>
>
> .
>
chris.li...@gmail.com
ave1 wrote:
> >Alan Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Not in science, no.
>
> Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> website agrees with you:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
>
> > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> >
> > Alan
>
> This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> fallible.
Wrong. "Demonstrated" is not the same as "assumed".
I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
say that in science, facts are data. You draw conclusions about the
natural world from observing many facts. You might, for example,
observe ospreys feeding, and conclude that the main component of their
diet is fish. See the difference?
Chris
>
> If Louis Pasteur had thought he might look stupid by challenging a fact
> of his day, maybe he could have just shut up, right?
>
> Steve
bullpup
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148342275....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> ave1 wrote:
> > >Alan Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > Not in science, no.
> >
> > Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> > website agrees with you:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
> >
> > > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> > > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> > >
> > > Alan
> >
> > This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> > indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> > fallible.
>
> Wrong. "Demonstrated" is not the same as "assumed".
>
> I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
> say that in science, facts are data. You draw conclusions about the
> natural world from observing many facts. You might, for example,
> observe ospreys feeding, and conclude that the main component of their
> diet is fish. See the difference?
Ave will equivocate and conflate given the slightest opportunity.
Boikat
ave1
You have found the one and only AVE. I'm sure we're in for some more
good times here.
Steve
ave1
> Marc wrote:
>
> What the hell are "Evolutionists"?
>
> Is there a "Department of Evolutionism" at even one institute
> of higher learning, public or private, in the entire world?
>
> You, Sir, are expressing yourself in language most often
Evolutionists are people who happen to be evolution supporters. If you
are trying to say it's not a legitimate term to use, I'll take you to
task on that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
In the first paragraph or two Eugenie Scott utilizes both
"evolutionist" and "evolution supporter". Did Eugenie mess up? What
were the people at Talk Origins thinking when they gave the nod for
this article to go up on their website? Hmm, maybe they think it's a
legitimate term. . . Well?
Steve
ave1
The only careful observation I've seen when it comes to abiogenesis is
that scientists NEVER observe amino acids being able to overcome the
diluting effect of water to get together beyond just a short chain (10
to 12 amino acids at most) of rather uselessly linked amino acids of
both L and R isomers. The ocean thermal vent ideas are a joke. In
fact, heat makes the problem of the diluting effect worse because they
tend to break down into individual amino acids when the temperature
goes up.
Steve
ave1
> > ave1 wrote:
> >
> > Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
> > non-living material.
>
> However,
> Special Creation is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
> non-living material: God.
>
> What's your point?
>
> Abiogenesis and Special Creation are a false dichotomy. Life from
> non-life via *chemistry* is much more reasonable than life from
> non-life via *some supernatural being*.
>
> Oxidized
Why is it so unreasonable to think that mind came before matter in the
universe? When one looks at what happens at a quantum level, it can be
easily seen that light and matter itself propagate in a way that ties
into the inner workings of intelligent conciousness. Ever heard of the
quantum "measurement effect"? Ever heard of the double slit
experiments? See below (chapter two is the key section).
Ron O
Are you ever going to present a real argument or just obfuscate the
issue? Why show your face after Dover? Where is all the wonderful
evidence for your option? Why didn't it get put forward in Dover?
Have you figured out why your form of argument is bogus?
What is doctor.com? I figure you should be able to answer, at least,
that one honestly.
Ron Okimoto
ave1
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ave1 wrote:
> > >Alan Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > Not in science, no.
> >
> > Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> > website agrees with you:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
> >
> > > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> > > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> > >
> > > Alan
> >
> > This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> > indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> > fallible.
>
> Wrong. "Demonstrated" is not the same as "assumed".
I'm just saying that those who supported the idea of S.G. would be
prone to calling it "a fact".
> I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
> say that in science, facts are data.
So when people like S.J. Gould claim that evolution is a fact, they are
describing the observable data (which is nothing other than variation)
of what Darwin labelled "the special theory of evolution", and not his
"general theory of evolution" (which was an inference or extrapolation
of observable data into an idea (which is not direct observable) that
explains the coming about of all lifeforms on Earth from a common
ancestor). From what I've seen in science education curricula, there's
an intentional blurring of the line between these two distinct theories
of Darwin, and the fact that there's no full disclosure is an
indication that there's a belief system at work.
I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
want to call it microevolution, but I won't). What I do have a problem
with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
antibiotic resistance) and see an analogy which can be a convincing
representation of how a reptile might undergo some
complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
bird like archaeopterix (which could fly). This far-reaching
extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system. This
"general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
> You draw conclusions about the
> natural world from observing many facts. *snip*
The facts are data we gather about VARIATION which can be observed
occuring in the biological world.
Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
again. Despite knowing this, evolutionists keep promoting an idea that
is based on limitless variation over vast numbers of generations, where
a worm can become a fish, and a fish can become anything from a walrus
to a giraffe to a human.
I contend that limitless variation is far from being established as a
fact in the realm of biological observation.
bullpup
"ave1" <av...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:1148348092.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > ave1 wrote:
> > > >Alan Morgan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not in science, no.
> > >
> > > Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> > > website agrees with you:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
> > >
> > > > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> > > > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > >
> > > This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> > > indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> > > fallible.
> >
> > Wrong. "Demonstrated" is not the same as "assumed".
>
> I'm just saying that those who supported the idea of S.G. would be
> prone to calling it "a fact".
Based upon experimental evidence?
>
> > I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
> > say that in science, facts are data.
>
> So when people like S.J. Gould claim that evolution is a fact, they are
> describing the observable data (which is nothing other than variation)
> of what Darwin labelled "the special theory of evolution", and not his
> "general theory of evolution"
Can you please provide a citation where C. Darwin made this distinction? A
quick Google search only seems to pull up a batch of creationist doubletalk.
Remeber, this needs to be a statement from the works of Darwin, himself, not
some cretinist web page that maks this claim.
> (which was an inference or extrapolation
> of observable data into an idea (which is not direct observable) that
> explains the coming about of all lifeforms on Earth from a common
> ancestor). From what I've seen in science education curricula, there's
> an intentional blurring of the line between these two distinct theories
> of Darwin,
If, in fact, Darwin made any such distinction.
> and the fact that there's no full disclosure is an
> indication that there's a belief system at work.
Or, that the "distinction" is a figment of someone's imagination, which you
are parroting.
>
> I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
> confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
> want to call it microevolution, but I won't).
Because then the obvious responce would be "wheree is the line you draw
between micro and macro evolution. Something no cretinist seems to want to
tackle with a ten foot pole. (About the best the semi honest cretinist can
do is "that which is observed is micro, that which hasn't is macro".)
> What I do have a problem
> with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
> analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
> at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
> antibiotic resistance) and see an analogy which can be a convincing
> representation of how a reptile might undergo some
> complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
> bird like archaeopterix (which could fly).
In other words, your argument is based upon the logical fallacy of
incredulity.
> This far-reaching
> extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
> of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system.
Belief based upon the available evidence.
> This
> "general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
Nope. Just "evolution". Trying to degrade the theory into a "belief
system" in order to pretend that it's just another religion is dishonest.
>
>
> > You draw conclusions about the
> > natural world from observing many facts. *snip*
>
> The facts are data we gather about VARIATION which can be observed
> occuring in the biological world.
>
> Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
> again.
Yes, a new species of fly is still a fly. Big whoopty-doo, nobody woud say
otherwise.
> Despite knowing this, evolutionists keep promoting an idea that
> is based on limitless variation over vast numbers of generations, where
> a worm can become a fish, and a fish can become anything from a walrus
> to a giraffe to a human.
Basically, that is what the fossil evidence (facts) suggests.
>
> I contend that limitless variation is far from being established as a
> fact in the realm of biological observation.
I don't theink the potential for variation is limitless, but it is pretty
huge. Can you provide a logical reason that would impose limits within
reason?
Boikat
Zachriel
<av...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:1148262977.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
In the context provided, "fact" means "scientific fact", a scientific
assertion demonstrated with enough certainty to be considered provisionally
confirmed. Science is an inductive process, so it's best to avoid the word
"proven" which connotes a mathematical or deductive certainty.
ave1
> Rich Townsend wrote:
> > ave1 wrote:
> > > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> > >
> > > From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> > >
> > > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > > assent."
> > >
> > >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> > >
> > >Ian
> >
> >
> > So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> > the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
>
If I'm reading this right it's your position that Common Descent
Evolution is a theory that is exclusively comprised of variation facts.
Wasn't Darwin's 'special theory of evolution' (which was not a theory
about common descent) all about variation observed facts, but Darwin's
'general theory of evolution' all about extrapolating what was going on
in the special theory into an idea of common descent?
Why is an extrapolation (used in the general theory) a fact? Isn't it
an application of inference (the analogical method utilized in
historical science) that attempts to tie in hard data?
> By way of an example: it's a fact that the sky during a sunny day is blue, and
> it would be perverse -- nay, childish -- to argue otherwise.
You're citing observation data in empirical science. Evolution happens
to belong in the realm of *historical science*, which is different.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_01.html
Here's a portion of the article authored by Arthur Peacocke (physical
biochemist who's involved in the Catholic church):
"I would like to point out that I don't think there is, first of all, a
real contrast between religion and science in the sense of one being
faith and the other being reason. I think both can be reasonable. And
it's interesting that in science, one often refers to the best
explanation, and the best explanation then often involves postulating
the existence of something you would never observe or ever could
observe.
Sometimes the best explanation involves postulating the existence of a
quark or something like that, depending on the nature of the question.
But very often it becomes historical. If it's geology, you're
postulating how the Alps formed or how the seas formed or how certain
geological formations got there. In no way can one go back and test
one's experiment and repeat the experiment. You're doing a detective
job. And the same applies, of course, in much of evolutionary theory.
One is making the most sense out of most of the data and inferring,
like a good detective, what happened in the past.
A lot of science is like that. It's not all repeatable experiments as
in physics and chemistry. And I think with the area of faith, the data
of faith involve all sorts of broader considerations and the religious
experience of humanity. Again, one is inferring to the best
explanation. . ."
The reason I'm bringing up all this is that in historical science
(where Darwin's "general theory"/Common Descent Evolution resides)
we're not looking at something that's observable in the here and now
and measuring how blue the sky is, or observing how the sun is relating
to the background stars and empirically determining that our planet is
revolving around it (as opposed to it revolving around us), or
experiencing the effects of gravity. Saying that Common Descent
Evolution is the equivalent of the fact of something in empirical
science (gravity) is a false dichotomy because it belongs in a
different realm of science.
> Whereas, the theory
> that explains this fact -- Rayleigh scattering -- remains perfectly open to
> questioning and challenge.
Any theory should. For some reason Evolutionists seem to want to make
their favorite theory exempt.
> > It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> > something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> > of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> > position for a scientist to take?
>
> Tell us which 'theory' Gould was a proponent of, and show us how he defined it
> to be a 'fact'. Then we can talk about specifics.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rich
The theories Gould was a proponent of were both of Darwin's theories.
Now you want me to "show us how he defined it to be a 'fact'". I'm not
sure where you're going with this, but I'll bite. He basically said
that Common Descent Evolution (which involves a far-reaching inference
(analogical method) having to do with boundless evolving) is just as
much a fact as the special theory of evolution (data of organism
variation which can be observed (though there are boundaries which are
measurable)) is a fact.
It's right here where I have a disagreement. What we've got here is an
idea of boundless evolving (general theory of evolution) taking off
from a quite valid starting point of the special theory of evolution
(which is established on observational data which show variation-- and
thus evolution-- HAS BOUNDARIES).
> >
> > Steve
> > ---
> > Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
>
> No matter, or Never Mind?
Clever. Why never mind, though? I think it's a good question.
Steve
ave1
>
> > ave1 wrote:
> > So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> > the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
>
This belongs in realm of empirical science. See my response to Rich
tonight to shed more light on this (especially the article from the PBS
website). To say that Common Descent Evolution (which is in the realm
of historical science where the attempt to utilize the analogical
method is made) is strictly equivocable to a process that exclusively
resides in the realm of empirical science (sink workings, where there
is no use of the analogical method) is a false dichotomy.
> Do you not agree that when you flick a light switch the circuit
> completes and the light turns on?
Again, there's that false dichotomy thing.
> If fact is about confidence then
> there is no point in testing these very fundamental things when you
> don't gain additional confidence from the test.
We may have no need to gain additional confidence about variation
occuring in lifeforms (Darwin's special theory), but we certainly need
much more confidence that complexity can be built upwards step by step
in irreducibly complex systems. We certainly need much more confidence
that variation is boundless (as is posited in the general theory of
evolution). From what we know of variation in biology it's got
boundaries which can be easily measured.
> We can safely say they
> are bona fide facts.
But why would an extrapolation of variation data into the viewpoint of
virtually limitless change be a bona fide fact???
> Personally I'd generalize even further, but
> that's basically what Gould is saying.
Don't bother generalizing any further.
Steve
Zachriel
"ave1" <av...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:1148350665.2...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Rich Townsend wrote:
>> > ave1 wrote:
>> > > Ian H Spedding wrote:
>> > >
>> > > From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
>> > >
>> > > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
>> > > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
>> > > assent."
>> > >
>> > >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>> > >
>> > >Ian
>> >
>> >
>> > So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
>> > the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
>>
>> No, facts have nothing to do with theories. Theories are explanations of
>> facts.
>
> If I'm reading this right it's your position that Common Descent
> Evolution is a theory that is exclusively comprised of variation facts.
> Wasn't Darwin's 'special theory of evolution' (which was not a theory
> about common descent) all about variation observed facts, but Darwin's
> 'general theory of evolution' all about extrapolating what was going on
> in the special theory into an idea of common descent?
You have a problem with your terminology. In any case,
Darwin could not directly observe "special evolution". What he observed was
the nested hierarchy of extant life including domesticated organisms, the
nested hierarchy in time of extinct life, the nested hierarchy of
biogeography. He also observed the struggle for existence, and was aware of
Malthus's ideas on population and resources. From this, he predicted
"special evolution", that organisms change and diversify slowly over
geological time.
So you have your inferences backwards.
--
Zachriel
"Evolution is .... The Theory of Evolution explains ...."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
bullpup
> > > ave1 wrote:
> > > > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From "Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould:
> > > >
> > > > In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such
> > > > a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> > > > assent."
> > > >
> > > >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> > > >
> > > >Ian
> > >
> > >
> > > So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
> > > the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
> >
> > No, facts have nothing to do with theories. Theories are explanations of
facts.
>
> If I'm reading this right it's your position that Common Descent
> Evolution is a theory that is exclusively comprised of variation facts.
No, the ToE is the best *explaination* of the observed facts.
> Wasn't Darwin's 'special theory of evolution' (which was not a theory
> about common descent)
Please provide a citiation where Charles Darwin defines "Special theory of
evolution", in his own words, and says those exact words. In oher wopds,
something to the effect of, "variation within a species I shall call my
'special theory of evolution'." or something to that effect.
> all about variation observed facts, but Darwin's
> 'general theory of evolution' all about extrapolating what was going on
> in the special theory into an idea of common descent?
Same as above, where does C. Darwin state this term and definition?
>
> Why is an extrapolation (used in the general theory) a fact? Isn't it
> an application of inference (the analogical method utilized in
> historical science) that attempts to tie in hard data?
It depends upon how high you want to pile your strawman.
And "faith" based upon evidence, not simple imagination.
> The reason I'm bringing up all this is that in historical science
> (where Darwin's "general theory"/Common Descent Evolution resides)
> we're not looking at something that's observable in the here and now
> and measuring how blue the sky is, or observing how the sun is relating
> to the background stars and empirically determining that our planet is
> revolving around it (as opposed to it revolving around us), or
> experiencing the effects of gravity. Saying that Common Descent
> Evolution is the equivalent of the fact of something in empirical
> science (gravity) is a false dichotomy because it belongs in a
> different realm of science.
Not really. It is based upon the fact that the geological evidence,
paleontological evidece, biogeographical evidence, biochemical evidence,
morphological evidence, biochronological evidence, and probably a few more
that I haven't named, all lead to onle logical conclusion, independantly
consistant, and observable.
>
> > Whereas, the theory
> > that explains this fact -- Rayleigh scattering -- remains perfectly open
to
> > questioning and challenge.
>
> Any theory should. For some reason Evolutionists seem to want to make
> their favorite theory exempt.
Not at all. It just happens that so far, any "attacks" on the theory either
modify the theory (increasing it's validity) or the "attack" has been shown
to be in error. (as opposed to the out and out distortions
misrepresentations and blathercrap from creationists, who are not engagaing
in anything close to science).
>
> > > It seems Gould-- the ultimate scientist-- is defining "fact" to be
> > > something that keeps questioning away from the theory he's a proponent
> > > of (was a proponent of). Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a strange
> > > position for a scientist to take?
> >
> > Tell us which 'theory' Gould was a proponent of, and show us how he
defined it
> > to be a 'fact'. Then we can talk about specifics.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Rich
>
> The theories Gould was a proponent of were both of Darwin's theories.
Darwin only proposed *one* theory. I suspect this "special" and "general"
theory of evolution is a distortion or something someone made up to push
some sort of agenda. Using the terms "special" and General" seems to be
nothing more than an attempt to make it appear that there are two
varioations of the same theory, as in Einstein's "special" and General"
theory of relativity. It would impress (and confuse) the layman, I'm sure.
>
> Now you want me to "show us how he defined it to be a 'fact'". I'm not
> sure where you're going with this, but I'll bite. He basically said
> that Common Descent Evolution (which involves a far-reaching inference
> (analogical method) having to do with boundless evolving) is just as
> much a fact as the special theory of evolution (data of organism
> variation which can be observed (though there are boundaries which are
> measurable)) is a fact.
The only boundries that are measurable are ancestral lineage and time.
(That's why a new species of fly derived from a parent population is still a
fly, and not a klidesdale
>
> It's right here where I have a disagreement. What we've got here is an
> idea of boundless evolving (general theory of evolution) taking off
> from a quite valid starting point of the special theory of evolution
> (which is established on observational data which show variation-- and
> thus evolution-- HAS BOUNDARIES).
See above.
Boikat
--
<42><
Marc
ave1 wrote:
> > Marc wrote:
> >
> > What the hell are "Evolutionists"?
> >
> > Is there a "Department of Evolutionism" at even one institute
> > of higher learning, public or private, in the entire world?
> >
> > You, Sir, are expressing yourself in language most often
> > found on pseudo-science creationist websites. . .
>
> Evolutionists are people who happen to be evolution supporters.
Pray tell, what are "evolution supports", then? If they are
like football team supporters, do they wave flags and cheer?
> If you
> are trying to say it's not a legitimate term to use, I'll take you to
> task on that.
Legitimate in as much as the "creationist" side uses it, so
your use of it would define you as an idiot creationist, right?
If you mean "biologist" or "geologist" or "scientist" when you
use the term "evolution supporter", then you should just say
"biologist" or whatever. You're just one step away from calling
me a "Darwinist", when I've never studied his work directly.
(Sorry, John.) Perhaps you can refer to me as a Crickist or
Brennerist or something like that - but calling me (and others
here) "evolutionists" is a sign of your ignorance.
Evolutionary biologists do exist and there are a number here, so
that phrase is a good one and I wouldn't deny being in that camp,
but your focus on "support" is wrong. Biology as a field is held
together by the fabric of evolution. Darwin understood the basic
theme and put it forward, but many others also did their part
and your focus on "support" and "belief" and the like reveals
how little you understand evolutionary laws. (Yes, there are
"Laws of Evolution" that explain the facts we see in the world
around us. That, at least, is how I see it.)
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
>
> In the first paragraph or two Eugenie Scott utilizes both
> "evolutionist" and "evolution supporter". Did Eugenie mess up?
She was probably speaking so that *you* would understand her.
If I ever meet her, I will slap her on the wrist for that. (From what
I have seen of her writing, she isn't that good a spokesperson for
the scientific establishment although she does seem to enjoy
having her picture taken.) In my years in and out of this group,
she has never been put forward as a Talk.Origins icon and I did
not know there was a page with something by her on it.
To answer you, yes - she messed up. (Take it up with her.)
> What
> were the people at Talk Origins thinking when they gave the nod for
> this article to go up on their website? Hmm, maybe they think it's a
> legitimate term. . . Well?
Did you know that they put a wide range of things up? They even
put up links to quite a number of creationist web pages (and they
do a much better job at keeping those links pointing to working
pages then the creationists do at linking to Talk.Origins). Does
the fact that the Talk.Origins archive put these links up make
T.O. a creationism supporter, eh? What's your answer to that?
Why would they *ever* do that, eh?
(signed) marc
.
Robert J. Kolker
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
We know that some life has descended from prior life forms. This is
indicated by homologies in structure. The alternative is to assume each
species came out of nothing separately from all other species.
Common descent is not the same sort of fact as the amount of money in
your wallet. It is a proposition arived at by eliminating alternatives
or by invoking Occam's razor. So common descent is really more of a
hypothesis, but it is very strongly support by evidence (positive
support) and because the alternatives to common descent have many
difficulties, some of which I have indicated. Common descent has the
same kind of strong support as the existence of atoms. While no one has
ever -seen- an atom (an atom is too small to be seen) there is no other
way of accounting for reality other than by assuming all palpable
substances are made of smaller things. There is no other way of
accounting for chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, sunshine etc. etc.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Why is it so unreasonable to think that mind came before matter in the
> universe? When one looks at what happens at a quantum level, it can be
> easily seen that light and matter itself propagate in a way that ties
> into the inner workings of intelligent conciousness. Ever heard of the
> quantum "measurement effect"? Ever heard of the double slit
> experiments? See below (chapter two is the key section).
These are physical effects. Where does mind come in? What you call
intelligent consciousness is simply the electrochemical reactions of
brain and nerve tissue happening. Consciousness is as physical as light.
Bob Kolker
ave1
> Zachriel wrote:
> . . .
> Darwin could not directly observe "special evolution". What he observed was
> the nested hierarchy of extant life including domesticated organisms, the
> nested hierarchy in time of extinct life, the nested hierarchy of
> biogeography. He also observed the struggle for existence, and was aware of
> Malthus's ideas on population and resources. From this, he predicted
> "special evolution", that organisms change and diversify slowly over
> geological time.
>
> So you have your inferences backwards.
>
> --
> Zachriel
You have not really thought this out very well. Darwin observed finch
beaks and knew that these bird designs had some flexibility--
variation. He knew that variation had been observed over the past few
hundred years in dog breeding. He knew that plants underwent variation
in observational studies.
This is where the extrapolation comes in to play. The general theory
of evolution employs it to a degree that's well beyond excessive. And
that's putting it mildly.
Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
> confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
> want to call it microevolution, but I won't). What I do have a problem
> with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
> analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
> at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
> antibiotic resistance) and see an analogy which can be a convincing
> representation of how a reptile might undergo some
> complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
> bird like archaeopterix (which could fly). This far-reaching
> extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
> of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system. This
> "general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
Which
1. Is heavily supported by data
2. Correlates and unifies the data known. (this is what explanation is)
3. Has never been empirically falsified.
In short it is a theory which accounts for biological history on this
planet. Furthermore there is no better theory available to explain the
known data which will not go away regardless of what theory is finally
settled on.
The theory of evolution (in its current manifestation) occupies the same
or similar postion relative to biological process as the Standard Model
+ General Relativity do to basic physical processes. The theory is not
complete, as there are open questions, but it is the best
explainer/unifier we have and will not go away until a better one is found.
Bob Kolker
ave1
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> ave1 wrote:
> >
> > Why is it so unreasonable to think that mind came before matter in the
> > universe? When one looks at what happens at a quantum level, it can be
> > easily seen that light and matter itself propagate in a way that ties
> > into the inner workings of intelligent conciousness. Ever heard of the
> > quantum "measurement effect"? Ever heard of the double slit
> > experiments? See below (chapter two is the key section).
>
> These are physical effects. Where does mind come in?
Well, it happens right about at the part where the measurement effect
occurs. See chapter 2 again.
> What you call
> intelligent consciousness is simply the electrochemical reactions of
> brain and nerve tissue happening. Consciousness is as physical as light.
>
> Bob Kolker
Then how does "knowing" where an electron goes through a slit totally
change the way light propagates itself. Answer: Consciousness and
"knowing" is preset in the original quantum laws of the universe.
How could this be if matter preceeded "knowing"?
ave1
Ron O wrote:
> ave1 wrote:
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > You have found the one and only AVE. I'm sure we're in for some more
> > good times here.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Are you ever going to present a real argument or just obfuscate the
> issue?
All I've seen here is a bunch of obfuscation from people like you.
> Why show your face after Dover?
I'm trying to recall anything which relates to Dover, but I'm drawing a
blank.
Should I be remembering something?
> Where is all the wonderful evidence for your option?
> Why didn't it get put forward in Dover?
Well, I have never been to Dover. Are you sure we're not talking about
someone you thought was me (but wasn't)?
> Have you figured out why your form of argument is bogus?
And what form of argument did the guy you think was me in Dover
utilize?
> What is doctor.com?
A web email address I chose a few years ago after the "av...@mydeja.com"
address went obsolete with the Google takeover.
> I figure you should be able to answer, at least,
> that one honestly.
>
> Ron Okimoto
I honestly can say I have no idea what you're referencing regarding
Dover.
Steve
Deadrat
>
>> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > ave1 wrote:
>> > >Alan Morgan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Not in science, no.
>> >
>> > Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
>> > website agrees with you:
>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
>> >
>> > > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
>> > > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
>> > >
>> > > Alan
>> >
>> > This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
>> > indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
>> > fallible.
>>
>> Wrong. "Demonstrated" is not the same as "assumed".
>
> I'm just saying that those who supported the idea of S.G. would be
> prone to calling it "a fact".
If what you're saying is that sometimes scientists believe something to
be factual and are subsequently shown to be wrong, then you're onto
something very mundane. The fact that you think this is some powerful
insight merely means that you're an ignoramus.
>> I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
>> say that in science, facts are data.
>
> So when people like S.J. Gould claim that evolution is a fact, they are
> describing the observable data (which is nothing other than variation)
> of what Darwin labelled "the special theory of evolution", and not his
> "general theory of evolution" (which was an inference or extrapolation
> of observable data into an idea (which is not direct observable) that
> explains the coming about of all lifeforms on Earth from a common
> ancestor).
> From what I've seen in science education curricula, there's
> an intentional blurring of the line between these two distinct theories
> of Darwin, and the fact that there's no full disclosure is an
> indication that there's a belief system at work.
My guess is that you've seen even less "science education curricula"
than you've seen science. You seem to believe that the only valid
science must be based on the "direct observable." But this is no surprise,
since, as I've noted, you're an ignoramus.
> I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
> confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
> want to call it microevolution, but I won't).
And why not? You've already shown yourself to be an ignoramus.
Why not join the other ignoramuses and prattle on about micro- and
macro-evolution?
> What I do have a problem
> with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
> analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
> at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
> antibiotic resistance) and see an analogy which can be a convincing
> representation of how a reptile might undergo some
> complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
> bird like archaeopterix (which could fly). This far-reaching
> extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
> of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system. This
> "general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
What a surprise! You're completely ignorant of the overwhelming
evidence for evolution from paleontology, genetics, biogeography,
et al. So ignorant, in fact, that you think evolution is based on some
weak analogy. Another surprise -- you "have a problem with
accepting" science! But that's OK. Here's the neat thing about
scientists: they rarely burn you at the stake if you don't accept what
they say. Unlike some others I could mention. So if you want to
remain an ignoramus and not accept what modern biology has
discovered, then go ahead. But I hope you don't mind if the rest
of us don't look to an ignoramus to define terms for us. Is that OK
with you?
>> You draw conclusions about the
>> natural world from observing many facts. *snip*
>
> The facts are data we gather about VARIATION which can be observed
> occuring in the biological world.
>
> Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
> again.
Please tell us what those boundaries are. Should be easy since they've
been shown time after time.
> Despite knowing this, evolutionists keep promoting an idea that
> is based on limitless variation over vast numbers of generations, where
> a worm can become a fish, and a fish can become anything from a walrus
> to a giraffe to a human.
>
> I contend that limitless variation is far from being established as a
> fact in the realm of biological observation.
Well, of course you do. But you're an ignoramus.
Deadrat
Alan Morgan
ave1 <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>So when people like S.J. Gould claim that evolution is a fact, they are
>describing the observable data (which is nothing other than variation)
>of what Darwin labelled "the special theory of evolution", and not his
>"general theory of evolution"
Darwin never used those terms, but that's the least of your problems.
>(which was an inference or extrapolation
>of observable data into an idea (which is not direct observable) that
>explains the coming about of all lifeforms on Earth from a common
>ancestor).
Actually, I don't think people like Gould did/do mean that. I believe
that Gould was saying that common descent or, at the very least, the
origin of species through evolution, is a fact.
>From what I've seen in science education curricula, there's
>an intentional blurring of the line between these two distinct theories
>of Darwin, and the fact that there's no full disclosure is an
>indication that there's a belief system at work.
>
>I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
>confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
>want to call it microevolution, but I won't). What I do have a problem
>with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
>analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
>at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
>antibiotic resistance)
Why do you put "gain" in quotes? That is exactly what happens.
>and see an analogy which can be a convincing
>representation of how a reptile might undergo some
>complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
>bird like archaeopterix (which could fly).
This does not have to happen via an increase in complexity. Does that
make speciation a little easier to accept?
>This far-reaching
>extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
>of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system. This
>"general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation makes a statement about *every*
particle of matter in the universe. It is claimed, based on this
unprovable theory, that the planets move in their orbits under the
influence of "gravity". Would you insist upon calling this unproven
belief Gravitationalism (let's leave GR aside for the moment)?
Why is it that only Darwin is honored in this way? I've never seen
an electron. I can't observe conservation of energy. I didn't see
Latin become French. Yet no one (except a few true nutballs) has a
problem with calling these things "facts". It's only when we talk
about common descent that people freak out and insist that inference
is worthless and direct observation is the only thing that matters.
We are allowed to use evidence and inference for every other branch
of science, but God forbid we try to sneak in a little of that in
biology. Hell no.
>> You draw conclusions about the
>> natural world from observing many facts. *snip*
>
>The facts are data we gather about VARIATION which can be observed
>occuring in the biological world.
>
>Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
>again.
Cite? Or is this just your opinion? If reptiles and mammals had
completely different DNA (or if one didn't use DNA at all) then you'd
have a point (and no one would be talking about common descent).
The current research does *not* indicate any boundaries. Plenty of
people would like there to be such boundaries and talk about species,
kinds, baramin, and whatnot, but they are unable to identify where
and how these boundaries exist.
You, Britney Spears, and a banana share 60% of your DNA. But no, there
is no reason at all to believe in common descent. Why on Earth should
you? Similarities of proteins, non-coding DNA, it's all just
coincidence. It doesn't actually *mean* anything.
>Despite knowing this, evolutionists keep promoting an idea that
>is based on limitless variation over vast numbers of generations, where
>a worm can become a fish, and a fish can become anything from a walrus
>to a giraffe to a human.
Right. That's the way the evidence points.
>I contend that limitless variation is far from being established as a
>fact in the realm of biological observation.
And why should I believe you, particularly? If people who have studied
this and have professional degrees in it say one thing and you, whose
qualifications remain murky, say something else, I'm going to go with
the experts. Yeah, they might be wrong, but I have no reason at all
to believe that you have the vaguest notion of what you are talking
about.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Deadrat
"Alan Morgan" <amo...@xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:e4u4f3$t31$1...@xenon.Stanford.EDU...<snip>
>>Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
>>again.
>
> Cite? Or is this just your opinion? If reptiles and mammals had
> completely different DNA (or if one didn't use DNA at all) then you'd
> have a point (and no one would be talking about common descent).
> The current research does *not* indicate any boundaries. Plenty of
> people would like there to be such boundaries and talk about species,
> kinds, baramin, and whatnot, but they are unable to identify where
> and how these boundaries exist.
>
> You, Britney Spears, and a banana share 60% of your DNA.
And apparently the same mental capacity and, I'd guess, singing ability.
Deadrat
<snip>
<snip>
> Alan
> --
> Defendit numerus
>
Deadrat
>> coaster wrote:
>>
>> > ave1 wrote:
>> > So it's "perverse" to bring forward opposing evidence that challenges
>> > the foundations of a theory? Since when is that true in science?
>>
>> Do you not agree that when you turn the knob on your sink water flows?
>
> This belongs in realm of empirical science. See my response to Rich
> tonight to shed more light on this (especially the article from the PBS
> website). To say that Common Descent Evolution (which is in the realm
> of historical science where the attempt to utilize the analogical
> method is made) is strictly equivocable to a process that exclusively
> resides in the realm of empirical science (sink workings, where there
> is no use of the analogical method) is a false dichotomy.
The false dichotomy is your desperate attempt to divide science into
"empirical" and "historical." This is all in your tiny mind.
>> Do you not agree that when you flick a light switch the circuit
>> completes and the light turns on?
>
> Again, there's that false dichotomy thing.
And why is that? Directly observed an electron lately?
>> If fact is about confidence then
>> there is no point in testing these very fundamental things when you
>> don't gain additional confidence from the test.
>
> We may have no need to gain additional confidence about variation
> occuring in lifeforms (Darwin's special theory), but we certainly need
> much more confidence that complexity can be built upwards step by step
> in irreducibly complex systems. We certainly need much more confidence
> that variation is boundless (as is posited in the general theory of
> evolution). From what we know of variation in biology it's got
> boundaries which can be easily measured.
Who is this "we"? The Worldwide Association of Ignoramuses? If by
"we" you mean yourself, then say so. If *you* need more confidence, then
that's your problem, which, by the way, you could solve with a little education.
Please tell us the measure of the limits of variation in biology.
>
>> We can safely say they
>> are bona fide facts.
>
> But why would an extrapolation of variation data into the viewpoint of
> virtually limitless change be a bona fide fact???
>
Why would the extrapolation from several decades of Pluto's motion give
us the whole orbit? Why would observations on and from earth give us
a *universal* law of gravitation?
>> Personally I'd generalize even further, but
>> that's basically what Gould is saying.
>
> Don't bother generalizing any further.
Pot. Kettle. Black. When are we going to have the specifics of your
theory of limitations to variation?
Deadrat
>
> Steve
>
Rich Townsend
The notion of 'historical science' is utterly bogus, as can be seen with the
simple example of the blue sky. There is a finite time between a photon Rayleigh
scattering in the atmosphere, and that photon hitting your eye and being
registered as 'blue'. Yet, do we regard the phenomenon of Rayleigh scattering to
be the domain of this 'historical science'? I guess the argument might go like
this: certainly, we can look at other photons and see also that they are blue;
yet, every single photon we measure is from the 'past', and is thus part of a
'non-repeatable episode'. Of course, this is absurd; by this metric, every
science could be accused of being 'historical'.
By profession, I'm an astronomer, and the light I study on a day-to-day basis
was emitted centuries ago. I cannot create stars myself, so I am unable to
'repeat' the experiments I perform. Yet, I am still performing the basic steps
of science: observe, hypothesize, compare, refine. Would you accuse me of being
an 'historical scientist', and if not, how do I differ from those who study
evolution.
cheers,
Rich
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
You seem to be of the opinion that scientists look at "microevolution"
and then extrapolate to "macroevolution" without even looking for any
supporting evidence. That would indeed be an unwarranted
exptrapolation. But that's not what happens. We look at the pattern of
relationships between living and extinct organisms, the nested
hierarchy, the fossil record and ask what relationships we would expect
to see if indeed it was appropriate to extrapolate from
"microevolution" to "macroevolution". And, in fact, the pattern of
morphological and molecular similarities and the fossil record strongly
support the extrapolation. If you want to disagree with the supporting
evidence, that's up to you, but it is not correct to claim that
scientists are acting as though there were no need to support or test
the extrapolation you object to. A large amount of work in evolutionary
biology has been devoted to doing just that.
Denis Loubet
<av...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:1148262977.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Common descent evolution is said to be a fact. Is a fact something
> that has been proven?
I would suggest that a fact is basically a brute fact. If you drop a ball
and it falls to the floor, that is a fact. The EXPLANATION for that behavior
is what is call a hypothesis or theory. The Theory of Gravity is a
description and explanation for the fact that masses behave a certain way
with respect to each other. The theory or hypothesis can certainly be wrong,
and are never considered absolutely proven, but the facts, the observations,
are not in question. They are essentially proved.
Then again, my head may be so far up my ass that lucky to be able to breath.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Mark VandeWettering
> Then how does "knowing" where an electron goes through a slit totally
> change the way light propagates itself. Answer: Consciousness and
> "knowing" is preset in the original quantum laws of the universe.
It isn't "knowing", it's measurement, and it doesn't matter whether
the measurement is done by intelligences or not.
Mark
Zachriel
>
>> Zachriel wrote:
>> . . .
>> Darwin could not directly observe "special evolution". What he observed
>> was
>> the nested hierarchy of extant life including domesticated organisms, the
>> nested hierarchy in time of extinct life, the nested hierarchy of
>> biogeography. He also observed the struggle for existence, and was aware
>> of
>> Malthus's ideas on population and resources. From this, he predicted
>> "special evolution", that organisms change and diversify slowly over
>> geological time.
>>
>> So you have your inferences backwards.
>>
>> --
>> Zachriel
>
> You have not really thought this out very well. Darwin observed finch
> beaks and knew that these bird designs had some flexibility--
> variation.
He knew that they varied among themselves. And anyone could also see that
children vary from adults. But no one could see the finches' variation over
geologic time, and it was argued that this was intrinsic variation around a
mean.
> He knew that variation had been observed over the past few
> hundred years in dog breeding. He knew that plants underwent variation
> in observational studies.
As anyone can see that children did not exactly resemble their parents, it
was argued that these traits were just rearranged in the population and that
they tended towards a mean of perfection unless selected by breeders. And
individual breeders never saw the vast changes over time, so assumed that
these traits were always there all along, but just waiting to be expressed.
>
> This is where the extrapolation comes in to play. The general theory
> of evolution employs it to a degree that's well beyond excessive. And
> that's putting it mildly.
Darwin saw the nested hierarchy. This is the precise pattern expected from
common descent. He surmised that populations could change radically over
geologic time. He also predicted that novel variations must occur in
populations and that these changes occurred slowly over time in natural
populations. This inference is supported by multiple lines of inquiry.
And why are you using the odd terminology?
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Ron O
ave1 wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > ave1 wrote:
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > > You have found the one and only AVE. I'm sure we're in for some more
> > > good times here.
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Are you ever going to present a real argument or just obfuscate the
> > issue?
>
> All I've seen here is a bunch of obfuscation from people like you.
What did you start this thread with? All you ever have is obfuscation.
If you think that science is the same, why can't you turn the same
light of scrutiny on your own pathetic junk and come to the conclusion
that you have even less?
Really, so what if scientific "facts" can change. How do you change
them? You don't change them by claiming that they can change, you have
to come up with a good reason to change them, and you have to be able
to validate that reason. What do you have to replace common descent.
Common descent is such a well founded "fact" that even the ID scam
artists have to give it lip service or people would know that they are
incompetent or lying. So put up your replacement and tell us why it is
important why "facts" can change?
>
> > Why show your face after Dover?
>
> I'm trying to recall anything which relates to Dover, but I'm drawing a
> blank.
ID/creationist bullpucky. Just like the argument that you started the
thread with.
>
> Should I be remembering something?
Insanity is its own excuse, I guess.
>
> > Where is all the wonderful evidence for your option?
> > Why didn't it get put forward in Dover?
>
> Well, I have never been to Dover. Are you sure we're not talking about
> someone you thought was me (but wasn't)?
Willful ignorance is either insanity or dishonesty.
>
> > Have you figured out why your form of argument is bogus?
>
> And what form of argument did the guy you think was me in Dover
> utilize?
What kind of scam are you trying to pull? Symantic arguments like this
is bogus and you know it so why even try? Why do you think the
creationists were shown to be dishonest boneheads in Dover? Why did
two board members have to lie under oath to try and defend what they
did? They tried the same type of scam that you are pulling. It
doesn't work on rational thinking human beings. When it comes time to
put up or shut up, if creationist don't want to shut up like the ID
scam artists responsible for perpetrating the ID scam, creationists end
up demonstrating that they are ignorant, dishonest, incompetents or
combinations of those limited options, like the Dover rubes. You don't
have the ignorant excuse, so why pretend otherwise?
Can you claim that you are different from the rubes or dishonest scam
artists responsible for the Dover creationist fiasco? How so, if so?
This will be a neat trick since you started this thread with a
dishonest ploy that is about par for creationist obfuscation scams.
Just try and deny it. Just think if you had a real argument to put
forward. You wouldn't have to rely on dishonest scams would you? Your
type of creationists wouldn't have been found to be such dishonest
perps if they had gotten the straight dope from the guys that scammed
them and if they were even interested in the straight dope.
>
> > What is doctor.com?
>
> A web email address I chose a few years ago after the "av...@mydeja.com"
> address went obsolete with the Google takeover.
>
> > I figure you should be able to answer, at least,
> > that one honestly.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> I honestly can say I have no idea what you're referencing regarding
> Dover.
>
> Steve
See, one honest answer (hopefully) about doctor.com. I guess that is
all I could have expected. Would you know honesty if it bit you in the
face or does it all just run together as long as you can stomach it?
Ron Okimoto
chris.li...@gmail.com
ave1 wrote:
> > chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > ave1 wrote:
> > > >Alan Morgan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not in science, no.
> > >
> > > Okay, so a fact is not a proven truism. It seems the Talk Origins
> > > website agrees with you:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
> > >
> > > > A fact is science is something so well demonstrated
> > > > that disagreeing with it starts to look stupid.
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > >
> > > This seems to confirm my speculation that spontaneous generation was
> > > indeed "a fact" back in the 19th century. Facts can therefore be
> > > fallible.
> >
> > Wrong. "Demonstrated" is not the same as "assumed".
>
> I'm just saying that those who supported the idea of S.G. would be
> prone to calling it "a fact".
And you'd be wrong. Anyone who read Gould's essay and understood his
point would know that when he wrote of the "fact of evolution" he meant
that the genetic structure of populations changes. That's a fact. There
are plenty of observations.
> > I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
> > say that in science, facts are data.
>
> So when people like S.J. Gould claim that evolution is a fact, they are
> describing the observable data (which is nothing other than variation)
It is not variation. Variation is static: what you would see in a
snapshot of a population. Evolution is dynamic: it happens over time.
> of what Darwin labelled "the special theory of evolution", and not his
> "general theory of evolution" (which was an inference or extrapolation
> of observable data into an idea (which is not direct observable) that
> explains the coming about of all lifeforms on Earth from a common
I have never heard of a "special theory of evolution" or a "general
theory of evolution". Please provide a citation for Darwin using these
terms.
> ancestor). From what I've seen in science education curricula, there's
> an intentional blurring of the line between these two distinct theories
> of Darwin, and the fact that there's no full disclosure is an
> indication that there's a belief system at work.
So how did you get to "belief system" from "theory"? Ah, you waved your
hands.
>
> I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
> confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
> want to call it microevolution, but I won't). What I do have a problem
> with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
> analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
> at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
> antibiotic resistance) and see an analogy which can be a convincing
> representation of how a reptile might undergo some
> complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
> bird like archaeopterix (which could fly). This far-reaching
> extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
> of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system. This
It would be, except for all the data we have to support it. Please
refute the morphological, genetic, anatomical, biochemical, and
biogeographical data before you go any further.
> "general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
>
>
> > You draw conclusions about the
> > natural world from observing many facts. *snip*
>
> The facts are data we gather about VARIATION which can be observed
> occuring in the biological world.
>
> Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
> again. Despite knowing this, evolutionists keep promoting an idea that
> is based on limitless variation over vast numbers of generations, where
> a worm can become a fish, and a fish can become anything from a walrus
> to a giraffe to a human.
>
> I contend that limitless variation is far from being established as a
> fact in the realm of biological observation.
That's nice. Got any data?
Didn't think so.
Chris
crgo...@hotmail.com
a pot of water hot?
Oxidized
>>Oxidized wrote:
>>
>>>ave1 wrote:
>>>
>>>Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
>>>non-living material.
>>
>>However,
>>Special Creation is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
>>non-living material: God.
>>
>>What's your point?
>>
>>Abiogenesis and Special Creation are a false dichotomy. Life from
>>non-life via *chemistry* is much more reasonable than life from
>>non-life via *some supernatural being*.
>>
>>Oxidized
>
>
> Why is it so unreasonable to think that mind came before matter in the
> universe?
All the minds I have encountered have been composed of matter. That's why.
When one looks at what happens at a quantum level, it can be
> easily seen that light and matter itself propagate in a way that ties
> into the inner workings of intelligent conciousness. Ever heard of the
> quantum "measurement effect"? Ever heard of the double slit
> experiments? See below (chapter two is the key section).
Oh, lord. So you claim that because light appears to have *wave*
properties when observed with one kind of experimental setup, but
appears to have *particle* properties when observed with another
kind of experimental setup, THEREFORE mind preceded matter ... and God
exists?
What if the experimenter flipped a coin to determine which setup
to use (wave or particle detector)? Would that coin then start
exhibiting non-random behavior because of the "pre-determined"
wave/particle of the photons? I'll bet the heads/tails ratio would
still be 1:1.
Has the "observing gravitiationally-lensed light from quasars"
experiment been done yet? What if two observers are looking at
opposite sides of the "lens"? Does observer A have to call up
observer B and say, "stop hogging the photons"?
Here's an experiment: close your eyes. Does it get darker?
How did the photons know to stop traveling to your retina?
Answer: God exists.
Oxidized
ave1
pivotal in determining if electrons (ligh) acts as a wave or a
particle. See the link in my sig.
ave1
> bullpup wrote:
> Ave's been here before, and his mod of operation is word games (semantics,
> context flip-flops, and the like)
>
> Boikat
Word games, eh? When it comes to this topic, I brought forward a
couple of words which people who wish to defend Darwinism tend to
arrange in very unique ways. Is it so wrong to draw attention to this
wordgame? They talk about "facts" when it comes to the theory of
evolution (in fact they say it *is* a fact), but then in the same
breath say that theories don't involve "proof" (and that "proof" is
only a valid word to use in mathematics).
So if facts can't be proof what are facts? One of the answers I've
heard here which seems to be most convincing is "data". Data, though,
is what gets interpreted. It's not the interpretation, therefore which
would be considered a fact. It's just data which is factual.
Therefore it makes no sense to say that the theory of evolution (which
is an interpretation of data) is "a fact".
That's my point. Logical, isn't it. . .
Steve
ave1
> Ron O wrote:
> > ave1 wrote:
> > All I've seen here is a bunch of obfuscation from people like you.
>
> What did you start this thread with? All you ever have is obfuscation.
> If you think that science is the same, why can't you turn the same
> light of scrutiny on your own pathetic junk and come to the conclusion
> that you have even less?
The light of scrutiny is being turned just where it needs to.
Evolutionists are the ones getting their material promoted in
educational programs in public schools, not the proponents of Creation
or IDers.
The obfuscation is very evident with the whole "it's a fact" issue.
It's not a fact. Data is factual, not interpretations of data
formulated in a theory about unobserved occurances (which is what
Evolution is all about). See my response earlier this evening to
Boikat.
> Really, so what if scientific "facts" can change. How do you change
> them?
It's all in the interpretation. Some people interpret that the data of
things like moth wing color variation for camoflage can be extrapolated
into a viewpoint that blind processes can somehow build new
cell-composed structures (arranged in very specified ways in order to
get function (irreducibly complex or not) just right) which add large
amounts of information to the alleged evolving organism.
This is an interpretation which cannot be called "a fact". This is an
extrapolation-- AN INFERENCE.
> You don't change them by claiming that they can change, you have
> to come up with a good reason to change them,
Intelligent design looks at probabilities of things with high
complexity and specificity showing up by blind processes. These kinds
of analyses were invited by the one and only Charles Darwin. He said
in Origin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possible have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break is down".
To deny that this is a valid challenge for his theory is to be
illogical. To deny that probabilities has no application in evaluating
Darwin's interpretation of data is to ignore a big aspect of scientific
investigation. The Talk Origins website even understands the
importance of probability analyses in all areas of science: "A crucial
related point is that modern scientific theories are probabalistic. . .
Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific theories,
including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology, quantum
mechanics, genetics, and medicine. The mathematics of probability is a
discipline that many people find, shall we say, distasteful. However, a
working knowledge of statistics is absolutely essential for judging the
fit between observed data and the predictions of any theory."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
> and you have to be able to validate that reason.
What better way than probability analysis? What's funny is that
there's virtually no probability coursework in any college level
educational programs having direct ties to Common Descent Evolution.
Why is that?
> What do you have to replace common descent.
> Common descent is such a well founded "fact" that even the ID scam
> artists have to give it lip service or people would know that they are
> incompetent or lying. So put up your replacement and tell us why it is
> important why "facts" can change?
It's important first to point out the fallacy of "the fact" of Common
Descent Evolution first, and also to shed light on the analogical
method which was used by Darwin to build his interpretation of origins
of life on Earth. It's important to then either make or break the ToE
as well as hypotheses pertaining to "chemical evolution" with
probability analyses.
> > > Why show your face after Dover?
> >
> > I'm trying to recall anything which relates to Dover, but I'm drawing a
> > blank.
>
> ID/creationist bullpucky. *snip*
Alright, I looked up "Dover" on the web, and now realize what you were
getting at. I haven't really been keeping up with the court battles. I
guess you could say I've been a little busy with life.
Regarding your claims that people were lying and creating "a scam", all
I can say is I'm sure there's more to it than what you're purporting or
what the judge (who obviously was an ardent Evolutionist to the max)
decided to say about ID supporters. There's always more to the story.
Jon Fleming
Nope.
Facts are observations. Evolution has been observed.
--
jrf
replace nospam with group to email
ave1
> catshark wrote:
> > ave1 wrote:
> >Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from
> >nonlife.
>
> No he didn't. As John Wilkins demonstrated in the above article is that:
>
> What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation
> demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in
> complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the
> impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of
> a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In
> particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then
> evolve.
What Pasteur and Francesco Redi did was to take down ideas of nonlife
having some innate capacity to develop matter into living forms
(whether they be single cell organisms or flies).
Saying that this doesn't apply when large amounts of time are added in
is special pleading.
> >The experiment which confirmed this (and is still confirming
> >this) was when there were no flies/maggots coming from old meat when
> >it's sealed from the outside world.
>
> You can't even bother to get this right? Pasteur's experiments involved
> germs and their source in flasks of various infusions.
>
> <http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextbook/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27>
Okay, I named the wrong scientist. Francesco Redi was behind the meat
and flies experiment. The point remains, though, whether you are
talking about Redi or Pasteur-- THEY BOTH BROUGHT FORWARD EVIDENCE THAT
WAS MEANT TO DISMANTLE THE IDEA OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.
> >
> >Abiogenesis is a concept which claims that life indeed comes from
> >non-living material. It is spontaneous generation, because at some
> >point along the way in the process of abiogenesis there'd be something
> >that's not defined as living (maybe something like a virus) crossing a
> >threshold into having an "offspring" which has all the components
> >needed to be called a living organism.
>
> That is part of your problem right there. Even though you claim that there
> is some sort of "threshold" between the living and the non-living, you
> cannot even begin to describe it. *snip*
Well, how about I begin to describe it now to show you that you're
wrong.
The threshold would be between a cell and a complex arrangement of
interconnected compounds (CAIC) which lacks one of the following 5
abilities: Respiration, Digestion/metabolism, growth, reproduction, a
barrier which keeps out foreign substances.
So what I'm saying is that once the CAIC (having four of the five
abilities) gains the fifth ability, it crosses the threshold-- by
definition-- from nonlife to life. THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE AN INSTANCE
OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION happening by an occurance of a single
mutation or a bunch of simultaneous mutations in *a single generation*.
There. It really wasn't hard to think that through, now, was it?
ave1
> Marc wrote [regarding Eugenie Scott and her alleged improper use of the words "evolution supporter" and "evolutionist"]:
> To answer you, yes - she messed up. (Take it up with her.)
Let's see, should I believe you (by the way I need to know your
credentials) or should I believe Eugenie Scott who happens to be the
Executive Director of the Center for Science Education, as well as
having "served on the Board of Directors of the Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study (BSCS), and the advisory counsels of several church
and state separation organizations. She has held elective offices in
the American Anthropological Association and the American Association
for the Advancement of Science. Scott is the current president of the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists, for which she has
also been Secretary-Treasurer. Honors include the Bruce Alberts Award
of the American Society for Cell Biology, the Isaac Asimov Science
Award from the American Humanist Association. . ."
The biography info is from:
http://www.meta-library.net/bio/eugenie-body.html
> > What
> > were the people at Talk Origins thinking when they gave the nod for
> > this article to go up on their website? Hmm, maybe they think it's a
> > legitimate term. . . Well?
>
> Did you know that they put a wide range of things up? They even
> put up links to quite a number of creationist web pages
But they never put up web page articles written by Creation advocates
on their site as a representation of their position. This Eugenie
Scott article was a representation of the T.O. website, no matter what
you say.
I think you're pretty much off the deep end on this one, Marc.
> (and they
> do a much better job at keeping those links pointing to working
> pages then the creationists do at linking to Talk.Origins). Does
> the fact that the Talk.Origins archive put these links up make
> T.O. a creationism supporter, eh? What's your answer to that?
They put the links there so people might have a reference for the views
they oppose. This is not what was going on in the Eugenie Scott
article which holds arguments representative of the T.O. website
position.
Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
.
ave1
It wasn't an experimental situation like you are purporting with
different setups (using different kinds of detectors-- wave and
particle). Just read the sig website I've provided. If you don't like
to read stuff, then just visit this link (fun little animation
description) and WATCH the measurement effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHxul_NKhOo&search=quantum
Marc
ave1 wrote:
> > Marc wrote [regarding Eugenie Scott and her alleged improper use of the words "evolution supporter" and "evolutionist"]:
> > To answer you, yes - she messed up. (Take it up with her.)
>
> Let's see, should I believe you (by the way I need to know your
> credentials) or should I believe Eugenie Scott who happens to be the
> Executive Director of the Center for Science Education,
Again, what is your point?
If you have a problem with something she said, like her
using the term "evolutionist" when it really isn't a word,
take it up with her.
If *you* are using that word, I say you are a "creationist"
and nothing more.
My qualifications are sufficient that I can say that, I think.
(Google is your friend, my thesis is online.)
(signed) marc
..
Ron O
ave1 wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> > > ave1 wrote:
> > > All I've seen here is a bunch of obfuscation from people like you.
> >
> > What did you start this thread with? All you ever have is obfuscation.
> > If you think that science is the same, why can't you turn the same
> > light of scrutiny on your own pathetic junk and come to the conclusion
> > that you have even less?
>
> The light of scrutiny is being turned just where it needs to.
> Evolutionists are the ones getting their material promoted in
> educational programs in public schools, not the proponents of Creation
> or IDers.
Is this really your lame excuse for not having a valid argument and
just blowing smoke? This is pretty pathetic even for a creationist.
What possible good are you doing when you have just admitted that your
junk is so much worse that all you can do is blow smoke and muddy the
water? Is that education? What would you want students to learn from
your obfuscation scam that you started the thread with? What valid
point were you trying to make when you know that you have no valid
point? All you can claim is to tell the students what they should
already know, so what is the big deal? If they don't already know what
scientific facts are, what good is blowing smoke about it? What good
does it do creationism to get them to really understand how science
works. That would work against you, right? You know for an absolute
fact that if you explained the situation honestly, that you would lose,
so what is your beef? Science works a certain way, if you have a
better way, let us see it.
>
> The obfuscation is very evident with the whole "it's a fact" issue.
> It's not a fact. Data is factual, not interpretations of data
> formulated in a theory about unobserved occurances (which is what
> Evolution is all about). See my response earlier this evening to
> Boikat.
Bull pucky, who cares what you think, how does science work? Why
hasn't creationism ever worked? What kind of facts does creationism
have? So what does it matter what are called scientific facts if you
have nothing better to put forward? They are called scientific facts
for a reason, you have no such facts backing your claims, why is that.
If science facts are so bad, what does that say about your beliefs?
>
> > Really, so what if scientific "facts" can change. How do you change
> > them?
>
> It's all in the interpretation. Some people interpret that the data of
> things like moth wing color variation for camoflage can be extrapolated
> into a viewpoint that blind processes can somehow build new
> cell-composed structures (arranged in very specified ways in order to
> get function (irreducibly complex or not) just right) which add large
> amounts of information to the alleged evolving organism.
If it was all interpretation that would be one thing, but you would be
lying to yourself if you believed that. Why did we change the first
law of thermodynamics. It wasn't because interpretations change. It
was because we discovered radioactivity and nuclear fusion.
What is irreducibly complexed in a living organism and how did you
determine that? Behe can't tell you, so why do you believe that such a
thing exists? What is Behe's latest definition. The more parts
something has the more IC it is, so what is IC and how would you know
it? What happened to "well matched" parts, or if you take a part away
it stops doing its normal function? If those no longer mean something
is IC what is IC?
>
> This is an interpretation which cannot be called "a fact". This is an
> extrapolation-- AN INFERENCE.
Do you have any better inferences that explain the data? Trot them out
for comparison.
Pretty lame aren't they?
If you want a really lame inference what about inferring ID from IC.
Just think how lame that is, when you can't even demonstrate that IC
systems exist, so how can you infer anything like ID from it?
>
> > You don't change them by claiming that they can change, you have
> > to come up with a good reason to change them,
>
> Intelligent design looks at probabilities of things with high
> complexity and specificity showing up by blind processes. These kinds
> of analyses were invited by the one and only Charles Darwin. He said
> in Origin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
> which could not possible have been formed by numerous, successive,
> slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break is down".
Intelligent design turned out to be a bogus scam that creationist tried
to perpetrate on the public school system. It was such a lousy scam
that the perps gave up on it in 1999 and went with a replacement scam
that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, so why are you still
barking about such a lame scam. A scam so lame that the perps dropped
it as the Wedge before it even went to court and ID was shown to be the
scam that it is. Didn't you read West's comment during the Dover
fiasco that the Discovery Institute had a change of direction back in
1999? They just forgot to tell the rubes about it. Did you know that
there was a new scam in town? That they had given up on teaching ID in
the public schools? Why did they try and claim that they never wanted
it "mandated" when rubes like you know that they wanted to teach it?
Why would they lobby school boards and legislators to get it into the
schools, but when they got the chance, and it was time to put up or
shut up, they shut up?
>
> To deny that this is a valid challenge for his theory is to be
> illogical. To deny that probabilities has no application in evaluating
> Darwin's interpretation of data is to ignore a big aspect of scientific
> investigation. The Talk Origins website even understands the
> importance of probability analyses in all areas of science: "A crucial
> related point is that modern scientific theories are probabalistic. . .
> Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific theories,
> including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology, quantum
> mechanics, genetics, and medicine. The mathematics of probability is a
> discipline that many people find, shall we say, distasteful. However, a
> working knowledge of statistics is absolutely essential for judging the
> fit between observed data and the predictions of any theory."
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
All you have to do is demonstrate that such a system exists. The
challenge is still open, but the ID scam artists have left the field?
It is wide open for someone like you, so give it a try. See if you can
do better than the ID scam artists. What do you hear from them, now?
ID might amount to something in the future? That seems to be the party
line at this time. First you need to develop testable hypotheses, and
then you have to test them, and see if they amount to anything. If the
data starts to fall your way you may even develop a scientific theory.
The problem with ID is that it never got off first base. Not a single
hypothesis was ever tested. If you know of one present it and you will
be head and shoulders above the guys that testified in the Dover trial.
>
> > and you have to be able to validate that reason.
>
> What better way than probability analysis? What's funny is that
> there's virtually no probability coursework in any college level
> educational programs having direct ties to Common Descent Evolution.
> Why is that?
Sure just calculate the probabilities and show your work. Dembski
claimed that he was going to test his bull pucky, but what did he end
up with? He couldn't calculate the relevant probabilities so he just
repeated the tornado through a junk yard calculation. Unfortunately he
had to admit that it wasn't biologically relevant. So calculate the
probabilities. It will be a neat trick when even a math PhD knows that
he hasn't been able to do it.
Really, what is the probability of evolving a flagellum when you don't
know what the original design was. It may have happened a couple of
billion years ago and if you look at existing flagellum you see that
some may be missing parts, some may have gained parts and probably some
have lost and gained parts. So you don't know what the original design
was, and you don't know what the starting material was, so how are you
going to do this calculation?
>
> > What do you have to replace common descent.
> > Common descent is such a well founded "fact" that even the ID scam
> > artists have to give it lip service or people would know that they are
> > incompetent or lying. So put up your replacement and tell us why it is
> > important why "facts" can change?
>
> It's important first to point out the fallacy of "the fact" of Common
> Descent Evolution first, and also to shed light on the analogical
> method which was used by Darwin to build his interpretation of origins
> of life on Earth. It's important to then either make or break the ToE
> as well as hypotheses pertaining to "chemical evolution" with
> probability analyses.
Do you still believe that the earth is flat or that the sun and planets
orbit the earth? Some YECs still do, so why not you?
All known vertebrates share a common ancestor. That statement could be
wrong, but not likely. We'd have to find some vertebrate species that
didn't fit into the existing pattern. I'll hold that up against
anything about your YEC beliefs that you can muster. Put up or shut up
about "facts."
>
> > > > Why show your face after Dover?
> > >
> > > I'm trying to recall anything which relates to Dover, but I'm drawing a
> > > blank.
> >
> > ID/creationist bullpucky. *snip*
>
> Alright, I looked up "Dover" on the web, and now realize what you were
> getting at. I haven't really been keeping up with the court battles. I
> guess you could say I've been a little busy with life.
Willful ignorance is insanity in your case. Laziness is stupid. You
have the time to put up bull pucky, but you don't have the time to
determine that it is bull pucky.
>
> Regarding your claims that people were lying and creating "a scam", all
> I can say is I'm sure there's more to it than what you're purporting or
> what the judge (who obviously was an ardent Evolutionist to the max)
> decided to say about ID supporters. There's always more to the story.
>
>
> Steve
> ---
> Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?
> Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
Read a little more about Dover. There is more to the story. It was as
bogus as I claim. If you read the court transcripts you will also find
little ditties where Behe claimed that your designer could be dead.
Read about the Pandas and People scam textbook, where the
ID/creationist scam artists just swapped out creation science misnomers
for intelligent design misnomers without substantial changes to the
surrounding text. Kind of hard to claim that ID isn't a creationist
scam. No lie. Amusing reading if you have the stomach for it. You
might want to have second thoughts about supporting IC, when you read
Behe's lame excuse for ID not being testable. He made the claim that
you could test ID like in science fiction, and he admitted that if ID
were science, astrology would be science. Fictional testing, and
voodoo science. Both ID expert witnesses (Behe and Minnich) also
admitted that there wasn't a single scientific publication supporting
ID at this time. What were you claiming about calculating those
probabilities and testing ID? Why didn't that wonderful test come out
in court? Why hasn't someone actually done the testing?
What kind of replacement for the existing scientific facts could you
possibly have?
Ron Okimoto
ave1
> > prone to calling it "a fact".
>
I base this on not only knowing a little about how deeply entrenched in
society was the viewpoint of S.G. in previous centuries, but on knowing
how firmly people hold to belief systems in our present day.
> > > I also have to take issue with this definition of fact. I would have to
> > > say that in science, facts are data.
> >
> > So when people like S.J. Gould claim that evolution is a fact, they are
> > describing the observable data (which is nothing other than variation)
> > of what Darwin labelled "the special theory of evolution", and not his
> > "general theory of evolution"
>
>
> Can you please provide a citation where C. Darwin made this distinction? *snip*
I was wrong about Darwin labelling his ideas with the above terminology
(special theory and general theory). This labelling came later (and
was done by well-respected Evolutionists, and not people involved in
the Creation movement). Why did scientists accept these labels and not
rebuke those who proposed them and accepted them? Because they
represented what Darwin had been meticulously discussing in "Origin of
Species". Think about it. He concentrated on biological observation
of breeding experiments, speciation, and things which showed variation
in nature and called it the "principle of selection" (which obviously
involved natural selection to propagate variation).
Here's an excerpt from "Origin of Species" in chapter 1 (entitled
"Variation Under Domestication):
"The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical.
It is certain that several of our eminent breeders have, even within a
single lifetime, modified to a large extent some breeds of cattle and
sheep. In order fully to realise what they have done, it is almost
necessary to read several of the many treatises devoted to this
subject, and to inspect the animals."
Observed biological variation is what the "principle of selection" is
all about, and I would agree with Darwin that it's "certain".
Then he brought forward common descent evolution (which was later
called the general theory of evolution) as an interpretation (which is
quite a bit more hypothetical than the principle of selection (special
theory) which he had discussed above) in biology which involved
extrapolation of "certain" variation biological data.. That's what the
"general theory of evolution" is about-- the interpretation of
variation data.
The way I see it, though, is that it is "uncertain" (or at least less
than certain if I want to be generous).
> > (which was an inference or extrapolation
> > of observable data into an idea (which is not direct observable) that
> > explains the coming about of all lifeforms on Earth from a common
> > ancestor). From what I've seen in science education curricula, there's
> > an intentional blurring of the line between these two distinct theories
> > of Darwin,
>
> If, in fact, Darwin made any such distinction.
The distinction was labelled later, but it was well-described in
"Origin of Species"-- as referenced above.
> > and the fact that there's no full disclosure is an
> > indication that there's a belief system at work.
>
> Or, that the "distinction" is a figment of someone's imagination, which you
> are parroting.
Again, the special theory and general theory were labels which
scientists later have accepted as a good representation of Darwin's
ideas.
> > I really don't have a problem with accepting that there's been
> > confirmation of Darwin's special theory of evolution (and some might
> > want to call it microevolution, but I won't).
>
> Because then the obvious responce would be "wheree is the line you draw
> between micro and macro evolution. Something no cretinist seems to want to
> tackle with a ten foot pole. (About the best the semi honest cretinist can
> do is "that which is observed is micro, that which hasn't is macro".)
Well, you're probably going to ask me what the difference between
variation and Common Descent Evolution is, and I'll tell you that the
difference is the observed data (variation that always has boundaries)
versus the interpretation having to do with that data (in Darwin's mind
it would be variation that extrapolates into something that really
doesn't have boundaries).
BTW, limitations are seen all over the place in nature (ie. dog breeds,
giraffe breeds, hippo breeds, etc.). If ever there was a FACT in
nature-- that's it.
> > What I do have a problem
> > with accepting would be a far-reaching and improper use of the
> > analogical method (abductive inference), which tries to say we can look
> > at variation data (ie. bacteria undergoing variation to "gain"
> > antibiotic resistance) and see an analogy which can be a convincing
> > representation of how a reptile might undergo some
> > complexity-increasing blind natural process of variation to become a
> > bird like archaeopterix (which could fly).
>
> In other words, your argument is based upon the logical fallacy of
> incredulity.
No, I'm just saying that the analogy isn't a very convincing one for
me.
> > This far-reaching
> > extrapolation (use of the analogical method) is taking things well out
> > of the realm of data, and into the realm of a belief system.
>
> Belief based upon the available evidence.
Hey, well at least you concede that belief is getting injected here. .
.
That's a start.
> > This
> > "general theory of evolution" is better labelled as Evolutionism.
>
> Nope. Just "evolution". Trying to degrade the theory into a "belief
> system" in order to pretend that it's just another religion is dishonest.
It's an "ism" because there are philosophical tie-ins which are
necessary for it to gain any foothold in one's mind.
> > > You draw conclusions about the
> > > natural world from observing many facts. *snip*
> >
> > The facts are data we gather about VARIATION which can be observed
> > occuring in the biological world.
> >
> > Variation has boundaries which have been shown to exist time and time
> > again.
>
> Yes, a new species of fly is still a fly. Big whoopty-doo, nobody woud say
> otherwise.
>
> > Despite knowing this, evolutionists keep promoting an idea that
> > is based on limitless variation over vast numbers of generations, where
> > a worm can become a fish, and a fish can become anything from a walrus
> > to a giraffe to a human.
>
> Basically, that is what the fossil evidence (facts) suggests.
Fossils or no fossils, variation has boundaries, and this is an
established fact of biological observation.
Saying that it is so boundless as to take a worm and produce from it
the entire menagerie of lifeforms on planet Earth is going way beyond
what science alone can support. The extrapolation is where the whole
"Evolution is a fact" falls flat. It's a level below "certain"-- less
than certain.
> > I contend that limitless variation is far from being established as a
> > fact in the realm of biological observation.
>
> I don't theink the potential for variation is limitless, but it is pretty
> huge. Can you provide a logical reason that would impose limits within
> reason?
>
> Boikat
Well, how about things like full-grown giraffes only having necks which
fall within a verifiable limited range of length? How about things
like dogs being unable to be bred beyond certain morphological
limitations? How about things like human ears being unable to exceed a
certain size? Etc. . .
bullpup
>
> > bullpup wrote:
> > Ave's been here before, and his mod of operation is word games
(semantics,
> > context flip-flops, and the like)
> >
> > Boikat
>
> Word games, eh?
Yes.
> When it comes to this topic, I brought forward a
> couple of words which people who wish to defend Darwinism tend to
> arrange in very unique ways.
"unique ways" = "specific context".
> Is it so wrong to draw attention to this
> wordgame?
Yes. Context is important.
> They talk about "facts" when it comes to the theory of
> evolution (in fact they say it *is* a fact),
Yes, since there is an observed phenomena, evolution, which is th fact that
the genetic characteristics of populations of organisms change through time.
That is the fact of evolution.
> but then in the same
> breath say that theories don't involve "proof" (and that "proof" is
> only a valid word to use in mathematics).
The prefered word is "evidence".
>
> So if facts can't be proof what are facts?
See? Word games.
> One of the answers I've
> heard here which seems to be most convincing is "data". Data, though,
> is what gets interpreted. It's not the interpretation, therefore which
> would be considered a fact. It's just data which is factual.
There is no denying that some people can take the same evidence and come to
differing conclusions. what is important is the degree of consistance and
following up with further data collection..
>
> Therefore it makes no sense to say that the theory of evolution (which
> is an interpretation of data) is "a fact".
Nope. There is the fact that it's observed. For instance, the fossil
record. There is no denying that the fossil record shows a pattern of
increasing diversity through time. That concept is also called "evolution".
the attempt to explain that increase in diversification through time
(punctuated buy periods of extinctions) is the theory of evolution. Toss
out some ideas: Special creation, descent with modification from common
ancestry, DNA twiddling by the Uber Space Monkeys. Which of this is more
consistant with other observations?
>
> That's my point. Logical, isn't it. . .
Nope, because in past discussions, you have played the word game all too
often. Take for example your attempt to equate abiogenesis with spontanious
generation.
Boikat
--
<42><
ave1
> Jon Fleming wrote:
> Nope.
>
> Facts are observations. Evolution has been observed.
>
> --
> jrf
If facts are observations (and that, of course, is data), then
variation (which in any species is delineated with boundaries that can
be described and measured) has been observed-- not Common Descent
Evolution.