Answering Nick Roberts

[Ray Martinez]

I've been forced to abandon the topic where I owe you a reply because most of my posts are not posting. This is why I created this topic. Could you please take the time to summarize the issue here then I will respond?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 4:24:59 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> I've been forced to abandon the topic where I owe you a reply because most of my posts are not posting. This is why I created this topic. Could you please take the time to summarize the issue here then I will respond?
>
> Ray

Bump for Nick.

Ray

[Nick Roberts]

In message <20433b2c-b6f0-477a...@googlegroups.com>

Very well. From the discussion concerning risk, I wrote (several
times, and you evaded it each time):

Again, you keep invoking risk, quite incorrectly.

If you think about this logically (which, given your understanding of
logic, is unlikely), this would mean that a theory that has been around
for long enough ceases to be falsifiable, or one has to keep inventing
more fiendishly difficult tests for it to pass.

For example, in the case of gravity, Newton's theory could have been
falsified the first time a feather and a lead pellet were sealed in a
glass tube which was then evacuated. Flipping the tube requires that
the feather and the lead pellet hit the bottom at the same time, or
Newton's theory was wrong.

But after that's been done once, then according to you that experiment
could no longer falsify Newton's theory - because if you repeat the
experiment, there is no risk that the feather and pellet would fall at
different speeds.

So the next experiment would be using Newton's theory to (say) predict
the position Neptune (which is how Neptune was found). But again using
a "level of risk" argument, once you've done that, you can no longer
use that to falsify Newton's theory of Gravity, as Neptune isn't going
to suddenly disappear.

According to you, therefore, Newton's Theory oF Gravity has ceased to
be falsifiable (there is too much hindsight, to use your own term).
Just like Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution, Thermodynamics, and
every other foundation of modern science.

I know that your ambition is to totally disassembly all of modern
science, but trust me, you're not going to do it be insisting that all
these theories aren't falsifiable. Because the fact is, that every one
of them is falsifiable, and every one of them has survived numerous
attempt to falsify them.

That isn't to say, of course, that all of them are True (note capital
T). They are, however, true enough to be interesting and worthwhile
approximations to realilty, what will no doubt become more interesting
and worthwhile approximations to reality as further data is generated.

--
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 <996305e2-2e27-416c...@googlegroups.com>

I did reply, but it has not appeared. I've resent it - hopefully both
my original response and this will appear.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 8:29:53 AM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:
> In message <20433b2c-b6f0-477a...@googlegroups.com>
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been forced to abandon the topic where I owe you a reply because
> > most of my posts are not posting. This is why I created this topic.
> > Could you please take the time to summarize the issue here then I
> > will respond?
>
> Very well. From the discussion concerning risk, I wrote (several
> times, and you evaded it each time):
>
> Again, you keep invoking risk, quite incorrectly.

No, I haven't. All I said was that risk is an integral component of falsification theory. It took you a long time to agree.

>
> If you think about this logically (which, given your understanding of
> logic, is unlikely), this would mean that a theory that has been around
> for long enough ceases to be falsifiable, or one has to keep inventing
> more fiendishly difficult tests for it to pass.
>
> For example, in the case of gravity, Newton's theory could have been
> falsified the first time a feather and a lead pellet were sealed in a
> glass tube which was then evacuated. Flipping the tube requires that
> the feather and the lead pellet hit the bottom at the same time, or
> Newton's theory was wrong.
>
> But after that's been done once, then according to you that experiment
> could no longer falsify Newton's theory - because if you repeat the
> experiment, there is no risk that the feather and pellet would fall at
> different speeds.

I've never said any such thing, and I have no idea what you're talking about. YOU initiated Newton into our discussion, not me. Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His falsification theory was published a long time after Newton died. I believe there are LOTS of problems with Popper falsificationism. Moreover, I observe that Evolutionists have adopted their subjective version of falsificationism.

> So the next experiment would be using Newton's theory to (say) predict
> the position Neptune (which is how Neptune was found). But again using
> a "level of risk" argument, once you've done that, you can no longer
> use that to falsify Newton's theory of Gravity, as Neptune isn't going
> to suddenly disappear.

Relevance?

> According to you, therefore, Newton's Theory oF Gravity has ceased to
> be falsifiable (there is too much hindsight, to use your own term).
> Just like Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution, Thermodynamics, and
> every other foundation of modern science.

According to your understanding of Popper, not mine.

>
> I know that your ambition is to totally disassembly all of modern
> science, but trust me, you're not going to do it be insisting that all
> these theories aren't falsifiable. Because the fact is, that every one
> of them is falsifiable, and every one of them has survived numerous
> attempt to falsify them.

Except I haven't said any such things. I've questioned evolutionary compliance with genuine risk----that risky predictions don't exist in evolutionary theory.

FACT 1: Once the concept of evolution (species originating new species) is accepted to explain biodiversity the same is NOT eligible for falsification because the concept is the main assumption of Naturalism interpretive philosophy.

FACT 2: Based on the above fact, only how evolution occurs is modifiable (not falsifiable).

FACT 3: Both facts, seen above, presuppose the illogic of "effect-without cause," instead of "cause-and-effect."

FACT 4: The "logic" of evolutionary theory is not, therefore, falsifiable.

So I've been talking about the ToE, not Newtonian theories.

>
> That isn't to say, of course, that all of them are True (note capital
> T). They are, however, true enough to be interesting and worthwhile
> approximations to realilty, what will no doubt become more interesting
> and worthwhile approximations to reality as further data is generated.
>
> --
> Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
>
> Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/2/15 2:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 8:29:53 AM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:

snipping

>> I know that your ambition is to totally disassembly all of modern
>> science, but trust me, you're not going to do it be insisting that all
>> these theories aren't falsifiable. Because the fact is, that every one
>> of them is falsifiable, and every one of them has survived numerous
>> attempt to falsify them.
>
> Except I haven't said any such things. I've questioned evolutionary compliance with genuine risk----that risky predictions don't exist in evolutionary theory.
>
> FACT 1: Once the concept of evolution (species originating new species) is accepted to explain biodiversity the same is NOT eligible for falsification because the concept is the main assumption of Naturalism interpretive philosophy.
>

This "fact" is not true. Science does not use naturalism as a
"interpretive philosophy", instead science makes use of methodological
naturalism as a tool. This tool is necessary for any scientific
investigation. Without the restriction to only testable ideas, no
question could possibly have an objective answer.

Furthermore, the "concept of evolution" is that populations change over
time. That new populations derive from earlier populations is the
"concept of" common descent, not evolution. It's accepted because it
has been observed that new populations come from earlier ones. No
observation of a species appearing out of thin air has ever been made.
The most reasonable conclusion then, is that current species are
descendants of older species. This is not an assumption, but a logical
conclusion from the evidence.

> FACT 2: Based on the above fact, only how evolution occurs is modifiable (not falsifiable).

The "fact" above is false, so your assertion, based only on a false
assumption, is wrong. Evolution is falsifiable, if one could find
specific conditions that would falsify evolution.

>
> FACT 3: Both facts, seen above, presuppose the illogic of "effect-without cause," instead of "cause-and-effect."

Since neither of the two above are facts, but actually unfounded
assertions, your "both facts" is wrong. The rest of your sentence is
meaningless, as you don't understand logic, and you ignore the logical
connection between the cause (variations in a population, over
generations) and the effect, (genetic change in populations over time)
No matter how often you make your claim about evolution not having a
cause and effect relationship, you are still wrong.

The point, that you keep avoiding, is that one does not have to know
how something is caused to observe the thing itself. Genetic change in
populations is observed, and even if one didn't know the cause (which we
do) the genetic change still happens.

>
> FACT 4: The "logic" of evolutionary theory is not, therefore, falsifiable.

And you finish up with a big fat non sequitur. The logic of
evolutionary theory is that mutations cause genetic changes, which are
inherited by offspring. These genetic changes are passed on over many
generations, causing change in the frequency of different genes in a
population. With enough change, a population becomes separate from it's
parent population.

This would be falsifiable if the following were to be found:
1. If organisms did not reproduce.
2. If no variations between offspring were found
3. If genetic changes were not inheritable.
4. If each generation had a totally different genome from it's parents.

Finding any, or all of those would falsify evolution. The theory could
not explain those findings.

>
> So I've been talking about the ToE, not Newtonian theories.

It's no surprise that you can't understand analogy. Newtonian theories
also make use of methodological naturalism, and are falsifiable, even
though it's unlikely that the conditions that would falsify Newtonian
physics would ever be observed on Earth.


DJT

[Nick Roberts]

In message <cb4f4109-fdd4-4c57...@googlegroups.com>

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 8:29:53 AM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > In message <20433b2c-b6f0-477a...@googlegroups.com>
> > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I've been forced to abandon the topic where I owe you a reply because
> > > most of my posts are not posting. This is why I created this topic.
> > > Could you please take the time to summarize the issue here then I
> > > will respond?
> >
> > Very well. From the discussion concerning risk, I wrote (several
> > times, and you evaded it each time):
> >
> > Again, you keep invoking risk, quite incorrectly.
>
> No, I haven't. All I said was that risk is an integral component of
> falsification theory. It took you a long time to agree.

I still don't agree with your interpretation.

> > If you think about this logically (which, given your understanding
> > of logic, is unlikely), this would mean that a theory that has been
> > around for long enough ceases to be falsifiable, or one has to keep
> > inventing more fiendishly difficult tests for it to pass.
> >
> > For example, in the case of gravity, Newton's theory could have
> > been falsified the first time a feather and a lead pellet were
> > sealed in a glass tube which was then evacuated. Flipping the tube
> > requires that the feather and the lead pellet hit the bottom at the
> > same time, or Newton's theory was wrong.
> >
> > But after that's been done once, then according to you that
> > experiment could no longer falsify Newton's theory - because if you
> > repeat the experiment, there is no risk that the feather and pellet
> > would fall at different speeds.
>
> I've never said any such thing, and I have no idea what you're
> talking about. YOU initiated Newton into our discussion, not me.

You're really not very good with analogies, are you?

You claimed that ToE wasn't falsifiable, because the classic example of
falsification is "rabbits in the precambrian", and you claimed that
this carried no risk, as everyone knows that you won't find rabbits in
the precambrian.

Similarly, everyone knows that if you drop a lead pellet and a feather
in a vacuum, then they will accelerate at the same rate. So there is no
risk associated with this experiment, so it can't be used to falsify
Newton's theory of gravity.

Similarly, as I point out below, one of the great triumphs of the
theory is the prediction of the existence and location of Neptune. But
if you carry out that experiment again, there is no risk associated, as
Neptune hasn't disappeared. So you can't use the prediction of the
orbit of Neptune as an example of an experiment that could have
falsified Newton's theory of gravity.

In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no theory that
can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an experiment and it
doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer use that as an example of
an experiment that can falsify the theory.

> Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His falsification
> theory was published a long time after Newton died.

I have no particular beef with Popper, once some practical issues are
allowed for. What I have a beef with is your insistence that
experiments purported to falsify a theory require risk _even if the
theory is correct_.

The whole point about falsification is that the proposed experiment or
observation will fail IF THE THEORY IS FALSE.

i.e. Theory holds => observation is as predicted.

Logical constructs of the form A=>B are equivalent to ~B=>~A. (i.e. if
the observation isn't as predicted, then the theory is fails).

You want to extend this to have A=>(B or ~B) - i.e. even if the theory
(A) is true, then the predicted observation (B) may not occur (due to
"risk").

As the statement A=>(B or ~B) is a trivially true, irrespective of the
correctness or otherwise of A, your demand for risk even if the theory
is true will tell you nothing about the truth or otherwise of the
theory.

Popper is smart enough to understand formal logic 101 like this, while
you have demonstrated in numerous posts that you have no understanding
of logic whatsoever.

> I believe there
> are LOTS of problems with Popper falsificationism. Moreover, I
> observe that Evolutionists have adopted their subjective version of
> falsificationism.

There's that word "subjective" that you keep misusing again.

None of these problems have anything to do with the illogic inherent in
your demand that an experiment must carry a degree of risk even if the
theory that predicted an observation is accurate.

The risk comes in solely because they are testing the theory - if the
theory is accurate, the prediction _must_ occur, risk or no risk.

> > So the next experiment would be using Newton's theory to (say)
> > predict the position Neptune (which is how Neptune was found). But
> > again using a "level of risk" argument, once you've done that, you
> > can no longer use that to falsify Newton's theory of Gravity, as
> > Neptune isn't going to suddenly disappear.
>
> Relevance?

It's part of the same analogy as above, and an inevitable consequence
of your insistence that falsification require risk even if the theory
is accurate.

For people who are used to dealing with logic and argument, the
relevance would be obvious to anyone who had actually read the entirety
of my post and tried to understand it.

> > According to you, therefore, Newton's Theory oF Gravity has ceased
> > to be falsifiable (there is too much hindsight, to use your own
> > term). Just like Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution,
> > Thermodynamics, and every other foundation of modern science.
>
> According to your understanding of Popper, not mine.

Under any definition of Popperian falsification which has a useful
meaning. If, in your world, an observation cannot be taken as a
potential falsification even if the theory it is attempting to falsify
is accurate, then any potential problems with falsification as an
approach become totally irrelevant, because no one would have given it
a second thought.

> >
> > I know that your ambition is to totally disassembly all of modern
> > science, but trust me, you're not going to do it be insisting that
> > all these theories aren't falsifiable. Because the fact is, that
> > every one of them is falsifiable, and every one of them has
> > survived numerous attempt to falsify them.
>
> Except I haven't said any such things. I've questioned evolutionary
> compliance with genuine risk----that risky predictions don't exist in
> evolutionary theory.

Until the 1960s, scientists had no way of telling whether animal
genetics would support evolution, as evolution _must_ leave very
distinct indicators in the genomes of species; and the strength of
these indicators are related to how far back you have to go to find the
most recent common ancestor of a group of species.

The science of genetics could very easily have completely and utterly
disproven major elements of the theory of evolution, so there was an
experiment that carried real risk.

Genetics not only didn't refute ToE, it supported in spades.

> FACT 1: Once the concept of evolution (species originating new
> species) is accepted to explain biodiversity the same is NOT eligible
> for falsification because the concept is the main assumption of
> Naturalism interpretive philosophy.

Alternatively, if you have contact with the real world, you would
realise that genetics (in the 1960s and since) gave total support to
ToE, which was published more than 100 years earlier. Sane people
regard this as a great victory for ToE - you just put your fingers in
your ears and pretend it never happened.

So no, it's not a fact.

> FACT 2: Based on the above fact, only how evolution occurs is
> modifiable (not falsifiable).

Because your premise is false, the consequence is irrelevant. So
that's zero out of two.

> FACT 3: Both facts, seen above, presuppose the illogic of
> "effect-without cause," instead of "cause-and-effect."

This is also not a fact, it is yet again your insistence that it is
impossible for anything to happen without somebody or something making
it happen.

So you are now basing your third conclusion on one error, one
irrelevance, and one total retreat from reality. Zero out of 3.

> FACT 4: The "logic" of evolutionary theory is not, therefore,
> falsifiable.

You conclude this on the basis of something that is not a fact,
something else that is irrelevant, and a third thing that has no
contact with reality. I think we can safely put your FACT 4 into the
"not demonstrated" category. Way to go, Ray - you've achieved a clean
sweep - zero out of 4.

> So I've been talking about the ToE, not Newtonian theories.

And if you apply your own logic to Newtonian gravity, you are forced to
conclude that Newtonian gravity is also not falsifiable. In fact, you
are forced to conclude that there is no such thing as a falsifiable
theory, because there is no experiment that you can quite that will not
only falsify a theory today, but also after you have carried out the
observation once (as you have lost any possibility of risk).

That you fail to understand the consequences of your own claims is well
understood to pretty much everyone reading this NG. It's a shame you
neither

(a) attempt to think things through before you make unsupportable
claims (or totally misinterpret the thinking of people like Popper on
the basis of a single word that you take to mean what you hope it
does, rather than what it actually means;

and (b) bother to follow the arguments of people who demonstrate where
you have gone wrong.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 1:04:50 PM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:
> In message <cb4f4109-fdd4-4c57...@googlegroups.com>
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 8:29:53 AM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > In message <20433b2c-b6f0-477a...@googlegroups.com>
> > > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been forced to abandon the topic where I owe you a reply because
> > > > most of my posts are not posting. This is why I created this topic.
> > > > Could you please take the time to summarize the issue here then I
> > > > will respond?
> > >
> > > Very well. From the discussion concerning risk, I wrote (several
> > > times, and you evaded it each time):
> > >
> > > Again, you keep invoking risk, quite incorrectly.
> >
> > No, I haven't. All I said was that risk is an integral component of
> > falsification theory. It took you a long time to agree.
>
> I still don't agree with your interpretation.

I accept the terms "risk" and "risky." I can support via other secondary sources. I use "secondary sources" to support the fact that **others** understand the primary source as I understand the primary source. You've continually failed to understand this simple but solid point.

And you don't agree because, as I observed, Evolutionary theorists have adopted their subjective version of the objective version. Evolutionists are so enamored with the core truth of falsification theory that they have lifted this core truth out of its objective context while abandoning original context. This original context----what it is, and what it means----represents the problems I have with falsification theory.

But Evolutionary theorists, like yourself, don't care. All you care about is the core truth (lifted out of context). You've convinced the world that your theory is falsifiable. Yet when one takes the time to look where you obtained your ideas about falsification one discovers that your ideas and those of the founder are not the same.

So there are unresolved issues with the primary source and "excited disciples" (Evolutionary theorists) who can't rectify their version with the objective version. In short: Where did you obtain your ideas about falsification? If not Karl Popper then your ideas are subjective, as valid as Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy's ideas about falsification. Sadly you've shown zero ability to understand this elementary point as well.

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

My real point was that the much touted example of "rabbit in the pre-Cambrian" should be disowned by Evolutionists because it does not entail an acceptable level of risk.

>
> Similarly, everyone knows that if you drop a lead pellet and a feather
> in a vacuum, then they will accelerate at the same rate. So there is no
> risk associated with this experiment, so it can't be used to falsify
> Newton's theory of gravity.
>
> Similarly, as I point out below, one of the great triumphs of the
> theory is the prediction of the existence and location of Neptune. But
> if you carry out that experiment again, there is no risk associated, as
> Neptune hasn't disappeared. So you can't use the prediction of the
> orbit of Neptune as an example of an experiment that could have
> falsified Newton's theory of gravity.

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

> In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
> observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no theory that
> can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an experiment and it
> doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer use that as an example of
> an experiment that can falsify the theory.

I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification is defined. Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version. And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on you and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.

> > Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His falsification
> > theory was published a long time after Newton died.
>
> I have no particular beef with Popper, once some practical issues are
> allowed for. What I have a beef with is your insistence that
> experiments purported to falsify a theory require risk _even if the
> theory is correct_.

You can't make these types of statements when debating the veracity of the ToE with an opponent. You've assumed your conclusion or that which is in dispute. Moreover, you can't refer to an experiment as fulfilling or showing potential falsification unless it involves a genuine risk. I didn't make up this rule. The founder did. Again, you're arguing for a watered down version.

Ray


[....]

[Ray Martinez]

Yeah, I know.

>
> i.e. Theory holds => observation is as predicted.
>
> Logical constructs of the form A=>B are equivalent to ~B=>~A. (i.e. if
> the observation isn't as predicted, then the theory is fails).
>
> You want to extend this to have A=>(B or ~B) - i.e. even if the theory
> (A) is true, then the predicted observation (B) may not occur (due to
> "risk").
>
> As the statement A=>(B or ~B) is a trivially true, irrespective of the
> correctness or otherwise of A, your demand for risk even if the theory
> is true will tell you nothing about the truth or otherwise of the
> theory.

The demand for risk is part of the objective definition. Your point or beef is with Popper and his disciples, not me.

>
> Popper is smart enough to understand formal logic 101 like this, while
> you have demonstrated in numerous posts that you have no understanding
> of logic whatsoever.
>

That's been my complaint with evolutionary theorists. You don't seem to understand that logic is about what can and cannot exist. When a statement contains a contradiction it is a false statement about reality.

> > I believe there
> > are LOTS of problems with Popper falsificationism. Moreover, I
> > observe that Evolutionists have adopted their subjective version of
> > falsificationism.
>
> There's that word "subjective" that you keep misusing again.
>
> None of these problems have anything to do with the illogic inherent in
> your demand that an experiment must carry a degree of risk even if the
> theory that predicted an observation is accurate.

Again, your beef is with Popper, not me. You should use the term "falsification" with an asterisk. But you won't do that. Evolutionary theorists use falsification subjectively and the scholarly world has let them get away with it----that's my on-going point.

>
> The risk comes in solely because they are testing the theory - if the
> theory is accurate, the prediction _must_ occur, risk or no risk.

Might be true, just depends. Again, I repeat: How Popper defined his theory is problematic. So one cannot use the term "falsification" without explaining exactly what is meant. As long as you define your terms and as long as you stay faithful to these meanings, you're in good shape.

> > > So the next experiment would be using Newton's theory to (say)
> > > predict the position Neptune (which is how Neptune was found). But
> > > again using a "level of risk" argument, once you've done that, you
> > > can no longer use that to falsify Newton's theory of Gravity, as
> > > Neptune isn't going to suddenly disappear.
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> It's part of the same analogy as above, and an inevitable consequence
> of your insistence that falsification require risk even if the theory
> is accurate.

Make the application to rabbit in the pre-Cambrian? Isn't that what you're really after? You're really saying since our theory has been supported as reasonably true all the required risks have been taken.

>
> For people who are used to dealing with logic and argument, the
> relevance would be obvious to anyone who had actually read the entirety
> of my post and tried to understand it.
>
> > > According to you, therefore, Newton's Theory oF Gravity has ceased
> > > to be falsifiable (there is too much hindsight, to use your own
> > > term). Just like Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution,
> > > Thermodynamics, and every other foundation of modern science.
> >
> > According to your understanding of Popper, not mine.
>
> Under any definition of Popperian falsification which has a useful
> meaning. If, in your world, an observation cannot be taken as a
> potential falsification even if the theory it is attempting to falsify
> is accurate, then any potential problems with falsification as an
> approach become totally irrelevant, because no one would have given it
> a second thought.

I'm not sure. Need time to think about what you're saying. But I have said that I believe there are problems with the objective theory.

Ray

[....]

[*Hemidactylus*]

Hmmm..., you talk about secondary sources above. Have you bothered to
read primary sources such as...say...Sir Karl Popper? Try his essay
"Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" (1977). A true Scholar
would go to source. Popper *RECANTED* his original naive views on
selection, especially in light of acknowledgment of genetic drift. So
Popper won't work for you.

[Burkhard]

No, you don't. You misread the "if" that requires you to treat the
falsification as a hypothetical: "A falsifies the theory T" is true even
if T is true,

>>
>> i.e. Theory holds => observation is as predicted.
>>
>> Logical constructs of the form A=>B are equivalent to ~B=>~A. (i.e. if
>> the observation isn't as predicted, then the theory is fails).
>>
>> You want to extend this to have A=>(B or ~B) - i.e. even if the theory
>> (A) is true, then the predicted observation (B) may not occur (due to
>> "risk").
>>
>> As the statement A=>(B or ~B) is a trivially true, irrespective of the
>> correctness or otherwise of A, your demand for risk even if the theory
>> is true will tell you nothing about the truth or otherwise of the
>> theory.
>
> The demand for risk is part of the objective definition.

But you misunderstand what "risk" for Popper means - a term that really
plays no central role in his theory and i only sued by him to explain
what he means with a "bold conjecture". For a falsification to be risky
requires simply that a single observation is sufficient - not that the
observation is likely to happen.

Your point or beef is with Popper and his disciples, not me.
>
>>
>> Popper is smart enough to understand formal logic 101 like this, while
>> you have demonstrated in numerous posts that you have no understanding
>> of logic whatsoever.
>>
>
> That's been my complaint with evolutionary theorists. You don't seem to understand that logic is about what can and cannot exist.

Because it isn't. Logic is about the formal relation between sentences,
and independent form any content.

When a statement contains a contradiction it is a false statement
about reality.

Obviously not. Statements can contain any number of contradictions
without being inconsistent itself, and so can by extension every theory.
(A & -A) -> B contains a contradiction (A&-A), but is not only not
contradictory, but a necessary (tautologous) proposition, the principle
of logical explosion.

As for contradictory statements, they too don't really tell you what can
or cannot exist. "Grass is green and Grass is not green" and "Unicorns
are pink and unicorns are not pink" are both contradictory statements of
the same form. That tells us nothing about whether unicorns or grass
exists, or whether it is green, pink or any other color. It merely tells
us that these statements can;t be true due to their form alone.

>
>>> I believe there
>>> are LOTS of problems with Popper falsificationism. Moreover, I
>>> observe that Evolutionists have adopted their subjective version of
>>> falsificationism.
>>
>> There's that word "subjective" that you keep misusing again.
>>
>> None of these problems have anything to do with the illogic inherent in
>> your demand that an experiment must carry a degree of risk even if the
>> theory that predicted an observation is accurate.
>
> Again, your beef is with Popper, not me.

No, it is with your interpretation of Popper, which would render is
theory simply incomprehensible. If your interpretation were true,
theories would become less and less scientific over time, as more and
more potential falsification attempts fail.

You should use the term "falsification" with an asterisk. But you won't
do that. Evolutionary theorists use falsification subjectively a

nd the scholarly world has let them get away with it----that's my
on-going point.

On the contrary, everyone here apart from you uses a simple, objective
criterion if a possible falsification A is a risk for theory B - if A is
a single observation, so that (A & B) is inconsistent. That is how
Popper has meant it, and that is how the secondary literature sees it too.

Your personal interpretation of Popper relativises the "A" to the
subjective knowledge a researcher has - one and the same test A would be
risky for some, not risky for others, depending how much they know about
A already.

>
>>
>> The risk comes in solely because they are testing the theory - if the
>> theory is accurate, the prediction _must_ occur, risk or no risk.
>
> Might be true, just depends. Again, I repeat: How Popper defined his theory is problematic.

Depends on what you mean with this. Popper's theory is way too
simplistic, but that is precisely because his definitions are simply and
unproblematic. It is pretty clear what he meant with falsification, it
is equally clear that falsification, as he meant it, is insufficient to
account for scientific practice.

So one cannot use the term "falsification" without explaining exactly
what is meant.

As long as you define your terms and as long as you stay faithful to
these meanings, you're in good shape.
>
>>>> So the next experiment would be using Newton's theory to (say)
>>>> predict the position Neptune (which is how Neptune was found). But
>>>> again using a "level of risk" argument, once you've done that, you
>>>> can no longer use that to falsify Newton's theory of Gravity, as
>>>> Neptune isn't going to suddenly disappear.
>>>
>>> Relevance?
>>
>> It's part of the same analogy as above, and an inevitable consequence
>> of your insistence that falsification require risk even if the theory
>> is accurate.
>
> Make the application to rabbit in the pre-Cambrian?

>Isn't that what you're really after? You're really saying since our theory has been supported as reasonably

> true all the required risks have been taken.

No, he is simply saying that "observing a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian"
does to the Theory of Evolution (or at least our theory of the timeline
of evolution on earth) exactly what observing a pink swan does to the
theory that all swans are white (Popper's canonical example)

What makes both of them risky is the simple fact that they are single
observations that do not leave room for interpretation - the terms
"rabbit", "swan", "pink", "pre-Cambrian" are well defined enough for this.

What is not relevant is any a priori knowledge just how likely it will
be to find a pink swan, or a pre-cambrian rabbit.

[Vincent Maycock]

Hello, Ray. Before I reply to this, I'm going to comment on one of
your other ideas, the concept of the Devil's invisibility.

I'm not sure why the other evolutionists are trying to convince you
that the Devil or Satan can't be invisible in some sense (I mean,
obviously, both sides would have to grant that, in the literature
about this character, you can sometimes see him and sometimes you
can't).

So my comment on that whole discussion is, what on earth are the other
evolutionists trying to accomplish with that?

It seems to be just an argument over theology, which is to me all
rubbish anyway.

So, given that both sides are arguing about theology, it would seem to
follow that both sides aren't doing much more than debating about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

For what it's worth, Ray, given what theologians value, your position
on Satan's supposed attributes seems to be as reasonable as that of
your opponents.

When I was a kid, I always thought the devil was invisible -- before I
became an atheist, of course.

Anyway, on to scientific matters.

Your argument that evolution is unfalsifiable is of course ridiculous,
and the "Precambrian rabbit"-type argument that others use as well as
my own "predicted DNA nested hierarchy" argument that I thought up to
use against you would both seem to be reasonably effective counters to
your nonsense, but maybe it might be even better to try and look more
carefully at the detailed logical structure of your argument, if the
idiocy of it could be dignified by this terminology.

So let's look at things from Ray's perspective.

In Ray's world, it looks like evolutionists are just making things up
to support evolution that could almost logically never be wrong, in
order to make it *appear as if* evolutionary theory is falsifaible,
which would really border on tautology in science.

I.e., it would be a form of "empirical tautology" to say, "my theory
predicts what my theory observes to be true," or something like that.

Obviously, that's not good science. I.e., it's not reasonable to say,
"Evolutionary theory is falsifable, because if the laws of gravity
didn't exist, I would consider Darwin's theories to be falsified,
since there's no way living things could evolve without the force of
gravity to hold them to the earth."

Now, that's not what Ray's opponents are doing, but as I said, this is
"Ray's world" that we're dealing with -- so we're going to look at the
world from his perspective to more effectively clear up his
misconceptions about the falsifiability of evolutionary theory.

So why does Ray think this?

Well, the answer is simply that evolution is so *obviously true* in
every aspect of biology ("nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution," as one great biologist put it), that when we
point out the basics of biology that evolution is founded on that
would falsify evolution if they turned out to be wrong, it looks like
we're doing what I described above: claiming that your theory only
predicts what's already well-known, rather than something that you
specifically thought up that will "make or break" your theory and earn
you a Nobel Prize or whatever.

The way to deal with this misconception is to think about a world in
which it weren't so obvious to everyone that evolution were true.

There are various ways to do this, but considering Ray's interests,
we'll do it like this:

Here's how to think about evolution being falsifified in the normal
scientific sense that scientists usually think about the
falsifiability of their theories -- i.e., from the vantage point of a
scientist thinking "Uh-oh ... I'm not sure if my theory is true, but
I've got this prediction that nobody else believes in, and if it turns
out right, I'll be famous, and if I'm wrong, I might just be a
laughingstock among the other scientists for awhile."

So let's imagine Charles Darwin on his sea voyage on the ship _The
Beagle_; at this time everyone around him is a creationist, and
presumably Darwin is as well. But as Darwin sails through the south
Atlantic and Pacific and collects various specimens, an idea begins to
form in his head.

He says, "The relationship of the morphology and geographical
distribution of the animals I'm studying is rather strange for a
Creator. Probably it was a Creator that put the South American
animals on South America, and the different varieties of species in
the Galapagos Islands, just like everyone else around me says.

But I've got a different idea: Maybe the Creator put the finches in
the Galapagos Islands, and they transmutated into the different
varieties of finch I see around us -- that would explain why they're
so similar to each other: they're just one big family of birds that
changed from the single type of finch that the Creator put in the
islands a long time ago."

So that's Darwin's idea. Now, he's surrounded by creationists, who
believe that all living things were created separately by God, and at
this point in time, Darwin himself thinks that.

But then an even bolder hypothesis comes into his head.

"*Maybe it wasn't just he finches* that evolved!" he says to himself.
"Maybe *all living things* are related to each other, in the same way
that all these finches seem to have family resemblance to each other
in their 'family home neighborhood' of the Galapagos Islands, where
they all still live together after they transmorphed into each other."
So like any good scientist, Darwin immediately gets to work on how to
test this theory: provide a way to falsify it, or prove it wrong. As
physicist Richard Feynman put it, a scientist's job is to *bend over
backwards to try to prove yourself wrong.*

So Darwin says, "How can I *disprove* my theory that all living
things were descended from each other, historically? What striking
predictions can I make, on which may theory will stand or fall?"

"Well, it would seem like if my theory were correct, that it wouldn't
be just the Galapagos finches that appear to come from a common
ancestor; really I should expect to find the same
geographical-morphology relationship in *other animals* that I'm
seeing in the Galapagos finches. If I don't see that, I'll forget
about this new far-reaching new theory and stay a creationist who
believes in just a little bit of variation in the finches created by
God."

So Darwin does some more research and finds the same thing elsewhere!

It's not just the finches that seem to relate their geography to their
physical characteristics (i.e., similar creatures in the same areas,
as if one creature had originally gone to that area and then its
slightly modified descendants just stayed in the same area after
that).

So Darwin accumulates more and more examples of this: It's not just
the finches.

He travels to Australia, and at this point decides that maybe the
Creator was just very active, creating "original species" at the drop
of a hat, everywhere on earth.

Or is his "grand theory true" after all?

He doesn't know.

But then he goes to Australia, and says, "Well, here's an isolated but
large continent.

"If I don't find some kind of similarity between the many animals that
live on that continent, I'm going to forget about my theory that all
living things are historically and physically related to each other in
a great family tree.

"Probably it was just a very active Creator, if there isn't a lot of
similarity between the animals there -- probably that *is* what I'm
going to see in the great continent of Australia: just a bunch of
separate forms, very dissimilar to each other, because obviously the
Creator would have limits.

"He wouldn't have an entire continent of species evolve from each
other -- that's tantamount to my own great hypothesis of *all living
things descended from each other.*"

So Darwin travels to Australia, expecting to find his theory falsified
.... but he strikes gold!

*All of the vast array of animals in Australia, from kangaroos to
koalas to wombats are similar to each other *and* living in the same
area -- evidence, again of common ancestry."

So his theory passes this test, and Darwin breathes a sigh of relief
that his theory wasn't falsified, and says to himself, "Well, Chuck,
you old son of a gun, it looks like you're on to something here!

There are no limits to evolutionary change!"

And he continues to accumulate more evidence along similar lines.

So you just have phrase the classic Darwinian arguments for evolution
(like the argument from biogeography above) in a way that shows that
from Darwin's perspective, he *could have been wrong* when he went
about accumulating evidence for evolution, and that therefore his
theory repeatedly made risky predictions that came true for him,
giving him confidence that indeed he was on the right track.

And that, of course, is scientific research at its best.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <58f6590d-c6ac-4d71...@googlegroups.com>

But you should also recognise the "rabbits in the precambrian" is a
quote from Haldane when asked what evidence would destroy his
confidence in ToE; and that it is a shorthand for "any species for
which strong evidence can be found for existance very much prior to
ancestral species".

This would include, for example, any amniote species being found in the
Devonian period or earlier.

> > Similarly, everyone knows that if you drop a lead pellet and a
> > feather in a vacuum, then they will accelerate at the same rate. So
> > there is no risk associated with this experiment, so it can't be
> > used to falsify Newton's theory of gravity.
> >
> > Similarly, as I point out below, one of the great triumphs of the
> > theory is the prediction of the existence and location of Neptune.
> > But if you carry out that experiment again, there is no risk
> > associated, as Neptune hasn't disappeared. So you can't use the
> > prediction of the orbit of Neptune as an example of an experiment
> > that could have falsified Newton's theory of gravity.
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at?

Where is the risk in finding Neptune by using the gravitational
interaction of its mass with that of closer planets? There is none in
the real world; so you can't use that to falsify Newton's theory of
gravity.

In fact, can you name any single experiment that you could carry out
that would falsify Newton's Theory of Gravity? What carries enough risk
to satisfy your demand?

> > In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
> > observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no theory
> > that can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an experiment
> > and it doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer use that as an
> > example of an experiment that can falsify the theory.
>
> I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification is
> defined.

Only if you misintepret the definition. Risk only applies _if the
theory is inaccurate_. If risk applies whether the theory is inaccurate
or not, it's a meaningless and useless test for any theory.

> Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version.

It may well be watered down according to your incorrect interpretation.
It's not watered down according to the Popper's intended meaning.

Please, for once in your life step back from the position you have
committed yourself to and think about it:

What use is a way of disproving a theory, if you can't use it to tell
whether a theory is accurate or not? On my (and that of every sane
scientist and philospher of science), an experiment or observation that
doesn't match the theory can be taken to mean that the theory doesn't
hold. But on your definition (where risk of failure is required even if
the theory is accurate) it can't: that an observation or experiment
doesn't match the theory tells you nothing about the validity or
otherwise of the theory.

> And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition
> (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on you
> and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.

It's not "me and my colleagues" that is the problem: it's your bizarre
interpretation of a statement that included the word "risk".

> > > Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His
> > > falsification theory was published a long time after Newton died.
> >
> > I have no particular beef with Popper, once some practical issues
> > are allowed for. What I have a beef with is your insistence that
> > experiments purported to falsify a theory require risk _even if the
> > theory is correct_.
>
> You can't make these types of statements when debating the veracity
> of the ToE with an opponent. You've assumed your conclusion or that
> which is in dispute.

I have assumed nothing of the kind. What I have assumed is that Popper
understood that falsification only involved risk is the theory is
unsound. If the theory is sound, then (within it's intended domain) it
can't be disproven - not because it is unfalsifiable, but because all
attempts to falsify it have failed, and continue to fail.

> Moreover, you can't refer to an experiment as
> fulfilling or showing potential falsification unless it involves a
> genuine risk. I didn't make up this rule.

You did, however, miss the implication that risk is only meaningful as
a way of demonstrating that the theory is invalid. If the theory (any
theory, not just ToE) is sound (and complete), then there is no
experiment within its domain that can falsify it.

This, of course, never happens, especially in the messy world of
biology: what happens for well-supported theories (like ToE) is that
observations that do not match the theory are typically around the
edges, one-offs, or special cases. Such observations tend not to
falsify the theory entirely, just require that the theory requires some
modification or revision.

> The founder did. Again, you're arguing for a watered down version.

No, I'm arguing against your misinterpretation of a secondary source.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <e38b8782-9413-4887...@googlegroups.com>

But you don't act as if you do. If the theory isn't false, then the
proposed experiment has no degree of risk. So why do you insist that it
must have?

> > i.e. Theory holds => observation is as predicted.
> >
> > Logical constructs of the form A=>B are equivalent to ~B=>~A. (i.e.
> > if the observation isn't as predicted, then the theory is fails).
> >
> > You want to extend this to have A=>(B or ~B) - i.e. even if the
> > theory (A) is true, then the predicted observation (B) may not
> > occur (due to "risk").
> >
> > As the statement A=>(B or ~B) is a trivially true, irrespective of
> > the correctness or otherwise of A, your demand for risk even if the
> > theory is true will tell you nothing about the truth or otherwise
> > of the theory.
>
> The demand for risk is part of the objective definition. Your point
> or beef is with Popper and his disciples, not me.

Risk _in principle_, not risk _in practice_. There is risk in
principle (the theory may be wrong), but not in practice (if the theory
is right).

> > Popper is smart enough to understand formal logic 101 like this,
> > while you have demonstrated in numerous posts that you have no
> > understanding of logic whatsoever.
> >
>
> That's been my complaint with evolutionary theorists. You don't seem
> to understand that logic is about what can and cannot exist.

Or more correctly, you don't understand that logic is about
correctness, not reality.

Premise A: Unicorns have a single horn.
Premise B: Unicorns are equine.

Hence Conclusion C, there is an equine species with a single horn.

What is wrong (not illogical) is the implication in the first 2
premises that unicorns actually exist. So the premises are wrong, hence
the conclusion may be valid or invalid. But this doesn't impact on the
logic of the statement: if premises A and B hold, then conclusion C is
true.

That you don't understand this is one of the reasons that you are
continually corrected on this NG.

> statement contains a contradiction it is a false statement about
> reality.
>
> > > I believe there are LOTS of problems with Popper
> > > falsificationism. Moreover, I observe that Evolutionists have
> > > adopted their subjective version of falsificationism.
> >
> > There's that word "subjective" that you keep misusing again.
> >
> > None of these problems have anything to do with the illogic
> > inherent in your demand that an experiment must carry a degree of
> > risk even if the theory that predicted an observation is accurate.
>
> Again, your beef is with Popper, not me. You should use the term
> "falsification" with an asterisk. But you won't do that. Evolutionary
> theorists use falsification subjectively and the scholarly world has
> let them get away with it----that's my on-going point.

I reiterate, you are misinterpreting Popper's entire argument, on the
basis of a single word. As Popperian falsification is concerned with
assessing the validity or otherwise of a theory, why would he propose a
method that is logically incapable of doing that; and if he did, why
would anyone have ever heard of him as anything other than an idiot?

> > The risk comes in solely because they are testing the theory - if the
> > theory is accurate, the prediction _must_ occur, risk or no risk.
>
> Might be true, just depends. Again, I repeat: How Popper defined his
> theory is problematic. So one cannot use the term "falsification"
> without explaining exactly what is meant. As long as you define your
> terms and as long as you stay faithful to these meanings, you're in
> good shape.

As long as you continue to reiterate your misinterpretation rather than
trying to understand that the implications of your misintepretation are
that (a) Popper is an idiot and a failure; and (b) Popperian
falsification would never have been regarded as anything but risible by
either scientists or philosophers of science, you will never be in
anything but bad shape.

Yes, you have defined your terms; but like in so many other areas (e.g.
your insistence that logic is about reality, rather than correct
reasoning), your definition does not match that used by anyone else.

> > > > So the next experiment would be using Newton's theory to (say)
> > > > predict the position Neptune (which is how Neptune was found).
> > > > But again using a "level of risk" argument, once you've done
> > > > that, you can no longer use that to falsify Newton's theory of
> > > > Gravity, as Neptune isn't going to suddenly disappear.
> > >
> > > Relevance?
> >
> > It's part of the same analogy as above, and an inevitable
> > consequence of your insistence that falsification require risk even
> > if the theory is accurate.
>
> Make the application to rabbit in the pre-Cambrian? Isn't that what
> you're really after? You're really saying since our theory has been
> supported as reasonably true all the required risks have been taken.

You really don't do analogies, do you? I'll try to take it step by
step.

1) For ToE, "rabbits in the precambrian" is often given as an example
of an observation that would falsify the theory.

2) For Newtonian gravity, Neptune not being where it was found would
have falsified the theory.

3) No one has found rabbits in the precambrian, so ToE wasn't
falsified.

4) Neptune was found where it was expected, so Newtonian gravity wasn't
falsified.

5) Palaentologists are now confident that there is no risk that they
will find rabbits in the precambrian; so according to you, that can't
be used as an observation that would falsify ToE.

6) Astronomers are now confident that Neptune will stay pretty much in
its orbit for the forseeable future. If you were being logical, you
would claim that the successful prediction of Neptune's orbit can't be
taken as an observation that could have falsified Newtonian gravity.

Is that clear enough, and step-by-step enough?

If you insist on your intepretation of the word "risk", the inevitable
consequence is that once an experiment has been done or an observation
made, that experiment can no longer be taken as a potential
falsification of the theory, as there is no longer any real-world risk
(just risk in principle).

> >
> > For people who are used to dealing with logic and argument, the
> > relevance would be obvious to anyone who had actually read the
> > entirety of my post and tried to understand it.
> >
> > > > According to you, therefore, Newton's Theory oF Gravity has
> > > > ceased to be falsifiable (there is too much hindsight, to use
> > > > your own term). Just like Atomic Theory, the Theory of
> > > > Evolution, Thermodynamics, and every other foundation of modern
> > > > science.
> > >
> > > According to your understanding of Popper, not mine.
> >
> > Under any definition of Popperian falsification which has a useful
> > meaning. If, in your world, an observation cannot be taken as a
> > potential falsification even if the theory it is attempting to
> > falsify is accurate, then any potential problems with falsification
> > as an approach become totally irrelevant, because no one would have
> > given it a second thought.
>
> I'm not sure. Need time to think about what you're saying. But I have
> said that I believe there are problems with the objective theory.

There are really only 2 possible comclusion that can be drawn:

A) Your interpretation of the word "risk" to mean real-world risk (as
oppposed to "risk in principle" or "risk if the theory is wrong") is
incorrect;

or B) Popper was an idiot, and proposed a mechanism for evaluating
theories that can't work even in principle.

Of the two, I think the smart money is on "A".

[Burkhard]

That is actually a tricky one. In terms of Aristotelian syllogistics,
the inference (Mode Darapti, I think) is valid but unsound for the
reason you say- in his logic, empty predicates were not permitted.

However, modern logic does not have "existential import", so in modern
logic, the first two premises are trivially true of there are no
unicorns, but the inference is invalid - Darapti is one of the
syllogisms that fails in modern mathematical logic

<snip>

[Nick Roberts]

In message <md7hq8$sg5$1...@dont-email.me>
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Nick Roberts wrote:

[Snip for focus]

> > Premise A: Unicorns have a single horn.
> > Premise B: Unicorns are equine.
> >
> > Hence Conclusion C, there is an equine species with a single horn.
> >
> > What is wrong (not illogical) is the implication in the first 2
> > premises that unicorns actually exist. So the premises are wrong,
> > hence the conclusion may be valid or invalid. But this doesn't
> > impact on the logic of the statement: if premises A and B hold,
> > then conclusion C is true.
> >
>
> That is actually a tricky one. In terms of Aristotelian syllogistics,
> the inference (Mode Darapti, I think) is valid but unsound for the
> reason you say- in his logic, empty predicates were not permitted.
>
> However, modern logic does not have "existential import", so in
> modern logic, the first two premises are trivially true of there are
> no unicorns, but the inference is invalid - Darapti is one of the
> syllogisms that fails in modern mathematical logic

I will bow to the professional on this.

I'm not sure how modern "modern mathematical logic" is, but I haven't
studied it in quite a few years. Exactly how many years is too
depressing to admit to in a public forum.

Anyway, I've always been somewhat of a traditionalist. If the logic is
good enough for Aristotle, it's good enough for me.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in news:md7hq8$sg5$1...@dont-email.me:

> Nick Roberts wrote:
>> In message <e38b8782-9413-4887...@googlegroups.com>
>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>> That's been my complaint with evolutionary theorists. You don't seem
>>> to understand that logic is about what can and cannot exist.
>>
>> Or more correctly, you don't understand that logic is about
>> correctness, not reality.
>>
>> Premise A: Unicorns have a single horn.
>> Premise B: Unicorns are equine.
>>
>> Hence Conclusion C, there is an equine species with a single horn.
>>
>> What is wrong (not illogical) is the implication in the first 2
>> premises that unicorns actually exist. So the premises are wrong,
>> hence the conclusion may be valid or invalid. But this doesn't impact
>> on the logic of the statement: if premises A and B hold, then
>> conclusion C is true.
>
> That is actually a tricky one. In terms of Aristotelian syllogistics,
> the inference (Mode Darapti, I think) is valid but unsound for the
> reason you say- in his logic, empty predicates were not permitted.

I don't think Aristotle would allow the inference. 'Equine' is not
axiomatically identical to 'equine species,' and no identity between the
two terms is established by the premises: thus, there is no basis for
introducing the term 'species' into the conclusion, making it both untrue
and illogical.
--
S.O.P.

[RSNorman]

My "modern" mathematical logic was studied more than a half century
ago but this is the way I read it.

A. For all x, if x is a unicorn then x has a single horn.
This is true.

B. For all x, if x is a unicorn then x is equine.
This is true.

Conclusion, there exists a set S such that for all x in S, s is
equine and s has a single horn.

I carefully avoided using the term "species" to avoid what Sneaky
already pointed out separately. However you can define the "species"
unicorn simply as the set of equine entities with a single horn in
which case the species unicorn satisfies the conclusion; there is
indeed an equine species with a single horn.

The fact is that the conclusion follows from the premises: the set S
of all unicorns satisfies it. Of course there is nothing to indicate
that the set S has any members; the empty set is a perfectly good set.
Presumably, an empty species is also a perfectly good species: every
member of an empty species can reproduce with any other member and no
member of the empty species can succesfully interbreed with anything
outside the species.

Of course I am speaking strictly in terms of abstract logic and set
theory. In ordinary discourse, including empty sets in the discussion
would get you thrown out unless everyone was already sufficiently
drunk. Or unless everyone is arguing technical nits on talk.origins
which is pretty much the same thing.

[Inez]

Interestingly, Ray ought to believe that you WOULD find rabbits in the precambrian. He believes in fixed species, so if his theory were true there ought to be rabbits at every period of life's history.

[solar penguin]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:06:51 -0800, Inez wrote:

> Interestingly, Ray ought to believe that you WOULD find rabbits in the
> precambrian. He believes in fixed species, so if his theory were true
> there ought to be rabbits at every period of life's history.

OTOH Ray also believes God continually creates brand new species out of
thin air all the time. Maybe Ray's rabbits weren't magically zapped into
existence until the cambrian or even later...?

[Ray Martinez]

All of science accepted real time separate creation of each species until the rise of Darwinism. Darwin accepted the concept until 1837 (when he was 28 years old). All of the evidence clearly supports the separate creation model.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Yup, pretty much as I'd see it - "modern" in everything after George
Boole I'd say. While he had set out to simply systematize Aristotle, he
ended up laying the foundations of modern formal logic, which in some
aspects goes far beyond Aristotle, in others abandons some of his ideas
altogether. Giving up "existential import" is one of them, and very
helpful if you want to do math.

As you say below, this deviates a bit from our natural language
intuitions, and there are "modern modern" or really modern, non
classical systems that try to remedy that - they sometimes block the
inference (e.g. relevance logic) but are then in many respects even less
Aristotelian.

[Burkhard]

Strangely enough , I don't think so. While be believes in fixity, he
also seems to believe that God keeps creating species, long after
Genesis and possibly even today. How exactly that works he never
explained, but seems to be a bit like this: species accumulate
mutations. Just before there are so much mutation accumulated that
speciation is imminent, God steps in and creates a new species. How
exactly that happens - e.g. if suddenly lots of adults of the new
species come into existence out of nothing, or just a single one, or if
God manipulates the DNA of the old species, he is rather coy about.

He bases this on a remarkably ahistorical and also otherwise
linguistically silly interpretation of the English translation of the
Bible, in particular the word "replenish", where he misreads the
intensive prefix "re" as "again".

So in his religion, god may well have made rabbits long after the Cambrian.

[Roger Shrubber]

You've been corrected on that before. Pierre Louis Maupertuis
suggested common descent over a century before Darwin.
Immanual Kant also said as much in 1790. And Erasumus Darwin
did as well. Their evidence was the apparent nested hierarchy
that documented the relatedness of species. Charles Darwin's
contribution was to provide much much more data, and much more
detailed data in support of this, plus to provide some mechanistic
explanation for changes.

There did not exist the sort of ideological purity you keep
suggesting. Rather, those who studied nature kept realizing
the same thing. And with more and more comparative data, it
became more and more compelling to any who looked and listened
to what the data had to say.

[solar penguin]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:51:56 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> All of science accepted real time separate creation of each species
> until the rise of Darwinism. Darwin accepted the concept until 1837
> (when he was 28 years old). All of the evidence clearly supports the
> separate creation model.
>

Tell that to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

[Peter Nyikos]

I think I can see why you are doing so few posts lately, Vince:
when you do a reply, you do a really long reply, leaving you with
little energy to return to other threads you participated in, for
days on end.

Yes, yes, I'm guilty of the same thing, but I've been a little better
lately at sticking with multiple threads than I used to be. Today
I revisited the thread where we talked about the Hawaiian hot spot,
and found you here by clicking on "Show activity" in your latest
post there. My reply to that, done two days ago, is here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/PlIgn56GeN4/pe92wcDrdl4J

It's almost a twofer: I quote from another post in which I've said some
trenchant things about you, and which you also may have missed. I
do the same for you below.

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 8:14:48 AM UTC-5, Vincent Maycock wrote:

<huge snip to get to something that may need comment from me>

You only mention marsupials. But some rodents also made it to Australia
as it neared Asia after having broken loose from Antarctica.
But that would have been a minor glitch; you would have only had
to make your essay about twice as long to take such things into account.

Oh, and you also forgot the two monotremes, so different from every
other animal and even from each other. To include them might have
required another doubling of your essay.

> So his theory passes this test, and Darwin breathes a sigh of relief
> that his theory wasn't falsified, and says to himself, "Well, Chuck,
> you old son of a gun, it looks like you're on to something here!
>
> There are no limits to evolutionary change!"

Sorry, Darwin was much too cautious a researcher to claim that.
I doubt that he even thunk it.

>
> And he continues to accumulate more evidence along similar lines.
>
> So you just have phrase the classic Darwinian arguments for evolution
> (like the argument from biogeography above) in a way that shows that
> from Darwin's perspective, he *could have been wrong* when he went
> about accumulating evidence for evolution, and that therefore his
> theory repeatedly made risky predictions that came true for him,

That's a just-so story. I doubt that he predicted anything specific
enough to impress skeptics. They would have taken what he found
simply as evidence for the yet-to-be-established theory.

Now Tiktaalik, that was a REAL prediction of which I started a
whole thread to show how I, who take a jaundiced view of "evolutionary
theory predicted______________" Monday morning quarterbacking,
was very much impressed by it.

> giving him confidence that indeed he was on the right track.
>
> And that, of course, is scientific research at its best.

And now, here is where I mentioned you today on another thread:

___________________excerpt___________________________
I'm always on the horns of a dilemma when confronted with posts like the
one to which I am replying. In this case it is:

1. If I do not reply, Harshman will seem like a paragon of patience
to people like Vince Maycock, in comparison to the jerk who posted
it; and they (most certainly including Maycock) might cling to the
illusion that the jerk to whom I am replying is NOT a part-time troll.

2. If I do reply, it will further give ammunition to people, either
studiously ignored or aided, abetted and comforted by Harshman, who
lie through their teeth that

a. I attack anyone who disagrees with me and

b. I am not really interested in on-topic discussion with Harshman,
because I keep delaying replies to him in favor of counterattacking
people who can safely be ignored.

I judge the danger of a. to be minimal, and so I here opt
for 2. as the lesser evil.

[All of the above, unfortunately, is grist for the mill of Harshman's
canard that I am "paranoid". But he has shown that he has a radically
different definition for that word than the dictionary definition,
so let the chips fall where they may.]
===================== end of excerpt from

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/PlIgn56GeN4/pe92wcDrdl4J

By the way, the part-time troll to whom I was replying was S.O.P.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:39:47 PM UTC-8, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:44:46 PM UTC-8, solar penguin
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:06:51 -0800, Inez wrote:
> >>
> >>> Interestingly, Ray ought to believe that you WOULD find rabbits
> >>> in the precambrian. He believes in fixed species, so if his
> >>> theory were true there ought to be rabbits at every period of
> >>> life's history.
> >>
> >> OTOH Ray also believes God continually creates brand new species
> >> out of thin air all the time. Maybe Ray's rabbits weren't
> >> magically zapped into existence until the cambrian or even
> >> later...?
> >
> > All of science accepted real time separate creation of each species
> > until the rise of Darwinism. Darwin accepted the concept until 1837
> > (when he was 28 years old). All of the evidence clearly supports the
> > separate creation model.
>
> You've been corrected on that before. Pierre Louis Maupertuis
> suggested common descent over a century before Darwin.
> Immanual Kant also said as much in 1790. And Erasumus Darwin
> did as well. Their evidence was the apparent nested hierarchy
> that documented the relatedness of species.

LOL! You're parroting stuff you've heard others parrot. Without quotes and references from scholars/historians these claims are worthless. LOL!

I'm a student of evolutionary history. And as far as I am aware Buffon in the 17th century was the **first to advocate** genealogical connectivity yet his connections contained long and sporadic interruptions. Nothing like common descent or ancestry as the concept has been understood since the rise of Darwinism. If you don't believe me then ask John Wilkins.

> Charles Darwin's
> contribution was to provide much much more data, and much more
> detailed data in support of this, plus to provide some mechanistic
> explanation for changes.

Roger moves from asserting claims of advocating common descent to assuming the concept was accepted by science when Darwin arrived on the scene (more laughs).
You haven't the faintest idea as to what you're talking about. When Darwin published in 1859 "each species" considered immutable, created independently; therefore common descent anytime before was no where to be seen, much less accepted.

From the Origin Introduction:

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained----namely, that **each species** has been independently created----is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable"---Darwin "On The Origin Of Species" 1859:6; London: John Murray.

>
> There did not exist the sort of ideological purity you keep
> suggesting. Rather, those who studied nature kept realizing
> the same thing. And with more and more comparative data, it
> became more and more compelling to any who looked and listened
> to what the data had to say.

Thus saith some guy on the internet.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:44:43 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:39:47 PM UTC-8, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:44:46 PM UTC-8, solar penguin
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:06:51 -0800, Inez wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Interestingly, Ray ought to believe that you WOULD find rabbits
> > >>> in the precambrian. He believes in fixed species, so if his
> > >>> theory were true there ought to be rabbits at every period of
> > >>> life's history.
> > >>
> > >> OTOH Ray also believes God continually creates brand new species
> > >> out of thin air all the time. Maybe Ray's rabbits weren't
> > >> magically zapped into existence until the cambrian or even
> > >> later...?
> > >
> > > All of science accepted real time separate creation of each species
> > > until the rise of Darwinism. Darwin accepted the concept until 1837
> > > (when he was 28 years old). All of the evidence clearly supports the
> > > separate creation model.
> >
> > You've been corrected on that before. Pierre Louis Maupertuis
> > suggested common descent over a century before Darwin.
> > Immanual Kant also said as much in 1790. And Erasumus Darwin
> > did as well. Their evidence was the apparent nested hierarchy
> > that documented the relatedness of species.
>
> LOL! You're parroting stuff you've heard others parrot. Without quotes and references from scholars/historians these claims are worthless. LOL!
>

> I'm a student of evolutionary history. And as far as I am aware Buffon in the 17th century....

CORRECTION: Should have said "18th century...."

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

Notice that in your own quote of Darwin, he says "most".
So when I wrote "There did not exist the sort of ideological purity
you keep ...", your own quote supports me. Otherwise, Darwin
would have said "all" instead of "most".

You keep claiming that everyone believed in your absolute version
of special creation prior to Darwin. That's false. I do not comment
on how common various interpretations were. I deny your claim
that "All of science accepted real time separate creation of

each species until the rise of Darwinism."

You do understand the logic of these words like "all" don't you?
One single exception and your claim is false. Darwin is not your
magic pivot. Deal with it.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:39:47 PM UTC-8, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:44:46 PM UTC-8, solar penguin
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:06:51 -0800, Inez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, Ray ought to believe that you WOULD find rabbits
>>>>> in the precambrian. He believes in fixed species, so if his
>>>>> theory were true there ought to be rabbits at every period of
>>>>> life's history.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH Ray also believes God continually creates brand new species
>>>> out of thin air all the time. Maybe Ray's rabbits weren't
>>>> magically zapped into existence until the cambrian or even
>>>> later...?
>>>
>>> All of science accepted real time separate creation of each species
>>> until the rise of Darwinism. Darwin accepted the concept until 1837
>>> (when he was 28 years old). All of the evidence clearly supports the
>>> separate creation model.
>>
>> You've been corrected on that before. Pierre Louis Maupertuis
>> suggested common descent over a century before Darwin.
>> Immanual Kant also said as much in 1790. And Erasumus Darwin
>> did as well. Their evidence was the apparent nested hierarchy
>> that documented the relatedness of species.
>
> LOL! You're parroting stuff you've heard others parrot. Without quotes and references from scholars/historians these claims are worthless.

"Could we not explain in this manner how the multiplication of the most
dissimilar species could have sprung from just two individuals? They
would owe their origin to some fortuitous productions in which the
elementary parts deviated from the order maintained in the parents.
Each degree of error would have created a new species, and as a result
of repeated deviations the infinite diversity of animals that we see
today would have come about. Maupertius, Systèm de la Nature 2:164,

LOL!
>
> I'm a student of evolutionary history.

Now that's funny!

[Ray Martinez]

He was actually talking about any land-dwelling quadruped.

>
> This would include, for example, any amniote species being found in the
> Devonian period or earlier.
>
> > > Similarly, everyone knows that if you drop a lead pellet and a
> > > feather in a vacuum, then they will accelerate at the same rate. So
> > > there is no risk associated with this experiment, so it can't be
> > > used to falsify Newton's theory of gravity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, as I point out below, one of the great triumphs of the
> > > theory is the prediction of the existence and location of Neptune.
> > > But if you carry out that experiment again, there is no risk
> > > associated, as Neptune hasn't disappeared. So you can't use the
> > > prediction of the orbit of Neptune as an example of an experiment
> > > that could have falsified Newton's theory of gravity.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're getting at?
>
> Where is the risk in finding Neptune by using the gravitational
> interaction of its mass with that of closer planets? There is none in
> the real world; so you can't use that to falsify Newton's theory of
> gravity.
>
> In fact, can you name any single experiment that you could carry out
> that would falsify Newton's Theory of Gravity? What carries enough risk
> to satisfy your demand?

I haven't study Newtonian gravity so I can't make the judgments you're making.

> > > In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
> > > observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no theory
> > > that can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an experiment
> > > and it doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer use that as an
> > > example of an experiment that can falsify the theory.
> >
> > I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification is
> > defined.
>
> Only if you misintepret the definition. Risk only applies _if the
> theory is inaccurate_.

Ridiculous. You're wasting my time.

> If risk applies whether the theory is inaccurate
> or not, it's a meaningless and useless test for any theory.

I think you shouldn't say anymore unless you can support via a reference.

> > Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version.
>
> It may well be watered down according to your incorrect interpretation.
> It's not watered down according to the Popper's intended meaning.

Then support what you say or stop saying it.

> Please, for once in your life step back from the position you have
> committed yourself to and think about it:
>
> What use is a way of disproving a theory, if you can't use it to tell
> whether a theory is accurate or not? On my (and that of every sane
> scientist and philospher of science), an experiment or observation that
> doesn't match the theory can be taken to mean that the theory doesn't
> hold. But on your definition (where risk of failure is required even if
> the theory is accurate) it can't: that an observation or experiment
> doesn't match the theory tells you nothing about the validity or
> otherwise of the theory.

You know I've been slow to respond to your replies. I've been walking around thinking about them. Trying to understand....trying to give you every benefit possible. You've taken Popper's theory and changed it to what you think it should have said while maintaining that what you say is what Popper not only said but meant. People do this all the time with theories. This tactic indicates that what you say is NOT what Popper said or meant.

Moreover, you keep assuming evolution an accurate theory. That based on this claim of fact the theory is only subject to a watered down version of falsification. This is why I'm having trouble understanding your arguments. You've created your own elaborate theory of falsification, which includes tests for accurate theories and other tests for inaccurate theories. Yet Popper wasn't talking about accurate or inaccurate theories. He was talking about what constitutes real science from pseudoscience.

Example of pseudoscience: A man stands in an African village snapping his fingers. Asked why he does such a thing? "Keeps elephants away." But there are no elephants in these parts. "See, it works."

> > And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition
> > (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on you
> > and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.
>
> It's not "me and my colleagues" that is the problem: it's your bizarre
> interpretation of a statement that included the word "risk".

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

"Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions---the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct."

> > > > Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His
> > > > falsification theory was published a long time after Newton died.
> > >
> > > I have no particular beef with Popper, once some practical issues
> > > are allowed for. What I have a beef with is your insistence that
> > > experiments purported to falsify a theory require risk _even if the
> > > theory is correct_.
> >
> > You can't make these types of statements when debating the veracity
> > of the ToE with an opponent. You've assumed your conclusion or that
> > which is in dispute.
>
> I have assumed nothing of the kind. What I have assumed is that Popper

> understood that falsification only involved risk [if] the theory is
> unsound.

Completely false. You're placing theory changing facets into Popper's claims.

> If the theory is sound, then (within it's intended domain) it
> can't be disproven - not because it is unfalsifiable, but because all
> attempts to falsify it have failed, and continue to fail.

You're arguing original ideas and these should be explicated in a formal essay or paper. You shouldn't be initiating them on me in this context.

> > Moreover, you can't refer to an experiment as
> > fulfilling or showing potential falsification unless it involves a
> > genuine risk. I didn't make up this rule.
>
> You did, however, miss the implication that risk is only meaningful as
> a way of demonstrating that the theory is invalid. If the theory (any
> theory, not just ToE) is sound (and complete), then there is no
> experiment within its domain that can falsify it.

I would like to see John Harshman comment on the above statement and the one before.

>
> This, of course, never happens, especially in the messy world of
> biology: what happens for well-supported theories (like ToE) is that
> observations that do not match the theory are typically around the
> edges, one-offs, or special cases. Such observations tend not to
> falsify the theory entirely, just require that the theory requires some
> modification or revision.

But we were never assuming the core theory true (at least I wasn't).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The only reason Darwin wrote "most" instead of "all" is because a few accepted an unidentified creative law to account for species.

And prior to 1859, in England, ALL naturalists, except Darwin and Wallace, rejected transmutation. Would you like a scholarly quotation? Let me know.

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

And Dissertatio de sedibus plantarum originariis (1816) by Joakim
Frederik Schouw, a Danish botonist which argues for Generatio aequivoca,
or continuous evolution of species.

And Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgement (1792)
"We may call a hypothesis of this kind a daring venture of reason, and
there may be few even of the most acute naturalists through whose head
it has not sometimes passed. For it is not absurd, like that generatio
aequivoca by which is understood the production of an organised being
through the mechanics of crude unorganised matter. It would always
remain generatio univoca in the most universal sense of the word, for it
only considers one organic being as derived from another organic being,
although from one which is specifically different; e.g. certain
water-animals transform themselves gradually into marsh-animals and from
these, after some generations, into land-animals. "

But this is old stuff to talk.origins, not merely older than Charles
Darwin's work.

[Roger Shrubber]

I readily grant that you can probably find somebody to claim
that "all" scientists in England believed in separate creation.
And I further grant that they will, in some sense, match to a
definition of a scholar. But if you want to be a scholar, you
have to be able to address whether or not they were right.
And you also have to learn to stop moving goal-posts. I'm
specifically referring to you're retreat from "all of science"
to "ALL naturalists in England".

But do go ahead and provide your quotation. Just understand
that some historian's claim hardly refutes the direct fact
that people, including Darwin's grandfather, wrote about a
connected chain of species running backwards in time with
current species being descended from prior species, producing
the pattern of common descent. And those hard facts trump
the claims that somebody, scholar or not, makes about what
they think other people believed. It does so because the first
is primary and verifiable. I don't see how the latter could
be unless an actual survey was taken.

[Burkhard]

And Robert Knox. And Robert Edmund Grant. And Robert Jameson And...

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:36:01 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>I think I can see why you are doing so few posts lately, Vince:
>when you do a reply, you do a really long reply, leaving you with
>little energy to return to other threads you participated in, for
>days on end.

No, it's more a matter of time than energy. I don't want to spend
hours and hours a day on the Net, so I've been cutting back.

No, considering how counterproductive and unnecessary these details
would have been, I doubt any such doubling would have resulted if I
had included them.

The point was, the biogeography of Australian marsupials would have
been as indicative to Darwin of Australian marsupial common ancestry
as the biogeography of the finches on the Galapagos Islands was
indicative of Galapagos finch common ancestry (and therefore of the
kind of scale of biological change that the "argument of
biogeography" indicated -- i.e., much, much greater than a few slight
modifications in beak shape and so on).

>> So his theory passes this test, and Darwin breathes a sigh of relief
>> that his theory wasn't falsified, and says to himself, "Well, Chuck,
>> you old son of a gun, it looks like you're on to something here!
>>
>> There are no limits to evolutionary change!"
>
>Sorry, Darwin was much too cautious a researcher to claim that.
>I doubt that he even thunk it.

No, there's no reason to think Darwin thought there were limits to
evolutionary change.

>>
>> And he continues to accumulate more evidence along similar lines.
>>
>> So you just have phrase the classic Darwinian arguments for evolution
>> (like the argument from biogeography above) in a way that shows that
>> from Darwin's perspective, he *could have been wrong* when he went
>> about accumulating evidence for evolution, and that therefore his
>> theory repeatedly made risky predictions that came true for him,
>
>That's a just-so story.

That's not the definition of a "just-so-story." A "just-so-story" has
to explain something, usually involving some kind of Rube-Goldberg
type of contraption of a mechanism for the origin of the thing you're
trying to explain.

If you mean that the story is "not solidly grounded in actual
history," when you say it's a "just-so story," I would agree with
that, but emphasize that the point was not to write history, but
rather to illustrate the idea that evolution can be more easily seen
to be quite falsifaible if we visualize a world where evolution isn't
casually assumed to be true (since Ray seemed to be conflating
"self-evidently true," which would correctly describe evolutionary
theory, of course, and "true by definition and popular assumption,"
which is wrong).

So the story didn't have to be necessarily historical in content; in
fact, I had in mind an alternate story in which God had created all
living things and that therefore evolution could be seen to be
falsifiable because in this story it *would be falsified* -- like
maybe if the nested hierarchy followed the shape of a parabola when
graphed on paper or something, which would be beyond the reach of
known genetic mechanisms, and that was the sort of nested hierarchy
that God had chosen to create in this alternate story -- but I chose
to write some historical fiction instead because the subject of
Charles Darwin's life and science seems to be where Ray's interests
lie.

> I doubt that he predicted anything specific
>enough to impress skeptics.

Absolutely true. He never predicted anything to anyone until he was
quite sure his theory would not be falsified, i.e., after it had
passed numerous private tests far from public scrutiny where,
involving situations where, from his perspective, his theory could
have been falsified.

More specifically, Darwin was actually somewhat of a coward, as I
understand it, and it was only after Alfred Wallace published
independently on the subject that Darwin decided that if he didn't
want to be scooped big-time in the history of science, he had better
publish -- i.e., same thing as a coward.

> They would have taken what he found
>simply as evidence for the yet-to-be-established theory.
>
>Now Tiktaalik, that was a REAL prediction of which I started a

I suppose, but I've never understood why you're so fascinated with
_Tiktaalik_. At the time this fossil was discovered, the
crossopterygian origin of tetrapods was already well-established, and
_Tiktaalik_ was just the icing on the cake; only an imbecile would
have thought something other than a _Tiktaalik_-like creature would
show up in any sedimentary deposit with the ability to enduringly
preserve its remains.

>whole thread to show how I, who take a jaundiced view of "evolutionary
>theory predicted______________" Monday morning quarterbacking,
>was very much impressed by it.

That's not the definition of Monday-morning quarterbacking.

With Monday-morning quarterbacking, you devise ways in which someone
else could have done better, given the benefit of hindsight.

E.g., to use an example from the eponymous sporting situation, someone
says "If it hadda been me yesterday out on the gridiron, on 3rd and
47, I woulda thrown a Hail Mary and found my wideout for the
game-winner," and the context here would be this TV sports analyst
would be noticing the fact that the quarterback *did* have a receiver
streaking down the sideline, but the quarterback had decided it would
be best not to throw the risky pass, and instead decided to just punt
and trust that his that his team's usually good defense would give him
the ball back with enough time left to throw the ball more effectively
at the end of the game -- but it turns out that the defense falters
this time, and the other team runs out the clock with the ground game.
But there's no way the quarterback could've known that that would
happen, so we call it Monday-morning quarterbacking if a TV sports
news anchor analyzes Sunday's NFL games in this way -- i.e., telling
how the quarterback could have done better, given things that the
quarterback couldn't necessarily be expected to know about at the time
that he made his decisions.

You're referring more to the idea of a "retrodiction," i.e., the idea
that evolution mostly explains what's already there rather that
predicting new phenomena, which is sort of true, given how obviously
true evolution is.

That is, presumably people have always suspected that evolution was
true, and Darwin just "explained and related a bunch of disparate
evidence" that made that suspicion something more like an unavoidable
fact; and "explaining and relating disparate phenomena" or "making
retrodictions" doesn't fit the popular conception of a scientific
success story, and that's what may have been confusing Ray (i.e., he
thought that *all science had to fit that popular conception,* when it
doesn't -- some science is more prosaic than that, depending on the
level of insight required, and again, considering how obviously true
evolution is, Darwin's insight was not ... shall we say ...
Feynman-like.

It's possible that Darwin's theory was more the result of the change
in the political Zeitgeist that he lived in than what we would call a
true "scientific revolution."

That is, as theism became less dominant in Western European society,
some of its tenets, such as Creationism, became less intellectually
mandatory for the respectable thinking man, and Darwin's writings
reflected more this new intellectual freedom than his personal
scientific brilliance or anything.

But because *any idea, no matter how obvious,* can be formulated in
the way that the more crowd-pleasing and amazing scientific
discoveries can, it's possible to write historical fiction about how
Darwin "feared that his ideas might be falsified, and made bold
predictions where he had all his money riding on a single prediction,"
etc, etc.

In the context of this historical analysis, my idea is that Darwin's
fears (which led to years and years of delay in the publication of his
_Origin of Species_) were more associated with fear of public
disapproval of something he suspected they were also were pretty sure
was true, rather than fears that he "might be wrong."

>> giving him confidence that indeed he was on the right track.
>>
>> And that, of course, is scientific research at its best.
>
>And now, here is where I mentioned you today on another thread:
>
>___________________excerpt___________________________
>I'm always on the horns of a dilemma when confronted with posts like the
>one to which I am replying. In this case it is:
>
>1. If I do not reply, Harshman will seem like a paragon of patience
>to people like Vince Maycock, in comparison to the jerk who posted
>it; and they (most certainly including Maycock) might cling to the
>illusion that the jerk to whom I am replying is NOT a part-time troll.

For the record:

a) I do not think John Harshman is a paragon of patience

b) even if I hadn't known John for many years, I would not base my
evaluation of his character on a single incident in the way that you
suggest

c) not only is S.O.P. not a troll, (per your previous accusation), he
is not a part-time troll, either

d) your idea is a logical non sequitur -- it does not follow from the
fact that you fail to reply to someone that one of their supposed
allies is a paragon of patience

>2. If I do reply, it will further give ammunition to people, either
>studiously ignored or aided, abetted and comforted by Harshman, who
>lie through their teeth that
>
>a. I attack anyone who disagrees with me and

So you feel driven to reply to people in a way that gives people the
impression that you're "attacking" them?

>b. I am not really interested in on-topic discussion with Harshman,
>because I keep delaying replies to him in favor of counterattacking
>people who can safely be ignored.

No one would think either of these things, considering that your long
on-topic discussions with Harshman are enough of a fixture at the
newsgroup that some people may be wondering whether it would be best
to killfile the threads containing the boring minutiae you guys talk
about -- oh, but wait, better not do that, it's technically on-topic.
And I don't think anyone thinks you have opponents that "can safely be
ignored." Considering the stigma that's attached to you at the
newsgroup, I would say that it would be fair to allow you the
opportunity to defend yourself against your many attackers.

Where those attackers came from is another question; in my view, they
came from your own personal assholery at the newsgroup, but the fact
remains that they're there, and no one would consider you to have
people that you consider "safe to ignore."

>I judge the danger of a. to be minimal, and so I here opt
>for 2. as the lesser evil.
>
>[All of the above, unfortunately, is grist for the mill of Harshman's
>canard that I am "paranoid".

No, that's not a canard. It is true that you're paranoid about the way
people view you.

Or at least that's your whole persona; I always interpret this
persona as your modus operandi for attacking people. I.e., things
along the lines of "Since this mainstream talk.origins poster
supposedly thinks this horrible thing about me, it follows that I must
respond with ... some *serious* bitchiness myself!"

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/5/15 3:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 9:44:47 AM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:

snip

>>> My real point was that the much touted example of "rabbit in the
>>> pre-Cambrian" should be disowned by Evolutionists because it does not
>>> entail an acceptable level of risk.
>>
>> But you should also recognise the "rabbits in the precambrian" is a
>> quote from Haldane when asked what evidence would destroy his
>> confidence in ToE; and that it is a shorthand for "any species for
>> which strong evidence can be found for existance very much prior to
>> ancestral species".
>
> He was actually talking about any land-dwelling quadruped.

You should be asking yourself, Ray, why there aren't any land dwelling
quadrupeds in the Cambrian, or any period before the Devonian. Why
weren't they created until billions of years after the Earth formed?

>
>>
>> This would include, for example, any amniote species being found in the
>> Devonian period or earlier.
>>
>>>> Similarly, everyone knows that if you drop a lead pellet and a
>>>> feather in a vacuum, then they will accelerate at the same rate. So
>>>> there is no risk associated with this experiment, so it can't be
>>>> used to falsify Newton's theory of gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, as I point out below, one of the great triumphs of the
>>>> theory is the prediction of the existence and location of Neptune.
>>>> But if you carry out that experiment again, there is no risk
>>>> associated, as Neptune hasn't disappeared. So you can't use the
>>>> prediction of the orbit of Neptune as an example of an experiment
>>>> that could have falsified Newton's theory of gravity.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you're getting at?
>>
>> Where is the risk in finding Neptune by using the gravitational
>> interaction of its mass with that of closer planets? There is none in
>> the real world; so you can't use that to falsify Newton's theory of
>> gravity.
>>
>> In fact, can you name any single experiment that you could carry out
>> that would falsify Newton's Theory of Gravity? What carries enough risk
>> to satisfy your demand?
>
> I haven't study Newtonian gravity so I can't make the judgments you're making.

It doesn't matter, Ray. That's why it's an analogy.

>
>>>> In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
>>>> observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no theory
>>>> that can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an experiment
>>>> and it doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer use that as an
>>>> example of an experiment that can falsify the theory.
>>>
>>> I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification is
>>> defined.
>>
>> Only if you misintepret the definition. Risk only applies _if the
>> theory is inaccurate_.
>
> Ridiculous. You're wasting my time.

You are avoiding the question, with a very transparent dodge. This is
what people mean by "evasion", Ray.

>
>> If risk applies whether the theory is inaccurate
>> or not, it's a meaningless and useless test for any theory.
>
> I think you shouldn't say anymore unless you can support via a reference.

Why? What do you dispute about the statement?

>
>>> Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version.
>>
>> It may well be watered down according to your incorrect interpretation.
>> It's not watered down according to the Popper's intended meaning.
>
> Then support what you say or stop saying it.

What would you accept as support?

>
>> Please, for once in your life step back from the position you have
>> committed yourself to and think about it:
>>
>> What use is a way of disproving a theory, if you can't use it to tell
>> whether a theory is accurate or not? On my (and that of every sane
>> scientist and philospher of science), an experiment or observation that
>> doesn't match the theory can be taken to mean that the theory doesn't
>> hold. But on your definition (where risk of failure is required even if
>> the theory is accurate) it can't: that an observation or experiment
>> doesn't match the theory tells you nothing about the validity or
>> otherwise of the theory.
>
> You know I've been slow to respond to your replies.

Everyone knows you are slow, Ray.

> I've been walking around thinking about them.

How do you manage to do both at the same time?

> Trying to understand....trying to give you every benefit possible.

But you haven't done the only thing that could possibly allow you to
understand, and to see the truth. You have not accepted the possibility
that you might be wrong. You are still trying to cling to your beliefs
without giving up your unsupported assumptions.

> You've taken Popper's theory and changed it to what you think it should have said while maintaining that what you say is what Popper not only said but meant.

On the contrary. Nick is relating Popper's statements as they were
meant to be taken. He's not enforcing your own misunderstanding, and
mistaken assumptions onto Popper.

> People do this all the time with theories.

No, Creationists do this all the time with things they don't like, and
find inconvenient. Rational people don't try to make the facts fit
their own foregone conclusion.

> This tactic indicates that what you say is NOT what Popper said or meant.

I always find it amazing how you manage to turn things around 180 deg
from reality. Nick explained quite patiently why your version of
Popper is unlikely to be correct. You, on the other hand just assert
that you are right, and everyone else in the world is wrong.

>
> Moreover, you keep assuming evolution an accurate theory.

That's not an assumption, Ray. That's what a track record of 150 years
of testing has shown.

> That based on this claim of fact the theory is only subject to a watered down version of falsification. This is why I'm having trouble understanding your arguments. You've created your own elaborate theory of falsification, which includes tests for accurate theories and other tests for inaccurate theories. Yet Popper wasn't talking about accurate or inaccurate theories. He was talking about what constitutes real science from pseudoscience.
>

Ray, the reason why the theory of evolution is considered a valid theory
is that it has stood up to attempts to falsify it since the moment
Darwin and Wallace's paper was first presented. It's been subject to
regular falsification for all that time. Nothing about it is "watered
down".

There are several points in history, that in hindsight evolutionary
theory passed handily, but prior to those tests, held real and
considerable risk. Several examples:

1865: Gregor Mendel presents his paper on heredity in pea plants. If
Mendel had discovered that heredity was blending, rather than discrete,
evolution by natural selection would have suffered falsification, as new
variations would have been swamped by the larger populations.

1892: Lord Kelvin publishes an estimation of the age of the Earth, (100
million years) which would be too short for evolution to have occurred.
That offered a potential falsification. Later discovery of
radioactivity in 1903, showed Kelvin's estimation was incorrect.

1900: Rediscovery of Mendel's workby Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and
Erich von Tschermak, and applying genetic research to fruit flies.
Again, discovering the nature of genes, and how they work was a major
potential falsification point. If the scientists had found that
heredity worked differently than we know today, that would have stopped
evolutionary theory cold.

1909: Charles Walcott discovers the Burgess Shale, with delicately
preserved impressions of soft bodied organisms from the Cambrian period.
No tetrapod fossils found.

1936 -1949 The modern synthesis: Mendelian genetics were tested
throughout the world, and were found to be consistent with natural
selection. Different findings would have totally rejected evolutionary
theory.

1944: Science discovers genes are made of DNA.

1951: The techniques for testing genetic differences between species is
developed.

1953: Watson and Crick, working from Rosalind Franklin's X-ray
crystalography discover the structure of DNA

> Example of pseudoscience: A man stands in an African village snapping his fingers. Asked why he does such a thing? "Keeps elephants away." But there are no elephants in these parts. "See, it works."

Another example of pseudoscience: A person imagines that he can see
"design in nature". He assumes he is right, and that proves to him that
there must be a designer.

>
>>> And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition
>>> (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on you
>>> and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.
>>
>> It's not "me and my colleagues" that is the problem: it's your bizarre
>> interpretation of a statement that included the word "risk".
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
> "Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions---the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct."

Yes, meaning the risk is as Nick described, not how you imagine it to be.

>
>>>>> Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His
>>>>> falsification theory was published a long time after Newton died.
>>>>
>>>> I have no particular beef with Popper, once some practical issues
>>>> are allowed for. What I have a beef with is your insistence that
>>>> experiments purported to falsify a theory require risk _even if the
>>>> theory is correct_.
>>>
>>> You can't make these types of statements when debating the veracity
>>> of the ToE with an opponent. You've assumed your conclusion or that
>>> which is in dispute.
>>
>> I have assumed nothing of the kind. What I have assumed is that Popper
>> understood that falsification only involved risk [if] the theory is
>> unsound.
>
> Completely false. You're placing theory changing facets into Popper's claims.

Ray, philosophic theories are different from scientific theories. You
never understood what Popper meant in the first place, so how do you
know what would be changing his theory?

>
>> If the theory is sound, then (within it's intended domain) it
>> can't be disproven - not because it is unfalsifiable, but because all
>> attempts to falsify it have failed, and continue to fail.
>
> You're arguing original ideas and these should be explicated in a formal essay or paper. You shouldn't be initiating them on me in this context.

He isn't 'initiating' them. That is how everyone understands Popper's
intent, except you.

>
>>> Moreover, you can't refer to an experiment as
>>> fulfilling or showing potential falsification unless it involves a
>>> genuine risk. I didn't make up this rule.
>>
>> You did, however, miss the implication that risk is only meaningful as
>> a way of demonstrating that the theory is invalid. If the theory (any
>> theory, not just ToE) is sound (and complete), then there is no
>> experiment within its domain that can falsify it.
>
> I would like to see John Harshman comment on the above statement and the one before.

Why? What is so magical about John's opinion?

>
>>
>> This, of course, never happens, especially in the messy world of
>> biology: what happens for well-supported theories (like ToE) is that
>> observations that do not match the theory are typically around the
>> edges, one-offs, or special cases. Such observations tend not to
>> falsify the theory entirely, just require that the theory requires some
>> modification or revision.
>
> But we were never assuming the core theory true (at least I wasn't).

No one is assuming that the theory of evolution is true. It's
considered true as long as it keeps withstanding falsification attempts.
That you don't understand what is meant by "risky" is not anyone
else's problem.

DJT

[Nick Roberts]

In message <1aaf969f-e953-4091...@googlegroups.com>

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 9:44:47 AM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:

> > > > you won't find rabbits in the precambrian.

> > >
> > > My real point was that the much touted example of "rabbit in the
> > > pre-Cambrian" should be disowned by Evolutionists because it does
> > > not entail an acceptable level of risk.
> >
> > But you should also recognise the "rabbits in the precambrian" is a
> > quote from Haldane when asked what evidence would destroy his
> > confidence in ToE; and that it is a shorthand for "any species for
> > which strong evidence can be found for existance very much prior to
> > ancestral species".
>
> He was actually talking about any land-dwelling quadruped.

He was? I'm not disputing your claim, but it seems a bit specific,
considering the context.

And why isn't "any land-dwelling quadruped in the precambrian" an
observation that would falsify ToE?

That you claim it could never happen (i.e. has no "risk") is an
implicit assumption that you accept ToE, or something very like it. If
God created all species by an act of will, surely he could produce a
land dwelling quaduped whenever the felt like it - and that includes
the precambrian. But you are certain that he didn't. How do you know
that? Perhaps he did, but they never fossilised. Or they did fossilise,
and all the rock has been transformed since. Or we simply haven't
looked in the right place.

So how do you know that he didn't?

And if someone finds such a fossil tomorrow, obviously you can't claim
that ToE has been thoroughly refuted, because you have stated that such
an observation isn't capable of refuting ToE. Is that really your
position?

> > This would include, for example, any amniote species being found in
> > the Devonian period or earlier.
> >
> > > > Similarly, everyone knows that if you drop a lead pellet and a
> > > > feather in a vacuum, then they will accelerate at the same
> > > > rate. So there is no risk associated with this experiment, so
> > > > it can't be used to falsify Newton's theory of gravity.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, as I point out below, one of the great triumphs of
> > > > the theory is the prediction of the existence and location of
> > > > Neptune. But if you carry out that experiment again, there is
> > > > no risk associated, as Neptune hasn't disappeared. So you can't
> > > > use the prediction of the orbit of Neptune as an example of an
> > > > experiment that could have falsified Newton's theory of
> > > > gravity.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you're getting at?
> >
> > Where is the risk in finding Neptune by using the gravitational
> > interaction of its mass with that of closer planets? There is none
> > in the real world; so you can't use that to falsify Newton's theory
> > of gravity.
> >
> > In fact, can you name any single experiment that you could carry
> > out that would falsify Newton's Theory of Gravity? What carries
> > enough risk to satisfy your demand?
>
> I haven't study Newtonian gravity so I can't make the judgments
> you're making.

It really doesn't matter what I picked. It could have been the germ
theory of disease, atomic theory, or anything. According to your
interpretation of "risk", the more thoroughly a scientific theory has
been tested and withstood falsification, the harder and harder it is to
claim that it is scientific, as none of those experiments can now
falsify it.

Hence, your intepretation (and it is _your_ interpretation, and one
that Popper would never recognise) simpifies to "there is no such thing
as a scientific theory, because they are all either refuted or become
unfalsifiable".

Furthermore, that you haven't studied Newtonian gravity is irrelevant.
You should at least be able to understand the words that I used
(they're not technical), and try to follow the logic. And you can't use
the fact that you're not a student to ignore the entire argument -
ignorance is not the same as a refutation.

> > > > In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
> > > > observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no
> > > > theory that can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an
> > > > experiment and it doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer
> > > > use that as an example of an experiment that can falsify the
> > > > theory.
> > >
> > > I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification
> > > is defined.
> >
> > Only if you misintepret the definition. Risk only applies _if the
> > theory is inaccurate_.
>
> Ridiculous. You're wasting my time.

And you're wasting mine. If you invite me to put my arguments, only a
coward would then wave away my arguments without any attempt whatsoever
to address them".

One of your many flaws is that you seem to think that restating your
position is evidence in support of your position, which is pretty much
all that you have been doing in this thread. Another is your refusal to
even attempt to address the points that your opponents make.

Basically, you never seriously enter into a discussion: all you do is
harangue your opponent until either he/she gets bored, or you claim
something like "you're wasting my time", which is Ray-speak for "I
cannot present any evidence in support of my position".

> > If risk applies whether the theory is inaccurate or not, it's a
> > meaningless and useless test for any theory.
>
> I think you shouldn't say anymore unless you can support via a
> reference.

Even if I did, the chance that you would pay any attention to it is
minimal. You have a single secondary source that uses the word "risk",
and (like so many bibiolators) you weave elaborate fantasies about the
words, without ever seeking to understand the sentences.

> > > Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version.
> >
> > It may well be watered down according to your incorrect
> > interpretation. It's not watered down according to the Popper's
> > intended meaning.
>
> Then support what you say or stop saying it.

I would like you to support your interpretation. I accept your quote,
but there is a difference in agreeing that a word was used, and
accepting your intepretation of the word.

I have pointed out, time and again, that your intepretation leads to
ludicrous consequences, including the consequence that if that was what
Popper had actually meant, he would never have been taken in the
slightest bit seriously, as his entire philosophy of science would be
risible.

But you're uninterested in consequences, as it disagrees with your
interpretation of the word risk.

I have given my interpretation of the usage of the word, which (even if
you ignore the inane consequences of your interpretation) is at least
as valid as your own. You haven't even attempted to address my
interpretation, you just keep claiming that the use of the word risk
means that you are right.

So I return the challenge to you:

Support your claim that Popper meant that an observation must carry
risk, _even if the theory is correct_. If you cannot support that, then
your entire argument evaporates.

And quoting sentences that include the word risk without addressing the
validity or otherwise of the theory will not support your claim.

> > Please, for once in your life step back from the position you have
> > committed yourself to and think about it:
> >
> > What use is a way of disproving a theory, if you can't use it to
> > tell whether a theory is accurate or not? On my (and that of every
> > sane scientist and philospher of science), an experiment or
> > observation that doesn't match the theory can be taken to mean that
> > the theory doesn't hold. But on your definition (where risk of
> > failure is required even if the theory is accurate) it can't: that
> > an observation or experiment doesn't match the theory tells you
> > nothing about the validity or otherwise of the theory.
>

> You know I've been slow to respond to your replies. I've been walking
> around thinking about them. Trying to understand....trying to give
> you every benefit possible. You've taken Popper's theory and changed

> it to what you think it should have said while maintaining that what

> you say is what Popper not only said but meant. People do this all
> the time with theories. This tactic indicates that what you say is

> NOT what Popper said or meant.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have presented my intepretation of
the meaning of the word "risk", as meaning "there is a risk that the
observation will fail if the theory is unsound", which (given that
falsification is all about testing theories) would seem to be a
reasonable interpretation. Your interpretation, OTOH, requires that a
valid theory can be falsified by an observation, which is quite
unreasonable.

You keep claiming to know logic better than anyone else. Do you not
even recognise that your own intepretation is paradoxical?

Observation requires risk => theory can fail.
Theory fails observation => theory is invalid.

If an observation related to a valid theory requires risk, you get:

Observation requires risk => valid theory can fail.
Valid theory fails observation => theory is invalid.

Even by your standards of logic, you can surely see the problem here?

> Moreover, you keep assuming evolution an accurate theory.

In that case, you will no doubt be able to point out where this
assumption is made. Please do so.

The only assumption that I have made is that an observation can only
refute a theory if the theory is invalid.

Please explain the logic that allows you to falsify a theory, _whether
that theory is valid or not_. And it doesn't matter whether the theory
is ToE, Newton's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, or
Phlogiston theory.

You will notice that I include an _invalid_ theory (phlogiston) in that
list of theories. It's because it demonstrates the point of
falsification (albeit a long time before falsification was formalised).

It someone discovered a fossilised rabbit in the precambrian tomorrow,
ToE, if not thoroughly refuted, would require some major surgery to
survive, and what survived would have a lot of explaining to do.

> That based on this claim of fact the theory is only subject to a
> watered down version of falsification. This is why I'm having trouble
> understanding your arguments. You've created your own elaborate
> theory of falsification, which includes tests for accurate theories
> and other tests for inaccurate theories. Yet Popper wasn't talking
> about accurate or inaccurate theories. He was talking about what
> constitutes real science from pseudoscience.

I have explained the only sane interpretation of the word "risk"
associated with an observation that is in principle capable of refuting
a theory. You want to be able to refute a theory that is valid.

> Example of pseudoscience: A man stands in an African village snapping
> his fingers. Asked why he does such a thing? "Keeps elephants away."
> But there are no elephants in these parts. "See, it works."

Example of Ray's version of science: There is no science.

Or to answer your little story in a more real-world scientific way:

A man identifies a prediction of the ToE (e.g. faunal succession), and
goes looking for evidence to refute it. He fails. "But that doesn't
prove that it's right". "No, it doesn't. But it does mean that I
haven't yet proved that it's wrong".

This, Ray, is the whole point of falsification, and it seems to have
gone completely over your head (or possibly it hasn't but you're only
acting as if it had): The lack of fossilised rabbits in the
precambrian doesn't, by any any stretch of the imagination, mean that
ToE is right. It only means that so far, using that observation (and
millions of others in the field of genetics, morphology, etc) no one
has managed to provide any evidence that it is wrong.

Actually, that isn't right. There is loads of evidence that the ToE as
specified by Darwin is, if not wrong, at least very incomplete. As a
consequence, ToE today is not what Darwin wrote, whatever you may
think. It's had a number of enhancements and revisions. But the core
ideas of common descent and adaptive evolution are still solid.

> > > And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition
> > > (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on
> > > you and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.
> >
> > It's not "me and my colleagues" that is the problem: it's your
> > bizarre interpretation of a statement that included the word
> > "risk".
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
> "Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky
> predictions---the predictions should be necessary if the theory is
> correct."

Risky, as in "risky in principle", not "risky even if the theory is in
fact valid".

Are you claiming that if a precambrian fossil rabbit was found
tomorrow, the ToE is not falsified? Because unless you _are_ claiming
that, then that observation is one that carries, at least in principle,
some risk.

Unless, of course, it is _you_ that is assuming that ToE is true, and
not me.

> > > > > Your beef is with Karl Popper and his disciples. His
> > > > > falsification theory was published a long time after Newton
> > > > > died.
> > > >
> > > > I have no particular beef with Popper, once some practical
> > > > issues are allowed for. What I have a beef with is your
> > > > insistence that experiments purported to falsify a theory
> > > > require risk _even if the theory is correct_.
> > >
> > > You can't make these types of statements when debating the
> > > veracity of the ToE with an opponent. You've assumed your
> > > conclusion or that which is in dispute.
> >
> > I have assumed nothing of the kind. What I have assumed is that
> > Popper understood that falsification only involved risk [if] the
> > theory is unsound.
>
> Completely false. You're placing theory changing facets into Popper's
> claims.

Not at all. I'm just intepreting the use of the word "risk" differently
to you. The fact that my interpretation of the term means that
Popperian falsification is a potentially useful scientific tool, while
your intepretation of the term means that (a) it's paradoxical, as it
requires that a valid theory can be disproved; and (b) Popper would
never have been heard of, beyond the poorly-suppressed laughter of a few
philosophers.

> > If the theory is sound, then (within it's intended domain) it can't
> > be disproven - not because it is unfalsifiable, but because all
> > attempts to falsify it have failed, and continue to fail.
>
> You're arguing original ideas and these should be explicated in a
> formal essay or paper. You shouldn't be initiating them on me in this
> context.

I'm not arguing anything of the kind. I'm simply pointing out something
that I would have thought was totally obvious: a theory is valid if and
only if it makes accurate predictions within its domain of
applicability; and as a consequence, a theory can't be falsified within
its intended domain and remain valid. That's sort of the point.

> > > Moreover, you can't refer to an experiment as fulfilling or
> > > showing potential falsification unless it involves a genuine
> > > risk. I didn't make up this rule.
> >
> > You did, however, miss the implication that risk is only meaningful
> > as a way of demonstrating that the theory is invalid. If the theory
> > (any theory, not just ToE) is sound (and complete), then there is
> > no experiment within its domain that can falsify it.
>
> I would like to see John Harshman comment on the above statement and
> the one before.

Feel free.

> > This, of course, never happens, especially in the messy world of
> > biology: what happens for well-supported theories (like ToE) is
> > that observations that do not match the theory are typically around
> > the edges, one-offs, or special cases. Such observations tend not
> > to falsify the theory entirely, just require that the theory
> > requires some modification or revision.
>
> But we were never assuming the core theory true (at least I wasn't).

Neither was I. That you thought I was is very possibly a consequence of
your apparent misunderstanding of falsification. ToE hasn't (yet) been
falsified. That doesn't mean it is true: it simply means that it has
survived all attempts to falsify it (albeit with some revision in areas
such as neutral drift).

[Ray Martinez]

No, "rabbit" was specific; "land dwelling quadruped" is non-specific. And I'm glad to see that you haven't bailed and quit the discussion. Evolutionists are known to do just that.

>
> And why isn't "any land-dwelling quadruped in the precambrian" an
> observation that would falsify ToE?

Because a great deal of research has shown that land dwelling quadrupeds don't appear in pre-Cambrian strata. Hence any Evolutionist who frames the fact as a potential falsification hasn't made a prediction (much less a genuine risky prediction) because such a proposal, based on said research, is a very safe bet. Instead of renouncing the claim as absurd it appears Nick Roberts is seeking to defend the claim just because some famous Evolutionist said it.

>
> That you claim it could never happen (i.e. has no "risk") is an
> implicit assumption that you accept ToE, or something very like it.

Absurd to the highest degree. I accept the view of species that science held c.1802-c.1859. And don't bother explaining why you said something so stupid. Your mind is immersed in the illogic known as "evolutionary theory." If you had the ability to think logically you wouldn't have said what you just said.

> If God created all species by an act of will, surely he could produce a
> land dwelling quaduped whenever the felt like it - and that includes
> the precambrian.

Yep.

> But you are certain that he didn't. How do you know
> that? Perhaps he did, but they never fossilised. Or they did fossilise,
> and all the rock has been transformed since. Or we simply haven't
> looked in the right place.

He didn't because He wants you guys to continue to believe in something that isn't true as a punishment for denying the design of nature.

>
> So how do you know that he didn't?

For the two reasons stated above (known fact that quadrupeds don't appear in pre-Cambrian strata; to make sure you guys believe in something that is false as a punishment for denying the design of nature).

>
> And if someone finds such a fossil tomorrow, obviously you can't claim
> that ToE has been thoroughly refuted, because you have stated that such
> an observation isn't capable of refuting ToE. Is that really your
> position?

Your comments continue to spiral out of logical control without any awareness of said fact (= a deluded mind).

I've said no such things. You've manufactured completely.

>
> Hence, your intepretation (and it is _your_ interpretation, and one
> that Popper would never recognise) simpifies to "there is no such thing
> as a scientific theory, because they are all either refuted or become
> unfalsifiable".

Your out of control fears attributed to me.

>
> Furthermore, that you haven't studied Newtonian gravity is irrelevant.
> You should at least be able to understand the words that I used
> (they're not technical), and try to follow the logic. And you can't use
> the fact that you're not a student to ignore the entire argument -
> ignorance is not the same as a refutation.

Either that is generally true OR your argument is almost completely illogical. You actually think inability to reproduce a previous genuine risky prediction concerning Newton's theory of gravity is valid?

> > > > > In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
> > > > > observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no
> > > > > theory that can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an
> > > > > experiment and it doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer
> > > > > use that as an example of an experiment that can falsify the
> > > > > theory.
> > > >
> > > > I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification
> > > > is defined.
> > >
> > > Only if you misintepret the definition. Risk only applies _if the
> > > theory is inaccurate_.
> >
> > Ridiculous. You're wasting my time.
>
> And you're wasting mine. If you invite me to put my arguments, only a
> coward would then wave away my arguments without any attempt whatsoever
> to address them".

One isn't the least bit obligated to answer an entirely made up definition/application of "risk" ("Risk only applies if the theory is inaccurate" (NR).

>
> One of your many flaws is that you seem to think that restating your
> position is evidence in support of your position, which is pretty much
> all that you have been doing in this thread. Another is your refusal to
> even attempt to address the points that your opponents make.
>
> Basically, you never seriously enter into a discussion: all you do is
> harangue your opponent until either he/she gets bored, or you claim
> something like "you're wasting my time", which is Ray-speak for "I
> cannot present any evidence in support of my position".

Content, Nick, content. You've posted a lot of words that lack appreciable content. Your entire argument consists of **demanding** that risk only applies to theories that are not known to be accurate. As subjective as it gets. Yet falsification theory says real science is only being done when a risky prediction has been made. You don't seem to understand that Popper's context determines the parameters. If a field of science lies outside of said parameters then that doesn't mean science isn't being practiced; rather, it means Popper didn't define or explain his context nearly as well as he should have. You keep avoiding the fact that I have said all along that there are problems with the theory itself. I'm tired of being ignored.

>
> > > If risk applies whether the theory is inaccurate or not, it's a
> > > meaningless and useless test for any theory.
> >
> > I think you shouldn't say anymore unless you can support via a
> > reference.
>
> Even if I did, the chance that you would pay any attention to it is
> minimal. You have a single secondary source that uses the word "risk",
> and (like so many bibiolators) you weave elaborate fantasies about the
> words, without ever seeking to understand the sentences.

Not true. I've posted two secondary sources. Again, I use secondary sources to show that I have understood the primary source as they understand the primary source. And what have you done in response? Answer: Assert your subjective understanding of the primary source. So it's three against one.

>
> > > > Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version.
> > >
> > > It may well be watered down according to your incorrect
> > > interpretation. It's not watered down according to the Popper's
> > > intended meaning.
> >
> > Then support what you say or stop saying it.
>
> I would like you to support your interpretation. I accept your quote,
> but there is a difference in agreeing that a word was used, and
> accepting your intepretation of the word.
>
> I have pointed out, time and again, that your intepretation leads to
> ludicrous consequences, including the consequence that if that was what
> Popper had actually meant, he would never have been taken in the
> slightest bit seriously, as his entire philosophy of science would be
> risible.

Yet Popper originally said the theory of natural selection wasn't falsifiable. Yet you've continually chosen not to level any criticism at all at Popper. Did you know his theory is actually an attack on induction? Yet how many scholars have said without induction science is dead? Popper's theory was explained very badly. Yet all Evolutionists do is lift one core truth out of context and give that truth a subjective definition. And because almost all scholars are Evolutionists they give the theory a free ride.

>
> But you're uninterested in consequences, as it disagrees with your
> interpretation of the word risk.
>
> I have given my interpretation of the usage of the word, which (even if
> you ignore the inane consequences of your interpretation) is at least
> as valid as your own. You haven't even attempted to address my
> interpretation, you just keep claiming that the use of the word risk
> means that you are right.
>
> So I return the challenge to you:
>
> Support your claim that Popper meant that an observation must carry
> risk, _even if the theory is correct_. If you cannot support that, then
> your entire argument evaporates.

No one is obligated to accept your subjective definition as the objective definition. Your dice are admittedly loaded.

Simple fact: There's no acceptable level of risk in rabbit in pre-Cambrian.

>
> And quoting sentences that include the word risk without addressing the
> validity or otherwise of the theory will not support your claim.

Whatever happened to scientific explication is supposed to be taken literally, unlike Biblical interpretation?

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>

>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claimed that ToE wasn't falsifiable, because the classic
>>>>>> example of falsification is "rabbits in the precambrian", and
>>>>>> you claimed that this carried no risk, as everyone knows that
>>>>>> you won't find rabbits in the precambrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> My real point was that the much touted example of "rabbit in the
>>>>> pre-Cambrian" should be disowned by Evolutionists because it does
>>>>> not entail an acceptable level of risk.
>>>>
>>>> But you should also recognise the "rabbits in the precambrian" is a
>>>> quote from Haldane when asked what evidence would destroy his
>>>> confidence in ToE; and that it is a shorthand for "any species for
>>>> which strong evidence can be found for existance very much prior to
>>>> ancestral species".
>>>
>>> He was actually talking about any land-dwelling quadruped.
>>
>> He was? I'm not disputing your claim, but it seems a bit specific,
>> considering the context.
>
> No, "rabbit" was specific; "land dwelling quadruped" is non-specific. And I'm glad to see that you haven't bailed and quit the discussion. Evolutionists are known to do just that.
>
>>
>> And why isn't "any land-dwelling quadruped in the precambrian" an
>> observation that would falsify ToE?
>
> Because a great deal of research has shown that land dwelling quadrupeds don't appear in pre-Cambrian strata.

But that is verificationism, the very theory Popper rejected. You are
essentially arguing that the theory that there are no rabbits in the
Pre-Cambrian is inductively confirmed to such a high degree that it can
be said to be proven true. That is incompatible with Popper's idea who
rejected exactly that form of theory confirmation.

Hence any Evolutionist who frames the fact as a potential falsification
hasn't made a prediction

(much less a genuine risky prediction) because such a proposal, based on
said research, is a very safe bet.

Instead of renouncing the claim as absurd it appears Nick Roberts is
seeking to defend the claim just because

some famous Evolutionist said it.
>
>>
>> That you claim it could never happen (i.e. has no "risk") is an
>> implicit assumption that you accept ToE, or something very like it.
>
> Absurd to the highest degree.

Well yes, that it Nick's point - he shows that your position is
untenable by showing that it implies logically a claim that even you
consider absurd.

The argument is pretty straightforward: The reason - the only reason -
we know that there are probably no rabbits in the Cambrian is because we
have a very successful theory, the ToE, according to which rabbits
evolved much later. So anyone who argues that we "know" there aren't
rabbits in the pre-Cambrian bases this knowledge on he tacit accception
of the ToE

I accept the view of species that science held c.1802-c.1859. And don't
bother explaining why you said something so stupid. Your mind is
immersed in the illogic known as "evolutionary theory." If you had the
ability to think logically you wouldn't have said what you just said.
>
>> If God created all species by an act of will, surely he could produce a
>> land dwelling quaduped whenever the felt like it - and that includes
>> the precambrian.
>
> Yep.
>
>> But you are certain that he didn't. How do you know
>> that? Perhaps he did, but they never fossilised. Or they did fossilise,
>> and all the rock has been transformed since. Or we simply haven't
>> looked in the right place.
>
> He didn't because He wants you guys to continue to believe in something that isn't true as a punishment for denying the design of nature.
>
>>
>> So how do you know that he didn't?
>
> For the two reasons stated above (known fact that quadrupeds don't appear in pre-Cambrian strata;

to make sure you guys believe in something that is false

Well, if an all powerful and vengeful god goes to such a length to make
is believe in something, we better do - he seems to be easily irritated.
Now you obviously think that you are so clever that you can see through
god's best efforts - an..,intriguing theological perspective.

It is the logical consequence of your position. Again, Nick is doing a
reductio ad absurdum. Your argument, once we apply it outside the
setting of the ToE, leads to patently absurd results - which shows that
the logical structure of your agreement is flawed.

Same logic I might add on which falsification is based -that is
essentially modus tollens.

[Ray Martinez]

Except you've completely manufactured my interpretation, which is known as a straw man.

> >
> > Observation requires risk => theory can fail.
> > Theory fails observation => theory is invalid.
> >
> > If an observation related to a valid theory requires risk, you get:
> >
> > Observation requires risk => valid theory can fail.
> > Valid theory fails observation => theory is invalid.
> >
> > Even by your standards of logic, you can surely see the problem here?
> >
> > > Moreover, you keep assuming evolution an accurate theory.
> >
> > In that case, you will no doubt be able to point out where this
> > assumption is made. Please do so.

In the fact that you're demanding two categories be recognized; one for theories known to be accurate; another for theories known to be inaccurate. Did you forget your own argument?

> >
> > The only assumption that I have made is that an observation can only
> > refute a theory if the theory is invalid.
> >
> > Please explain the logic that allows you to falsify a theory, _whether
> > that theory is valid or not_. And it doesn't matter whether the theory
> > is ToE, Newton's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, or
> > Phlogiston theory.

Your request presupposes a false conception of falsification. Great argument and tactic, Nick: assume your unique understanding as the objective understanding then place your opponent on the defensive perpetually.

I and my sources acknowledge "risky prediction." In your hands the quoted phrase takes on an elaborate meaning.

> >
> > You will notice that I include an _invalid_ theory (phlogiston) in that
> > list of theories. It's because it demonstrates the point of
> > falsification (albeit a long time before falsification was formalised).
> >
> > It someone discovered a fossilised rabbit in the precambrian tomorrow,
> > ToE, if not thoroughly refuted, would require some major surgery to
> > survive, and what survived would have a lot of explaining to do.

Since Atheists have no choice but to believe that species originate new species the theory of evolution would survive and thrive effortlessly.

Plain admission that Nick and his colleagues have shifted the burden. Thus everything I've said about evolution not complying with the objective claims of falsification theory are supported in spectacular fashion.

> >
> > Actually, that isn't right. There is loads of evidence that the ToE as
> > specified by Darwin is, if not wrong, at least very incomplete. As a
> > consequence, ToE today is not what Darwin wrote, whatever you may
> > think. It's had a number of enhancements and revisions. But the core
> > ideas of common descent and adaptive evolution are still solid.
> >
> > > > > And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition
> > > > > (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on
> > > > > you and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.
> > > >
> > > > It's not "me and my colleagues" that is the problem: it's your
> > > > bizarre interpretation of a statement that included the word
> > > > "risk".
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > >
> > > "Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky
> > > predictions---the predictions should be necessary if the theory is
> > > correct."
> >
> > Risky, as in "risky in principle", not "risky even if the theory is in
> > fact valid".

Classic example of spin doctoring.

Yes, you are.

Enough.

John won't ring you up. That's a safer bet than rabbit in pre-Cambrian.

You can have the last word. Based on the level of redundancy and evasion, I'm through here.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Yet I've redundantly said that I (along with others) have major problems with the way Popper conceived and explained his theory.

>
> Hence any Evolutionist who frames the fact as a potential falsification
> hasn't made a prediction
>
> (much less a genuine risky prediction) because such a proposal, based on
> said research, is a very safe bet.
>
> Instead of renouncing the claim as absurd it appears Nick Roberts is
> seeking to defend the claim just because
>
> some famous Evolutionist said it.
> >
> >>
> >> That you claim it could never happen (i.e. has no "risk") is an
> >> implicit assumption that you accept ToE, or something very like it.
> >
> > Absurd to the highest degree.
>
> Well yes, that it Nick's point - he shows that your position is
> untenable by showing that it implies logically a claim that even you
> consider absurd.

Absurd because Nick implies that I (a species fixist) accept evolution!

>
> The argument is pretty straightforward: The reason - the only reason -
> we know that there are probably no rabbits in the Cambrian is because we
> have a very successful theory, the ToE, according to which rabbits
> evolved much later.

You guys only say rabbit in pre-Cambrian because you already know it won't be found. You can spin it any way you like, as you are doing, but what I just said is true. There isn't any predictive value and there isn't any acceptable level of risk contained in rabbit in pre-Cambrian.

> So anyone who argues that we "know" there aren't

> rabbits in the pre-Cambrian bases this knowledge on he tacit [acceptance]
> of the ToE

No, it based on the fact that rabbit has not been found in pre-Cambrian strata. That's why the "prediction" was made and framed as such.

Ray

[....]

[czeba...@gmail.com]

You've been through here for about 15 years, now. You've been making the same claims based on the same magical thinking and have never offered a quintilla of evidence for your views. What seems to you matters to science not at all. That it matters to you has become a sad commentary on how some religious thinking can be intellectually unhealthy.

gregwrld

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 4:04:56 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> You've been through here for about 15 years, now. You've been making the same claims based on the same magical thinking and have never offered a quintilla of evidence for your views. What seems to you matters to science not at all. That it matters to you has become a sad commentary on how some religious thinking can be intellectually unhealthy.
>
> gregwrld

We oppose Atheist assumptions about reality (= Darwinian evolution), not science.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Or you simply misunderstands what Popper said - which is my and Nick's
point. If your description of Popper includes a blatant inconsistency,
I;d say chances are that you misunderstood what he was saying

>
>>
>> Hence any Evolutionist who frames the fact as a potential falsification
>> hasn't made a prediction
>>
>> (much less a genuine risky prediction) because such a proposal, based on
>> said research, is a very safe bet.
>>
>> Instead of renouncing the claim as absurd it appears Nick Roberts is
>> seeking to defend the claim just because
>>
>> some famous Evolutionist said it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you claim it could never happen (i.e. has no "risk") is an
>>>> implicit assumption that you accept ToE, or something very like it.
>>>
>>> Absurd to the highest degree.
>>
>> Well yes, that it Nick's point - he shows that your position is
>> untenable by showing that it implies logically a claim that even you
>> consider absurd.
>
> Absurd because Nick implies that I (a species fixist) accept evolution!

Yes, that is the purpose of a reductio ad absurdum. If you make a claim
A, and the person you argue with can show that a logical consequence of
A is B, which you think is absurd, the logical conclusion is that A was
wrong.

That is the structure of several closely related forms of argumentation
- reductio ad absurdum and falsification included: modus tollens, or
formally A -> B; -B |- -A

So what Nick is showing that from what you say about the inadequacy of
the cambrian rabbit as falsifier, (proposition A) it follows logically
that yo must also accept the ToE. Since you do not accept the ToE, you
need to revisit your claim about the inadequacy of the Cambrian rabbit
as falsifier.

>
>
>>
>> The argument is pretty straightforward: The reason - the only reason -
>> we know that there are probably no rabbits in the Cambrian is because we
>> have a very successful theory, the ToE, according to which rabbits
>> evolved much later.
>
> You guys only say rabbit in pre-Cambrian because you already know it won't be found.

And we know it won't be found because we know the ToE is true. That is
Nick's point,

You can spin it any way you like, as you are doing, but what I just said
is true.

There isn't any predictive value and there isn't any acceptable level of
risk contained in rabbit in pre-Cambrian.

It is a single and unequivocal observation, that makes it risky for Popper

>
>> So anyone who argues that we "know" there aren't
>> rabbits in the pre-Cambrian bases this knowledge on he tacit [acceptance]
>> of the ToE
>
> No, it based on the fact that rabbit has not been found in pre-Cambrian strata.

That would be an extremely weak basis, given that we only ever observed
a tiny fraction of said strata.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/8/15 4:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>>
>>> I have done nothing of the sort. I have presented my intepretation of
>>> the meaning of the word "risk", as meaning "there is a risk that the
>>> observation will fail if the theory is unsound", which (given that
>>> falsification is all about testing theories) would seem to be a
>>> reasonable interpretation. Your interpretation, OTOH, requires that a
>>> valid theory can be falsified by an observation, which is quite
>>> unreasonable.
>>>
>>> You keep claiming to know logic better than anyone else. Do you not
>>> even recognise that your own intepretation is paradoxical?
>
> Except you've completely manufactured my interpretation, which is known as a straw man.

Ray, a straw man is restating an opponent's position in a weaker
fashion. Nick did not do that. He pointed out the problems with your
position.

>
>>>
>>> Observation requires risk => theory can fail.
>>> Theory fails observation => theory is invalid.
>>>
>>> If an observation related to a valid theory requires risk, you get:
>>>
>>> Observation requires risk => valid theory can fail.
>>> Valid theory fails observation => theory is invalid.
>>>
>>> Even by your standards of logic, you can surely see the problem here?
>>>
>>>> Moreover, you keep assuming evolution an accurate theory.
>>>
>>> In that case, you will no doubt be able to point out where this
>>> assumption is made. Please do so.
>
> In the fact that you're demanding two categories be recognized; one for theories known to be accurate; another for theories known to be inaccurate. Did you forget your own argument?

Ray, that is how science works. Theories are "known" to be accurate by
how well they resist falsification. A theory that stands up to
falsification is considered accurate. A one that does not, is considered
falsified.

>
>>>
>>> The only assumption that I have made is that an observation can only
>>> refute a theory if the theory is invalid.
>>>
>>> Please explain the logic that allows you to falsify a theory, _whether
>>> that theory is valid or not_. And it doesn't matter whether the theory
>>> is ToE, Newton's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, or
>>> Phlogiston theory.
>
> Your request presupposes a false conception of falsification.

No, it states the correct meaning of the term.

> Great argument and tactic, Nick: assume your unique understanding as the objective understanding then place your opponent on the defensive perpetually.

Ray, that is exactly what you do in nearly every discussion.

>
> I and my sources acknowledge "risky prediction." In your hands the quoted phrase takes on an elaborate meaning.

The problem is, of course, that you did not understand what your sources
were saying, and are trying to defend your own "unique understanding"
against real world objections. Then you get upset that no one agrees
with you.

>
>>>
>>> You will notice that I include an _invalid_ theory (phlogiston) in that
>>> list of theories. It's because it demonstrates the point of
>>> falsification (albeit a long time before falsification was formalised).
>>>
>>> It someone discovered a fossilised rabbit in the precambrian tomorrow,
>>> ToE, if not thoroughly refuted, would require some major surgery to
>>> survive, and what survived would have a lot of explaining to do.
>
> Since Atheists have no choice but to believe that species originate new species the theory of evolution would survive and thrive effortlessly.

Ray, as pointed out many times over, "atheists" have many other choices
than the theory of evolution. But it really doesn't matter, as atheists
are not in control of science. Science belongs to everyone, and the
theories that stand are not the ones that please atheists, but the ones
that best explain the evidence.



snip what Ray refuses to understand.

>>>
>>> This, Ray, is the whole point of falsification, and it seems to have
>>> gone completely over your head (or possibly it hasn't but you're only
>>> acting as if it had): The lack of fossilised rabbits in the
>>> precambrian doesn't, by any any stretch of the imagination, mean that
>>> ToE is right. It only means that so far, using that observation (and
>>> millions of others in the field of genetics, morphology, etc) no one
>>> has managed to provide any evidence that it is wrong.
>
> Plain admission that Nick and his colleagues have shifted the burden.

The burden is on the one making the claim, Ray. Evolution has
shouldered the burden of the evidence, and so far has managed to stay
standing.

> Thus everything I've said about evolution not complying with the objective claims of falsification theory are supported in spectacular fashion.

Except for the inconvenient little fact that everything you've said
about evolution here is wrong. You were wrong about Popper, wrong
about falsification, and wrong about evolution.

>
>>>
>>> Actually, that isn't right. There is loads of evidence that the ToE as
>>> specified by Darwin is, if not wrong, at least very incomplete. As a
>>> consequence, ToE today is not what Darwin wrote, whatever you may
>>> think. It's had a number of enhancements and revisions. But the core
>>> ideas of common descent and adaptive evolution are still solid.
>>>
>>>>>> And don't forget: I have problems with the overall definition
>>>>>> (objective criteria), so don't think I'm placing all the blame on
>>>>>> you and your colleagues in evolutionary theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not "me and my colleagues" that is the problem: it's your
>>>>> bizarre interpretation of a statement that included the word
>>>>> "risk".
>>>>
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>>>
>>>> "Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky
>>>> predictions---the predictions should be necessary if the theory is
>>>> correct."
>>>
>>> Risky, as in "risky in principle", not "risky even if the theory is in
>>> fact valid".
>
> Classic example of spin doctoring.

Note you can't offer a rebuttal, so you engage in name calling.


snipping more Ray refuses to face

>>>>> If the theory is sound, then (within it's intended domain) it can't
>>>>> be disproven - not because it is unfalsifiable, but because all
>>>>> attempts to falsify it have failed, and continue to fail.
>>>>
>>>> You're arguing original ideas and these should be explicated in a
>>>> formal essay or paper. You shouldn't be initiating them on me in this
>>>> context.
>>>
>>> I'm not arguing anything of the kind.
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> Enough.

Ray runs away again, after a unsupported denial.

snip

> John won't ring you up. That's a safer bet than rabbit in pre-Cambrian.

John isn't the final arbiter of things Ray.

>
> You can have the last word. Based on the level of redundancy and evasion, I'm through here.

Ray, you do this running away thing all the time. Why are you such a
coward?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Now you are speaking about yourself in the plural again, Ray. It is
science you are opposing, and science makes no "atheist assumptions".
You oppose science because it does not lend your preconceived beliefs
any support.

You don't fool anyone by lying to yourself.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/8/15 3:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-8, Nick Roberts wrote:

snip

>>> He was actually talking about any land-dwelling quadruped.
>>
>> He was? I'm not disputing your claim, but it seems a bit specific,
>> considering the context.
>
> No, "rabbit" was specific; "land dwelling quadruped" is non-specific. And I'm glad to see that you haven't bailed and quit the discussion.

> Evolutionists are known to do just that.

Ray, YOU are known to do that, and you do so in the next reply to Nick.

>
>>
>> And why isn't "any land-dwelling quadruped in the precambrian" an
>> observation that would falsify ToE?
>
> Because a great deal of research has shown that land dwelling quadrupeds don't appear in pre-Cambrian strata.

Actually, Ray, all we know is that from the few undisturbed preCambrian
sediments uncovered so far, land dwelling quadrupeds have not been seen.
(of course, one could claim they are "presumed to be invisible")

Evolutionary theory as we understand it, is incompatible with
preCambrian rabbits.

> Hence any Evolutionist who frames the fact as a potential falsification hasn't made a prediction (much less a genuine risky prediction) because such a proposal, based on said research, is a very safe bet.

It's only a "safe bet" because the theory of evolution has proven to be
a reliable theory. That could change, however, if one were to unearth a
preCambrian rabbit... That's why it's risky, in principle.

> Instead of renouncing the claim as absurd it appears Nick Roberts is seeking to defend the claim just because some famous Evolutionist said it.

No, he's trying to show you why your assertions have been wrong. Of
course, you aren't willing to admit error.

>
>>
>> That you claim it could never happen (i.e. has no "risk") is an
>> implicit assumption that you accept ToE, or something very like it.
>
> Absurd to the highest degree.

Of course, because what you are claiming, Ray, is absurd. That's why
he's pointing this out to you.

> I accept the view of species that science held c.1802-c.1859.

Science did not have a testable theory to explain the existence of
species in that time period, Ray. It was commonly assumed, based on
religious tradition, that species were created by God in one creation
week, some unknown time in the past.

> And don't bother explaining why you said something so stupid.

More name calling, Ray. That doesn't help your position any.

> Your mind is immersed in the illogic known as "evolutionary theory." If you had the ability to think logically you wouldn't have said what you just said.

Oh, dear, the irony. Ray, you are so far deep in the hole you've been
digging, you probably can't even see the sky any more. You have no
ability to think logically, and you accuse others of exactly what you
suffer from.

>
>> If God created all species by an act of will, surely he could produce a
>> land dwelling quaduped whenever the felt like it - and that includes
>> the precambrian.
>
> Yep.

So, Ray, the question is, why are there no rabbits in the preCambrian?

>
>> But you are certain that he didn't. How do you know
>> that? Perhaps he did, but they never fossilised. Or they did fossilise,
>> and all the rock has been transformed since. Or we simply haven't
>> looked in the right place.
>
> He didn't because He wants you guys to continue to believe in something that isn't true as a punishment for denying the design of nature.

Think about that answer for a minute, Ray. Does it really make any
sense to you? God punishes people for "denying" what you only assume to
be true, through planting false evidence that life evolved....

On what twisted world does that seem like a plan a benevolent and
omniscient being would come up with?

Worse, you are casting God as the deceiver. Is that what you really
mean to do? Isn't giving God one of the main aspects of the devil a
worse crime than trusting one's God given intellect?

>
>>
>> So how do you know that he didn't?
>
> For the two reasons stated above (known fact that quadrupeds don't appear in pre-Cambrian strata; to make sure you guys believe in something that is false as a punishment for denying the design of nature).

Again, Ray, you are saying here the the "invisible deceiver" you refer
to is God himself. Do you really mean to suggest that God has the same
aspects as the devil???

>
>>
>> And if someone finds such a fossil tomorrow, obviously you can't claim
>> that ToE has been thoroughly refuted, because you have stated that such
>> an observation isn't capable of refuting ToE. Is that really your
>> position?
>
> Your comments continue to spiral out of logical control without any awareness of said fact (= a deluded mind).

Ray, refer to your statements just above, where you claim God acts as an
evil spirit. Look at your claims you've made the in the last few
months... Your sentence above describes yourself. You don't have any
awareness that you are beyond help, and haven't the slightest idea of
how logic is applied.

The "deluded mind" you've just described is yourself.

I know you lack awareness, but go back and read what you wrote. You
will see he did not "manufacture" anything. He's pointing out where
your ideas lead.

>
>>
>> Hence, your intepretation (and it is _your_ interpretation, and one
>> that Popper would never recognise) simpifies to "there is no such thing
>> as a scientific theory, because they are all either refuted or become
>> unfalsifiable".
>
> Your out of control fears attributed to me.

He's not expressing "fears", Ray. He's showing where your own claims
logically lead to. Again, you are so deluded, you can't possibly see
how illogical, and beyond the pale you've become.

>
>>
>> Furthermore, that you haven't studied Newtonian gravity is irrelevant.
>> You should at least be able to understand the words that I used
>> (they're not technical), and try to follow the logic. And you can't use
>> the fact that you're not a student to ignore the entire argument -
>> ignorance is not the same as a refutation.
>
> Either that is generally true OR your argument is almost completely illogical.

His argument is not illogical.

> You actually think inability to reproduce a previous genuine risky prediction concerning Newton's theory of gravity is valid?

It's quite valid. What do you dispute about it?

>
>>>>>> In fact, if you insist on there being risk associated with an
>>>>>> observation, _even if the theory is true_, then there is no
>>>>>> theory that can be truly falsified. Every time you carry out an
>>>>>> experiment and it doesn't falsify the theory, you can no longer
>>>>>> use that as an example of an experiment that can falsify the
>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only insist on a genuine risk because that's how falsification
>>>>> is defined.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you misintepret the definition. Risk only applies _if the
>>>> theory is inaccurate_.
>>>
>>> Ridiculous. You're wasting my time.
>>
>> And you're wasting mine. If you invite me to put my arguments, only a
>> coward would then wave away my arguments without any attempt whatsoever
>> to address them".
>
> One isn't the least bit obligated to answer an entirely made up definition/application of "risk" ("Risk only applies if the theory is inaccurate" (NR).

One is not "obligated", but in this case Nick, and others have chosen to
show why your entirely made up definition is wrong.

A prediction that turns out to be accurate is not a risky one, so of
course a risk only applies if a theory is wrong.

If I predict a solar eclipse, at a particular time and place, based
on calculations from Newton's theory of planetary motions, It's only
risky if Newton's theory was wrong. If the eclipse doesn't take place
at the time and place predicted, something is wrong with the theory. If
the theory is correct, the eclipse will take place right on schedule.

Dr. Neil Shubin made a risky prediction, several years ago, that the
remains of a transitional fossil between fish and quadrupeds would be
found at a particular age strata, in a particular place on Earth. His
prediction was fulfilled by the finding of the fossil Tiktaalik roseae.
Today, it may not seem a risk to say that Tiktaalik can be found in
those rocks.

Evolutionary theory predicts there will never be a rabbit found in
pre Cambrian strata. That prediction is just as risky as predicting a
solar eclipse, or predicting the finding of a fossil fish with legs in a
particular strata of a particular age.

>
>>
>> One of your many flaws is that you seem to think that restating your
>> position is evidence in support of your position, which is pretty much
>> all that you have been doing in this thread. Another is your refusal to
>> even attempt to address the points that your opponents make.
>>
>> Basically, you never seriously enter into a discussion: all you do is
>> harangue your opponent until either he/she gets bored, or you claim
>> something like "you're wasting my time", which is Ray-speak for "I
>> cannot present any evidence in support of my position".
>
> Content, Nick, content. You've posted a lot of words that lack appreciable content.

Ray, your inability to understand the content is not a sign it's not
there.

> Your entire argument consists of **demanding** that risk only applies to theories that are not known to be accurate.

You miss the point, Ray. Risk only applies when a prediction hasn't
been met so far. Most well accepted theories have few predictions that
have not been met. But each of those predictions are a risk, and there
is no way to rule out that a future discovery won't overturn the theory.
An inaccurate theory is going to fail at predictions, so it's
apparent risk looks much higher.

> As subjective as it gets.

That is not what the word "subjective" means, Ray.

> Yet falsification theory says real science is only being done when a risky prediction has been made.

Evolution has made many very risky predictions, all of which have been
so far been met. That you look at them today and think they aren't
risky is just the power of hindsight. Before finding any pre Cambrian
fossils, the theory of evolution predicted there would be no modern day
species found. So far, that prediction has held for all the pre
Cambrian strata found.

> You don't seem to understand that Popper's context determines the parameters.

Popper laid out the original proposition, but ideas, when coming in
contact with the real world, often change. The "parameters" are
determined by what is found in nature, not what Popper first thought.

> If a field of science lies outside of said parameters then that doesn't mean science isn't being practiced; rather, it means Popper didn't define or explain his context nearly as well as he should have.

What Popper was talking about is the idea that any scientific idea must
be testable. It must have a way of being shown to be false, otherwise
it's not useful. There must be some potential findings the idea cannot
explain. Creationism is one such useless idea, because there is no way
to determine what it can't explain. Appeal to a supernatural being can
explain any finding, from rabbits in the pre Cambrian, to no fossils at
all.

Evolution, on the other hand has limits to what findings would show
it to be wrong. Finding a fossil rabbit in the pre Cambrian would be
very difficult, if not impossible, for evolution to explain. That's why
it's falsifiable, even if finding such a thing is very, very unlikely.

Popper may have stated it less clearly than he might have, but the
principle he was stating is sound. Scientific ideas must have a way of
testing them against reality.

> You keep avoiding the fact that I have said all along that there are problems with the theory itself.

Ray, when you say "all along" things that you get wrong, and show you
don't understand the material, no one is going to congratulate you on
your insight.

> I'm tired of being ignored.

Then stop saying things that are false, absurd, and unsupportable.

>
>>
>>>> If risk applies whether the theory is inaccurate or not, it's a
>>>> meaningless and useless test for any theory.
>>>
>>> I think you shouldn't say anymore unless you can support via a
>>> reference.
>>
>> Even if I did, the chance that you would pay any attention to it is
>> minimal. You have a single secondary source that uses the word "risk",
>> and (like so many bibiolators) you weave elaborate fantasies about the
>> words, without ever seeking to understand the sentences.
>
> Not true. I've posted two secondary sources.

Which did not say what you thought they did.

> Again, I use secondary sources to show that I have understood the primary source as they understand the primary source.

Then you failed.

> And what have you done in response? Answer: Assert your subjective understanding of the primary source. So it's three against one.

You, Ray, and something you have misunderstood are not a credible
opponent.

>
>
>>
>>>>> Again, you seem to be arguing for a watered down version.
>>>>
>>>> It may well be watered down according to your incorrect
>>>> interpretation. It's not watered down according to the Popper's
>>>> intended meaning.
>>>
>>> Then support what you say or stop saying it.
>>
>> I would like you to support your interpretation. I accept your quote,
>> but there is a difference in agreeing that a word was used, and
>> accepting your intepretation of the word.
>>
>> I have pointed out, time and again, that your intepretation leads to
>> ludicrous consequences, including the consequence that if that was what
>> Popper had actually meant, he would never have been taken in the
>> slightest bit seriously, as his entire philosophy of science would be
>> risible.
>
> Yet Popper originally said the theory of natural selection wasn't falsifiable.

and he admitted he was wrong. Why won't you?

> Yet you've continually chosen not to level any criticism at all at Popper.

Because Popper realized his mistake, and admitted it.

> Did you know his theory is actually an attack on induction? Yet how many scholars have said without induction science is dead? Popper's theory was explained very badly. Yet all Evolutionists do is lift one core truth out of context and give that truth a subjective definition.

Again, Ray, "subjective" doesn't mean what you imagine it does.

> And because almost all scholars are Evolutionists they give the theory a free ride.

The idea of falsification is still accepted because it's useful.
Popper's mistakes are not given a 'free ride'.

>
>>
>> But you're uninterested in consequences, as it disagrees with your
>> interpretation of the word risk.
>>
>> I have given my interpretation of the usage of the word, which (even if
>> you ignore the inane consequences of your interpretation) is at least
>> as valid as your own. You haven't even attempted to address my
>> interpretation, you just keep claiming that the use of the word risk
>> means that you are right.
>>
>> So I return the challenge to you:
>>
>> Support your claim that Popper meant that an observation must carry
>> risk, _even if the theory is correct_. If you cannot support that, then
>> your entire argument evaporates.
>
> No one is obligated to accept your subjective definition as the objective definition.

You don't know the meaning of "objective" or "subjective", Ray.

> Your dice are admittedly loaded.

But you don't have any evidence he is wrong.

>
> Simple fact: There's no acceptable level of risk in rabbit in pre-Cambrian.

The question is 'acceptable to whom'? Finding a rabbit fossil in the
pre Cambrian strata would falsify evolution, even if the event is highly
unlikely to happen.

>
>
>>
>> And quoting sentences that include the word risk without addressing the
>> validity or otherwise of the theory will not support your claim.
>
> Whatever happened to scientific explication is supposed to be taken literally, unlike Biblical interpretation?

They are both your unsupported assumptions.


DJT

[solar penguin]

Well, it would either falsify evolution or the idea that time travel
isn't possible. After all, if you invented a time machine, wouldn't you
want to secretly send a few rabbits back to the pre-Cambrian just to
confuse the palaeontologists?

[Burkhard]

Well, while this is a very plausible account, it is not Popperian I'd
say. He has little to say about theories passing falsification attempts
(that would for him looked too much like a verificationist intrusion)

However, what he also doesn't say is that theories become less
scientific as they pass more and more tests, which would be the case if
Ray's odd interpretation of him were true

[jillery]

Time-travel vs. pre-Cambrian rabbits; which is more likely?

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[solar penguin]

There's only one way to find out: Fiiiiight!!!

[Peter Nyikos]

I have a bit of free time at the moment, so I'm doing this post and
maybe more; but I cannot predict which other days of this week, if any,
I'll be posting on.

If that were all there is to it, you wouldn't be fighting hard for
species immutability and separate *de novo* creation of new species.
You don't even allow your too-small God to be doing
what Behe thinks God did at numerous times: produce mutations so
that the natural offspring of some animals would have certain modest
novel features which, when hundreds have accumulated, produce new
species, e.g. advanced species of Merychippus on the road from
Hyracotherium to Equus.

No; on the one hand, your God lacks subtlety, "blinking" whole species
into existence from nothing rather than taking the "careful finger of God"
approach talked about by Loren Eiseley [see quote below].

On the other hand, your God's creativity has become more and more
impoverished as the eons have rolled by, and changes from "old models"
of kinds of animals have become less and less innovative.

Is it just a coincidence that fossil-bearing strata have become
steadily more common as we approach the present, not having been
worn away by erosion or other natural forces to the extent that
older ones have been? If you had the slightest aptitude for science,
you would be seriously considering the hypothesis that at earlier
times in earth history, the fossil evidence for evolution of many
kinds of earlier animals was just as rich as ours is for the
mammals of the Cenozoic era.

Here is that Eiseley quote. It shows how you are indulging in a
false dichotomy when you think evolution can only be either
atheistic or the simple-minded creationism for which you opt.

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-5, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:36:01 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I think I can see why you are doing so few posts lately, Vince:
> >when you do a reply, you do a really long reply, leaving you with
> >little energy to return to other threads you participated in, for
> >days on end.
>
> No, it's more a matter of time than energy. I don't want to spend
> hours and hours a day on the Net, so I've been cutting back.

I feel your pain. :-)

<big snip of things we are more or less in agreement on>

> >> So his theory passes this test, and Darwin breathes a sigh of relief
> >> that his theory wasn't falsified, and says to himself, "Well, Chuck,
> >> you old son of a gun, it looks like you're on to something here!
> >>
> >> There are no limits to evolutionary change!"
> >
> >Sorry, Darwin was much too cautious a researcher to claim that.
> >I doubt that he even thunk it.
>
> No, there's no reason to think Darwin thought there were limits to
> evolutionary change.

Nor that he would ever have come to such a sweeping conclusion,
especially since no fossils from before the Cambrian explosion
were known.

<more of the same kind of snip>

> > I doubt that he predicted anything specific
> >enough to impress skeptics.
>
> Absolutely true. He never predicted anything to anyone until he was
> quite sure his theory would not be falsified, i.e., after it had
> passed numerous private tests far from public scrutiny where,
> involving situations where, from his perspective, his theory could
> have been falsified.
>
> More specifically, Darwin was actually somewhat of a coward, as I
> understand it, and it was only after Alfred Wallace published
> independently on the subject that Darwin decided that if he didn't
> want to be scooped big-time in the history of science, he had better
> publish -- i.e., same thing as a coward.
>
> > They would have taken what he found
> >simply as evidence for the yet-to-be-established theory.
> >
> >Now Tiktaalik, that was a REAL prediction of which I started a
>
> I suppose, but I've never understood why you're so fascinated with
> _Tiktaalik_.

That's because you never saw what I wrote at the end of my long OP
on the subject. Here is the climax:

"One does not go on such exorbitantly expensive expeditions to
remote places unless the places were carefully picked on the basis
of implicit predictions."

"You see, it wasn't some easily accessible place in Canada to which
they went. It was to Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Arctic Canada."

Subject: A successful prediction of evolutionary theory: Tiktaalik
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/iXD358BKoCE/l_5iCs0HCUEJ

> At the time this fossil was discovered, the
> crossopterygian origin of tetrapods was already well-established, and
> _Tiktaalik_ was just the icing on the cake; only an imbecile would
> have thought something other than a _Tiktaalik_-like creature would
> show up in any sedimentary deposit with the ability to enduringly
> preserve its remains.
>
> >whole thread to show how I, who take a jaundiced view of "evolutionary
> >theory predicted______________" Monday morning quarterbacking,
> >was very much impressed by it.
>
> That's not the definition of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
>
> With Monday-morning quarterbacking, you devise ways in which someone
> else could have done better, given the benefit of hindsight.

Exactly. Numerous biologists could have predicted the phenomenon,
IN ADVANCE, publicly. The case of Tiktaalik is so close to that,
I refuse to quibble about it.

But innumerable "predictions" in t.o. of the sort, "Consistent
with evolutionary theory" once the phenomenon has been verified,
and then the explanations come as to how someone MIGHT have
predicted it in advance.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to after Spring Break.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Maths ---- standard disclaimer ----
U. of S Carolina

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I have a bit of free time at the moment, so I'm doing this post and
> maybe more; but I cannot predict which other days of this week, if any,
> I'll be posting on.
>
> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 7:09:57 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 4:04:56 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You've been through here for about 15 years, now.
> > > You've been making the same claims based on the same magical thinking
> > > and have never offered a quintilla of evidence for your views.
> > > What seems to you matters to science not at all. That it matters to you
> > > has become a sad commentary on how some religious thinking can be
> > > intellectually unhealthy.
> > >
> > > gregwrld
> >
> > We oppose Atheist assumptions about reality (= Darwinian evolution),
> > not science.
>
> If that were all there is to it, you wouldn't be fighting hard for
> species immutability and separate *de novo* creation of new species.

As if I denied my own position!

Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of Atheism and evolution. There is no mystery as to why Atheists are fanatical Evolutionists.

> You don't even allow your too-small God to be doing
> what Behe thinks God did at numerous times: produce mutations so
> that the natural offspring of some animals would have certain modest
> novel features which, when hundreds have accumulated, produce new
> species, e.g. advanced species of Merychippus on the road from
> Hyracotherium to Equus.

IF God is involved with biological production THEN the same cannot be described as evolutionary; rather, the same must be described as Creationism. Michael Behe, if you represented him correctly, and I believe that you did, is a confused person. He doesn't understand that the concept of evolution, since the rise of Darwinism, has always presupposes unintelligent causation. How do we know Behe is confused regarding this rudimentary matter? Answer: By the fact that he is known to say that God involves Himself in the evolutionary process.

And your obsession with the one and only equine gradation sequence is pathetic.

>
> No; on the one hand, your God lacks subtlety, "blinking" whole species
> into existence from nothing rather than taking the "careful finger of God"
> approach talked about by Loren Eiseley [see quote below].

Comment assumes lack of subtlety to be a negative trait. Where did Peter obtain this idea? From Eiseley? Where did Eiseley obtain the idea?

In fact, "subtlety," in Scripture, is a characteristic of Satan. So yes, God is not like Satan at all.

>
> On the other hand, your God's creativity has become more and more
> impoverished as the eons have rolled by, and changes from "old models"
> of kinds of animals have become less and less innovative.

Biodiversity remains spectacular; persons with advanced degrees show no signs of losing interest in studying living things, past and present.

>
> Is it just a coincidence that fossil-bearing strata have become
> steadily more common as we approach the present, not having been
> worn away by erosion or other natural forces to the extent that
> older ones have been?

Point?

> If you had the slightest aptitude for science,
> you would be seriously considering the hypothesis that at earlier
> times in earth history, the fossil evidence for evolution of many
> kinds of earlier animals was just as rich as ours is for the
> mammals of the Cenozoic era.

This comment says devotion to a certain hypothesis is, at a minimum, the best indicator that a person possesses an aptitude for science.

Bizarre.

>
> Here is that Eiseley quote. It shows how you are indulging in a
> false dichotomy when you think evolution can only be either
> atheistic or the simple-minded creationism for which you opt.
>
> ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
> night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
> the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
> It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
> end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
> had appeared.''
> --Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

Boring poetic nonsense.

Did you know that Eiseley remains a main source for those who believe Darwin plagiarized Wallace? And did you know that mainstream scholars today consider Eiseley thoroughly discredited?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> IF God is involved with biological production THEN the same cannot be described as evolutionary; rather, the same must be described as Creationism. Michael Behe, if you represented him correctly, and I believe that you did, is a confused person. He doesn't understand that the concept of evolution, since the rise of Darwinism, has always presuppose[d] unintelligent causation. How do we know Behe is confused regarding this rudimentary matter? Answer: By the fact that he is known to say that God involves Himself in the evolutionary process.
>

CORRECTION inserted via bracket in above paragraph.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/12/15 3:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> I have a bit of free time at the moment, so I'm doing this post and
>> maybe more; but I cannot predict which other days of this week, if any,
>> I'll be posting on.
>>
>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 7:09:57 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 4:04:56 PM UTC-7, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> You've been through here for about 15 years, now.
>>>> You've been making the same claims based on the same magical thinking
>>>> and have never offered a quintilla of evidence for your views.
>>>> What seems to you matters to science not at all. That it matters to you
>>>> has become a sad commentary on how some religious thinking can be
>>>> intellectually unhealthy.
>>>>
>>>> gregwrld
>>>
>>> We oppose Atheist assumptions about reality (= Darwinian evolution),
>>> not science.
>>
>> If that were all there is to it, you wouldn't be fighting hard for
>> species immutability and separate *de novo* creation of new species.
>
> As if I denied my own position!
>
> Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of Atheism and evolution.

No, Ray, as explained to you many times, Naturalism is the belief that
nothing beyond the natural exists. Atheism is belief that there is no
God, or gods. That's not quite the same thing.

Science does not use strong philosophical naturalism as an
"interpretative philosophy". Science makes use of methodological
naturalism as a tool, for the practical reason that appeal to the
supernatural is untestable, and is a dead end.

> There is no mystery as to why Atheists are fanatical Evolutionists.

Those atheists who accept evolution do so primarily for the same reason
Christians, Jews, Hindus, and any other religious persons also accept
evolution. Because it's the best scientific explanation for the
evidence. Assuming that atheists only support evolution because it
contradicts your personal religious beliefs is hubris.

>
>> You don't even allow your too-small God to be doing
>> what Behe thinks God did at numerous times: produce mutations so
>> that the natural offspring of some animals would have certain modest
>> novel features which, when hundreds have accumulated, produce new
>> species, e.g. advanced species of Merychippus on the road from
>> Hyracotherium to Equus.
>
> IF God is involved with biological production THEN the same cannot be described as evolutionary;

No matter how often you repeat this falsehood, Ray, it doesn't become
any more true. Evolution with God involved is still evolution.
Science has no way to rule out the influence of supernatural beings in
natural processes.

> rather, the same must be described as Creationism.

As long as it involves change of allele frequencies in populations over
generations, it's evolution. Calling it creationism doesn't make it
any different.

> Michael Behe, if you represented him correctly, and I believe that you did, is a confused person. He doesn't understand that the concept of evolution, since the rise of Darwinism, has always presupposes unintelligent causation.

this is another totally illogical, and flatly false assertion you keep
making, as if it were accepted as true. Evolutionary change does not
"presuppose" anything about the intellectual capabilities of the forces
involved. So far no evidence has been found that requires an
"intelligent causation", but it's never been ruled out either.

> How do we know Behe is confused regarding this rudimentary matter?

Considering your false claim is not a "rudimentary matter", why should
we care?

> Answer: By the fact that he is known to say that God involves Himself in the evolutionary process.

If God does, or does not involve himself in the process of evolution,
that's irrelevant to the fact that evolution happens.

>
> And your obsession with the one and only equine gradation sequence is pathetic.

As has been shown to you repeatedly, the horse sequences are not the
"one and only" example of fossil evidence of fine grained evolution.
They are merely the best known. Even if there was only one sequence, it
would still refute your claim that evolution has no evidence.

>
>>
>> No; on the one hand, your God lacks subtlety, "blinking" whole species
>> into existence from nothing rather than taking the "careful finger of God"
>> approach talked about by Loren Eiseley [see quote below].
>
> Comment assumes lack of subtlety to be a negative trait. Where did Peter obtain this idea? From Eiseley? Where did Eiseley obtain the idea?

Apparently, we've come across another word Ray doesn't know.

Subtlety is generally considered a good thing by most designers. Lack
of subtlety is usually considered the sign of an amateur. See:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subtlety

>
> In fact, "subtlety," in Scripture, is a characteristic of Satan. So yes, God is not like Satan at all.

Really, Ray? The often describe God as being cruel, petty, selfish,
deceptive, childish, and vindictive. Those are all traits of the devil,
yet you don't seem to have any problems giving those traits to God.

>
>>
>> On the other hand, your God's creativity has become more and more
>> impoverished as the eons have rolled by, and changes from "old models"
>> of kinds of animals have become less and less innovative.
>
> Biodiversity remains spectacular; persons with advanced degrees show no signs of losing interest in studying living things, past and present.

and the point goes sailing over Ray's head yet again.

What he's saying is that as we get closer to modern times, it would
seem the "designer" is being less and less innovative, and just re-using
old designs.

>
>>
>> Is it just a coincidence that fossil-bearing strata have become
>> steadily more common as we approach the present, not having been
>> worn away by erosion or other natural forces to the extent that
>> older ones have been?
>
> Point?

That as fossil bearing rocks becomes younger, through the geological
age, the "designer" becomes less willing to make bigger changes, as if
were a gradual process of evolution producing the new forms.

>
>> If you had the slightest aptitude for science,
>> you would be seriously considering the hypothesis that at earlier
>> times in earth history, the fossil evidence for evolution of many
>> kinds of earlier animals was just as rich as ours is for the
>> mammals of the Cenozoic era.
>
> This comment says devotion to a certain hypothesis is, at a minimum, the best indicator that a person possesses an aptitude for science.

No, what he's saying is that anyone with the slightest aptitude for
science would have to seriously consider that the pace at which forms
change is not different now than in the past.

>
> Bizarre.

Your misunderstanding is indeed bizarre.

>
>>
>> Here is that Eiseley quote. It shows how you are indulging in a
>> false dichotomy when you think evolution can only be either
>> atheistic or the simple-minded creationism for which you opt.
>>
>> ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
>> night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
>> the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
>> It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
>> end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
>> had appeared.''
>> --Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> Boring poetic nonsense.

That about sums up Ray's appreciation for art, and science....

>
> Did you know that Eiseley remains a main source for those who believe Darwin plagiarized Wallace? And did you know that mainstream scholars today consider Eiseley thoroughly discredited?

Did you know, Ray, that all the sources you have for your own claims
have been discredited as well?

DJT

[Earle Jones27]

*
Ray:

You have spent an inordinate amount of time during the past several
months posting here, fending off the questions of these atheist,
communist, materialist, pinko evolutionists that you obviously hate;
but don't you think you should drop out of these worthless discussions
and get back to your primary goal: Producing the book (or your paper
or your autobiography, or whatever) that "proves" that evolution is not
possible?

I have, over the past ten years, forgotton your promise: To show that
evolution is not falsifiable, or that it has been falsified. Or
possibly, both. Whichever. Take your pick.

At such time as you get your final argument together, I suggest that
you submit it to some scientific journal and get it pubished. If the
scientific journals reject it, no doubt evidencing their prejudice
against creationist thinking, then submit it to one of the Creationists
Journals – I am sure you know of several.

Just trying to help.

earle
*
(Atheist, post-Christian Humanist, naturally curly hair)

[Ernest Major]

On 05/03/2015 00:20, Burkhard wrote:

>>> You claimed that ToE wasn't falsifiable, because the classic example of
>>> falsification is "rabbits in the precambrian", and you claimed that
>>> this carried no risk, as everyone knows that you won't find rabbits in
>>> the precambrian.
>>>

>> Interestingly, Ray ought to believe that you WOULD find rabbits in the
>> precambrian. He believes in fixed species, so if his theory were true
>> there ought to be rabbits at every period of life's history.
>>
>

> Strangely enough , I don't think so. While be believes in fixity, he
> also seems to believe that God keeps creating species, long after
> Genesis and possibly even today. How exactly that works he never
> explained, but seems to be a bit like this: species accumulate
> mutations. Just before there are so much mutation accumulated that
> speciation is imminent, God steps in and creates a new species. How
> exactly that happens - e.g. if suddenly lots of adults of the new
> species come into existence out of nothing, or just a single one, or if
> God manipulates the DNA of the old species, he is rather coy about.

Since he claims "absolutely no evolution, not even microevolution" the
bit about accumulating mutations may not be part of his position. On the
other hand Ray doesn't seem to have a fixed or coherent position.
>
> He bases this on a remarkably ahistorical and also otherwise
> linguistically silly interpretation of the English translation of the
> Bible, in particular the word "replenish", where he misreads the
> intensive prefix "re" as "again".
>
> So in his religion, god may well have made rabbits long after the Cambrian.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 13:03:14 +0000, in article <me1bgt$3s5$1...@dont-email.me>,
Ernest Major stated..."
[...snip...]

>
>Since he claims "absolutely no evolution, not even microevolution" the
>bit about accumulating mutations may not be part of his position. On the
>other hand Ray doesn't seem to have a fixed or coherent position.

[...snip...]

How many creationists do have a coherent position. Other than: "Something
has got to be wrong with evolution. Somehow. Please."


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[Ray Martinez]

> Journals - I am sure you know of several.

>
> Just trying to help.
>
> earle
> *
> (Atheist, post-Christian Humanist, naturally curly hair)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/JsFTpPZft3g/3SRJu2j8nnMJ

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Summarizing my position in this topic.

It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.

But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.

Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.

Ray

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ray, why is it obvious to you that no rabbit is going to be found i pre-Cambrian strata? Only a tiny fraction of such strata have actually been examined. On what grounds are you so sure?

[Nick Roberts]

In message <d0205e08-5ac6-418b...@googlegroups.com>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ray, why is it obvious to you that no rabbit is going to be found i
> pre-Cambrian strata? Only a tiny fraction of such strata have
> actually been examined. On what grounds are you so sure?

Because despite the fact that he has started obsessing about
falsification, he is actually using induction: that it hasn't happened
so far is strong evidence that it won't happen tomorrow.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <5b2d5cf9-d538-4dc6...@googlegroups.com>

Summarising my position in this topic.

Ray has still not bothered to defend his claim that "risky" means "may
fail even if the theory is true", which renders Popperian
falsificationism an irrelevant farce. He has not even address the fact
that this interpretation is not only unsupported by any evidence, and
flies in the face of the entire purpose of the body of Popper's work,
it also leads to the paradox that a valid theory is required to be at
risk of being invalid.

His claim that the last point is a strawman is also unsubstantiated
(unless Ray believes that he believes himself to be so perfect that
nothing he could possibly says requires support).

Furthermore, his requirement for real-world risk inevitably leads to
the situation that the better supported a scientific theory is, the
less scientific it is because it becomes harder and harder to identify
an observation that has any real-world risk, so it becomes
unfalsifiable, and hence (according to Popper) is not a scientific
theory.

When I pointed out to Ray that another consequence of his claim
inevitably meant that if someone actually discovered rabbit fossils in
precambrian deposits he could not therefore use this as daming evidence
againt ToE, he did not respond in any meaningful way.

Or at least, the statement "Your comments continue to spiral out of

logical control without any awareness of said fact (= a deluded mind)"

does not, to me, indicate any particularly meaningful response.

In fact there are only two meaningful responses to that observation,
and Ray wasn't man enough to use either of them:

1. Yes, I agree that it would not refute the ToE
2. No, I do not accept that it would not refute the ToE, and my entire
argument has disappeared in a puff of logic

Actually, there is an option 3: No, I do not accept that it would not
refute the ToE, but until it happens it isn't an example of something
that _could_ refute the ToE.

which isn't the slightest bit logical, but I suspect it is the one that
Ray wants.

I may, of course, be doing Ray an injustice here. It may simply be that
(as various posters have observed) many creationists seem to have an
innate difficulty in dealing with hypothetical situations, so Ray
really may think that suggesting a hypothical is "spiralling out of
logical control". If so, he's in an even worse state than I tend to
think.

[Mark Isaak]

I'm happy to see that you accept evolution now, Ray.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Summarizing my position in this topic.
>
> It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the >possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat.

Bother? Not particularly, no We are just trying to correct your
misunderstanding of the structure of scientific theories in general and
Popper in particular, and your persistent confusion about some tenet of
the ToE

Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any
land-dwelling quadruped was discovered

in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory.

To the extend that single observations ever can falsify a theory
(something Popper argued, but few people since), yes, it would

So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky
prediction.

Eh, no? Since a rabbit in the pC would falsify the ToE, it is of course
not a prediction of the ToE. It is something the ToE prohibits.

The prediction that the rabbit would falsify is something like: We
predict that we find in the earth crust fossils of animals layered
chronologically, so that more recent species are in the levels nearer to
the surface, their ancestors in the levels further down. In particular
we should not find circular patterns where the same species appear,
disappear and reappear over geological time or no layered pattern at all
(which would be what we expect if all species came into being
simultaneously)

Like all predictions, this is a universal sentence, just as Popper
requires. Just like he requires too, individual observations of members
of a species disrupting this pattern is enough to falsify the
prediction. This can be a rabbit in the Precambrian, or a T-Rex in the
Devonian, or a human i the Triassic.

With other words, the theory rules out or prohibits numerous possible
observations

>
> But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is
>NOT going to happen;

Probably not, true. But the reason we know this is because we can trust
the standard timeline, it being well confirmed. But this is not
something that matters for Popper. His standard example is "All Swans
are white" This sentence is falsifiable by seeing a pink swan, even
through we can be pretty certain by now that there are no pink swans.

that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to
happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata.

Doesn't really matter for Popper, that would be verificationism and
inductive support, which he rejects.

>Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value

Here you are again confused about the meaning of "predictive"

>neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as
>defined by Karl Popper.

Please give a cite to where he defines "acceptable risk".

I never found such a definition in his writing, Rather, on a very small
number of occasions, he uses the term "risk" to explain in a very loose
way what he means with "bold suggestion". And he illustrates (but never,
to my knowledge, ever defines) it by illustrations like the swan example
- there, very obviously, the only thing that matters is the syntactic
structure of the theory (all-quantified sentences) and that it is easy
to determine if the individual observation that contradicts the theory
has been made.

The rabbit example fits that bill. Finding a rabbit (or any other
mammal) in the pC (or any other strata that is discontinuous with when
they are, according to the ToE,first evolved is a singular observation,
and one where can easily decide if it is a rabbit or not. That is all
that is needed for Popper

>
> Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything
>to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.

Here are some examples that Popper gives (in hie "Reply to my critics"
of observations that would falsify Newtonian theory:

"In fact, almost any statement about a physical body which we make- say
about the cup of tea before me, that is begins to dance (and, say, in
addition without spilling tea) - would contradict Newtons theory. This
theory would equally be contradicted if apples from one of my apple
tress were to rise up from the ground (without there being a whirlwind
about) and begin to dance round the branches of the apple tree from
which they had fallen, or if the moon were to go off at a tangent."

Now, do you really think he considers is likely that a teacup starts
dancing, or apples flying to the top of a tree rather than to the ground?

Yes these are his own examples of falsification. The reason is that they
show the right logical form, and that is what he is interested in -
hence the tile of his most influential book, the LOGIC of scientific
discovery. He is not interested in the psychological state of the
researchers, not what they know or do not know about the world, but only
in the abstract, formal relation between theories and statements that
report individual observations.
>
> Ray
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Evolution is somewhat of a "refutation" of Hardy Weinberg equilibrium (a
hybrid assumption coming from extensive reading of Hardy Boys mysteries
while listening to Max Weinberg on the Conan O'Brien late shows). Yet as
heritable variation (or changes of allelic frequencies) in a population
over generational time evolution becomes true by definition or an
accepted fact of life (based on old George Clooney vehicle). I see
nothing about rabbits or ferocious dinosaurs with diminutive forelimbs
at this basic level (population genetics).

Now there are two commonly accepted means of evolution taking place,
known as drift and selection. Popper recanted his earlier bonehead
philobabble about selection when he recognized drift as an alternative.
Thus to him selection (only *a* means of evolution) is refutable.

Results. Results. Yes then we get beyond the process of evolution and
look at the outcome as observable patterns. Here we get the stratified
fossil record and the notion of common ancestry as these extinct fossils
and extant organisms have relationships based upon things like character
states and homologies (oh crap is Harshman is going to pummel me soon).
Geology gives us rock dating, thus time frames and molecular genetics
gives us a clocking of its own. Genetics gives us a means of assessing
relationship somewhat independently of morphology. Chimps and humans
look kinda different but are genetically close. We have what people call
the twin nested hierarchy. Hypotheses of relationships can be tested by
Computer Nerd with elaborate software based methods, which in its own
sphere introduces a sort of refutability. Bad generated trees fall by
the wayside. Remaining trees are the best current guess for reflecting
reality.

Sure it was basic population genetics where H-W eq gets disrupted by
things like selection and drift and a geographic isolate eventually
diverges genetically enough to impede future interbreedability for the
most part. Micro- blends more or less into macro-. This can be gradual
or quite sudden like with some funky primrose. Sometimes morphological
change can be quite discrete such as with pocket gophers. Yet Ray would
dispute something simple such as stunning varieties of dogs from wolves.
Toy poodles and great danes stem from friendly garbage pickers and
copraphages who stumbled into our camps or latrines.

Now based upon geology's time frames for the rocks and the assumptions
of where T-Rex and rabbits (or hares) fit into the history of life
within dinosaurs and mammals respectively things get interesting from
the standpoint of this subthread. The Cambrian was kinda way back when
lancelet like chordate ancestors were stand ins for what would give rise
to vertebrates. A rabbit in this time frame that was not an explanable
anomaly or human introduced artifact (like contrived Piltdown hoax),
would be quite a problem for known vertebrate phylogeny and
paleontology. Rabbits as contemporaries with Pikaia and thus preceding
the synapsids that would yield mammals later would be a real head
scratcher. But one could still assert that allelic frequencies change
over time and that selection and drift facilitate these changes I
suppose, though going back to the drawing board on vertebrate evolution,
its overarching assumed patterned refuted or at least greatly disrupted.

Maybe the panspermists were rabbits who travelled from Lagomorpha to
instill a soul in Pikaia, thus leading to more rabbits on a new planet?
Rabbits love to propogate.

Bless his heart that Popper was somewhat important for the philosophy of
science, perhaps more so than Kuhn. Rabbits in the Cambrian would be a
real paradigm shift. But falsification as demarcation is kinda a way to
marginalize kooky creationist views and tell them to go sit at the kids
table (sensu Peter Boghossian). Inside the hallowed halls of science,
isn't Popper's idealized version almost risible? Hypothesis testing is
much more gray area probabilistic than the black and white of all
qualifiers and one shot falsification.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Not sure evolutionists are in general all that smitten with
falsification theory, at least in strictly dogmatic Popperian form, or
philosophy of science in general. They could be pragmatists who rely on
methods known to work for obtaining useful results.

And like skepticism becoming self-refuting at some point as shouldn't we
be skeptical of skepticism, doesn't hardcore my way or highway
black/white falsificationism kinda implode as not able to live up to its
own harsh (or "risky"????) standard?

Now I love Popper, especially _Objective Knowledge_ and he makes many
great points and as epistemology goes he blows Ayn Rand out of the
water. Actually he tips her out of her plastic wading pool. His is an
epistemology more suited to those unafraid to take off their arm
floaties and jump headfirst into the deep end, where refutation means
someone drained the pool. Oops. He treats Hume and Kant with major
amounts of respect, something Ayn Rand was not capable of doing and her
acolytes go around making obnoxious asses of themselves because her own
personality and intellectual shortcomings.

And Popper is a forerunner of evolutionary epistemology a far more
interesting a rewarding endeavor than Objectivism.

Sure his three worlds theory is a bit esoteric and his neuroscientific
pal Eccles a bit off the wall, but hey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_%28neurophysiologist%29#Philosophy

[jillery]

If all species were formed at the same time and are immutable, then
one should expect fossils of all species mixed together during all
geologic ages. So how do you reconcile that with the fact that
fossils of pre-cambrian rabbits don't exist?

[raven1]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Summarizing my position in this topic.
>
>It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
>
>But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen;

Yes, but you are in complete denial over *why* it is not going to
happen.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Very interesting, Ray. Since you claim to believe that
species were created ex nihilo at whatever time seemed
appropriate to the Creator, on what basis do you claim that
discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is impossible?

We know why science claims that, but science relies on known
evolutionary processes and observed/inferred descent
patterns, both of which you reject. So please tell us the
basis for your assertion. And be specific. Or is this
another "everybody knows it", like the invisibility of
Satan?
--

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

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 12:14:34 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >Summarizing my position in this topic.
> >
> >It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
> >
> >But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
> >
> >Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.
>
> Very interesting, Ray. Since you claim to believe that
> species were created ex nihilo at whatever time seemed
> appropriate to the Creator, on what basis do you claim that
> discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is impossible?

On the basis of what I said----which, apparently, you didn't read with any comprehension.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 10:04:34 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Summarizing my position in this topic.
> >
> >It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
> >
> >But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen;
>
> Yes, but you are in complete denial over *why* it is not going to
> happen.

Because of previous knowledge of the paleontological record. A Popperian "risky prediction" presupposes absence of knowledge. So rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is a safe bet, not a prediction of any sorts.

Tell us, where did Evolutionary theorists obtain the idea that a rabbit would not be found in pre-Cambrian strata?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 11:59:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Summarizing my position in this topic.
> >
> >It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
> >
> >But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
> >
> >Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.
> >
>
> If all species were formed at the same time and are immutable,

Not my position or the position of anyone. You've been around too long to not be able to convey the position of pre-1859 Victorian science, which is my position. These facts render your question or point below to be based on a false premise.

> then
> one should expect fossils of all species mixed together during all
> geologic ages. So how do you reconcile that with the fact that
> fossils of pre-cambrian rabbits don't exist?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 9:14:37 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 03/14/2015 02:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Summarizing my position in this topic.
> >
> > It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
> >
> > But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
> >
> > Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.
>
> Not sure evolutionists are in general all that smitten with
> falsification theory, at least in strictly dogmatic Popperian form, or
> philosophy of science in general. They could be pragmatists who rely on
> methods known to work for obtaining useful results.
>
> And like skepticism becoming self-refuting at some point as shouldn't we
> be skeptical of skepticism, doesn't hardcore my way or highway
> black/white falsificationism kinda implode as not able to live up to its
> own harsh (or "risky"????) standard?
>
> Now I love Popper, especially _Objective Knowledge_ and he makes many
> great points and as epistemology goes he blows Ayn Rand out of the
> water. Actually he tips her out of her plastic wading pool. His is an
> epistemology more suited to those unafraid to take off their arm
> floaties and jump headfirst into the deep end, where refutation means
> someone drained the pool. Oops. He treats Hume and Kant with major
> amounts of respect, something Ayn Rand was not capable of doing and her
> acolytes go around making obnoxious asses of themselves because her own
> personality and intellectual shortcomings.

LOL!

Yes, you're ready to quit your day job. Look forward to seeing you on television real soon.

LOL!

>
> And Popper is a forerunner of evolutionary epistemology a far more
> interesting a rewarding endeavor than Objectivism.
>
> Sure his three worlds theory is a bit esoteric and his neuroscientific
> pal Eccles a bit off the wall, but hey.
>

> [....]

Yet Popper originally said the theory of natural selection was not scientific/falsifiable; and he's **viewed** as an opponent of induction, that is, a concept that science relies on heavily to this very day.

If I didn't know that God exists, I would most definitely worship Ayn Rand. She alone had the guts and the intelligence to tell the philosophical establishment that their main ideas were not based or grounded in reality.

Hats off.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

That's EXACTLY why evolutionary theorists invoke rabbit in pre-Cambrian as "falsifying" evolution. An inductive conclusion is used improperly and illegitimately----my on-going point.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Because the theory of how life evolved on this planet claims that
mammals evolved much later.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-5, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:36:01 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<huge snip of things about which Vince and I are more or less in agreement>

<snip of point of disagreement about Tiktaalik>

I addressed that point before Spring Break, and now that the break
is over I hope Vince will address not only that, but also what
I deal with below, where I address him directly:

>> >And now, here is where I mentioned you today on another thread:
> >
> >___________________excerpt___________________________
> >I'm always on the horns of a dilemma when confronted with posts like the
> >one to which I am replying. In this case it is:
> >
> >1. If I do not reply, Harshman will seem like a paragon of patience
> >to people like Vince Maycock, in comparison to the jerk who posted
> >it; and they (most certainly including Maycock) might cling to the
> >illusion that the jerk to whom I am replying is NOT a part-time troll.
>
> For the record:
>
> a) I do not think John Harshman is a paragon of patience

You sure did comment on a thread about "Punctuated equilibrium
writ large" about what you perceived to be his great
patience to that point, contrasted with an outburst of his
which you suspected was uncharacteristic.

> b) even if I hadn't known John for many years, I would not base my
> evaluation of his character on a single incident in the way that you
> suggest

I wasn't talking about BASING it, I was talking about it being
*supported* by the impression that S.O.P. is much less patient
with me than Harshman is. It's a relativistic thing, you might
say.

> c) not only is S.O.P. not a troll, (per your previous accusation), he
> is not a part-time troll, either

Your pathetic opinion is noted. He trolls part time against me and
I've already documented that for you before, and if you had looked
up the post where I actually replied to him, you would have seen
evidence of him doing that again.

The documentation appeared right after you flamboyantly ridiculed
me for calling him a troll, and as a result I've corrected myself
and called him a part time troll, which he is.

> d) your idea is a logical non sequitur -- it does not follow from the
> fact that you fail to reply to someone that one of their supposed
> allies is a paragon of patience

There's no hard and fast logical rule, but then human nature
is only partly (and probably a minor part) logical. Hence the
success of such Star Trek characters as Mr. Spock and Mr. Data.

> >2. If I do reply, it will further give ammunition to people, either
> >studiously ignored or aided, abetted and comforted by Harshman, who
> >lie through their teeth that
> >
> >a. I attack anyone who disagrees with me and
>
> So you feel driven to reply to people in a way that gives people the
> impression that you're "attacking" them?

Talk about non sequiturs! I attack people for dishonesty and
hypocrisy and NOT just for disagreeing with me.

Do you just give little kid-gloves corrections to people who
lie about you in a defamatory way? What do you think talk.origins
is FOR, if truth is given a very low priority in it?

> >b. I am not really interested in on-topic discussion with Harshman,
> >because I keep delaying replies to him in favor of counterattacking
> >people who can safely be ignored.
>
> No one would think either of these things,

Speak for yourself. There is plenty of scuttlebutt in that direction.
Erik Simpson even broke off communication with me with the one-liner,
"Goodbye, Peter." because I dared once too often to make personal
remarks without devoting most of my post to on-topic matters.

> considering that your long
> on-topic discussions with Harshman are enough of a fixture at the
> newsgroup that some people may be wondering whether it would be best
> to killfile the threads containing the boring minutiae you guys talk
> about -- oh, but wait, better not do that, it's technically on-topic.
> And I don't think anyone thinks you have opponents that "can safely be
> ignored."

Your opinion is noted here too. At least this time you
indicated that it is an opinion.

It is actually more supportable than the one I called "pathetic."
I'd appreciate it if you would give your honest opinion as to
whether NOBODY thinks jillery can be safely ignored when she attacks me personally. I suggest you look at the handful of posts done since March 6
on "Multiple concurrent nyms" before forming that opinion.

> Considering the stigma that's attached to you at the
> newsgroup, I would say that it would be fair to allow you the
> opportunity to defend yourself against your many attackers.

Yes, and your own posts do little against that stigma, and
more *for* it than against it. See here, for instance:

> Where those attackers came from is another question; in my view, they
> came from your own personal assholery at the newsgroup, but the fact
> remains that they're there, and no one would consider you to have
> people that you consider "safe to ignore."

My patience with you is wearing thin, Maycock. I've given you
the benefit of the doubt up to now, even listing you among
ten people whom I consider "most honest and sincere." But that
listing was based in turn on my impression that you are young--
21 or less, or at least below 30.

Are you?

If you are much above that, then my impression of you will undergo
a marked change, and my next such list will exclude you. There
are others who can take your place there, who could have been
included in the first list but weren't because I decided to stop
at ten.

> >I judge the danger of a. to be minimal, and so I here opt
> >for 2. as the lesser evil.
> >
> >[All of the above, unfortunately, is grist for the mill of Harshman's
> >canard that I am "paranoid".
>
> No, that's not a canard. It is true that you're paranoid about the way
> people view you.

It's not how they view me personally, it's how they express themselves.
Like you expressing yourself by pronouncing me guilty of "assholery."
And now you express a pathetic opinion about HARSHMAN'S canard,
which is based on a highly nonstandard use of "paranoid" by
Harshman. Documentation on request.

> Or at least that's your whole persona; I always interpret this
> persona as your modus operandi for attacking people. I.e., things
> along the lines of "Since this mainstream talk.origins poster
> supposedly thinks this horrible thing about me, it follows that I must
> respond with ... some *serious* bitchiness myself!"

Your pathetic interpretation is noted.

I had not expressed any horrible opinion of you up to the time
you wrote that last paragraph -- quite the contrary, see above
about the ten member list -- and yet you have responded with
some serious bitchiness ("assholery" etc.) yourself.

If you are just a brash young whippersnapper, I can overlook that,
but if you are middle-aged, or old like Paul Gans, you are treading
on very thin ice, Maycock.

Peter Nyikos

[_Arthur]

What are you arguing ?

1) That a rabbit fossil in a precambrian strata would NOT falsify the Theory of Evolution ?

2) That such a rabbit fossil would falsify Evolution

3) That such a rabbit fossil would falsify Geology, but not Evolution.

4) That Ray has no clue what geology, biology and logic are about.

?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 9:14:37 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > On 03/14/2015 02:35 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Summarizing my position in this topic.
> > >
> > > It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat.

i.e., they are basing a prediction that this will NOT happen
on evolutionary theory accompanied by overwhelming paleontological
evidence.

That's a much safer prediction than any the NT makes, don't you agree?

> > > Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any
> > > land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata

"quadruped" is a bit more risky. There were land-dwelling quadrupeds
closer to the Pre-Cambrian, time-wise, than they were to the first
placentals, of which rabbits aren't even among the first.

> > > then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.


> > > But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen;

Why do you call this a fact? There is nothing in the Bible that
rules it out. Are you just PRETENDING to believe Genesis 1?

> > > that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata.

Wait. Are you being satirical here, or sincere? Please be a little
more considerate of our difficulties in figuring out when you are
being one or the other.

> > >Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value
> > >neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level

The prediction that fossils of pre-Cambrian rabbits WILL be
discovered is a fool's gamble, but precisely for that reason,
such a discovery would falsify evolution. Hence the following
statement is irrational:

> > > Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.

YOU should abandon mixing satire with sincerity; you seem not
to understand the very things you wrote earlier.

> > Not sure evolutionists are in general all that smitten with
> > falsification theory, at least in strictly dogmatic Popperian form, or
> > philosophy of science in general. They could be pragmatists who rely on
> > methods known to work for obtaining useful results.
> >
> > And like skepticism becoming self-refuting at some point as shouldn't we
> > be skeptical of skepticism, doesn't hardcore my way or highway
> > black/white falsificationism kinda implode as not able to live up to its
> > own harsh (or "risky"????) standard?
> >
> > Now I love Popper, especially _Objective Knowledge_ and he makes many
> > great points and as epistemology goes he blows Ayn Rand out of the
> > water. Actually he tips her out of her plastic wading pool. His is an
> > epistemology more suited to those unafraid to take off their arm
> > floaties and jump headfirst into the deep end, where refutation means
> > someone drained the pool. Oops. He treats Hume and Kant with major
> > amounts of respect, something Ayn Rand was not capable of doing and her
> > acolytes go around making obnoxious asses of themselves because her own
> > personality and intellectual shortcomings.
>
> LOL!
>
> Yes, you're ready to quit your day job. Look forward to seeing you on television real soon.
> LOL!

Your laughing at Hemidactylus is the sort of "laughter" I keep
seeing from a man who uses the nym "Stalinist," who even uses a portrait
of Stalin as an avatar, and who is just as smitten about Stalin as you
are about Ayn Rand. This is on a bunch of blogs collectively called
"infowars."

The big difference is that he does an infinitely better job of spewing
pro-Stalin propaganda than you do of spewing pro-Rand propagada. But
as I'm sure you'll agree, his propaganda cannot rescue Stalin from
the "Hall of Infamy."

> > And Popper is a forerunner of evolutionary epistemology a far more
> > interesting a rewarding endeavor than Objectivism.
> >
> > Sure his three worlds theory is a bit esoteric and his neuroscientific
> > pal Eccles a bit off the wall, but hey.
> >
> > [....]
>
> Yet Popper originally said the theory of natural selection was not scientific/falsifiable; and he's **viewed** as an opponent of induction, that is, a concept that science relies on heavily to this very day.
>
> If I didn't know that God exists,

You do not know that. You MAY believe it, but that's a different
matter altogether.

> I would most definitely worship Ayn Rand. She alone had the guts and the intelligence to tell the philosophical establishment that their main ideas were not based or grounded in reality.

Pathetic *ipse dixits* compared to the propaganda "Stalinist" regularly
spews. Would you like for me to introduce you to him?

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/16/15 12:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 12:14:34 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> Summarizing my position in this topic.
>>>
>>> It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
>>>
>>> But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
>>>
>>> Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.
>>
>> Very interesting, Ray. Since you claim to believe that
>> species were created ex nihilo at whatever time seemed
>> appropriate to the Creator, on what basis do you claim that
>> discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is impossible?
>
> On the basis of what I said----which, apparently, you didn't read with any comprehension.

What was that basis, Ray? Even if one comprehends what you write
(something that you don't even seem able to do), what basis are you
offering.

All you said was that a rabbit in the preCambrian is "manifestly
absurd", and that it is "not going to happen" due to "previous
knowledge" of the preCambrian strata.

Considering that only a miniscule portion of all preCambrian strata
has been uncovered, and an even smaller portion of that is fossil
bearing, and a yet smaller portion of that fossil bearing rock has been
studied, why would "prior knowledge" of Pre Cambrian fossils be an
indication there are no advanced land vertebrates in those strata?

As Bob points out, if species were specially created by an
"intelligent designer" there would be no reason to suspect that rabbits
would be limited to only modern strata. One would not be surprised to
find a rabbit in any strata, of any age. Finding a rabbit in the pre
Cambrian would not be impossible, or even unlikely.

On the other hand, finding rabbit fossils in undisturbed pre Cambrian
strata would indicate that either rabbits invented a time machine, or
that our current ideas of evolution are incorrect. You have before
claimed that God himself is trying to deceive scientists into accepting
evolution, for some odd, inexplicable reason, and then punishing them
for that belief. If that is indeed what you believe, then you, Ray are
claiming the "invisible deceiver" is God himself.


DJT

[Sneaky O. Possum]

An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:22ccf158-ffda-407f...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-5, Vincent Maycock wrote:

[snip]

>> c) not only is S.O.P. not a troll, (per your previous accusation),
>> he is not a part-time troll, either
>
> Your pathetic opinion is noted. He trolls part time against me and
> I've already documented that for you before, and if you had looked
> up the post where I actually replied to him, you would have seen
> evidence of him doing that again.

The thing is, Fruity, nobody but you understands what you mean when you
say I troll part time against you. Are you referring to the fact that I
make fun of you? That ain't trolling. Is it the fact that I disagree
with nearly everything you say? That ain't trolling, either. What,
exactly, do you think trolling *is*?
--
S.O.P.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/16/15 12:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 10:04:34 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Summarizing my position in this topic.
>>>
>>> It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
>>>
>>> But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen;
>>
>> Yes, but you are in complete denial over *why* it is not going to
>> happen.
>
> Because of previous knowledge of the paleontological record.

Previous knowledge is only an indication if one has a workable theory to
predict future findings. Scientists don't expect to find a rabbit in
the Pre Cambrian for exactly the reason that evolutionary theory
indicates it would be highly unlikely.

> A Popperian "risky prediction" presupposes absence of knowledge.

Ah, another on your personal assumptions that everyone else is supposed
to know. Ray, do you believe yourself to have telepathy? Do you think
that your own misconceptions, bizarre ideas, and weird notions are
commonly accepted by anyone else?

> So rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is a safe bet, not a prediction of any sorts.

It is only a "safe bet" if evolution is true. If an "intelligent
designer" were responsible for producing all species, finding a rabbit
in the Pre Cambrian would be a risk.

>
> Tell us, where did Evolutionary theorists obtain the idea that a rabbit would not be found in pre-Cambrian strata?

Evolutionary theorists *don't* expect that rabbits would be found in the
Pre Cambrian, Ray. That's the point. It would be a finding that would
place the theory of evolution in jeopardy. That's why it's a risk, even
if a highly unlikely one.


DJT

[Sneaky O. Possum]

_Arthur <michel....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:33413267-1262-4de5...@googlegroups.com:

5) Both 2) and 4).
--
S.O.P.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/16/15 12:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 11:59:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Summarizing my position in this topic.
>>>
>>> It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
>>>
>>> But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
>>>
>>> Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.
>>>
>>
>> If all species were formed at the same time and are immutable,
>
> Not my position or the position of anyone.

It is the position of YECs, based on what the Bible's creation stories
would indicate, if one were to take them literally. Apparently, though
you don't believe what the Bible actually says, just what you want it to
say.

> You've been around too long to not be able to convey the position of pre-1859 Victorian science, which is my position.

Ray, the position of "pre 1859 victorian science" was that how species
got here was unknown. The religious position held by many of those
scientists was that God had created life some unknown time ago, and not
created anything new since then. That's why finding fossils of extinct
life forms was such a big deal for them. It indicated that God may have
made some mistakes, or things hadn't always been the same.

Cuvier had suggested progressive creation events, where past life had
been wiped out, and God started again, but none of the scientists of
that time seriously suggested, as you do, that God was introducing new
species in modern times.

> These facts render your question or point below to be based on a false premise.

Ray, your own position has no support, from either modern science, or
"Victorian" science. If, as you claim, all species are immutable, we
should not see all the variation within populations we see today. There
should be no genetic changes observed, but there are.


snip more of what Ray ignores.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, you don't even know why evolutionary theorists say a rabbit in the
Pre Cambrian would falsify evolution. They refer to it because it
would be a finding that would (hypothetically) indicate the theory was
wrong.

> An inductive conclusion is used improperly and illegitimately----my on-going point.

which only goes to show you don't know the meaning of "induction", or
"conclusion", or "improperly", or "illegitimately".

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

So, instead of addressing the points, you run away, pretending to laugh.

>
>>
>> And Popper is a forerunner of evolutionary epistemology a far more
>> interesting a rewarding endeavor than Objectivism.
>>
>> Sure his three worlds theory is a bit esoteric and his neuroscientific
>> pal Eccles a bit off the wall, but hey.
>>
>> [....]
>
> Yet Popper originally said the theory of natural selection was not scientific/falsifiable;

and he admitted later he was wrong.

> and he's **viewed** as an opponent of induction, that is, a concept that science relies on heavily to this very day.

Again, indicates he was wrong about some things.

>
> If I didn't know that God exists, I would most definitely worship Ayn Rand.

Why would anyone worship a dead human being?

> She alone had the guts and the intelligence to tell the philosophical establishment that their main ideas were not based or grounded in reality.

So, Rand was wrong too. Why would you worship a wrong, dead, person?


>
> Hats off.

and brains off...


DJT

[Earle Jones27]

*
Ayn Rand??

What happened to Gene Scott?

earle
*

[Roger Shrubber]

Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 3/16/15 12:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 10:04:34 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Summarizing my position in this topic.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a
>>>> person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a
>>>> rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known
>>>> to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was
>>>> discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify
>>>> evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata
>>>> is offered as a risky prediction.
>>>>
>>>> But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand
>>>> the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT
>>>> going to happen;
>>>
>>> Yes, but you are in complete denial over *why* it is not going to
>>> happen.
>>
>> Because of previous knowledge of the paleontological record.
>
> Previous knowledge is only an indication if one has a workable theory to
> predict future findings. Scientists don't expect to find a rabbit in
> the Pre Cambrian for exactly the reason that evolutionary theory
> indicates it would be highly unlikely.

I'm going to defend Ray, in a small way.
Elsewhere we have noted that neo-Darwinism is not required to observe
common descent. You just look at all the critters that are there,
and the plants and the protists, and then at the fossil record and
an extensive family tree presents itself. Rhinos did not show up
without there having been some sort of proto-rhino. The mechanisms
of molecular evolution tie in nicely but they are not required to
understand what is observed.

So, really, we have an existing observation that species don't
show up without some sort of similar precursors. At least not
until you get into the gray areas of the Cambrian and beyond.

So, it follows that someone who affirms that all species are
created has some small insight into the otherwise ineffable
mind of their creator. Ray may not know why his creator behaves
that way but he see what she does. The pattern, the one we call
common descent, is well established.

For my part, not pretending to understand the ineffable, I suppose
there's nothing to stop a creator from tossing in a few one-offs,
if they were of a mind to. However, it appears that they weren't.
If one thinks like a scientist, one would expect an established
pattern to hold rather than to expect outliers to pop up. So even
a creationist can predict that we won't find rabbits in the
pre-Cambrian. Not because it would falsify creationism or the
existence of a creator. Instead, just because it would be
inconsistent with the pattern that has been established.

>> A Popperian "risky prediction" presupposes absence of knowledge.

> Ah, another on your personal assumptions that everyone else is supposed
> to know. Ray, do you believe yourself to have telepathy? Do you think
> that your own misconceptions, bizarre ideas, and weird notions are
> commonly accepted by anyone else?

Not that this helps the confusion over Popper or supports any
relevance to anything Popperian.

[Dana Tweedy]

He already worships him...

DJT

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:46:06 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 11:59:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Summarizing my position in this topic.
>> >
>> >It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
>> >
>> >But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
>> >
>> >Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.
>> >
>>
>> If all species were formed at the same time and are immutable,
>
>Not my position or the position of anyone. You've been around too long to not be able to convey the position of pre-1859 Victorian science, which is my position. These facts render your question or point below to be based on a false premise.

Then make explicit my error of the "facts", and state how your
position doesn't imply that pre-cambrian rabbit fossils should exist.

>> then
>> one should expect fossils of all species mixed together during all
>> geologic ages. So how do you reconcile that with the fact that
>> fossils of pre-cambrian rabbits don't exist?
>
>Ray

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

everything, mostly all our errors, are based in reality. For reality has
not any existence of their own. It is us that conceive reality. Reality
is thus a construct of our mind. That is the reason why "reality" is also
a word used both by people of science and people of religion.
As the word "reality" is a "semantic label" used to give a flair of
authenticity to some ideas we have around some sets of facts. In general
it is not the facts who are wrong, but our speeches about those sets of
facts.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

it is not this. It is that we never had found such a thing as a rabbit
on the Cambrian. Then, if you found a rabbit there it means someone put
this fossil in the place, or the rabbit fossil come rolling down hill
from other higher place. Sometimes a younger piece of land can get up
by plate tectonics, and an older place can go down. It is not very
common but it is possible.
Eri

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 6:39:32 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> An Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:22ccf158-ffda-407f...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 AM UTC-5, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> [snip]
> >> c) not only is S.O.P. not a troll, (per your previous accusation),
> >> he is not a part-time troll, either
> >
> > Your pathetic opinion is noted. He trolls part time against me and
> > I've already documented that for you before, and if you had looked
> > up the post where I actually replied to him, you would have seen
> > evidence of him doing that again.
>
> The thing is, Fruity, nobody but you understands what you mean when you
> say I troll part time against you.

You are trolling right now, pretending to speak for everyone in this
newsgroup.

Your brand of trolling can be summarized thus: making comments for which
you have no credible evidence, and which are derogatory and/or
self-serving if taken literally.

> Are you referring to the fact that I
> make fun of you?

Is that all your seriously defamatory comments about me amount to--
statements made in fun that you have no intention of backing up?

If so, you already provided me with compelling evidence that you
are a part time troll against me. It was provided to Vincent
Maycock in the form of your behavior in the following post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/nhhRXy0BtBA/nEQWuBiCsG4J

You made eight accusations against me, documented in the above
post, of the sort that could be made with equal or more justice
against anyone in this newsgroup -- more in your case, and more
in Maycock's case if he is middle-aged or older.

You never replied directly to that post, and when I shoved it
in your face again, you made empty taunts instead of either
providing evidence or backpedaling from any of those
defamatory accusations.

By the way, Maycock hasn't replied either to the post where
I gave him the url as evidence that you are a (part-time)
troll.

Here is the url for the post Maycock ducked:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/oQOBlUXt2yU/GgKXOk9hPywJ

> That ain't trolling. Is it the fact that I disagree
> with nearly everything you say?

Is that a fact, or are you just trolling again?

> That ain't trolling, either. What,
> exactly, do you think trolling *is*?

Asking self-serving questions like the ones you're asking
me, while not breathing a word about what YOU consider
to be trolling, looks to me like yet another example of trolling.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:36:42 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 12:14:34 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >Summarizing my position in this topic.
>> >
>> >It seems to bother Nick Roberts (and other Evolutionists) when a person points out the ridiculousness of the possibility of pulling a rabbit out of a pre-Cambrian hat. Evolutionary theorists are known to claim that if a rabbit or any land-dwelling quadruped was discovered in pre-Cambrian strata then the same would falsify evolutionary theory. So discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is offered as a risky prediction.
>> >
>> >But this is manifestly absurd. Some people, like myself, understand the fact that discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is NOT going to happen; that Evolutionists already know that a discovery as such is NOT going to happen based on the fact of previous knowledge of pre-Cambrian strata. Therefore the proposition contains no predictive value neither does the proposition contain any acceptable level of risk as defined by Karl Popper.
>> >
>> >Evolutionists should abandon possible discovery of rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata as not having anything to do with prediction, risk, or falsification.

>> Very interesting, Ray. Since you claim to believe that
>> species were created ex nihilo at whatever time seemed
>> appropriate to the Creator, on what basis do you claim that
>> discovery of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata is impossible?
>
>On the basis of what I said----which, apparently, you didn't read with any comprehension.

All you said was that it's "absurd" to imagine finding a
rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata. Once more, why is it
"absurd", given that the Creator could have created the
species whenever He wished?

Also, once again you fail to understand the meaning of
"falsification".

>> We know why science claims that, but science relies on known
>> evolutionary processes and observed/inferred descent
>> patterns, both of which you reject. So please tell us the
>> basis for your assertion. And be specific. Or is this
>> another "everybody knows it", like the invisibility of
>> Satan?

That is, as noted, why science doesn't believe it will
happen. But you reject science, so why do *you* believe it?

Seems that lack of comprehension isn't my problem, but
yours.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:30:30 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

It's been noted several times that Ray's religious beliefs
are problematic at best.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:07:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by _Arthur
<michel....@gmail.com>:

I'll take door #4, please.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:37:52 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

I'd suspect it's the latter.