evolution not testable -> not a theory

[Dale]

testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,

creating the environment for evolution,

and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve

maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are

(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)

evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable

evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture

much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters


--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

not all theories are testable, and not everything in science is testable.
You have a wrong notion about this question.
According to the Oxford dictionary
Theory: Supposition or system of ideas explaining something, specially one
based on general principles independent of the facts, phenomena, etc. to be
explained, opp. to hypothesis. It is also speculative (specially fanciful)
view; It is also the sphere of abstract knowledge or speculative thought.
Exposition of the principles of a science, etc (the theory of music).
Collection of propositions to illustrate principles of a subject (probability
theory, theory of equations).

As for science, you are probably also wrong.
Science: Knowledge. 2 Systematic and formulated knowledge (moral, political, natural, etc.
3 Natural Science, physical or natural sciences collectively.
4 Branch of Knowledge (specially one that can be conducted on scientific
principles).
Other definitions have less interest to my complain.

Science or knowledge do not implies that "everything known" is true;
is is considered more or less true, or accepted as such by the collective
of scientists involved in this or that branch of science.

Only some easy questions can be verified or tested. You cannot test or
reproduced a star, or the big-bang, or some model speculative multiverse,
etc. You cannot verify a concrete model of seven dimension, etc. Those
are mostly speculative artifacts of abstract thinking.

It seems that you are treating science like it were the holy bible or
the Vedas that are considered "inerrant", true, the word of god, etc.
Science is not the word of god. It is the word of intelligence of humans.
And "errare humanus est". Science can be wrong here and there, you cannot
be sure which part of science would be considered wrong in 50 or 100 years.
But science is the best we can do with our thinking at present. But it
is not the word of god. If science were the words of god, it would be
a mountain of lies the size of Himalayas range.

Eri

[Ernest Major]

On 25/04/2015 06:09, Dale wrote:
> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>
> creating the environment for evolution,
>
> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>
> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>
> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)

I don't see the relevance of this aside, but, yes, we've been over this
before; it seems to have escaped your recollection that math has both
theorems and theories.

>
> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable

False premise - evolution is testable - every time someone sequences a
genome they're testing evolution (common descent).

>
> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture

As the premise is false the conclusion is unsupported.

>
> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

As far as I recollect you have never demonstrated that you understand
what biological evolution is. What you have written above is a case in
point.

If you weren't so incompetent you probably could be trained to generate
data that would confirm biological evolution today. You could do some
DNA sequence analysis. You could take the DNA of your parents and
yourself and demonstrate that they are your parents through your
analysis of descent with modification. You are not exactly like your
parents, and hopefully they weren't lying to you about being your
parents. You can use the same inferences to do your own analysis of ape
genomes and compare them to other vertebrates. You could go out into
nature and collect the observations that you would need to conclude that
natural selection is a fact of nature. No environment creation is
needed. You could do so many things that it is unbelievable that anyone
could write what you have written above.

Ron Okimoto

[ednafreon]

Ernest Major wrote:

> On 25/04/2015 06:09, Dale wrote:
>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>> out of the picture,
>>
>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>
>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>> out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>> evolved or didn't evolve
>>
>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>> untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>
>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>> theories)
>
> I don't see the relevance of this aside, but, yes, we've
> been over this before; it seems to have escaped your
> recollection that math has both theorems and theories.
>>
>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>
> False premise - evolution is testable - every time someone
> sequences a genome they're testing evolution (common
> descent).

Sequencing a genome shows relatedness but not necessarily
common descent. The implication of common descent is that
one species descended from another, a conclusion derived
from the theory. Yet a genome sequence only shows the
current similarities so the desired conclusion can only be
inferred.

The interpretation of the genome sequencing as evidence of
common descent is asserted because it's required to make the
evidence fit the theory. This is confusing the explanations
with the thing being explained. There is data and there is
how the data is explained and the explanation cannot itself
be considered data without becoming hopelessly circular.

Theories of evolution are a procrustean bed where all data
is forced to fit the hypotheses that the explanation of the
data exists to explain. The hypotheses are primary and the
data are incidental.

Bill

[Burkhard]

ednafreon wrote:
> Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2015 06:09, Dale wrote:
>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>> out of the picture,
>>>
>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>> out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>> evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>> untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>> theories)
>>
>> I don't see the relevance of this aside, but, yes, we've
>> been over this before; it seems to have escaped your
>> recollection that math has both theorems and theories.
>>>
>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>
>> False premise - evolution is testable - every time someone
>> sequences a genome they're testing evolution (common
>> descent).
>
> Sequencing a genome shows relatedness but not necessarily
> common descent.

Which wasn't the question. The question was whether DNA sequencing tests
evolution - and it surely does, since every new species could have a DNA
that is irreconcilable with common descent and/or the ToE

The implication of common descent is that
> one species descended from another, a conclusion derived
> from the theory. Yet a genome sequence only shows the
> current similarities so the desired conclusion can only be
> inferred.
>
> The interpretation of the genome sequencing as evidence of
> common descent is asserted because it's required to make the
> evidence fit the theory.

Only of course it isn't. The patterns of similarity that we find are the
same patterns we find whenever there is descent with modification, in
and outside biology, and not where there isn't.

[Mike Painter]

Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not be a theory
under those conditions? How would you test the creation of a star?

Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but it does not
prove it right.
Evolution is a fact.
There is a theory that explains it.

[Bill]

Descent with modification is yet another hypothesis where
the hypothesis itself is the data.

Bill

[Bill]

But that's the whole point: data is made to fit theory
because the theory is what matters.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Nope. It is pretty easy to compare your DNA with that of your parents
(assuming, for the sake of the argument, your parents are known) Guess
what, there will have been modifications, and we can even measure their
rate.
>
> Bill
>
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:00 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I wonder if Bill defines descent with modification differently than
most people.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

Already responded to this in sci.skeptic; *every single
line* is erroneous WRT evolution.

Details on request.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:06:25 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<md.pa...@outlook.com>:

Like many, Dale conflates "testing" and "lab
experimentation". Evolution, like astrophysics, geology and
several other disciplines, has been thoroughly tested, but
not by lab experiment.

[Bill]

What, then, are these tests?

Bill

[billconner]

Decent with modification is intended to be the mechanism by
which species originate which is not the same as sharing
similar DNA. The first is a hypothesis to buttress theory,
the second is straightforward observation; they are not
about the same things and are not the same thing.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Indeed not, it is about sharing some while having some dissimilar DNA

The first is a hypothesis to buttress theory,
> the second is straightforward observation; they are not
> about the same things and are not the same thing.

Descent with modification is nothing else but the fact that the DNA of
the children cannot be fully explained by the DNA of the parents. I.e.
mutations happen.

And yes, that fact then is used to explain some other observations that
we make, the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity that we observe
amongst species past and present.

So you ave exactly what you should expect in a theory - an observation
confirming a more general theory.
>
> Bill
>

[ednafreon]

Noting morphological or genetic similarities is not the same
as establishing a casual link. The alleged links exist
because there is a theory that requires them.

Descent with modification is a specific mechanism necessary
for speciation and has nothing to do with the direct descent
within a species. There are two meanings here and pretending
they the same confuses those who do it.

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:57:41 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2015 06:09, Dale wrote:
>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>> out of the picture,
>>>
>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>> out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>> evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>> untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>> theories)
>>
>> I don't see the relevance of this aside, but, yes, we've
>> been over this before; it seems to have escaped your
>> recollection that math has both theorems and theories.
>>>
>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>
>> False premise - evolution is testable - every time someone
>> sequences a genome they're testing evolution (common
>> descent).
>
>Sequencing a genome shows relatedness but not necessarily
>common descent.

No, genetic relatedness is the same thing as common descent.

>The implication of common descent is that
>one species descended from another, a conclusion derived
>from the theory. Yet a genome sequence only shows the
>current similarities

"Current similarities" are as much evidence for common descent as
anything else that corresponds to the biological concept of homology.

When confronted by the evidence for evolution from homology,
creationists babble about "similarities" in an embarrassed and
mindless manner, and it looks like you've decided to follow suit on
that.

> so the desired conclusion can only be
>inferred.

No, there's no "desired conclusion" when doing science.

>The interpretation of the genome sequencing as evidence of
>common descent is asserted because it's required to make the
>evidence fit the theory.

No, that assertion is made because only common descent is known to
produce a pattern of evidence like we see in the sequenced genomes.

>This is confusing the explanations
>with the thing being explained. There is data and there is
>how the data is explained and the explanation cannot itself
>be considered data without becoming hopelessly circular.

Genome sequencing is not considered to itself be an explanation; it's
data that is itself something that can best be explained by common
descent.

>Theories of evolution are a procrustean bed where all data
>is forced to fit the hypotheses that the explanation of the
>data exists to explain.

No, it does it quite naturally on its own. No one is forcing the data
to fit anything.

[Burkhard]

The confusion is all yours. We observe patterns of similarity AND
dissimilarity. I know for some strange reason that simple fact doesn't
compute with you, and you keep repeating the nonsense that it is just
the similarities that confirm the ToE, but hey, I can but try.

That specific pattern of similarity and dissimilarity always occurs when
we have descent with modification. That is something we can observe. We
observe it in languages and their change (slightly less well, because
horizontal transfer or borrowing is more common), in the way stories in
oral traditions are retold, or in the way in which spelling mistakes in
hand copied manuscripts are distributed. We can also systematically
test it in computer simulations.

We do not observe the same pattern in any other set of circumstances.

Given that we observe a pattern in species diversity that we otherwise
see if and only if there is descent with modification, it is a
reasonable hypothesis to claim that also the patterns of species
diversity are the result of descent with modification.

We can then test this hypothesis. One test is to look at the causal
mechanism that leads to the modifications. If our hypothesis is true,
then we should expect to find inheritable changes between the parent
and the offspring generation. Otherwise the theory is falsified. Now we
look at it, and lo and behold what we find is indeed that from one
generation to the next, DNA is imperfectly copied.

We can then further explain why exactly this happens, looking at the
molecular structure of the DNA and the copying mechanism.

[Bill]

You cite homology as an explanation when it is, in fact, an
explanation of an interpretation derived from the needs of
theory. Like so much else in these discussions, the
confident assertions of certain knowledge pertain to nothing
real. Thought about thoughts about ideas about "things" that
can't be directly observed.

Bill

[Chris Thompson]

Perhaps, before you assert that about homology, you should take a
college-level embryology course- preferably comparative embryology.

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

That is highly restricted information. You must go on a long, difficult
quest before you will be granted access to that knowledge. It is worth
your very life and soul! If you are willing, if you think you have what
it takes, you must first obtain....A LIBRARY CARD!

Chris

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Bullshit, Bill. A theory can be better or worse and tries to explain
some set of data we observe. The mere closeness of appearance among
some animals induce us to think that they are related. It is not that
we force the data to exist in accord with a previous theory. The data
existed well before we had any theory of evolution.
As for theories, there is a discredit theory of a "god creator" that
was also invented post hoc, after the facts. The problem with a god
creator is to believe in it. Where it is, and why he took the occurrence
of creating the universe. This does not make any sense.
Moreover, the theory of genesis and all the myths about the gods that
exist in this planet are prove that the concept of god is a fraud
concocted by those that earn their life with religion. Dot.

Then, in the Natural sciences, we are studying the animals that exist,
on the seam, on land, as well as the insects and microbes. We had
tried to have an explanation for the resemblances among some animals.
I remember when I was an adolescent a visit I made to the zoo, and I
was amazed at the extraordinary likeness between chimps and humans.
I saw much later an exhibition of doves and hens, and dogs, and I
was amazed at the extraordinary differences these animals showed.
What showed this to me is the extraordinary plasticity that those
animals have to change their appearance. I had never read anything
serious about evolution, just a few phrases like "the man comes from
a sort of monkey". Watching these animals of the same species, and
the extraordinary diversity they were showing... I understood the
meaning of evolution. How on some special circumstances, some
animals start to change like crazy. The most extraordinary changes
in evolution occurred after some catastrophic extinction. I am not
an expert of evolution, and I never tried to read a book about this
matter. I could not care less for. I have not any shares on any
religion to have a profit, so I have not any need to oppose evolution.
If I were earning my life as a priest of some religion, I would be
opposing evolution... probably; but not sure. It can be better ways
to waste my time than that.

Then, if I do not believe in god and want to imagine an explanation
for this disparity and also similarity among some animals... I would
had ended inventing a theory similar the theory of evolution.
Then, someone would come to me and exclamed,
"dude! it exist already this theory! You do not need to invent anything." "What are you saying?"
"There is a book written by an English in the 19th century. The tittle
of the book "The Origins of Species".
"It is already written?"
"Yeah. By an English named Charles Darwin."
"What a pity. I had written already more than 100 pages."
"You are 150 years in retard, dude."

That's it. We had made a theory to explain the things we observe. It is
called the theory of evolution. We do not force the data to adjust to
theory. But the theory adjust a little bit here or there as new data
appear. So far, in the times of Darwin, he could not explain the precise
mechanism by which the animals change. Now we know which is the mechanism.
It is called mutations in of genome. In the times of Darwin no one knew
a word about the genome. It is not that we know a lot about how the
mutations occur, on how those mutations are combined with others to
produce an observed change (external) or some hidden one (internal).

With the analysis of the genome, we had learned some unexpected information
that proves the role of mutations from common ancestors. Like some viral
DNA we do share with chimps and gorillas. I mean, some virus let a trace
in the genome of some ancestral monkey that gorillas, chimps and humans
are carrying at present. It does not make any sense a god creator putting
this virus genome in the bodies of those animals just for a sudden whim
he had.

Anyway, what sense does it make a god creator passing an eternity alone
and suddenly create a universe so huge in comparison with our planet?
What kind of logic it exists in this story? It looks totally a story
invented to tell the kids, or to some ignorant sheepherders of the
bronze age.

The mere existence of so many religions at present, not counting those
that existed some thousand years ago, with drastic different gods and
different stories, tells openly that the existence of the gods is a
fraud.

Think about. What could be the logical reason for the "only true god"
of the planet 2,500 years ago, was the god of some sheep herders in
Palestine? How much people could had been those at the time? 1.5/1000 ?
How the true god was only know by a minority of 0.0015% ? It makes not
any sense, if we are assuming this god wanted to be known and worshiped
by everybody in this planet. Why a god omnipotent was unable to
communicate with the rest of humanity?

This was the main philosophic reason I had in 1949 when I was 12 years
old. This question was the main reason to become an atheist when I
was in a religious school. Another reason, also very important, was
the hunger. I was suffering a great hunger when in that school. The
main topic of propaganda was that "god is love" and that god is
omnipotent and infinitely benevolent. Damn! If he is omnipotent and
benevolent why we are suffering so much hunger? Could he do not perform
a miracle? It would not cost him any effort to provide decent food
for those boys that were caged in this boarding school.

The mere idea of god is an absurdity. Any little problem we can have
to understand in detail some point of evolution is nothing compared
to those problems with the logic of god I had presented to you.

Eri

[Kalkidas]

"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...

Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's theory if one could
live for millions or billions of years and continually observe the biosphere
in extreme detail (i.e. at the molecular level) without interfering with it
in any significant way.

[John Vreeland]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

Every time a species is described, Common Descent is tested. That's a
lot of testing, and Evolution's success here has so far been quite
impressively flawless.

[ednafreon]

Reading about tests is only worthwhile if the test actually
test something. Since this is the topic here, there should
be some evidence presented instead of merely pointing at a
stack of books.

Bill

[ednafreon]

I am not talking about God(s).

Bill

[ednafreon]

That is a problem, is it not? We have to infer the past from
the present and the present is whatever we believe it to be.
The basis of the problem is that we interpret our
observations. This is inherently subjective and prone to
confirmation bias.

Bill

[jillery]

To test theories of causes from the past, one merely looks for
evidence of their effects in the present. The idea that causes must
be observed in situ is absurd.

[Burkhard]

Sure. Mu subjective theory that the US was an empty void until around
1800 before it was populated by hyper intelligent giant lizards that
took on human form to blend in better at around 1820 is as good as the
standard materialist historiography

[RonO]

You should stop projecting your own foibles for just a minute and use
whatever brain you have left. Give a better explanation for the
existing data and demonstrate that it is better than the theory that we
already have. Start with all the data consistent with common descent of
say all multicellular animals. What alternative do you have that better
fits the data, and isn't just stupidly trying to force the data into
your alternative.

Just explain the fact of the similarity between the genomes. It isn't
just simple similarity is it? It is a nested similarity that constructs
a phylogenetic tree that your IDiot alternative can't match. We know
that there was an order to the evolution of multicellular animals.
There wasn't a big poof was there? We can tell things like cordates
came before vertebrates, fish came before amphibians, amphibians came
before amniotes, and look how the amniotes have diversified into
lineages like humans. You have to say that your designer did it that
way, but we know for a fact how multicellular animals reproduce and that
they reproduce inaccurately and pass changes down through the
generations. Why do those facts fit with biological evolution and what
do you have to do with that data?

Isn't it true that your designer would have had to mimic biological
evolution?

Just be honest for a few seconds. A fish genome obviously came before
an amphibian genome. Why did your designer do it that way? You can't
even tell anyone how the designer did anything, but biology just has to
look at how things actually work and what happens?

The saddest thing is, that you know for a fact that if you had anything
equivalent to what is already out there that IDiots like Philip Johnson
would not have admitted to lying about the issue for years and give up
admitting that they had nothing equivalent. The ID perps would not have
run the stupid bait and switch on IDiot rubes like yourself if there
really was anything equivalent.

You could put up something to counter the 100% failure rate of IDiocy
over the centuries. But you ran away.

So why do you make your stupid claims like the one above? You know what
a scam ID was, and you can't name any honest ID perps that have the real
ID science. All the honest IDiots know that they have nothing.

Just like the liars at the Discovery Institute when are you going to
decide to make your argument a religious argument instead of a
scientific one. Why should it matter to intelligent design science
whether or not theistic evolution is just as bad as atheism? You
obviously have no science worth anything, and have nothing as good as
the material that you yourself claims is not good enough. So how
utterly sad is your alternative?

Ron Okimoto

[ednafreon]

RonO wrote:


...

>
> Just like the liars at the Discovery Institute when are
> you going to decide to make your argument a religious
> argument instead of a
> scientific one. Why should it matter to intelligent
> design science
> whether or not theistic evolution is just as bad as
> atheism? You obviously have no science worth anything,
> and have nothing as good as
> the material that you yourself claims is not good enough.
> So how utterly sad is your alternative?
>
> Ron Okimoto

You're so hosed up by your terror of ID that you see it
everywhere. I do not have to offer any alternative to point
out flaws in the standard model of biological evolution. The
flaws I've pointed out stand all by themselves without
reference to anything else.

The fact that you attribute every point of view that
threatens your own as a theist conspiracy, reveals how
little interest you have in fact. Your rabid anti-theism is
as damaging to your arguments as theism is to Creationism.

Bill

[RonO]

Projection is sad, why is it so prevalent among IDiots? Why not just
face reality? Put up your better alternative. Put up any alternative.
Demonstrate that you are not the one that has to try to fit the data
into places where it just doesn't fit. Why did the designer do things
that make it look like life evolved on this planet over billions of
years? Making stupid claims about others when your are the IDiot is
really pathetic. "Rabid anti-theism" you could not be more wrong. ID
is a political scam, if you want to believe in it and call it some type
of theistic belief, you can do that, but doesn't that mean that ID has
been a lie all these years?

Counter the points that I made or just admit that you are the one
blowing smoke. Removing the material is really so stupid that why would
you even try to do it? Where is that example that would disprove the
100% failure rate of IDiocy over the centuries? The saddest thing is
how people like you can't face reality, and have to satisfy yourself
with what you did above. Just think what you could do if you had a
valid argument and didn't depend on ID perps that ran the bait and
switch on you over a decade ago. No one ever got the ID science. So
what are you trying to claim in the face of that reality?

Why not put up your ID alternative and tell us how it fits the data?

What really ticks me off about this whole fiasco is how dishonest nearly
every IDiot is. Where are the honest people that do not resort to
making the stupid claims and hide behind the stupidity by running from
reality? Don't you wish that you could point to a few honest people
that you would be proud to claim as fellow IDiots? Did you all know
that ID was a creationist scam from the beginning? Why are you still an
IDiot? Why not go back to calling it creationism? You obviously do not
have the science, so why keep pretending?

If you want to claim to have the science why haven't you put it forward?

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

ad hominem, are saying is that there are excuses from logic, math and
the scientific process?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

do you have a source for the first life, of which is a part of all the
common descent testing

how is common descent tested? isn't around 90% of DNA in a specie
undescribed, considered junk? how can you test "junk" ?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

that is why there are no facts, only "founded" theories, if that

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[ednafreon]

RonO wrote:

> On 4/25/2015 6:29 PM, ednafreon wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
...

>

> If you want to claim to have the science why haven't you
> put it forward?
>
> Ron Okimoto

There's an IDiot under your bed. Sleep and it will turn you
into a Baptist ...

Bill

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 02:12 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>
>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>>
>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>
>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>
>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>
>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>
>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>
>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>
>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>

> Already responded to this in sci.skeptic; *every single
> line* is erroneous WRT evolution.
>
> Details on request.
>

I request, and at least with wikipedia/wiktionary sources

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 12:06 PM, Mike Painter wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>>
>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>
>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>
>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>
>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>
>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>
>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>
>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>

> Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not be a theory
> under those conditions? How would you test the creation of a star?
>
> Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but it does not
> prove it right.
> Evolution is a fact.
> There is a theory that explains it.
>
>

exactly the definition of pseudo-science ...

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

you would have to hold time as a control variable ...

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 02:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:06:25 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
> <md.pa...@outlook.com>:

>
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>

>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>>>
>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>>
>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>
>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>
>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>

>> Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not be a theory
>> under those conditions? How would you test the creation of a star?
>>
>> Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but it does not
>> prove it right.
>> Evolution is a fact.
>> There is a theory that explains it.
>

> Like many, Dale conflates "testing" and "lab
> experimentation". Evolution, like astrophysics, geology and
> several other disciplines, has been thoroughly tested, but
> not by lab experiment.
>

statistics applies in both cases,, there is no excuse for a phony branch
of science

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 06:32 AM, RonO wrote:

> On 4/25/2015 12:09 AM, Dale wrote:
>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the
>> picture,
>>
>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>
>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>
>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>
>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>
>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>
>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>
>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>
>>
>

> As far as I recollect you have never demonstrated that you understand
> what biological evolution is. What you have written above is a case in
> point.
>
> If you weren't so incompetent you probably could be trained to generate
> data that would confirm biological evolution today. You could do some
> DNA sequence analysis. You could take the DNA of your parents and
> yourself and demonstrate that they are your parents through your
> analysis of descent with modification. You are not exactly like your
> parents, and hopefully they weren't lying to you about being your
> parents. You can use the same inferences to do your own analysis of ape
> genomes and compare them to other vertebrates. You could go out into
> nature and collect the observations that you would need to conclude that
> natural selection is a fact of nature. No environment creation is
> needed. You could do so many things that it is unbelievable that anyone
> could write what you have written above.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

what about statistics? where do they apply, where don't they apply, and
who makes the decisions?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 02:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> an observation confirming a more general theory

where do statistics apply and who decides when?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 03:56 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> False premise - evolution is testable - every time someone sequences a
> genome they're testing evolution (common descent).

[RonO]

The next time a new mammalian species is described what are the
intelligent design predictions about it? Such new species are still
being found in odd places, so why would their DNA be mammalian? Why
would their DNA tell us something about their closest living relatives
and where they fit into the evolution of life on earth?

Where would intelligent design place such a new species? Why would it
be limited to having mammalian relatives? Why couldn't it be more bird
like or more like a lizard? I don't even have to be as specific as
that. Just make your predictions about what the DNA would be like for
any new vertebrate species that is found. Biological evolution is
tested each and every time, and what happens? No evidence that the
species was just created yesterday. Instead we expect to find evidence
of a long biological history of existence on this planet. Why is that?
Why does intelligent design fail compared to biological evolution?

Sequencing is less than 5 dollars for a Sanger read of over 500
base-pairs. Shipping the samples may cost you more than the sequencing.

You could send purified DNA to any evolutionary biology lab and give
them enough money to do the analysis and they would tell you the
evolutionary relationships between the samples. It has nothing to do
with the identification of the organisms. It is just a fact that you
can isolate DNA from taxa of say a lot of vertebrates, fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, mammals etc and any molecular evolution lab could tell
you how those samples were related without bothering to identify the
samples. Vertebrates are easy, a couple conserved primer sets is all
you would need to do the sequence analysis for vertebrates. How would
that be possible if descent with modification were not true? Wouldn't
it mean that your intelligent designer must have used something similar
to produce the diversity of life on this planet?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 4/25/2015 7:16 PM, ednafreon wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2015 6:29 PM, ednafreon wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> If you want to claim to have the science why haven't you
>> put it forward?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> There's an IDiot under your bed. Sleep and it will turn you
> into a Baptist ...
>
> Bill
>
>

What has the IDiocy already turned you into? Sad is an understatement
of the facts. Removing reality doesn't make it go away. Running in
denial doesn't change a thing. Wouldn't you rather have an argument
rather than pretend to have one? Why are most IDiots as dishonest as
you are? You are the one that should answer that last question. There
has to be some reason why giving it your best is not good enough and you
have to resort to what you are doing. Doesn't the above stupidity on
your part just mean that you know that your junk isn't worth putting
forward?

Ron Okimoto

[Chris Thompson]

Do you count yourself qualified to tell if a test actually tests something?

If so, there should be no issue finding the information you're looking
for. And in fact, I exaggerated- you don't even need a library card. All
you need is a working computer, something to which you obviously have
access. If you're not qualified, then you probably are in more need of
reading the papers available all over the web, so that you become qualified.

And in my mind, at least, there's something seriously wrong when someone
asks for information and it's directed he read about the topic, and the
person refuses.

Maybe that's just me.

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

Indeed. That's why no one pays attention to the way a security changes
in price from the previous day, or month, or year.

Chris

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:46:16 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

How 'bout 29+ evidences for evolution?

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>


Feel free to ask intelligent questions, but I won't hold my breath.

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:56:14 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Kalkidas wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
>> news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...
>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>> out of the picture,
>>>
>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>> out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>> evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>> untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>> theories)
>>>
>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>
>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>
>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith
>>> that matters
>>
>> Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's
>> theory if one could live for millions or billions of years
>> and continually observe the biosphere in extreme detail
>> (i.e. at the molecular level) without interfering with it
>> in any significant way.
>
>That is a problem, is it not?

Nope.

>We have to infer the past from
>the present and the present is whatever we believe it to be.

Sorry, reality doesn't care about what you think it is.

>The basis of the problem is that we interpret our
>observations. This is inherently subjective and prone to
>confirmation bias.

A truism not in dispute. So how do you think you isolate yourself
from that problem?

[jillery]

Then you should be able to provide a cite...???

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:13:16 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 04/25/2015 07:03 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:15:44 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
>>> news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...
>>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the
>>>> picture,
>>>>
>>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>>
>>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>>>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>>>
>>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>>>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>>
>>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>>>
>>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>>
>>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>>
>>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>>
>>> Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's theory if one could
>>> live for millions or billions of years and continually observe the biosphere
>>> in extreme detail (i.e. at the molecular level) without interfering with it
>>> in any significant way.
>>
>>
>> To test theories of causes from the past, one merely looks for
>> evidence of their effects in the present. The idea that causes must
>> be observed in situ is absurd.
>>
>

>ad hominem, are saying is that there are excuses from logic, math and
>the scientific process?

Dale, do everybody including yourself a favor and look up "ad
hominem". Nowhere do I even mention a person or a person's
attributes.

And what "excuses" are you thinking of?

[Glenn]

"Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u7udnQnErZu7mqHI...@earthlink.com...

> On 4/25/2015 1:23 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:06:25 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>>> <md.pa...@outlook.com>:
>>>

>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale
>>>> <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>>>> out of the picture,
>>>>>
>>>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>>>
>>>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>>>> out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>>>> evolved or didn't evolve
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>>>> untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>>>
>>>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>>>> theories)
>>>>>
>>>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>>>
>>>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>>>
>>>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith
>>>>> that matters
>>>>

>>>> Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not
>>>> be a theory under those conditions? How would you test the
>>>> creation of a star?
>>>>
>>>> Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but
>>>> it does not prove it right.
>>>> Evolution is a fact.
>>>> There is a theory that explains it.
>>>

>>> Like many, Dale conflates "testing" and "lab
>>> experimentation". Evolution, like astrophysics, geology
>>> and several other disciplines, has been thoroughly tested,
>>> but not by lab experiment.
>>
>> What, then, are these tests?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> That is highly restricted information. You must go on a long, difficult
> quest before you will be granted access to that knowledge. It is worth
> your very life and soul! If you are willing, if you think you have what
> it takes, you must first obtain....A LIBRARY CARD!
>

If you mean random mutation and natural selection, has that really been lab tested, or is it just inference based on absence of evidence? By the way, that might change:

"Even more intriguing are the implications the study has for biology at large, as it raises the possibility that centrioles, persisting across several cell cycles, could effectively be a non-genetic information carrier. If this were confirmed, it could represent a paradigm shift in the way we think and understand the biology of an organelle that has been present across eukaryotic evolution."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150424085630.htm

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 11:51 PM, jillery wrote:
> what "excuses" are you thinking of?

something like not holding time as a control variable in your experiment


--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[J. J. Lodder]

Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

> On 04/25/2015 02:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > an observation confirming a more general theory
>
> where do statistics apply and who decides when?

Everywhere, and The Liar, and all the time,

Jan

--

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El sábado, 25 de abril de 2015, 23:49:56 (UTC+1), Bill escribió:
> Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>
> > El sábado, 25 de abril de 2015, 17:19:57 (UTC+1), Bill
> > escribió:

> >> But that's the whole point: data is made to fit theory
> >> because the theory is what matters.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >

> > Bullshit, Bill. A theory can be better or worse and tries
> > to explain
> > some set of data we observe. The mere closeness of
> > appearance among
> > some animals induce us to think that they are related. It
> > is not that
> > we force the data to exist in accord with a previous
> > theory. The data existed well before we had any theory of
> > evolution. As for theories, there is a discredit theory of
> > a "god creator" that
> > was also invented post hoc, after the facts. The problem
> > with a god
> > creator is to believe in it. Where it is, and why he took
> > the occurrence
> > of creating the universe. This does not make any sense.
> > Moreover, the theory of genesis and all the myths about
> > the gods that exist in this planet are prove that the
> > concept of god is a fraud concocted by those that earn
> > their life with religion. Dot.
> >
> > Then, in the Natural sciences, we are studying the animals
> > that exist,
> > on the seam, on land, as well as the insects and microbes.
> > We had tried to have an explanation for the resemblances
> > among some animals. I remember when I was an adolescent a
> > visit I made to the zoo, and I was amazed at the
> > extraordinary likeness between chimps and humans. I saw
> > much later an exhibition of doves and hens, and dogs, and
> > I was amazed at the extraordinary differences these
> > animals showed. What showed this to me is the
> > extraordinary plasticity that those
> > animals have to change their appearance. I had never read
> > anything serious about evolution, just a few phrases like
> > "the man comes from
> > a sort of monkey". Watching these animals of the same
> > species, and the extraordinary diversity they were
> > showing... I understood the
> > meaning of evolution. How on some special circumstances,
> > some
> > animals start to change like crazy. The most
> > extraordinary changes in evolution occurred after some
> > catastrophic extinction. I am not an expert of evolution,
> > and I never tried to read a book about this
> > matter. I could not care less for. I have not any shares
> > on any religion to have a profit, so I have not any need
> > to oppose evolution. If I were earning my life as a priest
> > of some religion, I would be
> > opposing evolution... probably; but not sure. It can be
> > better ways to waste my time than that.
> >
> > Then, if I do not believe in god and want to imagine an
> > explanation for this disparity and also similarity among
> > some animals... I would had ended inventing a theory
> > similar the theory of evolution. Then, someone would come
> > to me and exclamed,
> > "dude! it exist already this theory! You do not need to
> > invent anything." "What are you saying?"
> > "There is a book written by an English in the 19th
> > century. The tittle of the book "The Origins of Species".
> > "It is already written?"
> > "Yeah. By an English named Charles Darwin."
> > "What a pity. I had written already more than 100 pages."
> > "You are 150 years in retard, dude."
> >
> > That's it. We had made a theory to explain the things we
> > observe. It is
> > called the theory of evolution. We do not force the data
> > to adjust to
> > theory. But the theory adjust a little bit here or there
> > as new data
> > appear. So far, in the times of Darwin, he could not
> > explain the precise
> > mechanism by which the animals change. Now we know which
> > is the mechanism. It is called mutations in of genome. In
> > the times of Darwin no one knew
> > a word about the genome. It is not that we know a lot
> > about how the mutations occur, on how those mutations are
> > combined with others to produce an observed change
> > (external) or some hidden one (internal).
> >
> > With the analysis of the genome, we had learned some
> > unexpected information that proves the role of mutations
> > from common ancestors. Like some viral DNA we do share
> > with chimps and gorillas. I mean, some virus let a trace
> > in the genome of some ancestral monkey that gorillas,
> > chimps and humans
> > are carrying at present. It does not make any sense a god
> > creator putting this virus genome in the bodies of those
> > animals just for a sudden whim he had.
> >
> > Anyway, what sense does it make a god creator passing an
> > eternity alone and suddenly create a universe so huge in
> > comparison with our planet?
> > What kind of logic it exists in this story? It looks
> > totally a story invented to tell the kids, or to some
> > ignorant sheepherders of the bronze age.
> >
> > The mere existence of so many religions at present, not
> > counting those that existed some thousand years ago, with
> > drastic different gods and different stories, tells openly
> > that the existence of the gods is a fraud.
> >
> > Think about. What could be the logical reason for the
> > "only true god" of the planet 2,500 years ago, was the god
> > of some sheep herders in
> > Palestine? How much people could had been those at the
> > time? 1.5/1000 ?
> > How the true god was only know by a minority of 0.0015% ?
> > It makes not any sense, if we are assuming this god wanted
> > to be known and worshiped
> > by everybody in this planet. Why a god omnipotent was
> > unable to communicate with the rest of humanity?
> >
> > This was the main philosophic reason I had in 1949 when I
> > was 12 years
> > old. This question was the main reason to become an
> > atheist when I
> > was in a religious school. Another reason, also very
> > important, was
> > the hunger. I was suffering a great hunger when in that
> > school. The main topic of propaganda was that "god is
> > love" and that god is
> > omnipotent and infinitely benevolent. Damn! If he is
> > omnipotent and
> > benevolent why we are suffering so much hunger? Could he
> > do not perform a miracle? It would not cost him any effort
> > to provide decent food for those boys that were caged in
> > this boarding school.
> >
> > The mere idea of god is an absurdity. Any little problem
> > we can have to understand in detail some point of
> > evolution is nothing compared to those problems with the
> > logic of god I had presented to you.
> >
> > Eri
>
> I am not talking about God(s).
>
> Bill

why not?
If you are discrediting the Theory of Evolution you are postulating
the existence of "a god creator".

In science, very few things look incontrovertible. Most of the questions
science is considering, even evolution, can present some weak points
that pushes you to doubt. The question is not so much if Evolution looks
on the whole "likely" or probably. If evolution as a whole does not look
sound as some people think... you can postulate two situations.

1) there is a god creator that built everything.

2) we are a bunch of cretins and all our intents to understand a
trivial question is condemned to fail.

3) All humans are a bunch of cretins but you.

Then, if you are not postulating a god creator, you are postulating
we are a bunch of cretins unable to reason.
Or as the point 3) mentions, only you are intelligent enough and
all of us are irrational.

You can choose what the valid option.

Eri

[RonO]

Provide an example. One of the good things about biological evolution
is that quantitative models do work, and "statistics" can be applied to
confirm or reject an hypothesis. For example we can sometimes
differentiate between selection and genetic drift accounting for an
observed change in allele frequency.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 01:01:40 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 04/25/2015 11:51 PM, jillery wrote:
>> what "excuses" are you thinking of?
>
>something like not holding time as a control variable in your experiment

You don't give any examples of what you mean. I assume you're
referring to my post, but you deleted almost all of it. So to restore
context:

**********************************

To test theories of causes from the past, one merely looks for
evidence of their effects in the present. The idea that causes must
be observed in situ is absurd.

**********************************

As a simple example of what I mean, suppose I wake up one morning, and
look out a window. I observe a bright and clear sky, but everything
outside appears to be wet, and I notice what appears to be puddles of
water in scattered depressions.

In that case, I would assume the past cause of these present effects
is that it rained some time during the night while I was sleeping.

Now put yourself in that case. You didn't personally and directly
observe any past cause, so by your expressed argument, you couldn't
even guess what happened. Perhaps you never have experienced a
rainstorm, and so your ignorance limits your ability to correlate that
cause with its effects.

Or you might imagine many fantastic possibilities. Perhaps a nearby
fire hydrant broke, or an iceberg was transported to your neighborhood
and melted overnight, or a really big flash mob urinated everywhere,
or space aliens dumped their water ballast before jumping to
Andromeda. Perhaps your observations are mere illusion. Perhaps
you're dreaming, or your Thorazine has worn off. As with most things,
there are many possible explanations, but your inability to reason
might keep you from recognizing which are plausible and which is the
best inference.

To expand the above specific case to a general rule, I assume that the
same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have
operated in the past. Based on that explicit assumption, I can
understand the causes of the past from the effects of the present by:
1. gaining experience and insight as to present causes and effects,
and 2. collecting evidence of past causes.

Does the above let me prove anything with absolute certainty? No.

Does your method of personally observing cause and effect let you
prove anything with absolute certainty? Again no. The limitations of
human senses and intelligence skew the results in both cases.

Does the lack of absolute certainty prevent you and me from knowing
anything about the past or the present? Again no. Absolute certainty
is rarely necessary.

Now, assuming I haven't exceeded your attention span, please explain
how I'm not holding time as a control variable in my experiment, and
how it apples to what I wrote.

BTW, did you look up what "ad hominem" means? Do you understand how
you used it incorrectly?

[Chris Thompson]

Yes on 1 and no on 2.

Are you seriously asking if natural selection has ever been tested in
the lab? Seriously? Start with papers on _Drosophila_ in the 1950's,
work your way to _Tribolium_ in the 1960's, then take your pick of
organisms after that.

> By the way, that might change:
>
> "Even more intriguing are the implications the study has for biology at large, as it raises the possibility that centrioles, persisting across several cell cycles, could effectively be a non-genetic information carrier. If this were confirmed, it could represent a paradigm shift in the way we think and understand the biology of an organelle that has been present across eukaryotic evolution."
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150424085630.htm
>

And that, of course, would in no way lessen the documented effects of
selection.

Chris

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mhh3ka$uar$1...@dont-email.me>

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>
> "Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
> news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...

> > testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the
> > picture,
> >
> > creating the environment for evolution,
> >
> > and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
> > watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
> >
> > maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
> > multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
> >
> > (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
> >
> > evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
> >
> > evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
> >
> > much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>

> Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's theory if one
> could live for millions or billions of years and continually observe
> the biosphere in extreme detail (i.e. at the molecular level)
> without interfering with it in any significant way.

Why would one need to live for billions of years, when (adaptive)
evolution has been demonstrated in a laboratory?

Or are you claiming that one would have to see exactly the same
species evolve as evolved first time round? And it that is what you are
claiming - why are you so determined to show your ignorance?
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <8de3vn....@news.alt.net>

What phrase are you complaining about?

Is it "Evolution is a fact"? If so, have you never read any of the
posts that other people make on this NG? How have you managed to miss
all mention of Lenski's long term experiment on E. coli?

In case you have somehow managed to miss it: Richard Lenski et al have
been tracking changes in populations of E coli that started out
identical. They are no longer genetically identical, either to each
other or to the original population. In case you missed the point, that
means they have evolved.

Of particular interest is that in addition to random drift, one
population is now capable of aerobic metabolism of citrate, which the
original strain (and the other 11 strains in the experiment) are unable
to do. So that means that not only random drift has been demonstrated
in a laboratory, so has adaptive evolution.

Or perhaps you would care to explain why this doesn't count as
evolution? Or failing that, stop pontificating about how evolution is
not testable.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <8deh0m....@news.alt.net>

Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

> On 04/25/2015 11:51 PM, jillery wrote:
> > what "excuses" are you thinking of?
>
> something like not holding time as a control variable in your experiment

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

Or put more simply:

Experimental protocols are not required to satisfy your obsessions.
They are required to constrain the conditions far enough to demonstrate
(or fail to demonstrate) the phenomenon they are investigating.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <8de3h3....@news.alt.net>
Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

> On 04/25/2015 06:40 PM, John Vreeland wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> >
> >> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
> >>
> >> creating the environment for evolution,
> >>
> > > and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of
> > > and watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or
> > > didn't evolve
> > >
> > > maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
> > > untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
> > >
> > > (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
> > >
> > > evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
> > >
> > > evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
> > >
> > > much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that
> > > matters
> >

> > Every time a species is described, Common Descent is tested. That's
> > a lot of testing, and Evolution's success here has so far been
> > quite impressively flawless.
> >
>
> do you have a source for the first life, of which is a part of all
> the common descent testing
>
> how is common descent tested? isn't around 90% of DNA in a specie
> undescribed, considered junk? how can you test "junk" ?

Two things:

Firstly, it is "species", not "specie". The latter refers to coins,
bullion, etc. It is emphatically not the singular form of "species".

Secondly, and more importantly:
Rather than criticising a theory (evolution) of which you are so
abysmally ignorant, why not actually try to learn about it?
It is patently obvious that you are totally unfamiliar with much of the
evidence in support of evolution, as only someone so ignorant could
say 'how can you test "junk"'.

You test junk by sequencing it (or bits of it). You compare the
sequence of one species with the sequence of different species. The
differences between those sequences can tell you a lot about the
relatedness of the species.

[Kalkidas]

"Nick Roberts" <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:24f365ba...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk...

> In message <mhh3ka$uar$1...@dont-email.me>
> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
>> news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...
>> > testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the
>> > picture,
>> >
>> > creating the environment for evolution,
>> >
>> > and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>> > watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>> >
>> > maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>> > multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>> >
>> > (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>> >
>> > evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>> >
>> > evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>> >
>> > much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>
>> Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's theory if one
>> could live for millions or billions of years and continually observe
>> the biosphere in extreme detail (i.e. at the molecular level)
>> without interfering with it in any significant way.
>
> Why would one need to live for billions of years, when (adaptive)
> evolution has been demonstrated in a laboratory?

Because Darwin's theory is about what happened over millions of years, not
what happened in a laboratory under intelligently controlled conditions over
a few weeks or months.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/25/15 5:20 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> ednafreon wrote:

>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
>>> news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...
>>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>>> out of the picture,
>>>>
>>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>>
>>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>>> out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>>> evolved or didn't evolve
>>>>
>>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>>> untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>>
>>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>>> theories)
>>>>
>>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>>
>>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>>
>>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith
>>>> that matters
>>>
>>> Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's
>>> theory if one could live for millions or billions of years
>>> and continually observe the biosphere in extreme detail
>>> (i.e. at the molecular level) without interfering with it
>>> in any significant way.
>>

>> That is a problem, is it not? We have to infer the past from

>> the present and the present is whatever we believe it to be.

>> The basis of the problem is that we interpret our
>> observations. This is inherently subjective and prone to
>> confirmation bias.
>>

>> Bill
>>
>>
>
> Sure. Mu subjective theory that the US was an empty void until around
> 1800 before it was populated by hyper intelligent giant lizards that
> took on human form to blend in better at around 1820 is as good as the
> standard materialist historiography
>
>

No, No No! It *became* a wasteland, over millions of years. Didn't you
see the "gap"?

DJT

[Burkhard]

Yup, seems to be the claim. Just as we can't know if there was an
English settlement on the North American continent in 1620. Nobody ever
documented in a replicable way if John Carver was born to a human, let
alone someone from England. For all we know he and his fellow travelers
were all changelings, substituted in an unobserved moment for the human
babies, by an attempt of the Tuatha Dé Danann to escape from the UK

There is also no no verifiable by inch account of the travel of the
Mayflower. For all we know, it ran into a space -time anomaly halfway
through its journey, and was replaced by a counterpart form a parallel
universe

[ednafreon]

What we have are observations and how the observations are
interpreted. We could just say, "Hey look what happened!"
but we have a theory handy that we can append to the
observation. Unfortunately, many people believe it's all the
same.

Bill

[ednafreon]

What's the point of this forum if we just hurl citations at
each other? If you cannot express your opinions why are you
here?

Bill

[RonO]

Irony meter meltdown. I hope everyone was well protected. Everyone has
likely upgraded to the new models that claim to measure accurately into
the teracreationist range. Bill's attempt to melt the meters above just
registers in the standard kilocreationist range.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:03:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:15:44 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
>>news:8dbt3t....@news.alt.net...

>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the
>>> picture,
>>>
>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>>
>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>
>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>
>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>

>>Your intuition is correct. One *could* test Darwin's theory if one could
>>live for millions or billions of years and continually observe the biosphere
>>in extreme detail (i.e. at the molecular level) without interfering with it
>>in any significant way.

>To test theories of causes from the past, one merely looks for
>evidence of their effects in the present. The idea that causes must
>be observed in situ is absurd.

The absurd they do at once; the ridiculous may take a
followup post. In this instance that would probably be a
denial (seen quite often here) that anything but lab
experiments and/or direct observation of the cause in
process is "real science". Wait for it...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:23:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:06:25 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>> <md.pa...@outlook.com>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale
>>><da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>

>>>>testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>>>out of the picture,
>>>>
>>>>creating the environment for evolution,
>>>>
>>>>and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>>>out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>>>evolved or didn't evolve
>>>>
>>>>maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>>>untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>>
>>>>(we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>>>theories)
>>>>
>>>>evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>>
>>>>evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>>
>>>>much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith
>>>>that matters
>>>

>>>Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not
>>>be a theory under those conditions? How would you test the
>>>creation of a star?
>>>
>>>Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but
>>>it does not prove it right.
>>>Evolution is a fact.
>>>There is a theory that explains it.
>>
>> Like many, Dale conflates "testing" and "lab
>> experimentation". Evolution, like astrophysics, geology
>> and several other disciplines, has been thoroughly tested,
>> but not by lab experiment.

>What, then, are these tests?

That question in itself confirms that you bitch about
science without understanding how it works. A theory (or
hypothesis) is tested by observing how well the predictions
it makes are confirmed by subsequent observations, or by how
well those predictions agree with the confirmed (note that
word) predictions made by other theories in the same field.
None of this requires lab experimentation which, as noted,
would be a bit difficult in the noted fields.

[Glenn]

"Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:AMidnRSZQ-2ue6HI...@earthlink.com...

That is what Mr. Ed said.

"Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.” So he’s an honest man, and that’s an honest answer."
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:16:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 04/25/2015 02:12 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>>
>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>>>
>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>>
>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>
>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>
>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>

>> Already responded to this in sci.skeptic; *every single
>> line* is erroneous WRT evolution.
>>
>> Details on request.
>>
>
>I request, and at least with wikipedia/wiktionary sources

I provide the response; you can do the research. Here's the
complete post:

"On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:11:00 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

Let's see how many errors Dale makes *this* time...

>testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,

OK, that's #1...

>creating the environment for evolution,

....#2 (the presence of humans doesn't stop evolution)...

>and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve

....#3 (because "not even wrong"; actually, not even
coherent)...

>maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are

....#4 (cosmology has nothing to do with evolution)...

>(we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)

....#5 (math has both)...

>evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable

....#6 (it's been tested repeatedly, and never shown
false)...

>evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture

....#7 (it's a theory, because it has explanatory and
predictive power)...

>much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters

.... and that's #8; faith is irrelevant when the conjecture
has been formulated as a hypothesis, tested, passed the
tests, used to form a general theory which has predictive
power, and the theory's predictions have been confirmed.

Good work, Dale."

Happy?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:18:03 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 04/25/2015 02:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:06:25 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>> <md.pa...@outlook.com>:

>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>>>>
>>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>>
>>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
>>>> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>>>
>>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
>>>> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>>
>>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>>>>
>>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>>
>>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>>
>>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>>>

>>> Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not be a theory
>>> under those conditions? How would you test the creation of a star?
>>>
>>> Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but it does not
>>> prove it right.
>>> Evolution is a fact.
>>> There is a theory that explains it.
>>
>> Like many, Dale conflates "testing" and "lab
>> experimentation". Evolution, like astrophysics, geology and
>> several other disciplines, has been thoroughly tested, but
>> not by lab experiment.

>statistics applies in both cases,, there is no excuse for a phony branch
>of science

....which, like many of your assertions, has zero relevance
to the testability of evolutionary theory, a theory which
makes constant use of statistics.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:09:17 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Nick Roberts
<tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk>:

If I'm not mistaken, "junk" DNA, being uninfluenced by
selection, is one of the best means of establishing
relatedness, especially for distant relationships. Not so?

[Chris Thompson]

So it is impossible to reach a reasoned conclusion after extensive
experimentation, backed up by rigorous statistical analysis.

Tell me, are you surprised every morning when you turn that knob thingy
and water comes out of that chrome spout (handy theory: gravity)? And
you pull the lid off a round piece of metal and actually find coffee in
the can (handy theory: several from agriculture)? And when you let hot
water flow over the coffee you've just (re)discovered it- will wonders
never cease!- turns into a flavorful beverage (handy theory: diffusion)?

Not to mention tugging on that handle to open that strange box-like
thingy and (re)discovering that it's COLD in there (handy theory:
thermodynamics)! And gosh golly gee, how did that white stuff get from
inside a cow to inside that cold box thingy (handy theory: several from
economics)?

That's where your epistimological nihilism leads. Normal people will
just put cream in their coffee and get on with their day.

Chris

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:41:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:

The timeframe is essentially irrelevant so long as there's
enough of it to allow sequential selection, which is
dependent on generation length; one can perform such
experiments on bacteria or fruit flies; not so much on
Galapagos tortoises. That said, the fact that the process
can occur in a lab when nothing more than the environment is
controlled ("intelligently" or otherwise) confirms that the
same process can occur in a natural environment when that
environment changes and puts selective pressure on the
species.

>> Or are you claiming that one would have to see exactly the same
>> species evolve as evolved first time round?

No answer?

[Glenn]

"Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:QZKdnUQRbICFzqHI...@earthlink.com...

> On 4/25/2015 5:46 PM, ednafreon wrote:
>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2015 1:23 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:06:25 -0700, the following
>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
>>>>> <md.pa...@outlook.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale
>>>>>> <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> testing evolution would have to involve taking
>>>>>>> yourself out of the picture,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> creating the environment for evolution,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and then somehow entering the picture you took
>>>>>>> yourself out of and watching the result ,including
>>>>>>> yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in
>>>>>>> the untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>>>>>> theories)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not
>>>>>>> testable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the
>>>>>>> faith that matters
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would
>>>>>> not be a theory under those conditions? How would you
>>>>>> test the creation of a star?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false
>>>>>> but it does not prove it right.
>>>>>> Evolution is a fact.
>>>>>> There is a theory that explains it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like many, Dale conflates "testing" and "lab
>>>>> experimentation". Evolution, like astrophysics, geology
>>>>> and several other disciplines, has been thoroughly
>>>>> tested, but not by lab experiment.
>>>>
>>>> What, then, are these tests?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is highly restricted information. You must go on a
>>> long, difficult quest before you will be granted access to
>>> that knowledge. It is worth your very life and soul! If
>>> you are willing, if you think you have what it takes, you
>>> must first obtain....A LIBRARY CARD!
>>>

>>> Chris
>>
>> Reading about tests is only worthwhile if the test actually
>> test something. Since this is the topic here, there should
>> be some evidence presented instead of merely pointing at a
>> stack of books.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> Do you count yourself qualified to tell if a test actually tests something?
>
> If so, there should be no issue finding the information you're looking
> for. And in fact, I exaggerated- you don't even need a library card. All
> you need is a working computer, something to which you obviously have
> access. If you're not qualified, then you probably are in more need of
> reading the papers available all over the web, so that you become qualified.
>
> And in my mind, at least, there's something seriously wrong when someone
> asks for information and it's directed he read about the topic, and the
> person refuses.
>
> Maybe that's just me.
>

Maybe it is.

"We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. "

http://afterall.net/quotes/lynn-margulis-on-the-limits-of-natural-selection/

[gve...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:14:58 AM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>
> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>
> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters

Nonsense, it is testable. You're artificially tying it to the need to actually run a physical experiment in the future. What you're doing in any case is testing predictions against unknown facts, regardless of if those facts were produced by physical events in the past, present, or future. So if a prediction matches a past fact not yet discovered, or a fact produced from an experiment in the future, it can both quality as "tests".
Einstein's theory was testable in that it his prediction that light would bend around our sun by a specified amount turned out to be exactly correct. Or it could have been an observation of light bending around a galaxy -- an event which took place billions of years ago.

[gve...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 12:14:58 AM UTC-5, Dale wrote:

> testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself out of the picture,
>
> creating the environment for evolution,
>
> and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself out of and
> watching the result ,including yourself that evolved or didn't evolve
>
> maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the untestable
> multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>
> (we've been over this before, math has theorems not theories)
>

> evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>
> evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>
> much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith that matters
>
>

> --
> Dale
> http://www.dalekelly.org

Nonsense, it is testable. It's a matter of predicting a fact which is not yet know. That fact does not have to be the result of a physical experiment in the future.

[Ernest Major]

As I understand it, junk DNA isn't good for investigating distant
relationships. There are three problems - it gets mutated into
randomness, it gets duplicated, and it gets deleted. So there may not be
a homologous piece of junk in a distantly related species, and even if
there was you'd have difficulty identifying it.

Neutrally evolving DNA is more useful for investigating close
relationships.

--
alias Ernest Major

[ednafreon]

What if Darwin had simply observed that there were varieties
of finches on the Galapagos islands and cataloged his
observations in his notebook but had no theoretical
conclusion? The observations and cataloging are still
science with no theory at all.

Would the subsequent observations been any different? Would
the life sciences have been different without any theory of
why finches come in many varieties? It seems that most
people here believe that science can't function without an
explanatory framework (theory) but is this correct?

Accumulating, categorizing and cataloging data is science.
Making some sense of all this is the province of hypothesis
and theory. These are two different aspects of science; the
first is essential to increase knowledge, the second is
needed to understand the knowledge.

An hypothesis or theory cannot become the data or the whole
investigative process becomes circular. If hypotheses or
theories become institutionalized, the result becomes
immutable dogma.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Nope, they are holiday snaps. Collecting stamps isn't a science either.
Science is all about enabling us to go beyond the immediately observed,
that's what theories are for.

>
> Would the subsequent observations been any different?

Massively so. One thing a good theory does is to direct future
observations. Once it was established that Darwin could explain the
different pattern in finches, it then made sense to look for similar
patterns elsewhere.

Would
> the life sciences have been different without any theory of
> why finches come in many varieties? It seems that most
> people here believe that science can't function without an
> explanatory framework (theory) but is this correct?

Yes.

>
> Accumulating, categorizing and cataloging data is science.

No, it is the preparatory work that enables science to even begin.

[RonO]

The data would still tell us that the finches are all related and share
a common ancestor. Do you deny this? I posted a link to the scientific
article that sequenced the genomes of the Galapagos finches and it
confirmed everything that you have a problem with, so what is your
excuse? If you deny that the finches share a common ancestor what would
your reasoning be in the face of reality?

We can even tell that the finches started diverging after the Galapagos
islands came into existence as volcanic islands around 3 million years
ago. How would you interpret the data, and how would you determine if
it was a valid interpretation in the face of reality?

You can't just keep going in denial. At some point you have to put up
or shut up. What is your alternative and why is it better or even as
good. Do something with the existing data other than deny reality.

Bean counting isn't science. Taxonomy is a science because there is a
purpose to the bean counting and guess what their efforts over the last
couple of hundred years has been confirmed in most cases and we have
modified the conclusions for some cases. No one expected them to be
correct in all cases, that is why they kept researching the issue. If
what they were doing wasn't worth doing, why were we able to confirm
their work with technology that they could only dream about? Why didn't
that technology confirm any of the IDiot notions? Why is it that when
we get the DNA of a new vertebrate species it turns out to have a long
evolutionary history that can be tracked by comparing it to other
existing vertebrates? Why can't IDiocy do that?

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

On 04/26/2015 02:58 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>

>> On 04/25/2015 02:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> an observation confirming a more general theory
>>
>> where do statistics apply and who decides when?
>
> Everywhere, and The Liar, and all the time,
>
> Jan
>

what about six-sigma or ISO-900(?) manufacturing?

if such can be applied to mechanics that simulate biology, why can't
that apply to biology?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Glenn]

"ednafreon" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mhjlak$dpo$1...@dont-email.me...

That's what he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

[ednafreon]

Burkhard wrote:

> ednafreon wrote:
>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/26/2015 12:00 PM, ednafreon wrote:
>>>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/2015 12:38 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>>> in message

>>>>>> news:u7udnQnErZu7mqHInZ2dnUU7-
dud...@earthlink.com...

Science is about investigating nature as it is simply
because that's all there is to investigate. Noticing
regularities and making predictions from them is also based
on actual data so it's science.

Conjecture can hint at where to look for data and even what
the data might look like so that too is science. What I've
been talking about is confusing these provisional
conjectures with actual data; the conjecture becomes data
which is then incorporated into other conjecture.

When these conjectures accumulate, actual data becomes less
important than the conjectures meant to explain it. When ad
hoc hypotheses and extra parameters or special conditions
are needed, the conjectures become unwieldy and lose their
usefulness.

Bill

[Burkhard]

A confusion that is all your own creation

>
> When these conjectures accumulate, actual data becomes less
> important than the conjectures meant to explain it. When ad
> hoc hypotheses and extra parameters or special conditions
> are needed, the conjectures become unwieldy and lose their
> usefulness.

Reality is messy, feel free to write a letter of complaint to whoever
you think is responsible for it

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:56:50 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sheer rubbish.

>confusing these provisional
>conjectures with actual data;

No one actually confuses these two things.

> the conjecture becomes data

Are you calling scientists liars? Because they're not stupid enough
to make a mistake like this by accident.

>which is then incorporated into other conjecture.

You seem to have left out the part where they compare their
conjectures with the data, a common activity among scientists.

>When these conjectures accumulate, actual data becomes less
>important than the conjectures meant to explain it.

Conjectures can take on a social importance after awhile for some
scientists (e.g., the author of a conjectural hypothesis, who doesn't
want to be proved wrong), but in science, the data always win
eventually.

> When ad
>hoc hypotheses and extra parameters or special conditions
>are needed, the conjectures become unwieldy and lose their
>usefulness.

And at that point they become abandoned by the scientific community as
a whole, instead of melting together into a religious faith of the
sort that you're evidently familiar with and interested in.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:17:01 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:09:46 -0400, Dale
>> <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>>testing evolution would have to involve taking yourself
>>>out of the picture,
>>>
>>>creating the environment for evolution,
>>>
>>>and then somehow entering the picture you took yourself
>>>out of and watching the result ,including yourself that
>>>evolved or didn't evolve
>>>
>>>maybe you could locate the appropriate M(em)brane in the
>>>untestable multi-verse that M(em)brane hypotheses are
>>>
>>>(we've been over this before, math has theorems not
>>>theories)
>>>
>>>evolution cannot be a theory because it is not testable
>>>
>>>evolution is therefore a hypothesis, conjecture
>>>
>>>much like other conjecture, it is the value of the faith
>>>that matters
>>
>> Nice try, you do realize that much of astronomy would not
>> be a theory under those conditions? How would you test the
>> creation of a star?
>>
>> Testing is nice and it may show a theory to be false but
>> it does not prove it right.
>> Evolution is a fact.
>> There is a theory that explains it.
>

>But that's the whole point: data is made to fit theory
>because the theory is what matters.
>
>Bill

That is not true and history is filled with failed theory.
If for no other reason than pure unadulterated greed or the desire to
be worshipped by undergrads everywhere, evidence that falsifies a
theory is welcomed.
Greed because it will always attract huge amounts of research and
worship because it is so very easy to get doctorates in a new field.

Anyone with a minimal knowledge of how a theory is formed knows that
massive efforts are made to see if it can ever get past the hypothesis
stage.

Mercury is a prime example of how data from it's orbit was not made to
fit a current theory.

If we used your religious model science would be so much easier.

Your idea reminds me of the paper about modify behavior in a cat
placed in a cage dropped in water.
He made the data fit the theory.
But he knew it was a joke.

[Chris Thompson]

I hope you're not confusing what Lewontin said (and he is a brilliant
population geneticist) with the idea that selection has never been
measured in the lab or the field. All it means is that the models
Lewontin and others were using then needed to get tossed, and better
ones devised- since they certainly had measured selective pressures in
lab and field.

Chris

[Glenn]

"Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2K-dnVU5-tS_DqDI...@earthlink.com...

Sure they do.

[RonO]

My guess is that at that time Lewontin was talking about the emergence
of neutral theory, if this was around the time that endosymbiosis was
also being discussed in science. What Lewontin found was more genetic
diversity than could be accounted for if you claimed that it all had to
be selected for or against. It turned out that most of the variation is
likely to be neutral. It was a time when biochemists couldn't wrap
their heads around that concept. All they saw was that the protein
sequence changed, but that change didn't have to be significant enough
for any selection for or against the mutation to rise about all the
background selection that was going on at the same time.

The 1960's and 1970's were a time where the population genetic models
were demonstrating that even the slightest selection for or against
something was enough to make significant changes in allele frequency
over thousands of years. Most of this variation seems to have
insignificant selection value and basically acts as if it is neutral.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:02:44 -0400, ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What's the point of this forum if we just hurl citations at
>each other? If you cannot express your opinions why are you
>here?

Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. There's nothing
special about yours. So a better question to ask is; if you
can't/won't back up your opinions, why are you here?

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <8dge9b....@news.alt.net>

six sigma and ISO 900x (in fact, lots of other numbers as well) are
formal descriptions of processes. As such, they only apply where an
organisation or corporation needs to achieve some goal outcome.[1]

Now all you have to do is to demonstrate that biology does indeed have
an overarching corporation attempting to achieve some goal outcome, and
it's not just unintelligent processes doing whatever come naturally.

[1]Or more frequently, when an organisation needs to find someone
to blame after a cock-up.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mhjna6$nok$1...@dont-email.me>

That they have a common ancestor is just your interpretation, required
by your pro-evolution bias.

All the observations show is that the finche genomes demonstrate the
same kind of relationships as one would expect if they were related in
the way you insist (but haven't proved).

> We can even tell that the finches started diverging after the
> Galapagos islands came into existence as volcanic islands around 3
> million years ago. How would you interpret the data, and how would
> you determine if it was a valid interpretation in the face of
> reality?

All you have is the similarities in the genome. That this means that
the finches evolved from earlier species is just your...

No, sorry, I can't keep it up, however hard I try. Nihilism might be
internally consistent as a philosophy, but it's also a useless
philosophy on which to base any understanding of reality.

I think Bill must be really disappointed in science. He seems to
require absolute proof of any statement, rather than recognising that
science is a practical and operational way of understanding reality.

> You can't just keep going in denial. At some point you have to put
> up or shut up. What is your alternative and why is it better or
> even as good. Do something with the existing data other than deny
> reality.
>
> Bean counting isn't science. Taxonomy is a science because there is
> a purpose to the bean counting and guess what their efforts over the
> last couple of hundred years has been confirmed in most cases and we
> have modified the conclusions for some cases. No one expected them
> to be correct in all cases, that is why they kept researching the
> issue. If what they were doing wasn't worth doing, why were we able
> to confirm their work with technology that they could only dream
> about? Why didn't that technology confirm any of the IDiot notions?
> Why is it that when we get the DNA of a new vertebrate species it
> turns out to have a long evolutionary history that can be tracked by
> comparing it to other existing vertebrates? Why can't IDiocy do
> that?
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[jillery]

I confess I kept checking to see if the attributions were screwed up.
Great Poe.

>> You can't just keep going in denial. At some point you have to put
>> up or shut up. What is your alternative and why is it better or
>> even as good. Do something with the existing data other than deny
>> reality.
>>
>> Bean counting isn't science. Taxonomy is a science because there is
>> a purpose to the bean counting and guess what their efforts over the
>> last couple of hundred years has been confirmed in most cases and we
>> have modified the conclusions for some cases. No one expected them
>> to be correct in all cases, that is why they kept researching the
>> issue. If what they were doing wasn't worth doing, why were we able
>> to confirm their work with technology that they could only dream
>> about? Why didn't that technology confirm any of the IDiot notions?
>> Why is it that when we get the DNA of a new vertebrate species it
>> turns out to have a long evolutionary history that can be tracked by
>> comparing it to other existing vertebrates? Why can't IDiocy do
>> that?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>

--

Intelligence is never insulting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:29:16 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by ednafreon <fre...@gmail.com>:

Nope; sorry. Observations and catalogs are not science in
themselves; science is what you do with them.

As I've noted previously, you seem to known little or
nothing of how science works.

>Would the subsequent observations been any different? Would
>the life sciences have been different without any theory of
>why finches come in many varieties? It seems that most
>people here believe that science can't function without an
>explanatory framework (theory) but is this correct?
>
>Accumulating, categorizing and cataloging data is science.
>Making some sense of all this is the province of hypothesis
>and theory. These are two different aspects of science; the
>first is essential to increase knowledge, the second is
>needed to understand the knowledge.
>
>An hypothesis or theory cannot become the data or the whole
>investigative process becomes circular. If hypotheses or
>theories become institutionalized, the result becomes
>immutable dogma.
>
>Bill
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:27:07 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

OK; thanks. So the best DNA for investigating distant
relationships is that involved in selection? Is that because
beneficial changes are conserved, leading to a temporal
"trail"? I'm trying to understand how DNA is used for
analyzing distant relationships. Or is it?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:33:30 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Yes, he did. He observed and cataloged, *then* he started
doing actual science by submitting his data and specimens to
scientists for evaluation, as noted in your cited page.