Tweet
Neither of you (Crimson or Rat) has made sufficient argument to differentiate the Science of Evolution from any other scince - such as Astronomy - in terms of why one would believe its precipts or not. The claims of Astronomy are no more testable or necessarily observable then evolution - etc. So fundemnentally you are just choosing to reject the basic known facts and accepted science of Evolution becaus eit does not fit with your preconcieved notions however spurious they may be. I also note that Rat seems unable or unwilling to answer my questions concerning just what he does believe concerning various species/life forms and such - to enable us to put his beliefs to similar scrutiny. And OK - so Evolution is a belief - just as we believe in the basic tenents of any/all the other sciences and for the same reasons. And I don't disagree with Popper at all - in fact his points are certainly fundemnetal to what I believe - and I realise that we cannot "know" but only approximate or obtain partial knowlege based on our linited ability to understand things. What is accepted - however - is that through scientific method and the process of discover through such - we are able to discern certain facts to make valid conclusions. Again - is this the end of the story - no more knowledge requirred - no absolutly not - and this is not at all assumed by science - it is aprocess of revealing more knowledge - but not necessarily ever uncovering the final truth of things (as we likely lack the ability to ever "know" such based on our limited perspective). Anyway - your critiques of Evolution fall short - you can offer no real reason to doubt the basic tennents of evolution - where there is incredible amounts of evidence support it/them - and you fail to offer any kind of a real alternative other then the fact that you aparently prefer ignorance.
-
-
well obviously if this is your stance then feel free to not believe in evolution nor anything else for that matter...but the Science of Evolution and the fact sof such are as proven as any other science - and in fact its been put to quite a bit more scrutiny then most - yet continues to hold. And why would I choose to believe in any other possibility where no proof whatsoever is offered. The evidence clearly points to evolutionary process - and not just by fossiles - but the genetic evidence is overwhelming bearing such out.Originally posted by Crimson Glow
And you claim I rely on biased sources....choke -
...yes - Scientists tend to believe in the validity of science...so just whom should I be quoting concerning this matter? This I really have to know? Please tell us...
Comment
-
Evolution as Theory and fact
Do check it out (or continue with your ignorance)
excerpts (each of these statements has been made by different Scientists - see link if you wish to know exactly who):
On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation .... So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence.Last edited by winoman; 03-03-2005, 09:42 AM.Comment
-
More Evidence
Choose to be deaf dumb and blind if you wish..
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988)Comment
-
A few more tidbits...
(excerpt)
Common Sense is Not Science
Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Often these ideas are quite unobvious, and usually they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.
Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly in the context of this scientific method.Comment
-
Probability, Knowledge and Verisimilitude
>And Rat - I find it most funny that you would attempt to quote Popper to somehow discredit Scientific Theory and Evolution in specific....proof to me that you have no clue about what you read - no basis to understand...(and additionally/more so - as he is sometimes credited as being a relativist!)
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Popper was initially uneasy with the concept of truth, and in his earliest writings he avoided asserting that a theory which is corroborated is true - for clearly if every theory is an open-ended hypothesis, as he maintains, then ipso facto it has to be at least potentially false. For this reason Popper restricted himself to the contention that a theory which is falsified is false and is known to be such, and that a theory which replaces a falsified theory (because it has a higher empirical content than the latter, and explains what has falsified it) is a ‘better theory’ than its predecessor. However, he came to accept Tarski's reformulation of the correspondence theory of truth, and in Conjectures and Refutations (1963) he integrated the concepts of truth and content to frame the metalogical concept of ‘truthlikeness’ or ‘verisimilitude’. A ‘good’ scientific theory, Popper thus argued, has a higher level of verisimilitude than its rivals, and he explicated this concept by reference to the logical consequences of theories. A theory's content is the totality of its logical consequences, which can be divided into two classes: there is the ‘truth-content’ of a theory, which is the class of true propositions which may be derived from it, on the one hand, and the ‘falsity-content’ of a theory, on the other hand, which is the class of the theory's false consequences (this latter class may of course be empty, and in the case of a theory which is true is necessarily empty).
Popper offered two methods of comparing theories in terms of verisimilitude, the qualitative and quantitative definitions. On the qualitative account, Popper asserted:
Assuming that the truth-content and the falsity-content of two theories t1 and t2 are comparable, we can say that t2 is more closely similar to the truth, or corresponds better to the facts, than t1, if and only if either:
(a) the truth-content but not the falsity-content of t2 exceeds that of t1, or
(b) the falsity-content of t1, but not its truth-content, exceeds that of t2. (Conjectures and Refutations, 233).
Here, verisimilitude is defined in terms of subclass relationships: t2 has a higher level of verisimilitude than t1 if and only if their truth- and falsity-contents are comparable through subclass relationships, and either (a) t2's truth-content includes t1's and t2's falsity-content, if it exists, is included in, or is the same as, t1's, or (b) t2's truth-content includes or is the same as t1's and t2's falsity-content, if it exists, is included in t1's.
On the quantitative account, verisimilitude is defined by assigning quantities to contents, where the index of the content of a given theory is its logical improbability (given again that content and probability vary inversely). Formally, then, Popper defines the quantitative verisimilitude which a statement ‘a’ possesses by means of a formula:
Vs(a)=CtT(a) - CtF(a),
where Vs(a) represents the verisimilitude of ‘a’, CtT(a) is a measure of the truth-content of ‘a’, and CtF(a) is a measure of its falsity-content.
The utilisation of either method of computing verisimilitude shows, Popper held, that even if a theory t2 with a higher content than a rival theory t1 is subsequently falsified, it can still legitimately be regarded as a better theory than t1, and ‘better’ is here now understood to mean t2 is closer to the truth than t1. Thus scientific progress involves, on this view, the abandonment of partially true, but falsified, theories, for theories with a higher level of verisimilitude, i.e., which approach more closely to the truth. In this way, verisimilitude allowed Popper to mitigate what many saw as the pessimism of an anti-inductivist philosophy of science which held that most, if not all scientific theories are false, and that a true theory, even if discovered, could not be known to be such. With the introduction of the new concept, Popper was able to represent this as an essentially optimistic position in terms of which we can legitimately be said to have reason to believe that science makes progress towards the truth through the falsification and corroboration of theories. Scientific progress, in other words, could now be represented as progress towards the truth, and experimental corroboration could be seen an indicator of verisimilitude.
>and I find the following to be an interesting and relevant position on his part:
Popper's final position is that he acknowledges that it is impossible to discriminate science from non-science on the basis of the falsifiability of the scientific statements alone; he recognizes that scientific theories are predictive, and consequently prohibitive, only when taken in conjunction with auxiliary hypotheses, and he also recognizes that readjustment or modification of the latter is an integral part of scientific practice. Hence his final concern is to outline conditions which indicate when such modification is genuinely scientific, and when it is merely ad hoc
>so again Rat - were all ears - just what is your alternative hypothisis - if indeed you continue to contend that the precipts of Evolution are in error?Last edited by winoman; 03-03-2005, 10:30 AM.Comment
-
As I've said before, you have religious fundamentalism, then you have scientific fundamentalism, and it seems that you can only exist within each one of these rigid camps. It appears winoman is in the scientific fundamentalism camp. If you are in either camp I guess you'd better pitch your tent. As for me, I'll take my chances in the woods.Achkerov kute.Comment
-
Wrong again - I am not fundementalist at all about Science - I fully accept and espouse the concepts of the limits of Science (a la Popper). However - I also understand (as does/did Popper) that Science is our best tool for knowledge. It may not ultimatly reveal the truth - but it gives us the best basis for understanding what is knowable at any point in time...and we build from there. Evolution is good science. Until you can actually refute the basic premisis of Evolution you have to pretty much accept it as fact (with at best a caveat that we are always discovering more things but until we do this is the very best understanding of biological reality that we are currently capable of knowing).Originally posted by Anonymouse
So - if Evolution is false (and you still have done nothing to make this case) - then what is your alternative? Again I'm just all ears...I'm ready to be filled with your impressive knowledge and isight on this one....yeahComment
-
That all knowledge comes from science or research is itself a metaphysical assumption. In effect it comes down to belief. Popper stated that in order for something to be a science it must be falsifiable. You seem to be suggesting that evolution is beyond that and cannot be falsified. Thus according to you evolution is pseudoscience.Originally posted by winoman
Furthermore, science means knowledge. It means what we actually know concerning the natural and physical world around us. The very fact of the scientific method is reproducibility of experiments. Since it is impossible to repeat the supposed evolutionary history of life, it is clear that evolution is beyond the reaches of the scientific method. In fact, it is not science, it is pseudoscience. The only thing that holds the theory together is that concept of belief which you have already admitted to earlier.
Evolution like creation is a religious belief. It is nothing more. It depends on what metaphysical knowledge you ascribe to, religious or scientific. In the end, both are limited and are only based on belief, but using different methods and criteria. You can sit behind your computer and arrogantly type "evolution is fact" (which is fine if it comforts you) but it doesn't change anything. Fanaticism in anything is nothing more than fanaticism. Until there is actual evidence for evolution, and it is reproducible, I will remain of the persuasion that it is nothing more than belief. It seems the lack of evidence for evolution is evidence itself.
You stating that "until I can refute the basic premises" of evolution it stands is illogical as one cannot prove a negative. Evolution is only a theory not a scientific law like the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore nothing has been proven for me to disprove as such you are swimming in a logical fallacy. It is akin to a court case in which the prosecution asks the defense to prove the innocence of their defendant when in reality the burden of proof is on the one who states the fact (in this case the prosecution for stating that the defendent killed someone).
As far as alternatives go, they are all based on belief. We can never know because we were never meant to know. It is beyond our grasp. If you want to believe in evolution as the possible explanation you are free to do so, but know that it is nothing more than a belief and millions of people do not believe what you believe, and vice versa.Achkerov kute.Comment
-
Rat you ignoramous
You are so F'in wrong its not funny. Evolution is falsafiable in that it is possible to discover evidence of other possibilities for life as we know it that show some other means of comming into existance other then that proposed by Evolution. To date no one has uncovered such evidence or been able to refute the underlining premisis of Evolution - so in essence it is Scientific fact.
That you reject Evolution as not being Science is the equivilent of rejecting all our knowledge of biology and genetics as not being science as they essentially are all intermingled and dependent on one another. Your attempt to define Science in a manner that is more narrow then the proper definition of Science. Science is not based on expirimentation alone - so your argument that Evolution cannot be Science is spurious. And again - until you can come up with a better - falsafiable - not just belief for the heck of it - alternative - well then - your rejection of Evolution is the same as rejecting any other Scientific Discovery/Theory or even Law - I mean why limit it too that. I assume you accept Einstein's principle of General Relativity...yet on what basis - it is predictive and as yet we cannot (absolutely) know it to be true.
And more concerning Scientific Method:
The Scientific Method: More than Mere Experimentation
by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
What is the scientific method?
very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:
Make observations.
Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, although they were not predicted, should be explicable retrospectively by the hypothesis. New information, especially details of some process previously not understood, can impose new limits on the original hypothesis. Therefore, new information, in combination with an old hypothesis, frequently leads to novel predictions that can be tested further.
Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure—but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.
Based on the scientific method, a hypothesis that simply and elegantly explains the observed facts, that predicts many previously unobserved phenomena, and that withstands many potential falsifications is considered a valid and useful hypothesis. From a Bayesian perspective and according to Popper's corroboration measure, the best hypothesis available is the one that explains the most facts with the fewest assumptions, the one that makes the most confirmed predictions, and the one that is most open to testing and falsification.
In scientific practice, a superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact. An example is the aforementioned notion of a heliocentric solar system. At one time it was a mere hypothesis. Although it is still formally just a well-supported theory, validated by many independent lines of evidence, it is now widely regarded as scientific "fact". Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, stellar fusion, radiowaves, entropy, or the earth circling the Sun, yet these are all scientific facts. As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".Comment
Comment