Mutations and Evolution

[Loudmouth]

Evidence is irrelevant because of the problem of contrastive underdetermination.

Ok. You are on the list of the dogmatists who refuse to address evidence.

Anyone else want to address the topic.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok. You are on the list of the dogmatists who refuse to address evidence.

Anyone else want to address the topic.

You misrepresent my position. I have no problem with discussing the evidence.

By way of example, let's take this evidence. John spent $100 on fruit. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. Bananas cost $5 each. What can we conclude about the amount of money spent by John?

Answer: Nothing! We can, of course, theorize that we bought 50 apples or 20 bananas. We could equally theorize that he bought 35 apples and 10 oranges. It's equally possible that he didn't buy any of the three fruit and spent all the money on mangoes.

The information is not sufficient to determine that one and only one theory is correct. Now I realize that you are dogmatically determined to insist your pet theory regardless all these problems. I get it. So does everyone else -- you have an ax to grind. Just don't expect us to go along with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You misrepresent my position. I have no problem with discussing the evidence.

You refuse to accept facts. Enough said.

By way of example, let's take this evidence. John spent $100 on fruit. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. Bananas cost $5 each. What can we conclude about the amount of money spent by John?

Answer: Nothing! We can, of course, theorize that we bought 50 apples or 20 bananas. We could equally theorize that he bought 35 apples and 10 oranges. It's equally possible that he didn't buy any of the three fruit and spent all the money on mangoes.

The information is not sufficient to determine that one and only one theory is correct. Now I realize that you are dogmatically determined to insist your pet theory regardless all these problems. I get it. So does everyone else -- you have an ax to grind. Just don't expect us to go along with it.

You still won't address the topic.

 

[Zosimus]

You still won't address the topic.

Nay, but it be thee who refuseth to address the topic.

How doest thou account for the problem of contrastive underdetermination? Except, of course, by stout refusal to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nay, but it be thee who refuseth to address the topic.

How doest thou account for the problem of contrastive underdetermination? Except, of course, by stout refusal to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

A stout refusal to acknowledge what problems? It would help if you actually presented them.

 

[Zosimus]

A stout refusal to acknowledge what problems? It would help if you actually presented them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please present arguments in your own words, and stay on topic.

 

[Zosimus]

Please present arguments in your own words, and stay on topic.

Contrastive underdetermination is, for example, when multiple theories can explain the same data set.

Here's an example: 3, 5, 7 ... what's the next number in the series?
Some people might say 9. Just add 2 to get the next element in the series.
However, isn't it equally possible that this is an enumeration of all odd prime numbers? In that case, the next number in the series would be 11.
Alternatively, couldn't this data set be described as |-x-2|?
There are an infinite number of theories that could explain the data. Thus, we say that the theory is underdetermined.

Your claim seems to be "Since my theory fits the data, it is the best one." What about all the alternative theories that someone could come up with that fits the data set just as well as yours does?

 

[sfs]

Your claim seems to be "Since my theory fits the data, it is the best one." What about all the alternative theories that someone could come up with that fits the data set just as well as yours does?

That would be more of a problem if someone would actually come up with a theory that fits the data as well. Do you have one in mind?

(In reality, there are an indefinite number of theories that can explain biological and genetic data equally well. They all seem to involve common descent, however.)

 

[Zosimus]

That would be more of a problem if someone would actually come up with a theory that fits the data as well. Do you have one in mind?

(In reality, there are an indefinite number of theories that can explain biological and genetic data equally well. They all seem to involve common descent, however.)

Creationism.
Intelligent design.

The main arguments against the above are, as far as I know, that neither one is really scientific. Therefore, no true Scotsman... er... I mean scientist... would believe in such a thing.

 

[crjmurray]

Creationism.
Intelligent design.

The main arguments against the above are, as far as I know, that neither one is really scientific. Therefore, no true Scotsman... er... I mean scientist... would believe in such a thing.

You're forgetting the "fits the data" part.

 

[sfs]

You're forgetting the "fits the data" part.

In the case of ID, they also forgot the "theory" part. There is no theory of intelligent design: no hypothesis about what happened, when or how, and no predictive power.

 

[Zosimus]

In the case of ID, they also forgot the "theory" part. There is no theory of intelligent design: no hypothesis about what happened, when or how, and no predictive power.

Whereas natural selection predicts that the fittest will survive. We will know which organisms were "fittest" once they have survived and bred. What a remarkable predictive power we find in this tautology...

 

[Loudmouth]

Contrastive underdetermination is, for example, when multiple theories can explain the same data set.

Here's an example: 3, 5, 7 ... what's the next number in the series?
Some people might say 9. Just add 2 to get the next element in the series.
However, isn't it equally possible that this is an enumeration of all odd prime numbers? In that case, the next number in the series would be 11.
Alternatively, couldn't this data set be described as |-x-2|?
There are an infinite number of theories that could explain the data. Thus, we say that the theory is underdetermined.

Your claim seems to be "Since my theory fits the data, it is the best one." What about all the alternative theories that someone could come up with that fits the data set just as well as yours does?

Which is a rejection of science in general, and really not on topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Whereas natural selection predicts that the fittest will survive. We will know which organisms were "fittest" once they have survived and bred. What a remarkable predictive power we find in this tautology...

You can predict what selection will do to genomes, which I already discussed (i.e. Ka/Ks ratios).

 

[Archivist]

By way of example, let's take this evidence. John spent $100 on fruit. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. Bananas cost $5 each. What can we conclude about the amount of money spent by John?

We can conclude that John is being overcharged for fruit.

 

[Zosimus]

Which is a rejection of science in general, and really not on topic.

You are the one making the positive claim that science is valid and leads to valuable discoveries. According to your own set of standards, shouldn't the burden be on you to demonstrate this?

 

[Zosimus]

We can conclude that John is being overcharged for fruit.

No, you cannot. For all you know, John lives on a space station and all fruit must be flown up there at great expense.

 

[Zosimus]

You can predict what selection will do to genomes, which I already discussed (i.e. Ka/Ks ratios).

How would Ka/Ks ratios change (or not change) if natural selection were false?

 

[lesliedellow]

You are the one making the positive claim that science is valid and leads to valuable discoveries. According to your own set of standards, shouldn't the burden be on you to demonstrate this?

Please go and live in the tenth century if you don't think science is valid. After all, it makes no valuable discoveries, so nothing much has changed since that, has it?

I read some pretty stupid things on here, this thread is in a class of its own.