I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Zosimus]

(Quote removed)

I can't quote any of your flaming post, because it is in blatant violation of the rules of the board.

However, you seem to be ignorant of Hempel's paradox, so perhaps I'd better review it for you.

Imagine that there is a man (Hector) who believes that all ravens are black. He commissions a man (Bubba) to determine whether all ravens are black. Bubba, in response to the test, brings Hector a green apple. Although you might not be pleased, Hector is pleased because he reasons as follows:

All ravens are black is equivalent to saying that anything that is not black is not a raven. Here I have something that is not black. It could have been a raven, but it is not. Therefore, finding this green apple increases the likelihood that all ravens are black.

He orders Bubba to bring him more evidence. Bubba brings him blue balls, green leaves, yellow flowers, brown logs, and other things of the sort. Hector is ecstatic. He reasons that since he has so much evidence in support of the idea that all ravens are black, that he can be 99.9 percent certain that it is so.

Do you agree with Hector? Why or why not?
Do you think that finding a blue ball is evidence for the theory that all ravens are black? Why or why not?

 

[Zosimus]

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

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that Shubin really did discover Tiktaalik and that he did so using Darwinism.

Why is that more impressive than a man who found a new job by following the guidance given him in his horoscope?

 

[Dizredux]

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that Shubin really did discover Tiktaalik and that he did so using Darwinism.

Lets imagine that you were in touch with reality and had bothered to research the subject before trying to invalidate it.

Why is that more impressive than a man who found a new job by following the guidance given him in his horoscope?

And which would be more impressive, someone who tried to learn about a subject before playing rather silly nihilistic epistemological games with it?

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

Lets imagine that you were in touch with reality and had bothered to research the subject before trying to invalidate it.

And which would be more impressive, someone who tried to learn about a subject before playing rather silly nihilistic epistemological games with it?

Dizredux

Let me get this straight. You want me to go scouring the Internet trying to disprove a theory that you have advanced zero evidence to support and, if I do not do so, you think that I have invalidated a subject before bothering to research it when my post specifically said that I didn't know. Furthermore, to top it all off, you think that Christian theories of how life came to be as it is can be rejected out of hand unless said Christians provide extensive evidence to support the theory.

Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical?

 

[Dizredux]

Let me get this straight. You want me to go scouring the Internet trying to disprove a theory that you have advanced zero evidence to support

I have not advanced anything but if you wish here is a good place to start 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

and, if I do not do so, you think that I have invalidated a subject before bothering to research it when my post specifically said that I didn't know.

No, I think you have "tried" to invalidate evolution without bothering to learn very much about it. If you don't know then learn before attacking, it will give you a lot more credibility.

Furthermore, to top it all off, you think that Christian theories of how life came to be as it is can be rejected out of hand unless said Christians provide extensive evidence to support the theory.

Interesting how you can know what I think about something I have not addressed in the thread. But yes, I do think that scientific evidence is needed before creationism can be seen in a scientific light. As a faith issue, no problem. As a factual one, evidence is needed.

Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical?

Not in the least.

First, I would expect you to have a reasonable grasp of both the arguments for and against a position you wish to attack.

One way of exploring these issues is to see if you can address the Theory of Evolution in your own words with focus on what is proposed and the support for those ideas. Agreement is not required but a working knowledge of the subject is highly recommended for credibility.

That you don't like it therefore evolution has to be in some way wrong is not a good argument.

Neither is Epistemological Nihilism, if we don't know everything about a subject we know nothing therefore all arguments and opinions have to be considered equal.

Neither is the Nihilistic argument that if we are not totally sure of something, we can be sure of nothing, again all arguments and opinions are therefore equal and must be considered so.

While Epistemological Nihilism cannot be defeated because it rejects all evidence, it is not very convincing especially when combined with a demonstrable lack of knowledge. You might consider a different approach.

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

I have not advanced anything but if you wish here is a good place to start 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

No, I think you have "tried" to invalidate evolution without bothering to learn very much about it. If you don't know then learn before attacking, it will give you a lot more credibility.

Interesting how you can know what I think about something I have not addressed in the thread. But yes, I do think that scientific evidence is needed before creationism can be seen in a scientific light. As a faith issue, no problem. As a factual one, evidence is needed.

Not in the least.

First, I would expect you to have a reasonable grasp of both the arguments for and against a position you wish to attack.

One way of exploring these issues is to see if you can address the Theory of Evolution in your own words with focus on what is proposed and the support for those ideas. Agreement is not required but a working knowledge of the subject is highly recommended for credibility.

That you don't like it therefore evolution has to be in some way wrong is not a good argument.

Neither is Epistemological Nihilism, if we don't know everything about a subject we know nothing therefore all arguments and opinions have to be considered equal.

Neither is the Nihilistic argument that if we are not totally sure of something, we can be sure of nothing, again all arguments and opinions are therefore equal and must be considered so.

While Epistemological Nihilism cannot be defeated because it rejects all evidence, it is not very convincing especially when combined with a demonstrable lack of knowledge. You might consider a different approach.

Dizredux

Sorry, but nothing on Talkorigins can be considered evidence for anything.

Second, I have never tried to invalidate evolution. I have repeatedly talked about Darwinism. Maybe you need to ask yourself What is Evolution?

As for Darwinism, I have the same opinion of Darwinism as I have of Zoroastrianism or any other faith-based worldview. I don't have a problem with what you believe until you start trying to tell me that I'm an idiot because I don't drink the same kool-aid as you do.

At the end of the day, Darwinism is not a fact but a theory. There is substantial doubt as to whether it is a scientific theory. To the extent that it is testable it seems to rely on Tacking by Disjunction. Maybe you think that's good enough. Personally, I'm not convinced, and I'm also of the opinion that you've never heard of Tacking by Disjunction.

So I think it's pretty cheeky that you can say that I am disregarding your opinions for what you falsely call "evolution" without finding out much about it, when you seem to know very little about the Goodman's paradox, the Raven Paradox, or the Tacking by Disjunction paradox.

Your opinions are very much like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, but nothing on Talkorigins can be considered evidence for anything.

What would you consider evidence?

As for Darwinism, I have the same opinion of Darwinism as I have of Zoroastrianism or any other faith-based worldview.

The theory of evolution is based on facts, not faith. Ignoring those facts doesn't make them go away.

I don't have a problem with what you believe until you start trying to tell me that I'm an idiot because I don't drink the same kool-aid as you do.

If someone refuses to follow the evidence, or even consider it, what would you call them?

At the end of the day, Darwinism is not a fact but a theory. There is substantial doubt as to whether it is a scientific theory. To the extent that it is testable it seems to rely on Tacking by Disjunction. Maybe you think that's good enough. Personally, I'm not convinced, and I'm also of the opinion that you've never heard of Tacking by Disjunction.

99.9% of degreed biologists accept it as a theory. Scientists doing research in the biological sciences directly apply the theory, and they get results. No other theory of biodiversity is used in scientific research.

So I think it's pretty cheeky that you can say that I am disregarding your opinions for what you falsely call "evolution" without finding out much about it, when you seem to know very little about the Goodman's paradox, the Raven Paradox, or the Tacking by Disjunction paradox.

You are refusing to consider the evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

What would you consider evidence?

I will consider Talkorigins evidence the same day that you consider AnswersinGenesis evidence.

The theory of evolution is based on facts, not faith. Ignoring those facts doesn't make them go away.

I specifically said Darwinism, not evolution. No one argues that the frequency of alleles never changes from generation to generation.

If someone refuses to follow the evidence, or even consider it, what would you call them?

I would say that someone who refuses to consider evidence is unreasonable. I'm certainly glad I don't fall into that category.

99.9% of degreed biologists accept it as a theory. Scientists doing research in the biological sciences directly apply the theory, and they get results. No other theory of biodiversity is used in scientific research.

Well, 99.9% of degreed Biblical theologians accept the Bible text as true. Theologians doing research into the Bible directly apply the Bible, and they get results. No other source of Biblical knowledge is used in Bible theologians research.

You are refusing to consider the evidence.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that you don't know what you claim to know because you have not met the tripartite requirement for knowledge.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will consider Talkorigins evidence the same day that you consider AnswersinGenesis evidence.

I didn't ask what you won't accept as evidence. I asked what you will consider as evidence.

I specifically said Darwinism, not evolution. No one argues that the frequency of alleles never changes from generation to generation.

The theory of evolution also states that species share a common ancestor. Do you argue that as well? Do you argue against the theory of evolution when it says that genetic isolation of populations produces divergence and speciation? Do you argue against the theory of evolution when it claims that random mutations are a mechanism within the theory?

I would say that someone who refuses to consider evidence is unreasonable.

Then will you consider the evidence presented in peer reviewed articles like this one?

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Well, 99.9% of degreed Biblical theologians accept the Bible text as true. Theologians doing research into the Bible directly apply the Bible, and they get results. No other source of Biblical knowledge is used in Bible theologians research.

Show me the scientific research where applying the Bible has produced results.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that you don't know what you claim to know because you have not met the tripartite requirement for knowledge.

I don't have to meet your made up requirements. I have to meet the requirements of science, which I have.

 

[Split Rock]

When it comes from a computer program and helps you connect the dots of evolution?

computer programs like that do not use logical proofs.

 

[Split Rock]

You don't find a proof of the Pythagorean theorem convincing?

And what natural phenomena is explained with it?

Let's use a real example (I know you hate that). Let's explain what causes disease in humans. Now, go ahead and restrict yourself to logical proofs only, just like a Logic 101 student would.

 

[AV1611VET]

computer programs like that do not use logical proofs.

What do you mean "like that"?

 

[Split Rock]

I don't reject evolution.

Your tag line seems to indicate otherwise.

I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory and that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is an idiot who just wants to ignore facts.

It is the only scientific theory with any real evidence behind it. I don't believe most creationists here are idiots, though most seem to be quite ignorant of the theory of evolution and how science works in general. Then there are people like you, who are here just to play relativistic/ semantic games.

Intelligent design is probably unfalsifiable. So what? Natural selection is equally unfalsifiable. Additionally, simply because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it untrue. It simply means that science is unable to pass judgement on it.

No, natural selection (evolution) is not. When we started sequencing the genome of species, it could easily have been falsified if it turned out that what were considered evolutionary close relatives were actually genetically unrelated.

Its true that because something is falsifiable, it doesn't mean it cannot be true. That is why I say that evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life, not the only theory. ID advocates, however, routinely claim that I.D. is a scientific theory.

 

[Split Rock]

What do you mean "like that"?

The ones used to "connect the dots" in common descent. That is what you were referring to.. isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

The ones used to "connect the dots" in common descent. That is what you were referring to.. isn't it?

Then what does it use in its place?

 

[HitchSlap]

/ snip /
--------------------
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.

Yes, he predicted where he might find one. As I've stated, predictions are a staple of any robust theory.

We all make three fundamental assumptions:
1. Reality exists.
2. We can know something about reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

 

[Dizredux]

Sorry, but nothing on Talkorigins can be considered evidence for anything.

It was not presented to be evidence. Theobald was discussing the evidence and giving cites to the scientific literature backing up the discussion. Did you even bother to read any of the material?

Second, I have never tried to invalidate evolution. I have repeatedly talked about Darwinism. Maybe you need to ask yourself What is Evolution?

What on earth do you mean by Darwinism? How is it different from evolution? We are talking about the current version of the Theory of Evolution as science knows it.

As for Darwinism, I have the same opinion of Darwinism as I have of Zoroastrianism or any other faith-based worldview.

Again, you need to explain what you mean by Darwinism and perhaps explain how it is faith based.

I don't have a problem with what you believe until you start trying to tell me that I'm an idiot because I don't drink the same kool-aid as you do.

Can you show me where I said this?

At the end of the day, Darwinism is not a fact but a theory.

I don't know what you mean by Darwinism but you obviously do not know what is meant by "theory" in science.

There is substantial doubt as to whether it is a scientific theory.

This should be interesting. Can you give some cites.

To the extent that it is testable it seems to rely on Tacking by Disjunction.

That is not listed in my Logic textbook (Copi), perhaps you can expand on this a little and explain what it has to do with testing evolution.

Maybe you think that's good enough. Personally, I'm not convinced, and I'm also of the opinion that you've never heard of Tacking by Disjunction.

You are quite right, so how about showing how it applies to testing evolution. Learning minds are interested.

So I think it's pretty cheeky that you can say that I am disregarding your opinions for what you falsely call "evolution" without finding out much about it, when you seem to know very little about the Goodman's paradox, the Raven Paradox, or the Tacking by Disjunction paradox.

So you took a logic course-Wow! Even better you found something out of my area that I don't know. However I suspect I know quite a bit more about evolution and the practice and philosophy of science than you at least as evidenced by your posts, but I am willing to learn so how do "Tacking of Disjuction, Goodman's paradox (how does grue and bleen apply to the TOE?) or the Raven's Paradox apply to the TOE as we know it today or to how science is done for that matter?

What relevance does any of this have to do with biology and science.

Your opinions are very much like the pot calling the kettle black.

Not hardly since we are talking about biology and science. I have not studied biology all that much but I have studied the philosophy and practice of science quite a bit and that is what I normally address here. You, on the other hand seem to be unaware of much of the material involved.

So your job is to tie all this logic into evolution. I do stand by my belief that you know little about the subject of evolution and I get the idea that you don't know an awful lot of how inductive logic is used in science and scientific statistics.

So if you don't want to go down as a low information poster, I might suggest doing some research on evolution.

Dizredux

 

[Split Rock]

Then what does it use in its place?

You're the one that brought them up.. why don't you tell me?

 

[Zosimus]

I didn't ask what you won't accept as evidence. I asked what you will consider as evidence.

I accept most things as evidence.

The theory of evolution also states that species share a common ancestor.

No it doesn't. That's neo-Darwinism or what is called the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Do you argue that as well? Do you argue against the theory of evolution when it says that genetic isolation of populations produces divergence and speciation? Do you argue against the theory of evolution when it claims that random mutations are a mechanism within the theory?

I don't argue against it. I simply say that these things are unknown.

Then will you consider the evidence presented in peer reviewed articles like this one?

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Yes, I just don't see why it's important that you have a theory that will accommodate your data. The theory accommodates all data.

Show me the scientific research where applying the Bible has produced results.

Show me where the Koran says that evolution is valid.

I don't have to meet your made up requirements. I have to meet the requirements of science, which I have.

They're not my requirements, nor are they made up. The Theory of Knowledge » The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge goes back as far as Plato.

 

[Zosimus]

Your tag line seems to indicate otherwise.


It is the only scientific theory with any real evidence behind it. I don't believe most creationists here are idiots, though most seem to be quite ignorant of the theory of evolution and how science works in general. Then there are people like you, who are here just to play relativistic/ semantic games.


No, natural selection (evolution) is not. When we started sequencing the genome of species, it could easily have been falsified if it turned out that what were considered evolutionary close relatives were actually genetically unrelated.

Its true that because something is falsifiable, it doesn't mean it cannot be true. That is why I say that evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life, not the only theory. ID advocates, however, routinely claim that I.D. is a scientific theory.

Why do you think that intelligent design is not falsifiable, but natural selection is falsifiable?