I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Split Rock]

Disagree. Logical proofs underpin all of math, and science is completely useless without math.

Then show us with logical proofs what causes disease. And what good is science according to you anyway?

Agree. Some germs, such as those found in yogurt, are beneficial for the body. Other germs, such as those that make beer, do not affect the body at all. Many other germs do not affect healthy human beings at all. Additionally there are many diseases, such as heart disease, that occur without the presence of germs.

Opps.... caught the "expert" in a logical fallacy.. ***beeeeeep!!****

All because germs don't cause some diseases, doesn't mean that no germs cause any diseases!

Agree. Doctors normally cannot tell the patient more than the patient knows himself. Doctors are normally expensive. Many doctors cause more harm than good. Finally, the human body, if well maintained, usually cures itself. Most common remedies, such as amoxicilina and paracetamol, can be purchased over the counter without a prescription.

Good luck to you and your "self curing" body if you ever get pancreatic cancer.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Your question presupposes that evidence can support a theory. This has repeatedly been proved false.

Your claims actually don't constitute proof of anything.

Besides that, your "theory" that evidence cannot support a theory cannot be proved because any evidence you provide cannot be used by you to support your theory. Claiming that the evidence supports your theory actually is a claim that your theory is incorrect.

 

[Split Rock]

I have never once denied that the frequency of alleles can vary from generation to generation. I just never understood the logical behind the statement:

Since the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, all living species share a common ancestor.

I must be missing a premise. Maybe you could provide it.

No. The pattern of shared traits is the reason we have concluded that living species share a common ancestor(s). Those shared traits are mirrored by shared similarities at the genetic level.

Now it seems you have a problem with common descent. If that is the cases, then my example certainly applies. If it was found that those species with shared traits and concluded to be close relatives did not share close similarity at the genetic level, then common ancestry (or what you are calling Darwinism/ natural selection) would have been falsified.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have never once denied that the frequency of alleles can vary from generation to generation.

You have denied common ancestry, random mutation, speciation, population genetics, and many other parts of the theory of evolution.

I just never understood the logical behind the statement:

Since the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, all living species share a common ancestor.

We are saying that species share a common ancestor because the pattern of shared and derived features matches what we would expect from evolution and common ancestry.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your question presupposes that evidence can support a theory. This has repeatedly been proved false.

If the observations match the hypothesis then the observations support the hypothesis. That's how science works.

 

[Zosimus]

What does that have to do with evolution?

It has nothing to do with the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.

I can guarantee the Loudmouth understands that science does not "prove" anything in the sense of formal logic. Don't you understand that all science is provisional in nature?

I do not think Loudmouth understands that at all. If he did, he wouldn't use the word prove all the time, and wouldn't object when I call him on it.

Again valid and invalid are not terms used with inductive logic. Do not you understand this?

Inductive Validity: Definition, Examples & Quiz | Education Portal

"Inductive validity means that when one reasons inductively, such reasoning will contain three elements: 1) a premise (the first guiding point), 2) supporting evidence (what makes you believe the premise is true), and 3) a conclusion that is true and viable (valid) AS FAR AS YOU KNOW. The validity of the reasoning is based upon the strength of your supporting evidence, which makes your premise more likely to be true and, hence, your conclusion to be more than likely true."

Critical thinking web

"Consider the following argument :

Dipsy bought one ticket in a fair lottery with ten million tickets.
So Dipsy is not going to win the lottery.

This argument is of course not valid, since Dipsy might be so lucky that he wins the lottery. "

Care to give a cite on this. I am interested in the context.

I don't remember exactly what you're referring to, so I'll guess that you were asking about Paul Feyerabend's 1975 book "Against Method." Try Paul Feyerabend (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The purpose of the book was to feature a pro and con argument where he took the side against rationalism and Imre Lakatos took the pro side. Unfortunately the premature death of Lakatos meant that the rationalist side was never completed.

Not much to do with the issues but thanks for reminding me of John Wilkins. I have been meaning to buy his book and did so a few minutes ago.

I've never read it. Let me know whether it's good so I can get it too.

Since you seem to know so little about evolution and science I stand by what I said.

I perfectly understand the concept that the frequency of alleles can change from generation to generation, but fail to understand what that has to do with the conversation.

Did you read the ones on macroevolution?

He says, "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis...) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted..."

Since there is no generally accepted definition of the word species, I remain agnostic.

Where did I say that the TOE was the only possible one?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Simply enough you may have read on the more exotic aspects of the discussion on science but you do not seem to have much of a grasp of the basics of the TOE nor do you seem to understand the basics of logic especially talking about the uses of the concept of validity with inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is always invalid because the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

Theobald has indicated that he believes that Bayesian statistics can help him determine the level of subjective probability to be assigned to a theory. While I don't have a problem with a subjective probability, I disagree that a subjective evaluation of the situation should be given objective weight.

All you seem to be doing is just playing epistemological games and showing off what what you think is your brilliance by referring to the more exotic aspects of a subject while not understanding the basics.

What could possibly be more basic than determining whether scientific experiments lead to knowledge and truth? I firmly maintain that they do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

All right–have it your way. Heart disease, cancer, scurvy, etc., are all caused by germs.

Once again, you reject germ theory in order to cling to an epistemology that also rejects evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Agree. Some germs, such as those found in yogurt, are beneficial for the body. Other germs, such as those that make beer, do not affect the body at all. Many other germs do not affect healthy human beings at all. Additionally there are many diseases, such as heart disease, that occur without the presence of germs.

So you reject the theory that chickenpox is caused by a virus?

 

[Zosimus]

Then show us with logical proofs what causes disease. And what good is science according to you anyway?

As I have repeatedly said, science is useful to the extent that science proves bad theories wrong through a modus tollens argument.

Opps.... caught the "expert" in a logical fallacy.. ***beeeeeep!!****

All because germs don't cause some diseases, doesn't mean that no germs cause any diseases!

You are missing the point. I quote from Advanced Critical Reasoning, Part 3: Strike a P.O.S.E. - GMAT

The five acceptable methods of weakening the argument are:
1) Show evidence [of] another cause.
2) Prove it was a coincidence.
3) Show the cause without the effect.
4) Show the effect without the cause.
5) Show that B was actually the cause of A.

As you can see, my answer was #4. I showed the effect without the cause, an answer that undermines the causal link between the two phenomena.

Good luck to you and your "self curing" body if you ever get pancreatic cancer.

Let me see. Steve Jobs got pancreatic cancer. The standard medical treatment is called the Whipple procedure. At Survival impact of malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine and islet ce... - PubMed - NCBI we see that the average life expectancy after the Whipple procedure is 9.5 years. Steve Jobs, for example, survived without this surgery for almost 9 years. Accordingly the surgery, even if all goes well (and it's a very complicated procedure) would expand one's life expectancy some 200 days.

Personally if I had cancer I'd try Vitamin E succinate inhibits survivin and induces apoptosis in panc... - PubMed - NCBI because it might work and it's a relatively simple, easy, and inexpensive procedure and pretty much anything else you can find at Was Steve Jobs Really A Difficult Patient?

 

[Zosimus]

Your claims actually don't constitute proof of anything.

Besides that, your "theory" that evidence cannot support a theory cannot be proved because any evidence you provide cannot be used by you to support your theory. Claiming that the evidence supports your theory actually is a claim that your theory is incorrect.

Wrong, because I am not trying to prove any theory correct. I am proving a theory incorrect. That is something that can be done with a simple modus tollens argument. Attempting to prove a theory true using evidence involves the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

 

[Zosimus]

No. The pattern of shared traits is the reason we have concluded that living species share a common ancestor(s). Those shared traits are mirrored by shared similarities at the genetic level.

Now it seems you have a problem with common descent. If that is the cases, then my example certainly applies. If it was found that those species with shared traits and concluded to be close relatives did not share close similarity at the genetic level, then common ancestry (or what you are calling Darwinism/ natural selection) would have been falsified.

Great, so you theorize that all species share a common ancestor.
If that is so, then there should be a pattern of shared traits that are mirrored by shared similarities at the genetic level.
You have found (to one extent or another) a pattern of shared traits.
Therefore you think the theory has been confirmed. In reality, however, you have merely engaged in a logical fallacy.

Now that doesn't mean the conclusion couldn't be true. It simply means that the argument you have made is not compelling. Therefore, until such time as you or someone else comes up with a better argument for common ancestry, I shall remain agnostic, but I will object strenuously to anyone who claims that it has been proved, is obvious, is beyond a doubt, or insults me for entertaining reasonable doubts.

 

[Zosimus]

You have denied common ancestry, random mutation, speciation, population genetics, and many other parts of the theory of evolution.

No, I have not denied said things, I have merely said that the logical argument supporting them is not compelling.

We are saying that species share a common ancestor because the pattern of shared and derived features matches what we would expect from evolution and common ancestry.

I understand perfectly, but this argument contains a logical flaw and thus is not compelling.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I have not denied said things, I have merely said that the logical argument supporting them is not compelling.

Why is it not compelling?

I understand perfectly, but this argument contains a logical flaw and thus is not compelling.

What theory in science does not have this flaw?

 

[Zosimus]

If the observations match the hypothesis then the observations support the hypothesis. That's how science works.

No, that's NOT the way science works. Karl Popper, for example, said in The Logic of Scientific Discovery

"According to a widely accepted view—to be opposed in this book —
the empirical sciences can be characterized by the fact that they use
‘inductive methods’, as they are called. According to this view, the logic of
scientific discovery would be identical with inductive logic, i.e. with
the logical analysis of these inductive methods....

"Now this principle of induction cannot be a purely logical truth like
a tautology or an analytic statement. Indeed, if there were such a thing
as a purely logical principle of induction, there would be no problem
of induction; for in this case, all inductive inferences would have to be
regarded as purely logical or tautological transformations, just like
inferences in deductive logic. Thus the principle of induction must be a
synthetic statement; that is, a statement whose negation is not
self-contradictory but logically possible. So the question arises why
such a principle should be accepted at all, and how we can justify
its acceptance on rational grounds....

"Nothing resembling inductive logic appears in the procedure here
outlined. I never assume that we can argue from the truth of singular
statements to the truth of theories. I never assume that by force of
‘verified’ conclusions, theories can be established as ‘true’, or even as
merely ‘probable’.

"In this book I intend to give a more detailed analysis of the methods
of deductive testing. And I shall attempt to show that, within the
framework of this analysis, all the problems can be dealt with that are
usually called ‘epistemological’. Those problems, more especially, to
which inductive logic gives rise, can be eliminated without creating
new ones in their place."
-------------
And so you see, there is a procedure, rightly outlined, that can be used to test theories that is logically sound and it does not use induction because induction is not logically sound.

 

[Zosimus]

Once again, you reject germ theory in order to cling to an epistemology that also rejects evolution.

I do not reject germ theory, I merely note that germ theory remains unproven and accordingly reject demands that I prove an unproven theory by the use of logic alone.

 

[Zosimus]

So you reject the theory that chickenpox is caused by a virus?

No, I do not reject the theory that one specific disease might be caused by one specific microbe, but I do reject the idea that from a finite number of singular truths you can proceed to draw conclusions about unknown diseases. I furthermore note that there are a large number of diseases that are not caused, or even alleged to be caused, by germs.

I feel that these discoveries weaken the germ theory of disease. I note that studies such as The metal theory of Alzheimer's disease. - PubMed - NCBI advance ideas that are not in favor of the germ theory of disease.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that's NOT the way science works.

Yeah, it is.

"Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory."
Science at multiple levels

When a scientist says that a hypothesis or theory is supported, they mean that the observations match the hypothesis. That is how those words are used.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I do not reject the theory that one specific disease might be caused by one specific microbe,

Then show us that chickenpox is caused by a virus without committing the same logical flaw that you claim evolution has.

 

[Zosimus]

Why is it not compelling?

Because logical arguments that violate known logical principles are automatically not compelling. If I said, for example:

All dogs fly.
Superman is a cat.
Therefore Superman can fly.

...then I would have made a very bad logical argument. Both of the initial premises are false and the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Now as it turns out, the conclusion is true. Superman does fly, but the argument is still not compelling because it violates acceptable practices of deductive logic.

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah, it is.

"Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory."
Science at multiple levels

When a scientist says that a hypothesis or theory is supported, they mean that the observations match the hypothesis. That is how those words are used.

So I have quoted one of the best (if not the very best) scientific philosopher of the 20th century, and you have quoted a watered down textbook used for remedial science written by an anonymous person who is neither a scientist nor involved in scientific philosophy, and you think I should be impressed?