Call for Submissions

[setst777]

Gravity is a fact.
Newton's theory of gravity is a scientific theory that explains that fact.

Evolution is a fact.
Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains that fact.

A theory is never a fact.

Gravity is a fact, although not fully understood. Theories are proposed as to how gravity operates, but gravity itself is a scientific fact.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Gravity is a fact, although not fully understood. Theories are proposed as to how gravity operates, but gravity itself is a scientific fact.

Evolution is a fact, although not fully understood. Theories are proposed as to how evolution operates, but evolution itself is a scientific fact.

 

[setst777]

Evolution is a fact, although not fully understood. Theories are proposed as to how evolution operates, but evolution itself is a scientific fact.

Gravity is a fact because it can be observed today.

Evolution has not ever been observed anywhere, which is why evolution is not a scientific fact; and so, evolution is a theory.

 

[J_B_]

The first thing that comes to mind is to raise some of these sheep in A) a different continent or B) in an enclosure, where there are no wolves. But you've already stipulated that "if the wolf presence were removed, the population would return to a 50/50 coat distribution".

So the simplest explanation seems to be that the wolves are indeed responsible for the shift. Removing that one variable made the effect go away.

(It occurs to me that if there were a difference between A and B, that would be interesting. If the sheep were on a different continent (case A), and there was no effect. BUT, if wolves were nearby in case B), maybe they stare daggers at the one type of sheep, from outside the enclosure, making them nervous so they die of heart attacks. Or they whisper cruel things to the sheep so that they are driven to suicide.)

Thanks for setting aside the nit-picking. I'm sure there are aspects of the question that could be criticized. However, within the spirit I'm trying to foster, I would prefer people propose an alternate question or scenario they think more fitting rather than nitpick mine and consider that a victory.

With that said, I was hoping for something more serious than whispered threats as a proposed solution. For example, while I said no advantage in health could be found due to the coat, I didn't say there was an absence of disease among the sheep. So maybe the wolves carry a parasite deadly to the sheep.

But more specifically, the question is asking if the intelligence of the wolves plays a role. So, could it be the wolves herd the sheep, culling the spotted coats from the main flock such that the parasites they carry only attack the spotted coats and not the entire flock?

Or do they have a symbiotic relationship with another predator, such that this other predator does the killing and they harvest the coats?

For the possibilities mentioned (and I suppose we can include the ones you mentioned) how do we test to determine if the claimed intelligence of these wolves plays a role?

 

[J_B_]

Evolution is a fact, although not fully understood. Theories are proposed as to how evolution operates, but evolution itself is a scientific fact.

Gravity is a fact because it can be observed today.

Evolution has not ever been observed anywhere, which is why evolution is not a scientific fact; and so, evolution is a theory.

You've each stated your position. Can we now restrict the discussion to the OP?

 

[essentialsaltes]

For the possibilities mentioned (and I suppose we can include the ones you mentioned) how do we test to determine if the claimed intelligence of these wolves plays a role?

Eh, put lots of video cameras around to determine the method by which the wolves have this fatal effect on certain sheep and then decide if it meets some criterion for 'intelligence'.

 

[J_B_]

Eh, put lots of video cameras around to determine the method by which the wolves have this fatal effect on certain sheep and then decide if it meets some criterion for 'intelligence'.

Does the 'eh' indicate you're already bored with this?

I did think of adding conditions that would exclude cameras. There are reported instances of animals avoiding cameras or purposely destroying them, indicating an awareness they're being observed and an intent to stop the observations.

You and I both know where this is going. I'm not trying to hide it, and if I did I would be accused. My focus and hope here is on establishing some principles to test for the intervention of a sentient, intelligent being. But I won't exclude your cameras. I'll simply say they don't show the wolves taking any direct action that results in the death of a sheep. My OP already implied such was the case.

There are recorded cases of cooperation between two predators of different species, such as coyotes and badgers ... and of course the obvious one between humans and dogs. Note I also mentioned the wolves eating mice.

So, had our intrepid scientist been a little more curious, a little more observant, a little more creative, he would have discovered a few interesting facts in this imagined scenario:
1) Tests indicate wolves will eat both mice & sheep.
2) Tests indicate cougars only eat sheep. The mice carry a parasite deadly to cougars.
3) The parasite is not deadly to wolves (hence the mention that living wolves are known to carry it).

Therefore, it appears the wolves are consciously denying themselves sheep as food, and focus on eating mice, which aids the cougar population. The cougar leaves the sheepskin behind after a kill, allowing the wolves to collect it. In addition, this means the shepherds hunt cougars and not wolves.

... some criterion for 'intelligence'.

Which is? That's the part I'm most interested in. In your opinion are the wolves demonstrating intelligence? By what scientific criteria do you make that judgement (for or against)? I'd like to apply that criteria and move forward to a more complicated (and less contrived) example.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which is? That's the part I'm most interested in. In your opinion are the wolves demonstrating intelligence? By what scientific criteria do you make that judgement (for or against)? I'd like to apply that criteria and move forward to a more complicated (and less contrived) example.

Researchers in animal cognition continue to disagree about what criteria to use, and what it actually shows about the existence of animal intelligence, or minds, or consciousness.

 

[J_B_]

Researchers in animal cognition continue to disagree about what criteria to use, and what it actually shows about the existence of animal intelligence, or minds, or consciousness.

OK, so I take it you're not going to propose anything. Probably wise. I'll admit I'm pretty skeptical about trying to study intelligence.

But if science can't identify it ...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, my question was intended for those who reject creation science. Would some among those who reject creation science be willing to try proposing a better approach to the study of creation by intelligent beings.

I reject creation science, but I only know of two theoretically possible hypotheses for intelligent beings to create a universe like ours - the Simulation Hypothesis, and 'pocket' universe creation. The first proposes that our universe is a simulation, by intelligent aliens, running in a computer in a 'higher-level' universe (which could itself be a simulation run by a higher level still), and the second proposes that some intelligent aliens created our universe as a 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe by manipulating a tiny part of their spacetime.

As far as I know, neither are testable, so are speculative rather than scientific.

As for evolution, we have observed it occurring, and we know beyond reasonable doubt that it accounts for the diversity of life on Earth. So the involvement of a creator is not necessary for biological evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I appreciate your reply. I expected many would react as you have. As I said, if it's not a valid question, I don't expect an answer. However, given I also indicated in the OP I was aware I would get these objections, would you be willing to consider that maybe I'm asking for something different than the typical creationist approach? The problem is, I don't want to give you an answer. I want to see how you would do it.

Still, to get things rolling, maybe I could suggest something that might get you thinking. This is intentionally an overly simplistic example because I don't want to influence too much what you might produce. Here we go ...

Suppose we have a population of sheep. Some sheep have black spots on their coats, some don't. The related alleles affect nothing but the color of their coats. It doesn't change how healthy the animals are, how strong, how fast, how virile. It doesn't affect how tasty they are. Nothing is different but the presence or absence of spots on their coats. Further, left to themselves, the population would contain approximately 50% with spots and 50% without.

However, these sheep live among wolves. This particular population of wolves has an interesting characteristic. After a sheep dies, they drag the sheepskin to their den. It's as if they're decorating their den. They give the impression of a primitive form of artistic creativity in the way they like to decorate their dens with these sheepskins. Again, there is no apparent survival benefit to doing this. The wolves that decorate their dens aren't healthier. It doesn't change how strong, how fast, how virile, etc. As such, grant me that we attribute this artistic bent as a sign of creative intelligence in these wolves.

Further, the wolves prefer spotted coats. In the presence of these wolves, the population mix is now 40% with spotted coats, 60% without. The allele frequency has changed, even though no DNA mutation has occurred. The sheep continue to give birth with a 50/50 frequency, so if the wolf presence were removed, the population would return to a 50/50 coat distribution. Is the change in allele frequency evolution? (That's a side question, but I'd be curious to hear your answer).

One last detail. No one has ever observed these creative wolves hunting sheep. They've only been observed hunting mice. The prevailing opinion is that they only take the coats to decorate their dens after the sheep have died of natural causes (e.g. old age). You, however, want to investigate whether these intelligent wolves are the cause of the shift from a 50/50 population to a 40/60 population.

Now the main question. How would you go about this investigation?

How do you account for the sheep still producing 50/50 spotted/unspotted if the allele frequency that determines spotted or unspotted has changed due to predation?

If you want to discover whether the wolves only take the coats of dead sheep, you observe them to see what they actually do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The definition of true evolution entails that, in time, one kind of life form evolves into a different kind of life form.

That's not a scientific definition, it's something made up by someone who either doesn't understand or doesn't accept the science.

We have no scientific evidence today that supports or denies evolution, which is why evolution is considered by the scientific community as a theory rather than scientific fact.

That's just wrong. Evolution is a fact and we have a theory that explains that fact and how it accounts for the diversity of life. There are multiple independent lines of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[eleos1954]

Do you think you could propose a better creationist model, put it on a better scientific footing, than the ones you are familiar with? If so, please submit your idea.

FYI, I can think of several possible objections to asking that question in the first place. Further, I'm aware many will simply not be interested. That's fine. I don't need to hear those responses. If you're willing to answer in the spirit of how the question was asked - just because it would be interesting to try - I'd like to hear from you.

Maybe it would help to know 3 things:
1) I'm not a science denier. I use science in my job every day.
2) Though I believe God created the universe, I don't think what is typically passed off as creation science accomplishes anything.
3) I think it was a fair question to ask me to consider what, based on my objections to evolution, an alternative to evolution would look like. I tried, and though I'm fond of the result, it shouldn't be surprising it came to nothing.

The point is - I tried. I'm curious to see who on the other side of the issue might give it a try as well.

You might get the book Evolution Impossible ... it's a interesting read.

The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life.

The general theory of evolution requires the violation of this scientific law at some point in the distant past. Many evolutionist websites, in keeping consistent with their beliefs on origins, teach abiogenesis (the opposite of biogenesis) as occurring at least once in the history of the universe, although such has never been observed.

 

[J_B_]

How do you account for the sheep still producing 50/50 spotted/unspotted if the allele frequency that determines spotted or unspotted has changed due to predation?

If you want to discover whether the wolves only take the coats of dead sheep, you observe them to see what they actually do.

First, per the modus operandi of this thread, if you find either my questions or my examples unworkable in some way, feel free to adjust them as necessary ... or create a new one. In fact, I would prefer you give your own scenario. I only offered one because others weren't.

Second, in at least one case the thread has accomplished what I was looking for. Therefore, maybe we could cut to the chase by having you look at posts #28,29. What is your opinion of current capabilities to assess intelligence as a causal factor? And though, as I said, the end should be obvious, at this point we're only discussing the intelligence of simpler creatures - wolves in my example.

 

[setst777]

That's not a scientific definition, it's something made up by someone who either doesn't understand or doesn't accept the science.

Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is a shortened form of the term “theory of evolution by natural selection,” which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century
Theory of Evolution

Evolution: "the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)"
Definition of EVOLUTION

Adaptation: a change in a plant or animal that makes it better able to live in a particular place or situation. The insect's evolutionary adaptations enable it to be almost invisible even when sitting in the middle of a leaf.
Definition of ADAPTATION

That's just wrong. Evolution is a fact and we have a theory that explains that fact and how it accounts for the diversity of life. There are multiple independent lines of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

Adaptation within a species is a fact because we have actual scientific evidence for this.
Evolution into higher life forms, or different kind of species, is a theory, because there is no scientific evidence to show that this actually happens.

If you are saying that adaptation is evolution, then you agree that everything produces after its own kind, just as Genesis teaches. However, the evolution theory demands that a lower life form evolves into higher life forms - a different kind of life form.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First, per the modus operandi of this thread, if you find either my questions or my examples unworkable in some way, feel free to adjust them as necessary ... or create a new one. In fact, I would prefer you give your own scenario. I only offered one because others weren't.

I can't see how you expect your scenario to work, so I can't give an alternative. If the alleles in question determine the coat pattern and the frequency of those alleles in the population changes, then the relative frequency of the alleles in the next generation should reflect that and so the frequency of the coat pattern should change.

Second, in at least one case the thread has accomplished what I was looking for. Therefore, maybe we could cut to the chase by having you look at posts #28,29. What is your opinion of current capabilities to assess intelligence as a causal factor? And though, as I said, the end should be obvious, at this point we're only discussing the intelligence of simpler creatures - wolves in my example.

I agree that there is no consensus on intelligence and its measurement. I would suggest that best practice would be to clearly define what you mean by intelligence in the relevant context and how it will be assessed, before undertaking the study.

 

[J_B_]

I agree that there is no consensus on intelligence and its measurement.

Do you expect resolution someday? In other words, is it worth continuing to pursue an intelligence measure? (FYI, that question is open to any who would care to comment).

IMO some abstractions are not worth pursuing scientifically - love, for example. To date all such attempts have yielded is to pull abstract concepts of love down to the carnal to allow measurement. Maybe mating habits have value for other reasons, but I continue to find value in the more abstract definitions of love and don't need science to measure it for me.

So, on which side of the fence would you place intelligence?

To prevent accusations I'm hiding something, this will eventually lead to the questions:
* Though there is currently no accepted measure, do you accept intelligence as a thing?
* If science has no accepted measure of intelligence, yet it is a thing, doesn't this mean science is not accounting for the causal effects of intelligence - wolves, people, and otherwise? Or are they implicitly including these effects via indirect routes?

A brief digression ...
A concept I very much like is that in a scientific context, something "exists" if and only if it has a measure. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist physically - that it can't be identified by other means - just not scientifically. That definition speaks to Ernst Mach's comments on force - that when we observe unexpected motion we posit an unmeasured force because forces exist within physics. We don't posit other possibilities. That was his explanation as to why "scientific revolutions" (as Kuhn later called them) are so rare and difficult.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is a shortened form of the term “theory of evolution by natural selection,” which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century
Theory of Evolution

Evolution: "the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)"
Definition of EVOLUTION

Adaptation: a change in a plant or animal that makes it better able to live in a particular place or situation. The insect's evolutionary adaptations enable it to be almost invisible even when sitting in the middle of a leaf.
Definition of ADAPTATION

None of that is relevant to your statement about "The definition of true evolution". There is no such definition. The most general definition of evolution is, "... change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

Adaptation

within a species is a fact because we have actual scientific evidence for this.

Evolution into higher life forms, or different kind of species, is a theory, because there is no scientific evidence to show that this actually happens.

Evolution doesn't have a concept of 'higher' life forms.

Species is not a well-defined scientific concept, it is a way to distinguish populations that have evolved to be sufficiently different to justify being treated separately; there is no clear dividing line, it's a judgement call. There are numerous examples of speciation observed both in the lab and in the wild.

If you are saying that adaptation is evolution, then you agree that everything produces after its own kind, just as Genesis teaches. However, the evolution theory demands that a lower life form evolves into higher life forms - a different kind of life form.

I didn't say anything about adaptation, but there certainly are evolutionary adaptations (and non-evolutionary adaptations).

I agree that (with very few exceptions) no creature produces offspring of a different species. But evolution happens to populations, not individuals. The heritable variations of many individuals accumulate in the population, changing its composition over generations. In this way, isolated populations of the same species become increasingly different from each other and from the original population. At some point, they may be considered subspecies and eventually new species.

Evolutionary theory doesn't demand that lower life forms evolve into higher life forms or that simple life forms evolve into complex or sophisticated life forms, but predicts that populations will change over generations. The vast majority of life on Earth is relatively simple; complexity and sophistication come with significant trade-offs, but where increasing complexity or sophistication gives an advantage, it will tend to increase - if suitable variations appear in the population.

 

[Larniavc]

Sometimes, the scientific is only provisional

It’s always provisional. That’s a fundamental facet of the scientific method.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you expect resolution someday? In other words, is it worth continuing to pursue an intelligence measure? (FYI, that question is open to any who would care to comment).

It's possible. We need a consensus on a definition (or definitions). But, as usual, there are differing views.

IMO some abstractions are not worth pursuing scientifically - love, for example. To date all such attempts have yielded is to pull abstract concepts of love down to the carnal to allow measurement. Maybe mating habits have value for other reasons, but I continue to find value in the more abstract definitions of love and don't need science to measure it for me.

Love is a many-faceted concept that can be studied in many different ways, evolutionarily, physiologically, psychologically, sociologically, philosophically, etc. You pays yer money and takes yer choice, so to speak

But I'm with Feynman on such things - as he said in his 'ode to a flower', I don't think understanding the science behind something detracts from its aesthetic or emotional appeal. YMMV.

So, on which side of the fence would you place intelligence?

I think intelligence is eminently open to scientific study. My provisional definition is flexible, creative problem-solving ability, but even that is open to interpretation (e.g. flexible - how? creative - how?). It's another of those things where there are recognisable categories or levels but no clear dividing line between them.

To prevent accusations I'm hiding something, this will eventually lead to the questions:
* Though there is currently no accepted measure, do you accept intelligence as a thing?

Intelligence is a concept - a somewhat vague concept, but a useful one.

* If science has no accepted measure of intelligence, yet it is a thing, doesn't this mean science is not accounting for the causal effects of intelligence - wolves, people, and otherwise? Or are they implicitly including these effects via indirect routes?

IIRC, behavioural science takes account of more or less sophisticated behaviours using a variety of empirical measures; you don't need a single, abstract, universal measure to compare behaviours.

A brief digression ...
A concept I very much like is that in a scientific context, something "exists" if and only if it has a measure. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist physically - that it can't be identified by other means - just not scientifically. That definition speaks to Ernst Mach's comments on force - that when we observe unexpected motion we posit an unmeasured force because forces exist within physics. We don't posit other possibilities. That was his explanation as to why "scientific revolutions" (as Kuhn later called them) are so rare and difficult.

It's an interesting idea. It's inevitable that we interpret the world in terms of what we already know - but the leaps and unifications often occur when similarities in the patterns underlying seemingly unrelated phenomena that we already know are recognised.