I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Smidlee]

From what I have seen of ID arguments, they are not falsifiable. Basically, if they don't think it can happen naturally, then ID wins by default.

I don't see how nature can produce a spacecraft on Pluto so if a spacecraft is found next year I will boldly claim it's intelligent designed. Intelligent design isn't just a theory it's my reality. Intelligent design is just as real as pain. I don't need a scientific theory to know pain is real.

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree . No matter how much you try to deny it it's an assumption.

I can show you the online tools where you can look at the sequences yourself. Do you really think that scientists have just made up these genomic sequences? Why in the world do you think that endogenous retroviruses are just assumptions when they are clearly a part of real sequenced genomes?

Intelligent design can do it with ease.

Why would intelligent design produce the exact pattern expected from evolution? Explain.

The only thing I see Shapiro ignoring is a butch of nonsense that doesn't fit what he knows to be true. Even though he's against ID(and creationism) he make a lot more sense than Neo-Darwinist.

As your previous posts have shown, you simply do not understand the science in peer reviewed papers. I don't mean that as an insult since 99% of the population probably doesn't understand those papers.

If what you say is true, then present the science. Stop making vague claims. Show it.

 

[Split Rock]

For Zosimus:

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.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't see how nature can produce a spacecraft of Pluto so if a spacecraft is found next year I will boldly claim it's intelligent designed. Intelligent design isn't just a theory it's my reality.

Are you sure you would recognize an alien spacecraft if you found one?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see how nature can produce a spacecraft of Pluto so if a spacecraft is found next year I will boldly claim it's intelligent designed. Intelligent design isn't just a theory it's my reality.

When you find an alien spacecraft on Pluto, let us know. Until then, scientists will continue to deal with stuff that actually has been found, such as the genomes of living species.

 

[Dizredux]

Loudmouth

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

Smidlee

Intelligent design can do it with ease.

Oh this could be interesting. Just what is the observed mechanism of intelligent design? I am really interested in seeing the answer.

Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

I can show you the online tools where you can look at the sequences yourself. Do you really think that scientists have just made up these genomic sequences? Why in the world do you think that endogenous retroviruses are just assumptions when they are clearly a part of real sequenced genomes?

and for have separate sequences you compare you get different trees.

Why would intelligent design produce the exact pattern expected from evolution? Explain.

Why does evolution produce exact pattern of intelligent design. We can even reverse engineer something found in life to improve our technology.

As your previous posts have shown, you simply do not understand the science in peer reviewed papers. I don't mean that as an insult since 99% of the population probably doesn't understand those papers.

If what you say is true, then present the science. Stop making vague claims. Show it.

That's another assumption that if anyone doesn't agree with your conclusion they must not have any understand on the issue.

 

[Smidlee]

When you find an alien spacecraft on Pluto, let us know. Until then, scientists will continue to deal with stuff that actually has been found, such as the genomes of living species.

The logic still stand if we find a spacecraft or not on Pluto. Scientist haven't found a lot of stuff you claim dogmatically.

 

[HitchSlap]

All right, so he predicted where he might find one.

My horoscope predicted that I might come into money today. I got paid.

Does that make horoscopes scientifically validated?

So, I just demonstrated how the hallmark of a robust theory can be used to make scientific predictions. What's your problem, then?

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you sure you would recognize an alien spacecraft if you found one?

It always amazes how easy cdesign proponentsists just gloss over this pesky little fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

So basically your argument is that bacteria that are killed by antibiotics will not survive as long as bacteria that are not killed by antibiotics?

Nope. My argument is that heritable traits are a determining factor in survival. It is the fact that these traits are passed on that makes the whole thing work, and it makes it falsifiable.

You said, "DNA gyrase inhibitors, such as quinolones, depend on the antibiotic binding to DNA gyrase and preventing the normal operation of the protein."

I can't help but wonder how you knew that. Oh wait... let me guess. Scientists applied the antibiotic to bacteria, determined which ones died, and then they made the incredible leap of saying, "The bacteria that will die... will die." Again, this is very profound.

Why don't you not guess and look at the real science.

http://www.jbc.org/content/264/5/2973.full.pdf

What would have happened if, for example, scientists postulated that DNA gyrase inhibitors depended on the antibiotic binding to DNA gyrase and preventing the normal operation of the protein and they turned out to be completely wrong?

The prediction is that random mutations produce heritable traits that improve fitness. This is easily testable.

First, the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation assay:

http://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.full.pdf

If nothing else, go to page 492 (page 2 of the .pdf) and read the testable hypotheses related to heritable traits and natural selection. Those are the falsifiable and testable hypotheses that you claim don't exist.

 

[Queller]

No, the Modern Synthesis is a theory of evolution.

What are some others and what is the evidence that supports them?

 

[Zosimus]

And that is the operational definition of evolution but again, did you read any of Theobald's essays?

I am not going to watch an hour plus video clip. You can put it into your own words unless you want to avoid the question. If you can't then I would suspect you are just blowing smoke.

Nope let us not suppose as that is not an argument that I would make. We are talking about science and evolution, not religion. Quit playing games.

Nice but that is not the claim being made by science.

Do you understand the subject at all? That has nothing to do with natural selection. And neither has anything to do with natural selection. Do you somehow think that natural selection "is" the theory of evolution?


As is all of science. Do you not understand this? I thought you had some background in logic.

In the sense you are using it, never. You are using valid as a binary term as in deductive logic. It does not apply to inductive logic. In science, the best we get is probabilities of a hypothesis being supported, in otherwords, the results are not likely to be a result of randomness with different statistical degrees of certainty.

I have seen this game played before on the forum. It was probably from you. It did not apply then and doesn't now. We are talking about how science deals with data.

That has nothing to do with science and hypothesis testing.

Where on earth did you hear this? You are just being silly again.

I have already addressed this. Logicians do not use the terms valid and invalid for inductive logic but only for deductive logic.

Again, I thought you had studied logic. This is pretty basic. From this I can only conclude that you are playing Nihilist games using points you have picked up somewhere without a real understand of the basic principles involved.



Dizredux

Absolutely.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

So that means that every time someone on here, such as Loudmouth, says that science has proved... or nested hierarchies prove... etc., he is carelessly and inaccurately handling the term–according to Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

What exactly is the scientific method? This is a complex and contentious question...

(emphasis added). Yes, it is contentious. People on this forum may indicate that all the ups and downs are solved and that anyone who doesn't agree with their private interpretation of said theory "knows nothing about the scientific method," but in reality they know less about the scientific method than they pretend to.

..., and the field of inquiry known as the "philosophy of science" is committed to illuminating the nature of the scientific method. Probably the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century was Sir Karl Popper.

A favorite of mine, too. I especially agree with Popper when he says that induction is invalid and that science doesn't use induction.

Other notables are Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos,...

Another favorite of mine. Lakatos said, "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

Paul Feyerabend, Paul Kitcher, A. F. Chalmers, Wesley Salmon and Bas C. van Fraassen.

Feyerabend, of course, is the person who argued that there is no such thing as a scientific method. I agree with him.

This is not the place to delve into an explication of the various philosophies represented by these scholars. For more information I refer you to their works and to the discussion presented by John Wilkins in his Evolution and Philosophy FAQ. Personally, I take a Bayesian view of the scientific method in principle (Jaynes 2003; Salmon 1990), and a Likelihoodist stance on evidence in practice (Burnham and Anderson 2002; Edwards 1972; Royall 1997), and these views will come through in how I present the evidence for common descent.

Well, I'm not a Bayesian, and I'm not a Likelihoodist. In fact, I am here hoping to debate these things with someone who knows what they are and can actually defend them. Rather than finding that, I find someone who says "That has nothing to do with science and hypothesis testing," and "did you read any of Theobald's essays?"

Yes, I've read his essays. His essays disagree with you.

 

[Zosimus]

That is part of the theory of evolution used by scientists.

Once again, for the umpeenth time, we are talking about Darwinism, not evolution.

It is evidence for the accuracy of the hypothesis and the larger theory that the hypothesis was taken from. That is how science works.

Once again, for the umpeenth time, no science doesn't work that way.

 

[Zosimus]

From what I have seen of ID arguments, they are not falsifiable. Basically, if they don't think it can happen naturally, then ID wins by default. Some have attempted to use positive arguments, but these also fall short. I just recently attended a talk by Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute. He used the hypothesis that I.D. requires that there is no junk DNA, or that all of the DNA would have a function. Then he used ENCODE to show a positive test result, which is problematical in itself. I asked him if I was designing an organism, why I couldn't use non-functional spacers between functional sections of the organism's genome. He didn't have an answer. There is nothing that dictates I couldn't do it that way if I wanted, which defeats the functionality of DNA as a test for I.D.

You only answered half the question. You indicated why you think intelligent design isn't falsifiable.

However, you didn't get my point. I don't think intelligent design is falsifiable. I think it's unfalsifiable. I think it's as unfalsifiable as natural selection.

 

[Delphiki]

You only answered half the question. You indicated why you think intelligent design isn't falsifiable.

However, you didn't get my point. I don't think intelligent design is falsifiable. I think it's unfalsifiable. I think it's as unfalsifiable as natural selection.

Natural selection is falsifiable, it's just not falsified. Are you sure you know what the word means?

 

[Zosimus]

For Zosimus:

http://www.univpgri-palembang.ac.id...pistemologi/In defense of pure reason (1).pdf

Could an argument of any sort be entirely justified on empirical grounds? It seems clear on reflection that the answer to this question is "no." Any purely empirical ingredient can, after all, always be formulated as an additional empirical premise. When all such premises have been explicitly formulated, either the intended conclusion will be explicitly included among them or it will not. In the former case, no argument or inference is necessary, while in the latter case, the needed inference clearly goes beyond what can be derived entirely from experience. Thus we see that the repudiation of all a priori justification is apparently tantamount to the repudiation of argument or reasoning generally, thus amounting in effect to intellectual suicide.

Your challenge to me is, apparently, to prove using pure logic, that germs cause disease or something along those lines. Yet you are asking me to prove something that is unproven.

So I will throw down this challenge to you: If you can prove, scientifically, that God exists, then I will prove, logically, that germs cause disease. Then, together, we will prove using logic and science that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created God.

 

[Zosimus]

So, I just demonstrated how the hallmark of a robust theory can be used to make scientific predictions. What's your problem, then?

Since I've never said that scientific theories couldn't be used to make scientific predictions, I don't see how your point is relevant.

Unless, of course, you're claiming that these predictions were made without using logic and that logic is useless and pointless because science never uses it.

 

[Zosimus]

Nope. My argument is that heritable traits are a determining factor in survival.

Oh is that your argument.

Horse Struck By Lightning And Killed | WNEP.com

Falsified.

Unless, of course, you think the horse was struck and killed by lightning because of a heritable trait.

 

[Zosimus]

What are some others and what is the evidence that supports them?

Panspermia. Punctuated Equilibrium. Lamarckism.