Evolution explained. Sure

[DialecticSkeptic]

I understand that a scientific theory doesn't prove anything, but I don't inderstand what a scientist told me recently - that science can't prove anything at all.

Science can't prove that the Empire State Building is taller than I am?

Since I had no part in that conversation, I can't come to his defense. I have no idea what he said, only what you heard. Nevertheless, I suspect that he might have been talking about the philosophy of science. That is to say, maybe he was paying respect to the demarcation line between deductive and inductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises—or proven, if you will—moving from generalizations to specifics. Science doesn't work that way; science is about moving from specifics to generalizations, the results of which are probable, not proven. As a matter of fact, the conclusions of science are never "true," they can only approach truth. Newton got pretty close; Einstein got even closer; someone else will get us much closer.

Deductive reasoning vs. inductive reasoning vs. abductive reasoning

With respect to evolution, the theory is not "true." A shocking admission? It really shouldn't be. It's not the theory that is true but the facts which it attempts to explain. In other words, what's true are the facts of paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, archaeology, anatomical homology and analogy, evolutionary developmental biology and epigenetics—and on and on. These are the facts, the empirical observations made of the real world. But how are we to understand and make sense of all these categorically different observations being made?

In science, that is the role of a theory, a conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding the massive wealth of data we possess, drawing all the relevant facts together into a coherent scientific model that makes sense of them or explains them—and, even better, it makes predictions that result in new, previously unknown evidence being discovered which then adds to the evidential credibility of the theory.

This is what the heliocentric theory does, for example. (Yes, heliocentricism is "just a theory.") It makes sense of otherwise strange planetary motions. It is not itself true, it is just our best scientific explanation of what is true—the celestial bodies and their "wandering" motions—an explanation so powerful that it enables us to intercept planets with satellites and rovers, or land scientific instruments on comets like Churyumov-Gerasimenko, or even calculate the location and orbit of a tiny Kuiper belt object (2014MU69, "Ultima Thule") roughly ten billion kilometers away accurately enough to perform a photographic fly-by. All these things are effectively falsifiable predictions (empirical tests) of that theory.

In a similar way, evolution is not true, it's just the best scientific explanation we have for all these things that are, an explanation so powerful that it can even allow us to predict what types of fossil we ought to find and where to find them, even before we go looking.

 

[Buzzard3]

So the fossil record doesn't reveal that the theory of evolution is a good scientific explanation? Why put these ideas in the same sentence if you aren't implying this?

Maybe I should ask this, why do you think that the theory of evolution is a good explanation for the history of life? Or are you not saying this either?

The fossil record reveals a pattern of history that could be descirbed as evolution, and ToE is the best scientific explanation for that history.

 

[Job 33:6]

The fossil record reveals a pattern of history that could be descirbed as evolution, and ToE is the best scientific explanation for that history.

So you don't think that there is any good scientific explanation for the history observed in the fossil record, is what you're really trying to say. Because clearly you don't actually think that the theory of evolution is a good scientific explanation. Do you?

 

[sfs]

I understand that ToE is the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, as revealed by the fossil record. But I don't understand why you claimed that "genetics-based changes to populations over time" (post 7) produced that history, as if it's a proven fact.

Genetics-based changes -- which is to say, evolution -- is the only explanation we have that works to explain our observations (including but not limited to observations of fossils). When we have only one explanation for something and that explanation has tons of support -- well, that's what we mean by a 'fact'. That's why we would say that it's a fact that the Roman Empire existed: it's an excellent explanation for a wide range of literary, archeological, architectural, and linguistic evidence, and we have no competing explanation. So we accept it as true, even if in principle some other explanation could someday be found.

 

[sfs]

It really shouldn't be. It's not the theory that is true but the facts which it attempts to explain. In other words, what's true are the facts of paleontology, population and developmental genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, archaeology, anatomical homology and analogy, evolutionary developmental biology and epigenetics—and on and on. These are the facts, the empirical observations made of the real world.

But those aren't 'facts' either, given how narrowly you're defining facts. Each one is the result of an inferential chain, sometimes quite a long chain, reaching from raw sense impressions to a conclusion about some aspect of physical reality. Each is itself a model. If we can call anything about the physical world a fact or true, then I see no reason for not doing the same for evolution, nor do I see any principled demarcation between facts and theories. They're all models of reality.

 

[Buzzard3]

So you don't think that there is any good scientific explanation for the history observed in the fossil record, is what you're really trying to say. Because clearly you don't actually think that the theory of evolution is a good scientific explanation. Do you?

ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history observed in the fossil record.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

But those aren't "facts" either, given how narrowly you're defining facts.

As it turns out, I didn't define the term "facts"—narrowly or otherwise.

I also didn't say that paleontology, molecular biology, etc., are facts. I said they deal with facts. To be more precise, I referred to the facts of paleontology, etc. Those facts are what is the case (i.e., is true, or exists, or happened). Theories like evolution are not true, strictly speaking, they're just the best scientific explanation of those facts that are. And, yes, these different scientific fields have their own chains of inductive inference and specific hypotheses and such, but that doesn't somehow demonstrate that they're bereft of facts.

If we can call anything about the physical world a fact or true, then I see no reason for not doing the same for evolution,

Agreed. We do it for other things, such as cell theory or heliocentrism theory. The elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun has never been (and probably can't be) observed, yet we're all perfectly comfortable talking about it as a fact.

... nor do I see any principled demarcation between facts and theories. They're all models of reality.

Facts are descriptions of what is true, or exists, or happened. They simply are the case. Nothing is explained. That's what theories and hypotheses do, they explain what is true, or exists, or happened.

Descriptions on the one hand, explanations on the other. To me, the difference is categorical and important.

 

[Buzzard3]

If science doesn't prove things, but rather explains things, then it's fundamentally irrelevant to point out that science doesn't prove things. Of course it doesn't. It's not supposed to.

Now, if you said, "Science doesn't explain things," that would be a meaningful criticism—and impossible to defend.

Since science doesn't prove things, I don't understand how science can claim to "explain things" ... it cannot be proven that any explanation is correct.

However, I do understand that, since there is an absence of proof, science can only attempt to explain things.

 

[Job 33:6]

ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history observed in the fossil record.

Lol but you don't actually think there are any good scientific explanations for the history observed in the fossil record.

Why even bother calling it "the best"?

 

[sfs]

I also didn't say that paleontology, molecular biology, etc., are facts.

Neither did I. I used a pronoun to refer to the facts you're talking about.

Those facts are what is the case (i.e., is true, or exists, or happened).

But we don't know what actually is the case -- all we know is our mental construct of what is the case. I think what we treat as a fact depends on the level at which we're dealing with it. If you're constructing a theory of evolution, then the facts of paleontology, genetics, etc are what you're trying to explain, and you treat your theory as an explanation for those facts. On the other hand, if you're doing contemporary comparative genomics, you treat common descent as a fact, along with the data about the specific genomes, and use the facts to construct new explanations.

Agreed.

Cool.

Facts are descriptions of what is true, or exists, or happened. They simply are the case. Nothing is explained. That's what theories and hypotheses do, they explain what is true, or exists, or happened.

Descriptions on the one hand, explanations on the other. To me, the difference is categorical and important.

But the same construct can serve as both a description and an explanation, as in the case of the elliptical orbits of the planets. It's a description of what is while also being an explanation for a variety of observations. Similarly, common descent is a description of what happened while also being an explanation for those other facts.

 

[Buzzard3]

Lol but you don't actually think there are any good scientific explanations for the history observed in the fossil record.

Why even bother calling it "the best"?

ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history observed in the fossil record ... for what it's worth.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Since science doesn't prove things, I don't understand how science can claim to "explain things" ... it cannot be proven that any explanation is correct.

This smacks of hard skepticism, denying all possibility of knowledge (i.e., all impressions are acataleptic). If one must be able to prove that an explanation is correct in order to say that it explains anything, well, then are any explanations possible? After all, excepting the divine, all truths are either analogical or proximate. In the final analysis, one cannot prove anything except in maths and logic.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

But we don't know what actually is the case.

To the extent of which I am speaking, I would argue that we do know. I mean, we dig up fossilized bones in the Hell Creek formation in Montana, we identify them as belonging to a hadrosaur, and date them to almost 70 million years ago. Thus, there is something we know is the case, namely, a hadrosaur lived here nearly 70 million years ago (wherever "here" was back then). No explanations have yet entered the picture. There is nothing about what hadrosaur populations were like, where they came from, what wiped them out, etc. That's the stuff of hypotheses and interdisciplinary cooperation, and a worthy pursuit, to be sure, but at this point we know only that a hadrosaur lived here almost 70 million years ago.

Now, you gather an impressive series of facts like those and soon you have to start organizing, interpreting, and understanding that massive wealth of data. That's what a theory does. The theory isn't true, strictly speaking, but those facts are.

And I think you know this because you said (emphasis mine), "If you're constructing a theory of evolution, then the facts of paleontology, genetics, etc., are what you're trying to explain, and you treat your theory as an explanation for those facts."

Precisely. We both agree, "the facts of" paleontology, etc., are true. The theory which helps us organize, interpret, and understand those facts is not true, strictly speaking, but is rather our best scientific explanation of those facts that are.

But the same construct can serve as both a description and an explanation, as in the case of the elliptical orbits of the planets. It's a description of what is while also being an explanation for a variety of observations.

I have to disagree. What Kepler gave us was a theory, an explanation to make sense of what we observe. Has anyone observed elliptical orbits for Earth or Saturn? Nope. But the theory—and it's strictly a theory—is so well-established that for all intents and purposes it is practically a fact. Allow me to emphasize that: It is not actually but rather practically a fact. At the end of the day, it is "just a theory"—a very well-established and fruitful theory.

Like evolution.

Similarly, common descent is a description of what happened while also being an explanation for those other facts.

Again, I disagree. Common descent is a theory about what happened. The facts are the genomic evidence we have collected. But these data are unexplained. How do we explain similar genes, ERVs, and so on? One idea is the continuity of biodiversity all the way back to the last universal common ancestor. However, by virtue of being an explanation, that's a scientific theory. It may be regarded as practically a fact, but it is not actually a fact.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

If your intention was to illustrate just how painfully stupid most creationist attacks on evolution are -- congratulations, you've succeeded.

Hey, can you explain how a moth mutated owl's eyes to appear on it's wings? How many coincidental mutations did this take?

 

[Job 33:6]

Hey, can you explain how a moth mutated owl's eyes to appear on it's wings? How many coincidental mutations did this take?

Species undergo many millions of mutations over generations. Natural selection of those mutations is not coincidental.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Species undergo many millions of mutations over generations. Natural selection of those mutations is not coincidental.

not coincidental? You realize an owls eyes scare off predators right? what a coincidence, no?

 

[Job 33:6]

not coincidental? You realize an owls eyes scare off predators right? what a coincidence, no? View attachment 344476

Natural selection is not coincidental.

 

[DamianWarS]

theistic evolution of course is not random and spontaneous, it's intentional and calculated.