Evolution and Observation Gap
topmind
'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
Thanks, -T-
willre...@yahoo.com
Well, you don't know what "theory" means in scientific parlance and
your observations are pretty silly. Is that the kind of comment you
meant?
Will in New Haven
--
That which does not destroy us
Has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
CreateThis
Another moron with a computer.
CT
Bobby D. Bryant
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
You're first error is in the title.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding
of how the fact works.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
catshark
So, according to you, the statement "stars are powered by fusion reactions
at their cores" is not "factual"?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
People who are anti-evolution are working
very hard for some excuse to be against it.
- Charles Townes -
Shane
Yep, I think you nailed it. Logical fallacies, strawman arguments, non
sequiturs, tautologies, anthropomorphism, mixed metaphors, and pure
ignorance. You failed in some areas, specifically, no argument from
authority and no misspelled words. Had you included these, I would not
have hesitated to give 10/10, as it is, 8/10.
--
Shane
Mark VandeWettering
It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
a fact that it does.
The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
Mark
Ernest Major
topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
You have proposed a restrictive definition of fact which excludes Pluto
orbiting the Sum from factual status. It also eliminates (but perhaps
you consider that a feature, rather than a bug) vast swathes of
scientific fact from astronomy, geology and other fields. (Do you claim
it's not a fact that the craters of the moon were caused by impacts, or
that Hawaii was built by repeated volcanic eruptions, or that French is
descended from Latin.)
BTW, your write-up would be better if you were more precise about what
you were addressing - abiogenesis, or common descent, or complex
biological structures. As it is, evolution (as in the change of allele
frequencies) is a fact even by your restrictive definition. So is
speciation.
And most of your write-up doesn't seem to add anything to your argument,
other than to clothe the nakedness of your original postulate.
Gould's definition of a fact captures, I think, the popular
understanding - a fact is something which is confirmed to a degree
whereby it would be perverse to withhold provisional acceptance.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006
Marc
I like totally agree, man.
(signed) marc
.
Steven J.
"evolution" (common descent with modification) and the causes of
evolution. "Intelligent design" is, to the extent that it's anything
beyond a catch phrase for a shabby apologetic technique, an alternative
to "natural selection," which is one of (but not the only) mechanism of
evolution. Even if it could be shown that natural selection cannot
account for some adaption (and even if it could, this would not be
sufficient to establish intelligent design rather than unknown,
undirected causes), this would not be an argument that the trait was
not evolved by some other means.
Second, you are mistaken about what "repeatability" means in science.
For example, no one has ever observed Pluto repeat its orbit around the
sun; in point of fact, no one has observed it complete even one orbit,
yet they infer the fact that it does orbit the sun. When scientists
speak of "repeatability," they mean that the observations of the
evidence produced by the phenomenon must be observable. One scientist
observes shared pseudogenes shared by humans and chimps, and another,
or ten others, can repeat the observation. One looks at a fossil of
_Archaeopteryx_, and another can take another look and compare his
results.
Indeed, there are entire fields of research which depend on using
indirect observation to reconstruct unrepeatable events: when forensic
investigators examine a crime scene, or a crashed aircraft, they cannot
hope to murder the victim or crash the plane over and over to make sure
how it happened; they can only examine the evidence over and over, and
see which theories best fit the evidence. You have an unreasonable and
useless standard for what constitutes "fact," and I suspect you do not
and would not wish to apply it to questions other than evolution.
Third, you seem almost equally confused about "observation." No one
has directly observed an atom. The evidence for their existence is the
same sort of indirect, circumstantial evidence you regard as
unsatisfactory to establish common descent with modification. All
observation is, to some extent, indirect: you are not directly
perceiving any object outside your own mind, but rather perceiving the
effects it produces (often indirectly) on your sense organs. There is
no escape from inference, indirect observation, or circumstantial
evidence.
Fourth, "theories" are explanations for data. They are not the rung on
the epistemic ladder below "fact" or "law." Theories can explain facts
or laws, but when sufficiently attested, they can be "facts" without
thereby ceasing to be "theories."
>
> Thanks, -T-
-- Steven J.
Zachriel
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1142805629.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Evolution refers to a theory and to a fact.
"Evolution is .... The Theory of Evolution explains ...."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
In your article, you misstate the scientific method. You clearly don't
understand what constitutes a scientific theory, or even what constitutes a
repeatable observation.
It is not necessary for Galileo to leave the solar system to observe from
afar the complete orbit of the Earth about the Sun. He determined that the
Earth moves centuries before artificial satellites were invented. Anyone
with a telescope can observe the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, or
the mountains on the movable Moon. These are repeatable observations. The
predicted return of Halley's Comet at Christmas in 1758 is another.
Nearly all scientific theories are developed by indirect evidence, such as
the existence of atoms tentatively inferred from chemistry. Einstein then
indirectly demonstrated the actual existence of atoms (and their approximate
size!) with his elegant explanation of Brownian Motion. But he still didn't
have a picture of one. It was all inference on top of inference.
Einstein's original paper (1905, PDF)
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/AeReserveArticles/eins_brownian.pdf
Cool Brownian applet
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/brownian/brownian.html
All the really cool science is non-intuitive. If it was obvious, we wouldn't
need scientists.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
topmind
> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >
> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>
> It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> a fact that it does.
Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
probability, but not zero.
>
> The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
> ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
> evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
> that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
> useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
> of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact". If you have a formal
consensus definition of "fact", then let's see the damned thing.
Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
universe.
>
> Mark
-T-
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>> >
>> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>
>> You're first error is in the title.
>>
>> Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding
>> of how the fact works.
>
> I like totally agree, man.
Think how far I could go if I got my grammar right!
Bobby D. Bryant
> Nearly all scientific theories are developed by indirect evidence,
> such as the existence of atoms tentatively inferred from chemistry.
Arguably *all* evidence is indirect. When we put something on a
scale and read the meter, all we _really_ observe is the cognitive
side effect of our retina detecting some photons.
chris.li...@gmail.com
You seem to think that a theory will become a fact when it grows up.
You're wrong.
Evolution, in the sense of "genetic changes in populations" is a fact.
Evolution, as in "all life is descended from one or only a few common
ancestors that evolved around 3 billion years ago" is a theory. It
explains the nested hierarchies we see in genetics and morphology. It
explains patterns we see in biogeography and comparative anatomy. It
explains, pretty much, every pattern we see in biology.
Evolution the theory is distinct fom (but related to) evolution the
fact. This is not surprising as all phenomena in biology are related to
evolution.
You are also mistaken that we have not seen speciation. The first time
humans observed speciation (and recorded it) was probably in 1905, when
Hugo de Vries noted it in the evening primrose, _Oenothera_. Since then
there have been quite a few recorded instances. Since speciation is
usually (but not always) faster in plants than animals, that's where
most of recorded instances are found (look up _Spartina_ for a nice
example).
That's as far as I got, to be honest.
Chris
NashtOn
Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
Thanks!
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
NashtOn
Excellent analysis, thanks.
cactus
theory. Music theory is a theory, as is gravitational theory. All three
have roughly the same explanatory power in their respective realms.
After that first sentence you careen wildly into the usual ignorant
creationist polemics, which have so many of the usual lies, errors and
distortions that it's not worth discussion yet again. As a software
engineer, I would have expected you to be better educated, but if you
don't even know what a longitudinal study is, I'm not going to waste the
time that your junior college should have spent educating you.
Stuart
topmind wrote:
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> > >
> > > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
> > It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
> > to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> > particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> > normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> > orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> > a fact that it does.
>
> Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> probability, but not zero.
Is there any evidence of that?
>
> >
> > The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
> > ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
> > evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
> > that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
> > useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
> > of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
>
> I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
> consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
> don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
ROFL.
SETI seeks out human like intelligences.
ID posits unknow intelligences with unknow capabilities and motives.
And you don't see the difference?
You call yourself topmind?
You make me laugh.
Stuart
willre...@yahoo.com
NashtOn wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >
> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
> > Thanks, -T-
> >
>
> Excellent analysis, thanks.
A fool, cheerleading for an idiot.
Will in New Haven
--
That which does not destroy us
Has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
>
>
Josh M.
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1142805629.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Wrong right from the start. The title is false. The first sentence is total
bullshit. I stopped reading after the first paragraph.
In short, it sucks.
CreateThis
> CreateThis wrote:
>
>>topmind wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>
>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>
>>>Thanks, -T-
>>
>>
>>Another moron with a computer.
>>
>>CT
>>
>
>
> Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
> Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>
> Thanks!
So you agree with Moron #1 that nothing can be factual unless directly
observed and demonstrable? Like, for instance, the 'G_d' you *know* exists?
You're welcome! Moron.
CT
Dave
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
I'll be waiting for your next essay; "Why God is a theory and not a
fact."
Augray
>CreateThis wrote:
>> topmind wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>
>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>
>>>Thanks, -T-
>>
>>
>> Another moron with a computer.
>>
>> CT
>>
>
>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>
>Thanks!
Speaking of addressing the issue, when are you going to give us a link
to the post where you "convincingly proved that the ToE is as useless
as a bull and accomplishes nothing but to firmly establish
atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school system". Now, be a
good little lad and provide it.
Thanks!
Marc
NashtOn wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >
> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
> > Thanks, -T-
> >
>
> Excellent analysis, thanks.
Speaking of analysis, would you like to post any comments
or perhaps even some serious analysis of the recent papers
which have been suggested to you?
You did ask for evidence. It has been presented and you
are now in a position to discuss it, aren't you?
(signed) marc
.
Desertphile
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
'Why is "The Joy of Cooking" recipes and not apple pies?'
Desertphile
> Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".
"Should?" Who the bloody hell are *YOU* to be telling the world's
scientists they "should" cease how they do science?
Fucking moron.
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>> >
>> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>> >
>> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>
>> It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
>> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
>> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
>> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
>> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
>> a fact that it does.
>
> Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> probability, but not zero.
So, you are telling me that "Pluto orbits the sun" is not a fact?
A silly idea, but at least consistent with the silliness of your thesis.
>> The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
>> ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
>> evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
>> that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
>> useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
>> of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
>
> I think I did a pretty good job on that.
You are mistaken.
> You guys could not find a
> consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts.
Yes, we could.
> You couldn't, so don't pretend you did.
> You only had waffling personal opinions.
The only one who doesn't think you took a drubbing in that theread was you.
That's usually a bad sign.
> Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".
But it's not. Pluto orbits the sun. Living things are related by common
descent. The properties of populations of organisms change over time as
they adapt to the environment in which they live. All of these are facts.
> If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> the damned thing.
Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> universe.
This seems to be an unusual request, given that your entire essay is merely
about definitions, saying nothing whatsoever about evolution itself.
Mark
>
>>
>> Mark
>
> -T-
>
Robert J. Kolker
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
The fossil evidence clearly shows that current life forms are not
identical to life forms that existed millions, tens of millions and
billions of years ago. There are structural similarities (homologies)
between some of the fossilized life forms and some of the currently
living life forms, so it is a reasonable hypothesis to assume that
current life firms arose from prior existing life forms. Gentic drift
and natural selection are the hypothetical mechanisms that transformed
older life forms to current life forms.
There is no doubt that (1) the earth is old (2) life now is not as it
was way back when. That part is fact. How the newer life forms descended
with modification from the older life forms is what the theory is is about.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>
>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>
>
> You're first error is in the title.
>
> Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding
> of how the fact works.
In other words, there is evolution the fact -- curent life forms arose
somehow from prior life forms and evolution the theory --- the machanism
which explains descent with modification.
Bob Kolker
>
chris.li...@gmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> >
>
> Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
> Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
You're such a revolting little prig.
Chris
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> So, according to you, the statement "stars are powered by fusion reactions
> at their cores" is not "factual"?
We know that stars shine. The mechanism for their energy output is a
well corroberated hypothesis. No one has ever been in the core of a star
to see what is going on directly. Some of the heat the stars produce is
NOT from fusion but from the transformation of gravitational potential
energy to kinetic energy. Gas in clouds falling the center of gravity
converts gravitational potential energy to heat. But the kind of heat
comming from stars and there longevity is best explained by nuclear fusion.
Bob Kolker
dkomo
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>
> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>
> Thanks, -T-
>
From that web site:
"It is claimed by some that evolution is a 'fact' instead of just a
'theory'. While it may be a very good theory, it has not reached fact
status for the simple reason that it has not been fully observed.
Observation of a claimed process actually taking place from start to
finish should be the final lid on any theory to make into 'fact'. This
is sometimes called 'repeatability'."
Way to go, "topmoron", you've basically just defined out of existence
intelligent design, The Lord, and all of religion. Has it ever occurred
to you that your intellectual position is comically inconsistent? You
pontificate about factuality in evolution while at the same time
believing in supernatural entities and processes that have no observable
factuality whatsoever. That makes you look like an utter fool on this
forum.
A more courageous approach would be to provide some empirical support
that your intelligent designer actually exists and did what he (it?) was
supposed to have done. Finding flaws in the ToE is never going achieve.
that.
I think it's because ID'iots can't provide any direct credible support
for their ideas that they have no choice but attack mainstream science.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> a fact that it does.
Science explains observed fact by means of hypothetical objects and
hypothetical causes in the context of a set of general laws (which are
not facts in and of themselves). No one has ever seen an atom. Atoms are
hypothetical, but they explain what we do see so well and no other
entity explains what we do see so well, so we regard the existence of
atoms as a fact. It is really a very well corroberated hypothesis. There
are very few observed known facts and very many inferences and
hypothetical objects which are the result of hypothesis formulation.
In particular, without the atomic hypothesis we would be at a lost to
explain just about everything we have observed in nature.
Bob Kolker
NashtOn
Contrary to you, I don't think via URLs and know that all the answers
aren't on web pages.
You should try thinking on your feet, for a change.
You're welcome.
NashtOn
What does G_d have anything to do with your inability to post nothing
but ad homs and stupidities, evo-cheerleader?
coaster
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> > >
> > > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
> > It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
> > to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> > particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> > normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> > orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> > a fact that it does.
>
> Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> probability, but not zero.
In the absence of observation (either direct or indirect) certain facts
may be derived by way of logical inference. In this case we know that
Pluto is a planet. We also know that planets orbit their parent stars.
Thus we can infer that Pluto orbits its parent star just like other
planets. Although we've never seen Pluto make a complete orbit we
nevertheless have a high level of confidence in the fact that it does.
> > The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
> > ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
> > evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
> > that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
> > useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
> > of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
>
> I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
> consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
> don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
The nature of the designer prevents the study of intelligent design
from revealing empirical evidence to the researcher. I don't know
about this ID-DNA hunt you speak of but any such effort would be
futile. It is impossible to reveal any clues about a phenomena with a
supernatural origin. The supernatural agent (our imagination) changes
the outcome to fit the evidence and the information can never be
confirmed.
SETI on the other hand is the study of artificial signals with real
physical origins. Despite the highly speculative nature of the study,
and regardless of whether it is or is not successful, SETI it is at the
very least genuinely scientific. Because it is search for naturalistic
facts and not a quest for supernatural confirmation, any information
gathered from the experiment can be confirmed.
So there is your divider line. Whether you continue to believe that
science is flawed is your own problem.
> Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact". If you have a formal
> consensus definition of "fact", then let's see the damned thing.
> Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> universe.
A "fact" is simply information that I have a high level of confidence
in. A scientific "Theory" is defined as an explanation of facts. Both
Facts and Theories remain open to refutation in the light of new
information. In science nothing is absolutely true. Just in case
you're looking for another dividing line, in religion everything is
absolutely true.
Going back to the example above, all observations that were necessary
for us to have a high level of confidence in the information were made.
Pluto was observed to be a planet and planets were observed to orbit
their parent stars. Even though Pluto was never observed to orbit its
parent star we have a high level of confidence that it does. Thus we
do consider it a fact.
Perhaps you're confused because you need for there to be absolute truth
in your world. Or perhaps you're confused because you haven't learned
why science works the way it does. But you really do need to take a
step back and try to understand why your arguments are not logically
sound.
> >
> > Mark
>
> -T-
NashtOn
Coming from an evo-cheerleader, I welcome the compliment;)
NashtOn
I must have missed the references that pointed to increased complexity
actually occurring.
NashtOn
You misspelled brainwashing.
Zachriel
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>> >
>> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>> >
>> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>
>> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
>> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
>> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
>> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
>> a fact that it does.
>
> Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> probability, but not zero.
Um, Pluto orbits the Sun. What we observe is a small speck of light moving
across the stellar field. We use inference to determine that Pluto is
gravitationally bound to the Sun.
You ignored the point, of course.
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
>>
>> The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
>> ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
>> evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
>> that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
>> useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
>> of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
>
> I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
> consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
> don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
Start with what is known:
* Life exists on at least one planet, Earth.
* That life is based on carbon and (liquid) water.
* That life has developed radio technology.
* Radio waves travel through interplanetary space.
* Carbon and water are common in the near universe.
* Complex organic chemicals spontaneously form in a variety of conditions
and have been found in deep space.
* There are billions of stars other than the Sun, and there are planets in
orbit about those stars.
Hypothesis:
* Life is not unique, and life on other planets may develop radio
technology.
* Drake Equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Observation:
* Scan the stellar neighborhood for narrow-band radio transmissions.
http://www.seti.org/
Result:
* No such signal has been found so far, which puts certain measurable limits
of certain parameters of the Drake Equation.
One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. One could suppose
you could read the entrails of chickens for clues to the future. However,
there is no evidence of either assertion. If aliens used DNA for sending
messages, there is no known mechanism for transmittal. What would be the
Drake Equation for the Search for ID-DNA-Messages?
However, as I have repeated to you many times; there is nothing stopping you
from analyzing the data in DNA for hidden messages. You have a computer. I'm
not really sure you have the mathematical background to distinguish a real
message from background noise, but hey, have at it.
>
> Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".
Direct observation of the Earth's movement was not required for scientists
to determine that the Earth does, in fact, move. Here's a really neat
prediction by Newton:
The Earth rotates, so it should bulge in the center. As the surface of the
Earth in the tropics is further from the Earth's center, it has less
gravity. Hence, a pendulum should move more slowly.
Sir Edmond Halley made a voyage to an island in the tropical South Atlantic
Ocean. During the voyage "he improved the sextant, collected a number of
valuable facts relative to the ocean and atmosphere, noted the equatorial
retardation of the pendulum, and made at St Helena on 7th November, 1677,
the first complete observation of a transit of Mercury. "
On a related note, the observation of the transit of Mercury across the
surface of the Sun by multiple observers would allow scientists to measure
the size of the Solar System, another profound inference. Halley's
measurement would lead to Captain Cook's voyage to Tahiti a century later to
observe the transit of Mercury and so compass the Universe.
Halley: "We therefore recommend again and again, to the curious
investigators of the stars to whom, when our lives are over, these
observations are entrusted, that they, mindful of our advice, apply
themselves to the undertaking of these observations vigorously. And for them
we desire and pray for all good luck, especially that they be not deprived
of this coveted spectacle by the unfortunate obscuration of cloudy heavens,
and that the immensities of the celestial spheres, compelled to more precise
boundaries, may at last yield to their glory and eternal fame."
> If you have a formal
> consensus definition of "fact", then let's see the damned thing.
fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact
theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
of principles offered to explain phenomena
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory
Evolution is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is the scientific framework for explaining the facts
about evolution.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
> Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> universe.
>
>>
>> Mark
>
> -T-
>
David Fritzinger
NashtOn wrote:
> CreateThis wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> >
> >>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >>
> >>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >>
> >>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >>
> >
> >
> > Another moron with a computer.
> >
> > CT
> >
>
> Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>
Nicky, for someone (who is supposedly a Christian) who complains about
others flinging ad homs and insults, you do a fairly good job of
flining adhoms and insults yourself. There is a word for that. I
believe hypocrisy is the word I am looking for.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Augray
>Augray wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:33:00 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>CreateThis wrote:
>>>
>>>>topmind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>>>
>>>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, -T-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another moron with a computer.
>>>>
>>>>CT
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Speaking of addressing the issue, when are you going to give us a link
>> to the post where you "convincingly proved that the ToE is as useless
>> as a bull and accomplishes nothing but to firmly establish
>> atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school system". Now, be a
>> good little lad and provide it.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>Contrary to you, I don't think via URLs and know that all the answers
>aren't on web pages.
But apparently, you think that answers *are* in a post you once made.
Remember how you stated in
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/303d4e36ec776231 that
"I convincingly proved that the ToE is as useless as a bull and
accomplishes nothing but to firmly establish atheism/naturalism by the
front door of the school system"? I was just trying to save you some
typing by asking you to just post a URL to your original message.
After all, it was easy enough for *me* to post a URL, so for some
reason I thought that you could figure out how to do that. It looks
like I was wrong.
>You should try thinking on your feet, for a change.
And you should try thinking, period. You seem painfully unaware that
if you lie, you'll get called on it. Or if you're so concerned about
being seen to "think via URLs" then you could simply outline once
again how "the ToE is as useless as a bull and accomplishes nothing".
Why not do it in your reply to this post? Otherwise, the only
reasonable conclusion is that you're full of hot air.
>You're welcome.
The pleasure's all mine.
Elmer
>(snip)
> I must have missed the references that pointed to increased complexity
> actually occurring.
BioMed Central, Genomics. 2006 Feb 8;7(1):20 "Many genes in fish have
species-specific asymmetric rates of molecular evolution." By Steinke D,
Salzburger W, Braasch I, Meyer A.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Gene and genome duplication events increase the
amount of genetic material that might then contribute to an increase in
the genomic and phenotypic complexity of organisms during evolution.
Thus, it has been argued that there is a relationship between gene copy
number and morphological complexity and/or species diversity. This
hypothesis implies that duplicated genes have subdivided or evolved
novel functions compared to their pre-duplication proto-orthologs. Such
a functional divergence might be caused by an increase in evolutionary
rates in one ortholog, by changes in expression, regulatory evolution,
insertion of repetitive elements, or due to positive Darwinian selection
in one copy. We studied a set of 2466 genes that were present in Danio
rerio, Takifugu rubripes, Tetraodon nigroviridis and Oryzias latipes to
test (i) for forces of positive Darwinian selection; (ii) how frequently
duplicated genes are retained, and (iii) whether novel gene functions
might have evolved. RESULTS: 25% (610) of all investigated genes show
significantly smaller or higher genetic distances in the genomes of
particular fish species compared to their human ortholog than their
orthologs in other fishaccording to relative rate tests. We identified
49 new paralogous pairs of duplicated genes in fish, in which one of the
paralogs is under positive Darwinian selection and shows a significantly
higher rate of molecular evolution in one of the four fish species,
whereas the other copy apparently did not undergo adaptive changes since
it retained the original rate of evolution. Among the genes under
positive Darwinian selection, we found a surprisingly high number of ATP
binding proteins and transcription factors. CONCLUSIONS: The significant
rate difference suggests that the function of these rate-changed genes
might be essential for the respective fish species. We demonstrate that
the measurement of positive selection is a powerful tool to identify
divergence rates of duplicated genes and that this method has the
capacity to identify potentially interesting candidates for adaptive
gene evolution.
Marc
NashtOn wrote:
> Marc wrote:
> > NashtOn wrote:
> >>topmind wrote:
> >>
> >>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >>
> >
> > Speaking of analysis, would you like to post any comments
> > or perhaps even some serious analysis of the recent papers
> > which have been suggested to you?
> >
> > You did ask for evidence. It has been presented and you
> > are now in a position to discuss it, aren't you?
> >
> I must have missed the references that pointed to increased complexity
> actually occurring.
OK... change the question if you will - perhaps this paper can
answer the complexity question and your other questions are
answered by the other cited papers you have yet to read.
Change the question again if you like... there are lots of
papers that offer proof of evolution for whatever spin you
want to try to make. And nore are published every day!
Note that the papers I have been citing for you are ones that
are current (often epub ahead of print) and available for free.
Try reading them, OK. (With your mind open!)
(signed) marc
This paper is available in free full text form at
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/7/20
********************************
Steinke D, Salzburger W, Braasch I, Meyer A. "Many genes in
fish have species-specific asymmetric rates of molecular evolution."
BMC Genomics. 2006 Feb 8;7(1):20 [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 16466575
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Gene and genome duplication
events increase the amount of genetic material that might then
contribute to an increase in the genomic and phenotypic complexity
of organisms during evolution. Thus, it has been argued that there
is a relationship between gene copy number and morphological
complexity and/or species diversity. This hypothesis implies that
duplicated genes have subdivided or evolved novel functions compared
to their pre-duplication proto-orthologs. Such a functional divergence
might be caused by an increase in evolutionary rates in one ortholog,
by changes in expression, regulatory evolution, insertion of repetitive
elements, or due to positive Darwinian selection in one copy. We
studied a set of 2466 genes that were present in Danio rerio, Takifugu
rubripes, Tetraodon nigroviridis and Oryzias latipes to test (i) for
forces of positive Darwinian selection; (ii) how frequently duplicated
genes are retained, and (iii) whether novel gene functions might have
evolved. RESULTS: 25% (610) of all investigated genes show
significantly
smaller or higher genetic distances in the genomes of particular fish
species compared to their human ortholog than their orthologs in
other fish according to relative rate tests. We identified 49 new
paralogous pairs of duplicated genes in fish, in which one of the
paralogs is under positive Darwinian selection and shows a
significantly higher rate of molecular evolution in one of the four
fish species, whereas the other copy apparently did not undergo
adaptive changes since it retained the original rate of evolution.
Among the genes under positive Darwinian selection, we found
a surprisingly high number of ATP binding proteins and transcription
factors. CONCLUSIONS: The significant rate difference suggests
that the function of these rate-changed genes might be essential
for the respective fish species. We demonstrate that the measurement
of positive selection is a powerful tool to identify divergence rates
of
duplicated genes and that this method has the capacity to identify
potentially interesting candidates for adaptive gene evolution.
PMID: 16466575
********************
Ken Shaw
topmind wrote:
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>
>
> Thanks, -T-
Well this is a significant step backwards from your ID page you posted
about a while back.
Evolution is a fact. Alleles change frequency in a population of
organisms over time. This has been observed and reproduced. Google
"Mendel" for the earliest experiments confirming this.
The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best explains the
underlying mechanism of what we observe.
See here for further info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
John Wilkins
You or Elmer now need to say "Snap!" before the other one does.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?
Shane
[...]
> What does G_d have anything to do with your inability to post nothing
> but ad homs and stupidities, evo-cheerleader?
Once again in English, please.
catshark
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> catshark wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > So, according to you, the statement "stars are powered by fusion reactions
> > at their cores" is not "factual"?
>
> We know that stars shine. The mechanism for their energy output is a
> well corroberated hypothesis. No one has ever been in the core of a star
> to see what is going on directly.
Define what you mean by "directly".
> Some of the heat the stars produce is
> NOT from fusion but from the transformation of gravitational potential
> energy to kinetic energy. Gas in clouds falling the center of gravity
> converts gravitational potential energy to heat.
Have we "observed" that?
> But the kind of heat
> comming from stars and there longevity is best explained by nuclear fusion.
Indeed, it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent for it.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Consistency we should expect of philosophies,
but perhaps not of philosophers.
- Neal C. Gillespie -
BROKEN LADDER
theory. That we evolved from common ancestors with all life on Earth,
is a fact. It's also a theory to explain why we see gradually changing
fossils for instance.
That we came to be via Darwinian processes is a theory, because it
exlpains how evolution occured. It's also a fact because it's so well
supported as to be beyond reasonable doubt. Every fact in the
empirical realm, is just a really well supported theory.
It's a fact that Earth is round, but it's also a theory because it
explains why our view from space of Earth seems to reveal a (roughly)
spherical object. It's possible that Earth is flat, and that some
process bends the light to make it look that way, and also instantly
teleports all matter from the edges to the opposite edge, giving the
appearance of roundness and continuity. That's just not a very well
supported theory that could rival round-Earth theory.
This is of course and extremely scientific (not lay person) and anal
description, but nevertheless true.
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding
> of how the fact works.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
BROKEN LADDER
> So you agree with Moron #1 that nothing can be factual unless directly
> observed and demonstrable? Like, for instance, the 'G_d' you *know* exists?
YOU DON'T "DIRECTLY OBSERVE" ANYTHING. WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING, FOR
INSTANCE, YOU JUST PERCEIVE THAT IT IS THERE, WHICH YOU CONCLUDE TO BE
CAUSED BY PHOTONS THAT HAVE STRUCK YOUR EYE AND PRODUCED IMPULSES SENT
TO YOUR BRAIN. IT COULD JUST BE A HALLUCINATION OR SOMETHING CAUSED BY
A MICROCHIP IMPLANTED IN YOUR BRAIN.
BUT SEEING SOMETHING WITH YOUR OWN EYES DOESN'T INHERENTLY HAVE ANY
MORE WEIGHT TO IT THAN SEEING SOMETHING LIKE FOSSILS AND DEDUCING THAT
EVOLUTION OCCURED. EITHER WAY YOU ARE TAKING PERCEPTIONS AND COMPARING
AND NARROWING DOWN RIVAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THEM, BASED UPON THEIR
CALCULATED PROBABILITY OF BEING CORRECT.
IT IS A FLAW TO SAY THAT ANYTHING IS CAN BE DIRECTLY OBSERVED, AND THAT
SUCH AN OBSERVATION IS INHERENTLY MORE SOUND THAN "INDIRECT"
OBSERVATION. _EVERYTHING_ IS INDIRECT OBSERVATION.
Augray
>chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>
>>
>> You're such a revolting little prig.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>Coming from an evo-cheerleader, I welcome the compliment;)
No doubt you think that being shown to be a liar is a compliment as
well.
CreateThis
> CreateThis wrote:
>
>>NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>CreateThis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>topmind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>>>
>>>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, -T-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another moron with a computer.
>>>>
>>>>CT
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>>So you agree with Moron #1 that nothing can be factual unless directly
>>observed and demonstrable? Like, for instance, the 'G_d' you *know* exists?
>>
>>You're welcome! Moron.
>>
>>CT
>>
>
>
> What does G_d have anything to do with your inability to post nothing
> but ad homs and stupidities, evo-cheerleader?
I can see how you'd like us to believe that, since you seem reluctant to
answer the direct, on-topic question I asked you.
Is your 'G_d' a fact, even though you've never observed it? If it is a
fact, how can you support the OP's contention that facts must be
observed? Or don't you support that contention? If you don't support
it, what are you cheerleading?
Will these questions end up on the scrap heap of questions you've never
answered here?
Could it be you're describing yourself when you talk about posting
nothing but ad homs, stupidities and cheers?
CT
Windy
NashtOn wrote:
> I must have missed the references that pointed to increased complexity
> actually occurring.
You keep using that word, 'complexity'. I do not think it means what
you think it means.
-- w
CreateThis
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>
>>
>>You're such a revolting little prig.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>
>
> Coming from an evo-cheerleader, I welcome the compliment;)
>
CreateThis
> Augray wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:33:00 GMT, NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>CreateThis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>topmind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>>>
>>>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, -T-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another moron with a computer.
>>>>
>>>>CT
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>>Speaking of addressing the issue, when are you going to give us a link
>>to the post where you "convincingly proved that the ToE is as useless
>>as a bull and accomplishes nothing but to firmly establish
>>atheism/naturalism by the front door of the school system". Now, be a
>>good little lad and provide it.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>
>
> Contrary to you, I don't think via URLs and know that all the answers
> aren't on web pages.
>
> You should try thinking on your feet, for a change.
>
> You're welcome.
>
>
>
CreateThis
> cactus wrote:
>
>>topmind wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>
>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>
>>>Thanks, -T-
>>>
>>
>>You made one true statement in the whole thing, that Evolution is a
>>theory. Music theory is a theory, as is gravitational theory. All three
>>have roughly the same explanatory power in their respective realms.
>>
>>After that first sentence you careen wildly into the usual ignorant
>>creationist polemics, which have so many of the usual lies, errors and
>>distortions that it's not worth discussion yet again. As a software
>>engineer, I would have expected you to be better educated, but if you
>>don't even know what a longitudinal study is, I'm not going to waste the
>>time that your junior college should have spent educating you.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> You misspelled brainwashing.
>
>
John Burton
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>
>> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>
>
> Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding
> of how the fact works.
>
show that the theory of evolution is a theory, after an equivocal and
irrelevant reference to the fact of evolution.
We're not 100% certain of all the events/causes leading to the victim's
murder, therefore the victim must be alive! Put out a missing person's
report!
John
topmind
Stuart wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > > > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> > > >
> > > > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
> > > to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> > > particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> > > normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> > > orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> > > a fact that it does.
> >
> > Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> > hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> > probability, but not zero.
>
There has been speculation of a "dark companion" to the sun. It is
called the "Nemisis Theory" or something like that.
> > >
> > > The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
> > > ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
> > > evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
> > > that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
> > > useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
> > > of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
> >
> > I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
> > don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
>
> ROFL.
>
> SETI seeks out human like intelligences.
>
> ID posits unknow intelligences with unknow capabilities and motives.
>
> And you don't see the difference?
Irrelavent. A search for DNA patterns does not rule out human-like
creators/fiddlers. Nor does SETI presume the motives of signal senders.
(But please let's not pollute this topic with any more SETI fights.)
>
> You call yourself topmind?
I know, itsa stupid handle. I plan to change it one of these days.
>
> You make me laugh.
Your (lack of) reasoning makes me cry.
>
> Stuart
-T-
Lee Oswald Ving
news:KEnTf.46209$VV4.7...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
> CreateThis wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>CreateThis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>topmind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>>>
>>>>>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, -T-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another moron with a computer.
>>>>
>>>>CT
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>> So you agree with Moron #1 that nothing can be factual unless
>> directly observed and demonstrable? Like, for instance, the 'G_d'
>> you *know* exists?
>>
>> You're welcome! Moron.
>>
>> CT
>>
>
> What does G_d have anything to do with your inability to post nothing
> but ad homs and stupidities, evo-cheerleader?
Pay no attention to the hypocrite behind the curtain, folks.
Or he'll get huffy and stamp his feet.
raven1
wrote:
>Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
>'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>
>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
Since it's already clear from the title that you don't know what
"theory" means in science, there's very little reason to read further.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Dan Luke
Dan Luke
"NashtOn" wrote:
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> NashtOn wrote:
>>
>>>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>
>>
>> You're such a revolting little prig.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Coming from an evo-cheerleader, I welcome the compliment;)
Now you sound like Ray Martinez. That's *really* pathetic.
Desertphile
> What does G_d have anything to do with your inability to post nothing
What the fuck is "G_d?"
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >> >
> >> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >> >
> >> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >>
> >> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> >> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> >> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> >> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> >> a fact that it does.
> >
> > Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> > hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> > probability, but not zero.
>
I would not call it that until it is observed completing a full orbit.
Remember "repeatability"?
>
> > You guys could not find a
> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts.
>
> Yes, we could.
Not. But take it to that topic, not here.
>
> > You couldn't, so don't pretend you did.
> > You only had waffling personal opinions.
>
> The only one who doesn't think you took a drubbing in that theread was you.
> That's usually a bad sign.
>
> > Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".
>
> But it's not. Pluto orbits the sun. Living things are related by common
> descent. The properties of populations of organisms change over time as
> they adapt to the environment in which they live. All of these are facts.
On a small scale, perhaps. But that alone cannot be positively
extrapolated to creating the complexity of things such as eyes and
brains. Weather and chemicals also change stuff. Thus, "change happens"
by itself does not say much.
>
> > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> > the damned thing.
>
> Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
>
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
Is this the definition you want to use?
quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
in principle, be falsified is not science.'
I disagree with that definition. Multiple universes and other
intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria. (I would
modify it to say something like it must be at least one of falsifiable
or truifiable; that is confirmable or deniable.)
>
> > Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> > universe.
>
> This seems to be an unusual request, given that your entire essay is merely
> about definitions, saying nothing whatsoever about evolution itself.
Well, until we get a consensus definition, it makes little sense to
bash others' opinions on the definition. I cannot believe how many
posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
-T-
topmind
dkomo wrote:
> topmind wrote:
>
> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >
> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
> >
>
> From that web site:
>
> "It is claimed by some that evolution is a 'fact' instead of just a
> 'theory'. While it may be a very good theory, it has not reached fact
> status for the simple reason that it has not been fully observed.
> Observation of a claimed process actually taking place from start to
> finish should be the final lid on any theory to make into 'fact'. This
> is sometimes called 'repeatability'."
>
> Way to go, "topmoron", you've basically just defined out of existence
> intelligent design, The Lord, and all of religion. Has it ever occurred
> to you that your intellectual position is comically inconsistent? You
> pontificate about factuality in evolution while at the same time
> believing in supernatural entities and processes that have no observable
> factuality whatsoever. That makes you look like an utter fool on this
> forum.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never made any claim about
supernatural entities. Sorry, but you mistook me for somebody else. You
wasted all your hate speech and Daffy-like spit spray on the wrong
person.
-T-
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
Yep - whoever uses this tired old line is an idiot and a liar.
Any article either written or recommended by such a person is not worth my
time reading.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
chris.li...@gmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >
> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >
> >
> > Thanks, -T-
> >
>
> Excellent analysis, thanks.
>
You have run from my invitations to discuss vestigial stuctures time
after time.
I am beginning to think you don't know anything about biology, and
you're too cowardly to admit it. Why don't you just accept the debate
or admit you're an ignorant idiot?
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
NashtOn wrote:
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > NashtOn wrote:
> >
> >>Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
> >>Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
> >
> >
> > You're such a revolting little prig.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Coming from an evo-cheerleader, I welcome the compliment;)
You're the one that has ignored every invitation to debate evolution.
I keep asking you to discuss vestigial structures, but you pee your
pants and run away.
Put up or shut up.
Chris
topmind
Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1142809388....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >> >
> >> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >> >
> >> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >>
> >> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> >> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> >> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> >> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> >> a fact that it does.
> >
> > Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> > hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> > probability, but not zero.
>
>
> across the stellar field. We use inference to determine that Pluto is
> gravitationally bound to the Sun.
>
> You ignored the point, of course.
>
> "The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
> repeat."
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Where is the "repeat" in evolution if there is no full observation?
> >>
> >> The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
> >> ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
> >> evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
> >> that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
> >> useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
> >> of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
> >
> > I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
> > don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
>
>
> Start with what is known:
> * Life exists on at least one planet, Earth.
> * That life is based on carbon and (liquid) water.
> * That life has developed radio technology.
> * Radio waves travel through interplanetary space.
> * Carbon and water are common in the near universe.
> * Complex organic chemicals spontaneously form in a variety of conditions
> and have been found in deep space.
> * There are billions of stars other than the Sun, and there are planets in
> orbit about those stars.
>
> Hypothesis:
> * Life is not unique, and life on other planets may develop radio
> technology.
> * Drake Equation
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>
> Observation:
> * Scan the stellar neighborhood for narrow-band radio transmissions.
> http://www.seti.org/
>
> Result:
> * No such signal has been found so far, which puts certain measurable limits
> of certain parameters of the Drake Equation.
>
> One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. One could suppose
> you could read the entrails of chickens for clues to the future. However,
> there is no evidence of either assertion. If aliens used DNA for sending
> messages, there is no known mechanism for transmittal.
Wrong:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html
We generate radio signals, and we also have stuffed messages into DNA.
> What would be the
> Drake Equation for the Search for ID-DNA-Messages?
The Drake Equation is merely a tool for speculation. A DNA message
stuffing guestimate would probably look pretty similar.
>
> However, as I have repeated to you many times; there is nothing stopping you
> from analyzing the data in DNA for hidden messages. You have a computer. I'm
> not really sure you have the mathematical background to distinguish a real
> message from background noise, but hey, have at it.
>
Irrelavent. I am here to classify things, not perform science.
>
> >
> > Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".
>
>
> Direct observation of the Earth's movement was not required for scientists
> to determine that the Earth does, in fact, move. Here's a really neat
> prediction by Newton:
>
> The Earth rotates, so it should bulge in the center. As the surface of the
> Earth in the tropics is further from the Earth's center, it has less
> gravity. Hence, a pendulum should move more slowly.
>
> Sir Edmond Halley made a voyage to an island in the tropical South Atlantic
> Ocean. During the voyage "he improved the sextant, collected a number of
> valuable facts relative to the ocean and atmosphere, noted the equatorial
> retardation of the pendulum, and made at St Helena on 7th November, 1677,
> the first complete observation of a transit of Mercury. "
>
> On a related note, the observation of the transit of Mercury across the
> surface of the Sun by multiple observers would allow scientists to measure
> the size of the Solar System, another profound inference. Halley's
> measurement would lead to Captain Cook's voyage to Tahiti a century later to
> observe the transit of Mercury and so compass the Universe.
>
> Halley: "We therefore recommend again and again, to the curious
> investigators of the stars to whom, when our lives are over, these
> observations are entrusted, that they, mindful of our advice, apply
> themselves to the undertaking of these observations vigorously. And for them
> we desire and pray for all good luck, especially that they be not deprived
> of this coveted spectacle by the unfortunate obscuration of cloudy heavens,
> and that the immensities of the celestial spheres, compelled to more precise
> boundaries, may at last yield to their glory and eternal fame."
I am sorry. Nice stories, but I don't see how this relates to the
issues at hand. The earth has been observed from many angles in space
(by both manned and unmanned missions). Voyager observed it from near
Neptune's orbit.
>
>
> > If you have a formal
> > consensus definition of "fact", then let's see the damned thing.
>
>
> fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact
Which presumes full observation.
>
> theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
> of principles offered to explain phenomena
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory
>
-T-
VoiceOfReason
BROKEN LADDER wrote:
Duh...
VoiceOfReason
topmind wrote:
> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>
> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>
> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
The write-up is based on major misconceptions. Evolution is a fact, in
that it has been directly observed in the lab and in the wild. It is
also a theory, in that science seeks understanding and explanations for
what is observed.
Somebody already listed this link, but I'll reiterate:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
topmind
Perhaps some clarification is needed. When I say "evolution", I mean
"evolution by natural selection", not merely change happening. I shall
clarify this in the write-up to avoid such confusion in the future.
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Stuart wrote:
>> topmind wrote:
>> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> > > On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > > > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>> > > >
>> > > > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>> > >
>> > > It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
>> > > to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
>> > > particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
>> > > normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
>> > > orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
>> > > a fact that it does.
>> >
>> > Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
>> > hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
>> > probability, but not zero.
>>
>> Is there any evidence of that?
>
> There has been speculation of a "dark companion" to the sun. It is
> called the "Nemisis Theory" or something like that.
*sigh* The Nemesis Theory was proposed as an explanation of the apparent
periodicity of mass extinctions. A long period (very long period,
millions f years) object causes periodic disturbances in the Oort cloud,
causing a cascade of comets to bombard the inner solar system. This
theory in no way supports the idea that a brown dwarf or black hole
alters the orbit of Pluto.
You _do_ love to interject irrelevencies, don't you?
>> > > The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
>> > > ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
>> > > evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
>> > > that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
>> > > useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
>> > > of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
>> >
>> > I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
>> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
>> > don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
>>
>> ROFL.
>>
>> SETI seeks out human like intelligences.
>>
>> ID posits unknow intelligences with unknow capabilities and motives.
>>
>> And you don't see the difference?
>
>
> Irrelavent.
On the contrary, it is entirely relevent. Without such a distinction,
one can't possibly generate any kind of a test to falsify our ideas. An
omnipotent creator, acting with unknown motives is simply unfalsifiable,
and obviously so, which is why it is dishonest for so-called ID theorists
to pretend that it simply doesn't matter.
coaster
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > >> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > >> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> > >> >
> > >> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> > >>
> > >> It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
> > >> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
> > >> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
> > >> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
> > >> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
> > >> a fact that it does.
> > >
> > > Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
> > > hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
> > > probability, but not zero.
> >
> > So, you are telling me that "Pluto orbits the sun" is not a fact?
>
> I would not call it that until it is observed completing a full orbit.
> Remember "repeatability"?
>
> >
> > > You guys could not find a
> > > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts.
> >
> > Yes, we could.
>
> Not. But take it to that topic, not here.
Cherry picker or blind spokesperson for intelligent design? The
difference has actually been explained a number of times in this
thread. It's your thread.. I suggest you read it.
(snip)
> > > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> > > the damned thing.
> >
> > Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
> >
> > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>
> Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
>
> Is this the definition you want to use?
>
> quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> in principle, be falsified is not science.'
>
> I disagree with that definition. Multiple universes and other
> intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
> does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
> such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
> something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria. (I would
> modify it to say something like it must be at least one of falsifiable
> or truifiable; that is confirmable or deniable.)
"truifiable"? How do you prove something to be absolutely true?
Please give me an example and I will gladly explain to you why your
example is wrong. I can be this confident because I know that it is
impossible to prove that any phenomena is absolutely true. The only
philosophy that holds to that edict is religion.
Popper was right about falsifiability but his idea was nothing new. He
merely put into words what experimental methods had been doing all
along. And that was to challenge evidence by putting it to the test.
If you can't challenge evidence then you can never have any confidence
in that evidence. It's a very simple concept which you yourself
perform every single day. In fact you're doing it right now. By
simply turning on your computer you're testing the accuracy of our
understanding of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.
> > > Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> > > universe.
> >
> > This seems to be an unusual request, given that your entire essay is merely
> > about definitions, saying nothing whatsoever about evolution itself.
>
> Well, until we get a consensus definition, it makes little sense to
> bash others' opinions on the definition. I cannot believe how many
> posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
> match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
> Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
> alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
And you're the brains? When you cherry pick posts you can pay as much
or as little attention to what any one individual has to say. That's
the advantage you have when you're being dishonest. In such a debate
the honest people have to be 100% consistent or else they'll be viewed
by the dishonest person to be confused and in need of "their help"..
such was your suggestion here. I suggested in my other post that you
need to take a step back and get a broader picture of things. Maybe
one day you'll see why science works the way it does and not be so
upset about the lack of absolutism in real life.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> On 2006-03-19, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>> >> >
>> >> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>> >>
>> >> It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
>> >> to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
>> >> particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
>> >> normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
>> >> orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
>> >> a fact that it does.
>> >
>> > Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
>> > hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
>> > probability, but not zero.
>>
>> So, you are telling me that "Pluto orbits the sun" is not a fact?
>
> I would not call it that until it is observed completing a full orbit.
> Remember "repeatability"?
Well, you're consistent. A halfwit perhaps, but a consistent one.
>> > You guys could not find a
>> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts.
>>
>> Yes, we could.
>
> Not. But take it to that topic, not here.
>
>>
>> > You couldn't, so don't pretend you did.
>> > You only had waffling personal opinions.
>>
>> The only one who doesn't think you took a drubbing in that theread was you.
>> That's usually a bad sign.
>>
>> > Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".
>>
>> But it's not. Pluto orbits the sun. Living things are related by common
>> descent. The properties of populations of organisms change over time as
>> they adapt to the environment in which they live. All of these are facts.
>
> On a small scale, perhaps. But that alone cannot be positively
> extrapolated to creating the complexity of things such as eyes and
> brains. Weather and chemicals also change stuff. Thus, "change happens"
> by itself does not say much.
>
>>
>> > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
>> > the damned thing.
>>
>> Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
>>
>> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>
> Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
>
> Is this the definition you want to use?
It is consistent with the general scientific usage.
> quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> in principle, be falsified is not science.'
>
> I disagree with that definition.
Well, you can disagree all you like, that hardly is of any concern to
science.
> Multiple universes and other
> intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
> does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
> such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
> something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria.
More properly, you reject falsifiability. But none of this has anything
to do with whether evolution is not a fact. You really should try to
focus on a single argument at a time.
> (I would modify it to say something like it must be at least one of
> falsifiable or truifiable; that is confirmable or deniable.)
>
>>
>> > Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
>> > universe.
>>
>> This seems to be an unusual request, given that your entire essay is merely
>> about definitions, saying nothing whatsoever about evolution itself.
>
> Well, until we get a consensus definition, it makes little sense to
> bash others' opinions on the definition.
But there is a consensus definition: that you reject it is not really
very important.
> I cannot believe how many
> posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
> match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
On the contrary, I have given it you: in science, fact can only mean
that something has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
to withold provisional assent.
> Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
> alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
Perhaps you should try something for which you are better equipped then.
Mark
> -T-
topmind
Are you complaining that I have yet to respond to all 50 jillion
replies and claiming I am doing this to avoid good counter evidence?
>
>
> (snip)
> > > > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> > > > the damned thing.
> > >
> > > Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
> > >
> > > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> > that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
> >
> > Is this the definition you want to use?
> >
> > quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> > criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> > never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> > in principle, be falsified is not science.'
> >
> > I disagree with that definition. Multiple universes and other
> > intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
> > does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
> > such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
> > something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria. (I would
> > modify it to say something like it must be at least one of falsifiable
> > or truifiable; that is confirmable or deniable.)
>
> "truifiable"? How do you prove something to be absolutely true?
Who ever said anything about "absolute"? Evidence is usually a
continuum, like a weight on a scale.
> Please give me an example and I will gladly explain to you why your
> example is wrong. I can be this confident because I know that it is
> impossible to prove that any phenomena is absolutely true. The only
> philosophy that holds to that edict is religion.
>
> Popper was right about falsifiability but his idea was nothing new. He
> merely put into words what experimental methods had been doing all
> along. And that was to challenge evidence by putting it to the test.
> If you can't challenge evidence then you can never have any confidence
> in that evidence.
I gave examples where the falsifiability requirement appears to not
apply, namely searches for things that may or may not be there, such as
intelligent life (SETI), life on Mars, and other universes. A theory or
speculation may predict the existence of such, but they may never be
falsifiable. Absense of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
> > > > Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> > > > universe.
> > >
> > > This seems to be an unusual request, given that your entire essay is merely
> > > about definitions, saying nothing whatsoever about evolution itself.
> >
> > Well, until we get a consensus definition, it makes little sense to
> > bash others' opinions on the definition. I cannot believe how many
> > posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
> > match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
> > Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
> > alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
>
> And you're the brains? When you cherry pick posts you can pay as much
> or as little attention to what any one individual has to say. That's
> the advantage you have when you're being dishonest.
I am sorry, but where I have been objectively dishonest? I generally
try to give people the benefit of the doubt and point out the problems
of their content rather than accuse them of being evil or purposely
sneaky.
> In such a debate
> the honest people have to be 100% consistent or else they'll be viewed
> by the dishonest person to be confused and in need of "their help"..
> such was your suggestion here. I suggested in my other post that you
> need to take a step back and get a broader picture of things. Maybe
> one day you'll see why science works the way it does and not be so
> upset about the lack of absolutism in real life.
I am not complaining about the lack of absolutism. However, it is hard
to stamp stuff as "fact" without full observation. I agreed evo by
natural selection is a strong theory, but that is not the same as being
a fact. It does not make me "upset about lack of absolutism", I am just
being a messenger about the lack.
-T-
topmind
> >> > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> >> > the damned thing.
> >>
> >> Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
> >>
> >> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> >
> > Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> > that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
> >
> > Is this the definition you want to use?
>
> It is consistent with the general scientific usage.
Do others here concur with it? Otherwise I don't want to spend time
dissecting something that only a loner backs.
>
> > quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> > criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> > never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> > in principle, be falsified is not science.'
> >
> > I disagree with that definition.
>
> Well, you can disagree all you like, that hardly is of any concern to
> science.
The practical application of Popper's falsifiability has practical
problems in other fields besides biology.
>
> > Multiple universes and other
> > intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
> > does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
> > such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
> > something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria.
>
> More properly, you reject falsifiability. But none of this has anything
> to do with whether evolution is not a fact. You really should try to
> focus on a single argument at a time.
You are right on that one, I wondered off topic.
>
> > I cannot believe how many
> > posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
> > match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
>
> On the contrary, I have given it you: in science, fact can only mean
> that something has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
> to withold provisional assent.
If we go that route, then we will need to better define "perverse" for
this context.
>
> > Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
> > alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
>
> Perhaps you should try something for which you are better equipped then.
You sound like a f8cking 3rd grader.
>
> Mark
>
-T-
Free Lunch
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in
<1142832066....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
If you think that there has not been enough observation of natural
selection, you aren't familiar with the evidence.
Free Lunch
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in
<1142830722.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
We can observe the process repeatedly. Your question shows a lack of
understanding of the problem.
DNA does not contain messages.
>> What would be the
>> Drake Equation for the Search for ID-DNA-Messages?
>
>The Drake Equation is merely a tool for speculation. A DNA message
>stuffing guestimate would probably look pretty similar.
DNA does not contain messages.
>> However, as I have repeated to you many times; there is nothing stopping you
>> from analyzing the data in DNA for hidden messages. You have a computer. I'm
>> not really sure you have the mathematical background to distinguish a real
>> message from background noise, but hey, have at it.
>
>Irrelavent. I am here to classify things, not perform science.
What?
topmind
CreateThis wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >
> > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
>
> Another moron with a computer.
Thank you for your insightful, detailed, and patient analysis, not to
mention your gracious charm.
-T-
Ken Shaw
topmind wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> > >
> > > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> > >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> >
> > The write-up is based on major misconceptions. Evolution is a fact, in
> > that it has been directly observed in the lab and in the wild. It is
> > also a theory, in that science seeks understanding and explanations for
> > what is observed.
> >
> > Somebody already listed this link, but I'll reiterate:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> Perhaps some clarification is needed. When I say "evolution", I mean
> "evolution by natural selection", not merely change happening.
Which is what other people mean when the say the theory of evolution.
The fact of evolution is simply that alleles change frequency over
time. That you want to try and muddy the water with your solipsistic
claims about observation is anusing considering how your big entry to
this newsgroup included your repeated admission that the ToE was much
better supported by the existing evidence than was ID.
Would you do us all a favor and go away until you fully understand why
solipsism must be rejected by science.
Ken
Roger Tang
> NashtOn wrote:
>
>> CreateThis wrote:
>>
>>> topmind wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>>
>>>> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>>>
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, -T-
>>>
>>>
>>> Another moron with a computer.
>>>
>>> CT
>>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>> Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> So you agree with Moron #1 that nothing can be factual unless directly
> observed and demonstrable?
Well, that means these two are soft on criminals. They have no problem
with scum, murderers and rapists go free.
Because the same type of evidence and the same methodology that
convicts criminals underlies evolutionary science.
topmind
There is a big difference between the observation of (alleged)
*artifacts* of evolution and observation of the evolution process
itself. The only direct observations are what is sometimes called
"micro-evolution", and not macro (large-scale changes and grand
increases in complexity).
-T-
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
>>>
>>> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
>>
>> You're first error is in the title.
>>
>> Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best understanding
>> of how the fact works.
>>
> Exactly. I would say that Topmind is wasting his or her time trying to
> show that the theory of evolution is a theory, after an equivocal and
> irrelevant reference to the fact of evolution.
>
> We're not 100% certain of all the events/causes leading to the victim's
> murder, therefore the victim must be alive! Put out a missing person's
> report!
Be sure the coroner gets a copy!
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Shane
> You sound like a f8cking 3rd grader.
8 minutes after writing that, topmind wrote this to a post very
similar in tone to the above.
"Thank you for your insightful, detailed, and patient analysis, not to
mention your gracious charm."
Damn, but these creationists have a short attention span, no wonder
they can't learn anything significant.
topmind
Ken Shaw wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > topmind wrote:
> > > > Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> > > >
> > > > 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> > > >
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm
> > >
> > > The write-up is based on major misconceptions. Evolution is a fact, in
> > > that it has been directly observed in the lab and in the wild. It is
> > > also a theory, in that science seeks understanding and explanations for
> > > what is observed.
> > >
> > > Somebody already listed this link, but I'll reiterate:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> >
> > Perhaps some clarification is needed. When I say "evolution", I mean
> > "evolution by natural selection", not merely change happening.
>
> Which is what other people mean when the say the theory of evolution.
> The fact of evolution is simply that alleles change frequency over
> time.
Almost nobody disputes minor changes can happen due to such, but it is
big leap going from beaks growing smaller to the formation of eyeballs
and brains. My article pointed out the dangers of extrapolating from
the small and narrow to the big picture. If extrapolation is
problematic on other fields, then we should be careful about doing it
with biology theories also.
> That you want to try and muddy the water with your solipsistic
> claims about observation is anusing considering how your big entry to
> this newsgroup included your repeated admission that the ToE was much
> better supported by the existing evidence than was ID.
That is irrelevant to the suggestion that full observation is needed
for "fact". A good theory perhaps, but not "fact".
-T-
topmind
Prove with 99.9999999% accuracy it is irrelevant. By the way, why is
Pluto's orbit so lopsided?
>
> >> > > The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
> >> > > ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
> >> > > evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
> >> > > that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
> >> > > useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
> >> > > of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
> >> >
> >> > I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
> >> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
> >> > don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
> >>
> >> ROFL.
> >>
> >> SETI seeks out human like intelligences.
> >>
> >> ID posits unknow intelligences with unknow capabilities and motives.
> >>
> >> And you don't see the difference?
> >
> >
> > Irrelavent.
>
> On the contrary, it is entirely relevent. Without such a distinction,
> one can't possibly generate any kind of a test to falsify our ideas. An
> omnipotent creator, acting with unknown motives is simply unfalsifiable,
Completely offtopic. A omnipotent being could beam messages to SETI
antenna's also. One could search for messages in DNA without ever
needing an omnipotent dude. Humans have put messages in DNA as lab
demonstrations. They are certainly not omnipotent. Your complaint is
omni-irrelavent.
> and obviously so, which is why it is dishonest for so-called ID theorists
> to pretend that it simply doesn't matter.
It doesn't. Get over it.
-T-
Shane
> Free Lunch wrote:
[...]
>> If you think that there has not been enough observation of natural
>> selection, you aren't familiar with the evidence.
>
> There is a big difference between the observation of (alleged)
> *artifacts* of evolution and observation of the evolution process
> itself. The only direct observations are what is sometimes called
> "micro-evolution", and not macro (large-scale changes and grand
> increases in complexity).
Macro evolution is simply the addition of one micoevolution event on
top of another, just as an hour elapses one second at a time.
Mark VandeWettering
>> >> > the damned thing.
>> >>
>> >> Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
>> >
>> > Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
>> > that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
>> >
>> > Is this the definition you want to use?
>>
>> It is consistent with the general scientific usage.
>
>
> Do others here concur with it? Otherwise I don't want to spend time
> dissecting something that only a loner backs.
What do you think the words "consistent with the general scientific usage"
actually mean?
>> > quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
>> > criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
>> > never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
>> > in principle, be falsified is not science.'
>> >
>> > I disagree with that definition.
>>
>> Well, you can disagree all you like, that hardly is of any concern to
>> science.
>
> The practical application of Popper's falsifiability has practical
> problems in other fields besides biology.
On the contrary, ideas which are not falsifiable present practical problems.
Science, being ultimately very practical, is simply not concerned with these
unfalsifiable (and hence, impractical) ideas.
>> > Multiple universes and other
>> > intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
>> > does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
>> > such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
>> > something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria.
>>
>> More properly, you reject falsifiability. But none of this has anything
>> to do with whether evolution is not a fact. You really should try to
>> focus on a single argument at a time.
>
> You are right on that one, I wondered off topic.
>
>> > I cannot believe how many
>> > posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
>> > match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
>>
>> On the contrary, I have given it you: in science, fact can only mean
>> that something has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
>> to withold provisional assent.
>
> If we go that route, then we will need to better define "perverse" for
> this context.
Words do have meanings which people of average intelligence can discern.
Since apparently that doesn't seem to apply to you, perhaps
http://m-w.com/dictionary/perverse
would be of some help.
>> > Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
>> > alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
>>
>> Perhaps you should try something for which you are better equipped then.
>
> You sound like a f8cking 3rd grader.
If you keep grooving 'em down the center of the plate, you can hardly
complain when people smack them out of the park. You conceitedly claimed
that you offering a better alternative, but you were mistaken (as apparently
you are in most things).
>> Mark
>
> -T-
>
topmind
Where are the movies? I've got my popcorn ready....
> >>
> >> One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. One could suppose
> >> you could read the entrails of chickens for clues to the future. However,
> >> there is no evidence of either assertion. If aliens used DNA for sending
> >> messages, there is no known mechanism for transmittal.
> >
> >Wrong:
> >
> >http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html
> >
> >We generate radio signals, and we also have stuffed messages into DNA.
>
> DNA does not contain messages.
Your statement is falsifiable and I am about to falsify it (again):
http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html
-T-
topmind
That kind of extrapolation is the very thing I warn against in my
article. It can be problematic in other fields such as economics,
nuclear power plant design, and software design. It thus makes sense to
be warry of it in biology also. Small-scale observations are simply
not guarenteed to extrapolate to a large scale. Just because the puzzle
peices are well observed does not guarentee the whole puzzle will gel.
-T-
Marc
John Wilkins wrote:
> Marc wrote:
> > NashtOn wrote:
> >> Marc wrote:
> >>> NashtOn wrote:
> >>>> topmind wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:
> >>>>> 'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'
> >>> Speaking of analysis, would you like to post any comments
> >>> or perhaps even some serious analysis of the recent papers
> >>> which have been suggested to you?
> >>>
> >>> You did ask for evidence. It has been presented and you
> >>> are now in a position to discuss it, aren't you?
> >>>
> >
> >> I must have missed the references that pointed to increased complexity
> >> actually occurring.
> >
> > OK... change the question if you will - perhaps this paper can
> > answer the complexity question and your other questions are
> > answered by the other cited papers you have yet to read.
> >
> > Change the question again if you like... there are lots of
> > papers that offer proof of evolution for whatever spin you
> > want to try to make. And nore are published every day!
> >
> > Note that the papers I have been citing for you are ones that
> > are current (often epub ahead of print) and available for free.
> >
> > Try reading them, OK. (With your mind open!)
> >
> >
> > (signed) marc
> >
> >
> > This paper is available in free full text form at
> > http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/7/20
> >
> > ********************************
> > Steinke D, Salzburger W, Braasch I, Meyer A. "Many genes in
> > fish have species-specific asymmetric rates of molecular evolution."
> > BMC Genomics. 2006 Feb 8;7(1):20 [Epub ahead of print]
> > PMID: 16466575
> >
> ...
> You or Elmer now need to say "Snap!" before the other one does.
SNAP!
(roflmao)
(signed) marc
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Prove with 99.9999999% accuracy it is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant because it does not explain the phenomena that you described.
> By the way, why is Pluto's orbit so lopsided?
An excellent question, one which scientists are still considering.
But you're getting even further away from the original topic by
discussing even more irrelevancies.
>> >> > > The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
>> >> > > ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
>> >> > > evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
>> >> > > that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
>> >> > > useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
>> >> > > of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
>> >> > consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
>> >> > don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.
>> >>
>> >> ROFL.
>> >>
>> >> SETI seeks out human like intelligences.
>> >>
>> >> ID posits unknow intelligences with unknow capabilities and motives.
>> >>
>> >> And you don't see the difference?
>> >
>> >
>> > Irrelavent.
>>
>> On the contrary, it is entirely relevent. Without such a distinction,
>> one can't possibly generate any kind of a test to falsify our ideas. An
>> omnipotent creator, acting with unknown motives is simply unfalsifiable,
>
> Completely offtopic. A omnipotent being could beam messages to SETI
> antenna's also.
SETI doesn't know what signals from an omnipotent being would look like,
so they don't bother looking (well, they can't really look, since they
have no idea what they'd be looking for).
> One could search for messages in DNA without ever
> needing an omnipotent dude.
You could, but you do have to know what you are looking for. Otherwise
everything could be a match.
> Humans have put messages in DNA as lab
> demonstrations. They are certainly not omnipotent. Your complaint is
> omni-irrelavent.
If I had you a string of nucleotides and ask you to determine if they
were a natural sequence or had been placed there by a scientist, how
could you determine the answer?
>> and obviously so, which is why it is dishonest for so-called ID theorists
>> to pretend that it simply doesn't matter.
>
> It doesn't. Get over it.
Mark
> -T-
Mark VandeWettering
Let me get this straight: your argument is that because simple programs
do interact in complex, non-linear ways when combined, often resulting
in behavior that is difficult or even impossible to compute, that we
should be wary of the conclusion that simple genetic modifications
produce complex, even seemingly incomprehensible features when combined?
Mark
> -T-
coaster
In fairness, no. I'm complaining that the answers you seek are within
this thread. You have only to read it. Don't be flame bait.
> > (snip)
> > > > > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> > > > > the damned thing.
> > > >
> > > > Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> > >
> > > Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> > > that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
> > >
> > > Is this the definition you want to use?
> > >
> > > quote: 'Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary
> > > criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can
> > > never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot,
> > > in principle, be falsified is not science.'
> > >
> > > I disagree with that definition. Multiple universes and other
> > > intelligences (SETI) may not be falsifiable. If we don't find them it
> > > does not mean they don't exist. But few would agree that searching for
> > > such is "not science" simply because there are no guarentees of finding
> > > something. Thus, I challenge the falsifiability criteria. (I would
> > > modify it to say something like it must be at least one of falsifiable
> > > or truifiable; that is confirmable or deniable.)
> >
> > "truifiable"? How do you prove something to be absolutely true?
>
> Who ever said anything about "absolute"? Evidence is usually a
> continuum, like a weight on a scale.
The term "falsifiable" means that a piece of evidence must be capable
of being tested or experimented with the intention of showing that it
is false. This is always the approach science takes. Your term,
"truifiable", implies that a piece of evidence must be capable of being
tested or experimented on with the intention of showing that it is
true.
You can only ever show that something is False or Not False. You can
never show that something is true because that removes all doubt. If
for the purpose of understanding you want to pretend that "Not False"
equals "True" then be my guest. But this would at best make your term
redundant, and at the worst demonstrate an unfortunate misunderstanding
about how science works and why we are able to have any confidence in
what we know.
> > Please give me an example and I will gladly explain to you why your
> > example is wrong. I can be this confident because I know that it is
> > impossible to prove that any phenomena is absolutely true. The only
> > philosophy that holds to that edict is religion.
> >
> > Popper was right about falsifiability but his idea was nothing new. He
> > merely put into words what experimental methods had been doing all
> > along. And that was to challenge evidence by putting it to the test.
> > If you can't challenge evidence then you can never have any confidence
> > in that evidence.
>
> I gave examples where the falsifiability requirement appears to not
> apply, namely searches for things that may or may not be there, such as
> intelligent life (SETI), life on Mars, and other universes. A theory or
> speculation may predict the existence of such, but they may never be
> falsifiable. Absense of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
I'm not sure how the absence of evidence has anything to do with
whether something is falisifiable or not. But SETI is falsifiable
because if a signal is discovered then we confirm that signal and if
need be hop on a spaceship or send a probe to visit the source of that
signal. Life on Mars is falisifiable because we can go to Mars and
look. Other universes may or may not be falsifiable, it depends on
some other things being discovered to be true first, but my gut feeling
is that it probably is.
> > > > > Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
> > > > > universe.
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be an unusual request, given that your entire essay is merely
> > > > about definitions, saying nothing whatsoever about evolution itself.
> > >
> > > Well, until we get a consensus definition, it makes little sense to
> > > bash others' opinions on the definition. I cannot believe how many
> > > posts here complain that my definition is dumb and stupid and does not
> > > match the curtains, but nobody wants to give the "real" definition.
> > > Criticism by itself is often the easy part. Replacing it with a better
> > > alternative, on the other hand, requires brains.
> >
> > And you're the brains? When you cherry pick posts you can pay as much
> > or as little attention to what any one individual has to say. That's
> > the advantage you have when you're being dishonest.
>
>
> I am sorry, but where I have been objectively dishonest? I generally
> try to give people the benefit of the doubt and point out the problems
> of their content rather than accuse them of being evil or purposely
> sneaky.
If you haven't noticed by now, if you're looking for polite
conversation you've come to the wrong place.
> > In such a debate
> > the honest people have to be 100% consistent or else they'll be viewed
> > by the dishonest person to be confused and in need of "their help"..
> > such was your suggestion here. I suggested in my other post that you
> > need to take a step back and get a broader picture of things. Maybe
> > one day you'll see why science works the way it does and not be so
> > upset about the lack of absolutism in real life.
>
> I am not complaining about the lack of absolutism. However, it is hard
> to stamp stuff as "fact" without full observation.
Do you mean direct observation? That certainly isn't a requisite for
fact. We know for a fact that planets orbit distant stars but we've
never seen one. We know for a fact that mountains, canyons, caves and
all manner of geology formed over long periods of time but we weren't
there to witness it. Are these "just theories" as you say?
I still believe you are interested in absolutism. However if it turns
out that you can except these things as fact and not evolution by
natural selection (which has been equally observed, equally understood,
equally researched), then I believe your problem may be more than a
simple misconception.
> I agreed evo by
> natural selection is a strong theory, but that is not the same as being
> a fact. It does not make me "upset about lack of absolutism", I am just
> being a messenger about the lack.
Google "theory not fact" including the quotes.. interesting read. It's
an argument of symantics I know, but it's important. A time tested
theory such as evolution by natural selection is as much a fact as any.
Electromagnetism is just a theory. The chemistry that made your soda
pop is just a theory. They're also just fact.
SeppoP
> "NashtOn" wrote:
>
>> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> NashtOn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously, don't be so hard on yourself.
>>>> Now, be a good little lad and address the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>> Coming from an evo-cheerleader, I welcome the compliment;)
>
> Now you sound like Ray Martinez. That's *really* pathetic.
>
>
Like minds sound alike...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2006 22:09:41 -0800, topmind wrote:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> If you think that there has not been enough observation of natural
>>>> selection, you aren't familiar with the evidence.
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between the observation of (alleged)
>>> *artifacts* of evolution and observation of the evolution process
>>> itself. The only direct observations are what is sometimes called
>>> "micro-evolution", and not macro (large-scale changes and grand
>>> increases in complexity).
>>
>> Macro evolution is simply the addition of one micoevolution event on
>> top of another, just as an hour elapses one second at a time.
>
> That kind of extrapolation is the very thing I warn against in my
> article. It can be problematic in other fields such as economics,
> nuclear power plant design, and software design.
Gee, and you were the first to come up with this concept that science
needs to watch out for extrapolations? Is it possible that science is
generally very aware of the problems and takes them into account?
> It thus makes sense to
> be warry of it in biology also.
One could equally argue that as the accumulation of little increments
of time explains quite well the passing of big increments of time,
thus extrapolation is valid everywhere. You are merely being selective
with where you apply the principle. A post you have made in another
elsewhere indicates you don't mind gaps in ID theory that you can
drive a large planet through, but you seem to want every evolutionary
change to every organism directly observed before you will accept
evolution. I'm sorry but that seems to me a nothing but a self serving
double standard.
> Small-scale observations are simply
> not guarenteed to extrapolate to a large scale. Just because the puzzle
> peices are well observed does not guarentee the whole puzzle will gel.
Who exactly, in science, is proposing that they do, against the
evidence that they have? Creationists, generally, are a very hard to
please bunch. Half of them complain because science is so certain of
things, and the othert half complain because science equivocates so
much. You seem to be one of the 'science is dogmatic' types, so point
us at the unequivocally dogmatic statements that you say do not
support the big picture presented.
SeppoP
This "Intelligent Designer" -guy can't even design decent orbits?
<snip>
coaster
topmind wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > If you have a formal consensus definition of "fact", then let's see
> > >> > the damned thing.
> > >>
> > >> Gould had a very nice article on this very subject:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> > >
> > > Quote: 'In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> > > that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." '
> > >
> > > Is this the definition you want to use?
> >
> > It is consistent with the general scientific usage.
>
>
> Do others here concur with it? Otherwise I don't want to spend time
> dissecting something that only a loner backs.
I agree wholeheartedly with that definition. Nothing can ever be known
to be 100% true, however it can be known to a very high degree of
confidence, so much so that to withhold it on the basis of doubt would
be counter productive.