I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Zosimus]

Why not?

Why not? That's a good question. The reason is that most scientific laws and theories are casual in nature. The theory of common descent, for example, is said to cause nested hierarchies.

As such we can say, "If common descent is true, then nested hierarchies will occur," but we cannot say "If we observe nested hierarchies, then common descent will occur."

Nested hierarchies do not cause common descent.

Let's compare this theory to a simple theory:

If it rains, then the streets will be wet. Most people will agree with this theory because they either know or believe that rain causes wet streets. No one I know of thinks that by wetting down the street you can cause rain.

So if you leave your house and note that the street is wet, you may think, "Well, it must have rained," and maybe you're even right, but you have not proved that it rained just by seeing a wet street. There could, however, be many other causes. Maybe it snowed, and the snow all melted. Maybe the water company had a broken pipe. Maybe a dam broke. Maybe a water bottle truck overturned. Maybe someone washed his car. All of these theories are consistent with the wet street observation. Even if I was unable to think of all of these possibilities, it is entirely possible that someone may think of an alternate explanation that I never considered.

However, you can look at it the other way. When you leave your house and you see that the street is dry you can say, "Since rain causes the street to be wet, and since the street is not wet, it can't have rained." This is a valid logical chain. This is also the value of science. If someone says that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, you could prove this theory incorrect.

Accordingly science can only make progress when two theories are in play and each theory makes different predictions about a possible situation. At this point the two theories can be put head-to-head and one of the theories will win. What this means is that the theory that failed to predict the outcome is wrong but it does not mean that the theory that successfully predicted the outcome is right.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not? That's a good question. The reason is that most scientific laws and theories are casual in nature. The theory of common descent, for example, is said to cause nested hierarchies.

We OBSERVE that evolution produces nested hierarchies in living populations.

As such we can say, "If common descent is true, then nested hierarchies will occur," but we cannot say "If we observe nested hierarchies, then common descent will occur."

What we can say is that a nested hierarchy is what we should see if common descent is true. Observing a nested hierarchy supports the hypothesis.

Nested hierarchies do not cause common descent.

Common descent and evolutionary mechanisms do cause nested hierarchies, and this is based on direct observation of living populations. For example, we find that strains of lab mice that have been isolated for decades fall into a nested hierarchy, just as we would expect:

mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains

If it rains, then the streets will be wet. Most people will agree with this theory because they either know or believe that rain causes wet streets. No one I know of thinks that by wetting down the street you can cause rain.

Then what other testable and falsifiable theory predicts that life will fall into a nested hierarchy?

Accordingly science can only make progress when two theories are in play and each theory makes different predictions about a possible situation. At this point the two theories can be put head-to-head and one of the theories will win. What this means is that the theory that failed to predict the outcome is wrong but it does not mean that the theory that successfully predicted the outcome is right.

It does mean that the theory with accurate predictions is supported by evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

Wut??! Having trouble taking you seriously.

Predictions are a hallmark for a robust theory.

The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Deductive logic, at least as concerns first-order logic, is demonstrably complete. The premises of an argument constructed according to the rules of this logic imply the argument's conclusion. Not so for induction: There is no comprehensive theory of sound induction, no set of agreed upon rules that license good or sound inductive inference, nor is there a serious prospect of such a theory. Further, induction differs from deductive proof or demonstration (in first-order logic, at least) not only in induction's failure to preserve truth (true premises may lead inductively to false conclusions) but also in failing of monotonicity: adding true premises to a sound induction may make it unsound.
--------
Apparently it's not me you have trouble taking seriously. Apparently you have trouble taking Stanford University seriously.

 

[JayFern]

If you argue with a creationists what's the best that can happen? nothing, absolutely nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Deductive logic, at least as concerns first-order logic, is demonstrably complete. The premises of an argument constructed according to the rules of this logic imply the argument's conclusion. Not so for induction: There is no comprehensive theory of sound induction, no set of agreed upon rules that license good or sound inductive inference, nor is there a serious prospect of such a theory. Further, induction differs from deductive proof or demonstration (in first-order logic, at least) not only in induction's failure to preserve truth (true premises may lead inductively to false conclusions) but also in failing of monotonicity: adding true premises to a sound induction may make it unsound.
--------
Apparently it's not me you have trouble taking seriously. Apparently you have trouble taking Stanford University seriously.

When we say that a theory is supported by evidence, we are not saying that the theory has been proven absolutely true. That's the mistake you keep making.

 

[Smidlee]

Genetics has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences​

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps while only differing by a relative handful.



I accept it because of the genetic evidence.

It already been proven that shared DNA doesn't mean common ancestor. Humans also have ORFan genes. Also ERV doesn't mean "Junk DNA" as some has already have been found to have function. Again Evolutionist is trying to use their assumptions as facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

It already been proven that shared DNA doesn't mean common ancestor.

Once again, it is the PATTERN of shared DNA that points to evolution and common ancestry. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Humans also have ORFan genes.

You mean humans have evolved new DNA sequences?

Also ERV doesn't mean "Junk DNA" as some has already have been found to have function.

1. No one is arguing that ERV's indicate shared ancestry because they are junk DNA. It is the location of the ERV's in the genome and their distribution among species that evidences common ancestry.

2. If most ERV's are not junk, then you need to explain why functional ERV's are accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.

Again Evolutionist is trying to use their assumptions as facts.

What is being assumed?

 

[HitchSlap]

It already been proven that shared DNA doesn't mean common ancestor. Humans also have ORFan genes. Also ERV doesn't mean "Junk DNA" as some has already have been found to have function. Again Evolutionist is trying to use their assumptions as facts.

Oh you, Smidlee.

 

[Smidlee]

Once again, it is the PATTERN of shared DNA that points to evolution and common ancestry. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

The pattern you are referring to is according to the assumption common ancestry is true the start with.

You mean humans have evolved new DNA sequences?

Trial and error can only get you so far and can't produce large amount of information.

1. No one is arguing that ERV's indicate shared ancestry because they are junk DNA. It is the location of the ERV's in the genome and their distribution among species that evidences common ancestry.

2. If most ERV's are not junk, then you need to explain why functional ERV's are accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.



What is being assumed?

ERV shared between to creatures are evidence they have something in common but not necessary common ancestry. That's what been assumed and not proven.

2) They are just now learn the cell itself can make changing it in own DNA. This is why Shapiro doesn't believe mutation are random.

 

[Loudmouth]

The pattern you are referring to is according to the assumption common ancestry is true the start with.

False. The phylogeny is constructed independently of any assumption of common ancestry. You don't have to assume common ancestry to observe that the LTR's of an ERV shared by all primates have more differences than the LTR's of an ERV shared by just chimps and humans. You don't have to assume common ancestry to observe that an ERV occurs at the same position in two genomes.

Trial and error can only get you so far and can't produce large amount of information.

Where is your evidence for these claims?

ERV shared between to creatures are evidence they have something in common but not necessary common ancestry. That's what been assumed and not proven.

Then show me an observed mechanism other than common ancestry that produces a nested hierarchy of ERV's.

2) They are just now learn the cell itself can make changing it in own DNA. This is why Shapiro doesn't believe mutation are random.

You can still change your own DNA at random. What Shapiro ignores is that the mechanisms he references also produce neutral and deleterious mutations. Those mutations are random with respect to fitness.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Deductive logic, at least as concerns first-order logic, is demonstrably complete. The premises of an argument constructed according to the rules of this logic imply the argument's conclusion. Not so for induction: There is no comprehensive theory of sound induction, no set of agreed upon rules that license good or sound inductive inference, nor is there a serious prospect of such a theory. Further, induction differs from deductive proof or demonstration (in first-order logic, at least) not only in induction's failure to preserve truth (true premises may lead inductively to false conclusions) but also in failing of monotonicity: adding true premises to a sound induction may make it unsound.
--------
Apparently it's not me you have trouble taking seriously. Apparently you have trouble taking Stanford University seriously.

Nope, it's you. Your assertions regarding what you claim a scientific theory is, and is not, is contrary to every scientist working in their relevant fields.

Maybe you can answer my question that no creationist has satisfactorily answered: Did Dr. Shubin effectively use the ToE to predict where he might find a "fishapod," or was he just lucky?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes they do: brownie points with their boss and his muses.

In addition, they demonstrate a strong Biblical principle:

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Scientists invest a large amount of their treasure analyzing a fallen, groaning-in-travail, on-its-way-to-heat-death universe; just to cull from it a little something that makes our lives easier.

I'm sure they don't like their interpretation of it being "marred" by those who sit all day long on a computer and tell them how to view their job.

Their studies wouldn't make our lives easier if their conclusions didn't reflect reality.

 

[Zosimus]

When we say that a theory is supported by evidence, we are not saying that the theory has been proven absolutely true. That's the mistake you keep making.

I am making no mistake.

What you are saying is that if you start by assuming that a theory is 50-50 and you do an experiment that works out well for you that you can increase the probability that the theory is true to at least 51 percent and that with subsequent experiments you can increase the possibility to 99 percent or 99.9 percent or 99.9999999999 percent or whatever number you feel appropriate.

I do not agree with this theory, and I have yet to speak to anyone who can say anything in support of it except for something like: Well, it feels like the right thing to think so if you don't agree, then you must be an idiot.

 

[Zosimus]

Nope, it's you. Your assertions regarding what you claim a scientific theory is, and is not, is contrary to every scientist working in their relevant fields.

Maybe you can answer my question that no creationist has satisfactorily answered: Did Dr. Shubin effectively use the ToE to predict where he might find a "fishapod," or was he just lucky?

My assertions, according to your post, are contrary to scientists. That's ridiculous. That's like saying that the food in New York is better than Los Angeles. You can't compare food to cities, nor can you compare assertions to people.

As for Shubin and fishapods, I don't know. Let me see... "Fishapod" reveals origins of head and neck structures of first land animals | UChicago News

What does this say? Hmmm...

"Newly exposed parts of Tiktaalik roseae--the intermediate fossil between fish and the first animals to walk out of water onto land 375 million years ago--are revealing how this major evolutionary event happened."

Speculation.

"A new study, published this week in Nature, provides a detailed look at the internal head skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae and reveals a key intermediate step in the transformation of the skull that accompanied the shift to life on land by our distant ancestors."

More speculation.

"A predator, up to nine feet long, with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and a flattened body, Tiktaalik's anatomy and way of life straddle the divide between fish and land-living animals."

Misplaced modifier.

"First described in 2006, and quickly dubbed the "fishapod," it had fish-like features such as a primitive jaw, fins and scales, as well as a skull, neck, ribs and parts of the limbs that are similar to tetrapods, four-legged animals."

Fact.

"The initial 2006 report did not describe the internal anatomy of the head, because those parts of the fossil were buried in rock. In the October 16, 2008, issue of Nature, the researchers describe this region..."

Fact.

"...and show how Tiktaalik was gaining structures that could allow it to support itself on solid ground and breathe air."

Speculation.
--------------------
Well, I've read the article and I don't know whether Shubin predicted the likely location of a fish such as this one through neo-Darwinism.

Maybe you have a better link.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am making no mistake.

What you are saying is that if you start by assuming that a theory is 50-50 and you do an experiment that works out well for you that you can increase the probability that the experiment is true to at least 51 percent and that with subsequent experiments you can increase the possibility to 99 percent or 99.9 percent or 99.9999999999 percent or whatever number you feel appropriate.

I do not agree with this theory, and I have yet to speak to anyone who can say anything in support of it except for something like: Well, it feels like the right thing to think so if you don't agree, then you must be an idiot.

Well gosh, do you go to the doctor who is successful 99.9999999999% of the time, or the doctor who is successful .00000000001% of the time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Their studies wouldn't make our lives easier if their conclusions didn't reflect reality.

That may be true, but I believe our lives would be much, much better if they would reflect all of reality; not just what they can see in a microscope or telescope.

By way of example, I believe that if scientists in the past would have paid homage to the Bible and considered abortion as murder, cancer would no longer be a viable threat to mankind.

Every science student should be required to memorize this verse:

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

As well as:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[Dizredux]

That may be true, but I believe our lives would be much, much better if they would reflect all of reality; not just what they can see in a microscope or telescope.

How would you do this? What kind of experiment or study compass all of reality. Science, by practical necessity can only look at aspects of reality and try to piece the parts into the whole. You can't look at the stars through a microscope nor bacteria through a telescope.

By way of example, I believe that if scientists in the past would have paid homage to the Bible and considered abortion as murder, cancer would no longer be a viable threat to mankind.

How would this result in cancer no longer being a viable threat to mankind?

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you do this?

Just like anyone else does.

By accepting what the Bible offers over and above physical reality.

How would this result in cancer no longer being a viable threat to mankind?

I like the story that goes:

Man: God, why don't You help us find a cure for cancer?
God: I tried.
Man: How?
God: I sent you a man who was destined to find it.
Man: Where is he?
God: He was aborted.

 

[Zosimus]

Well gosh, do you go to the doctor who is successful 99.9999999999% of the time, or the doctor who is successful .00000000001% of the time?

Name one doctor who has been successful 99.9999999999 percent of the time.

Said doctor must have seen 1,000,000,000,000 patients in his lifetime and failed with only one. Assuming the doctor is 969 years old (the supposed age of Methuselah when he died) and the doctor started seeing patients at the first second of his life, the doctor still would have had to see more than 32 patients a second without sleeping from the moment of his birth to have that kind of success rate.

Furthermore, what does a doctor's success rate have to do with a scientific theory? Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.

Here's an equivalent question for you: Would you rather worship a God who created 99.9999999999% of the universe or one who only created 0.00000000001% of it?

 

[Dizredux]

--------------------
Well, I've read the article and I don't know whether Shubin predicted the likely location of a fish such as this one through neo-Darwinism.

If you are not aware of how Shubin discovered Tiktaalik then you are pontificating on a subject with a very limited depth of knowledge.

Dizredux