Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Astrophile]

To put an even finer point on a main point here, whether it's truly complicated or not to prove (and I don't think it should be), whether you like it or not, how can you not admit we HAVE to have PROOF in order to KNOW something is fact, and if we do not KNOW it is fact, we should STOP stating it as such. Is that too much to ask?

This is exactly your problem, that you think that we HAVE to have PROOF in order to KNOW that something is fact. Can you not be satisfied with partial knowledge based on the balance of probability? I think that the evidence for the great age of the Earth and the transmutation of species is ample for any fair-minded person to accept them, at least provisionally. Indeed, it puzzles me what more evidence evolution-deniers want, what alternative explanation they would advocate for the geological and biological facts, and whether any amount of evidence would satisfy them, but the fact remains that scientists have not got all the evidence and there will always be uncertainty over the details of biological evolution and of the Earth's history.

Furthermore, we cannot prove that the Universe was not created in six days by a god who made the Universe look old and living things look as though they had evolved. Such a supernatural explanation is outside the scope of science, and therefore it cannot be disproved. All that can be said about such an explanation is that there can be no scientific evidence for it, and that a person has to accept it on faith. In that sense one cannot KNOW that the scientific explanation is fact. All that one can do is try to assess whether the scientific or the supernatural theory better explains the observed facts and which of them is more useful in practice, for example in the search for fossil fuels and metal ores, and in research into the causes and cures of disease.

 

[majj27]

*watches Subduction Zone's video"

Hmm. Seems fine to me. Evidentially supported, rational conclusions, not hard to follow at all.

...what's the problem with it again?

 

[xianghua]

But the Peppered Moths as evidence for evolution is not a fraud. It's a valid example of natural selection.

natural selection isnt evolution. the moth is still a moth, so it not an example of evolution but for variation.

 

[pitabread]

natural selection isnt evolution. the moth is still a moth, so it not an example of evolution but for variation.

Natural selection one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs: Natural selection - Wikipedia

 

[lesliedellow]

I haven't been keeping up so this is new to me, but not new as in yesterday, it's news from The Royal Society in London last year. Apparently neo-Darwinian evolution is now getting enough doubts inside the scientific community that there is now a 'Third Way' theory brewing...

Neither of them are scientists, and I am willing to bet that the scientists who were present at that meeting would not put the same sensationalist spin on it. It is not as though the Theory of Evolution today is identical to the one Darwin put forward in 1859. As new knowledge is acquired, changes are made.

 

[Obliquinaut]

And that's fine with me, I mean it's as good a cop out as any, saying you cannot offer proof because that isn't done with science when it absolutely is.

<Staff Edit> I'm saying you have been presented EVIDENCE which supports the hypothesis. At this point that is all you will EVER get.

As for the "proof", well, in common parlance people say the point is "proven". But it sounds to me like you are unhappy with the quality of the proof.

As such I am here to remind you (YET AGAIN) that "proof" is never offered. It is only the preponderance of evidence.

That's exactly how ALL THE SCIENCE AROUND YOU IS DONE. There are some things which have risen to the point of evidentiary validity and foundational truth that they are effectively bulletproof, but in general nothing around you is ever proven in science.

So why do you demand a "PROOF" of evolution when the best you are able to get is so much evidence that it is effectively "proven"?

Sit in at any murder trial where the details are sketchy and see if proof is not offered and required. what's more, proof often provided by science.

Oh my. You are not even close to prepared for this discussion. The forensic evidence in the courtroom is just that. EVIDENCE. Evidence can always be mistaken, but enough evidence and it is asymptotically close to proving a point.

In the case for evolution we have SO MUCH EVIDENCE that it is, effectively "proven" (to misuse the word by relying on common parlance as you prefer to do.)

You can't prove it, then you got a problem my friend, plain and simple.

What has been provided to you is what is there. The fact that you don't even begin to understand what this is about (proof in science) tells me all I need to know. There is no reason to show you any more evidence, you will simply respond by saying it hasn't been "proven". I could pile on more evidence and you'd repeat yourself.

<Staff Edit>

 

[Obliquinaut]

Then go online and find a scientist that has claimed he has proven something. I guarantee you will find it. I'm that confident the claims about science offering no proof are completely bogus, and just another excuse. And you will be sure to report back here once you've found it...correct?

It's a "common parlance" use of the word proof.

Since you don't believe any of us how about Berkeley:

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science

Yep, that confusing mess there, is a big part of how it's done, and how the preposterous is made believable to this who choose to believe it.

Look, Kenny, you aren't fighting us. You are fighting basic common scientific sense. You denigrate evidence since it isn't "proof" and no one in the sciences is actually going to give you "proof". They are ALL going to give you evidence. Mountains and mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution.

It is an asymptotic game you are playing and virtually no one who has even made it through an undergraduate philosophy class is going to find it compelling.

It speaks more to how little you actually think about science that you are finding this gambit particularly persuasive.

 

[dmmesdale]

And this is why it is important to look at evidences for Universal Common Descent.

What evidence reasonably convinces you are distant cousins to a banana?

But more importantly why is so scary to consider that all life's commonalities pull us all together? Why is it so terrifying to some people that we might, gasp, be related to other animals?

You are assuming self-serving facts not in evidence using loaded words emboldened. They are appeals to emotion rather than reason. Psychological manipulation. Do you know the difference between a turnip and an animal? The point is we do not know the common ancestor between apes and man. The alternative possibility being there is none. They are looking for an imaginary creature that did not exist in the first place. It exists in the heads of certain atheists like you. Also, Theists who accept universal common descent. You have zero physical evidence for any such creature. Blind watchmaker would exclude Theists since any intelligence is ruled out and that would include God.

I don't get it. I can only assume that some people are so uncertain of themselves that any indication that they aren't a special creation unique to the universe threatens their very sense of self-worth.

That is a personal attack, not a rational argument.

We are all made up of largely the same compounds in different arrangements. Why is this so scary?

It does not reasonably show common descent. It is flimsy. Based on dogma absent physical evidence. If there is a common ancestor between apes and man then the physcial evidence has to involve much more than drawings and conjecture. They have admitted they have no idea who or what the common ancestor was. So why shoud we jump on your fiction bandwagon? My grandmother is a common ancestor between my cousins and me.

Utter silliness, sorry. That isn't why evolution is believed. It is believed because it explains the data as parsimoniously as possible and with has low a risk of making an erroneous conclusion.

Blind watchmaker applies creative powers to nature alone.

If you think it has anything to do with atheism then you don't understand atheism and you don't understand science.

Atheism is not all that hard to understand. It is a psychological conviction to no God in spite of evidence. Blind watchmaker evolution is atheistic history myth. Riddled with contradictions and explanatory impotence.

If it makes you feel better about yourself, fine. Lots of people self-identify as beings more exalted than they actually are.

Atheism certainly does not exalt humanity not does it provide meaning or purpose to life. It naturally leads to nihilism unless one fills their head with useful fictions and contradictions which do not conform to their convictions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence reasonably convinces you are distant cousins to a banana?

No one piece of evidence, it is literally the mountains and mountains of evidence from multiple independent sources all of which support the theory of evolution and nothing else.

Creation "scientists" are not really scientists at all. When a real scientist has an idea some of the first tests he does on it are designed to show that it is wrong. If it passes those tests he will eventually publish in a well respected peer reviewed journal and other scientists will try to prove that he is wrong.

To have scientific evidence the first thing one needs is a testable hypothesis. Creationists and IDists are afraid to put their ideas to the test. Doubt me? Find one creationism model or ID model that has a reasonable test that will show it is wrong if it is wrong. Half the time I think that creationists don't publish their models because they know that they are incompetent, that means that they might not be able to think of a reasonable test, but that does not mean that others will not be able to do so.

You are assuming self-serving facts not in evidence using loaded words emboldened. They are appeals to emotion rather than reason. Psychological manipulation. Do you know the difference between a turnip and an animal? The point is we do not know the common ancestor between apes and man. The alternative possibility being there is none. They are looking for an imaginary creature that did not exist in the first place. It exists in the heads of certain atheists like you. Also, Theists who accept universal common descent. Blind watchmaker would exclude Theists since any intelligence is ruled out and that would include God. That is a personal attack, not a rational argument.
It does not reasonably show common descent.
Blind watchmaker applies creative powers to nature alone.

Nope, assumptions of that kind are simply not allowed in the sciences. It appears that all you have is ignorance and conspiracy theories. But who knows? Perhaps I judge to soon.

Atheism is not all that hard to understand. It is a psychological conviction to no God in spite of evidence. Blind watchmaker evolution is atheistic history myth. Riddled with contradictions and explanatory impotence.

Nope, not even close. That you can't name one tells us that even you know that you are wrong.

You don't even have a clue as to what atheism is either. It appears that you are merely projecting your psychological flaws upon others.

Atheism certainly does not exalt humanity not does it provide meaning or purpose to life. It naturally leads to nihilism unless one fills their head with useful fictions and contradictions which do not conform to their convictions.

Why would one need to "exalt humanity"? If humanity is great it will show that without any bragging. Bragging is for the insecure.

 

[pitabread]

If there is a common ancestor between apes and man then the physcial evidence has to involve much more than drawings and conjecture.

It already does. So much so that common ancestry of humans and other primates is an applied science.

But you don't care about that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And they will mean that in the same sense that a person is "proven guilty" in a trial. And you got your "proof". What are you complaining about?

They will mean they have proof in the same sense proof has always been proof, regardless of what nonsense you are seeing there. And they often get that proof from science, meaning science DOES offer proof in spite of the recent cop out being interjected into the subject in order to excuse you from proving evolution as you claimed you could.

So we are in agreement then, you will not be proving evolution after all? If I'm not mistaken, I believe that's the only reason I'm involved in the conversation.

Yes or no?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

LOL, you guys really do need to agree on your terminology.

"I got proof, but you can't have poof because science can't offer proof, so here is the proof you asked for"

What a riot.

It's interesting how, when at a loss for a productive argument, so many people fall back on pedantic semantic quibbles...

'Proof', to the extent that the word is used in empirical science, means 'demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They will mean they have proof in the same sense proof has always been proof, regardless of what nonsense you are seeing there. And they often get that proof from science, meaning science DOES offer proof in spite of the recent cop out being interjected into the subject in order to excuse you from proving evolution as you claimed you could.

So we are in agreement then, you will not be proving evolution after all? If I'm not mistaken, I believe that's the only reason I'm involved in the conversation.

Yes or no?

Please, the only one spewing nonsense here is you. There is more than one type of "proof" in the world. In fact the only place that you will see absolute proof is in mathematics. But as far as just about any subject you care to name that has been "proven" in your opinion by the same standards the theory of evolution has been proven.

As far as your sloppy use of the word I fulfilled your request. I did so several times the proof is still upon this page so there is no need for me to post it again.

Watch the video, ask questions if you need to. When you keep running away you will not convince anyone Kenny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why not tell me where it is? Or is there going to be an excuse for that too?

One more time. Right here:

<Staff Edit>

 

[Obliquinaut]

What evidence reasonably convinces you are distant cousins to a banana?

1. Our basic chemistry is the same (amino acids, bases, DNA, etc.)
2. Universal Common Descent (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent)

Do you know the difference between a turnip and an animal?

One is a plant, the other is an animal. And they are both life forms.

The point is we do not know the common ancestor between apes and man.

You mean we don't know which exact individual by name was our common ancestor? Or do you mean we don't know that we had one?

Because we kinda do know we had one. We share SO MUCH of our genetic make up and physiological features with other apes that really it's hard to argue against a common ancestor.

That is a personal attack, not a rational argument.

No, it was an observation. I am always fascinated by people who are so terrified of thinking that they are related to the rest of life on earth. I'd like to understand what drives their fear.

Atheism is not all that hard to understand. It is a psychological conviction to no God in spite of evidence.

That's an interesting comment!

So if people provide evidence for evolution you are free to heap scorn on it and act as if it isn't really evidence for anything, but when people fail to accept your evidence for God it is their problem.

I can live with that. I've see the evidence for God and I've see evidence for evolution. Right now I'm failing to believe that one exists while believing that the other does.

And interestingly enough: THOSE CHOICES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! In other words I could be a Christian who believes in evolution, or I could be an atheist that believes in evolution (however it would be unlikely for me to be an atheist who believes in creationism I suppose).

Atheism certainly does not exalt humanity not does it provide meaning or purpose to life.

Au contraire! In many cases atheists value human life GREATLY! We understand that this is our only life and everyone around us is similarly on the same journey. For many of us it helps us come CLOSER to our fellow humans AND VALUE ALL OUR LIVES MORE!

You don't see atheists flying planes into buildings, just sayin'.

It naturally leads to nihilism unless one fills their head with useful fictions and contradictions which do not conform to their convictions.

Oh, I'm a nihilist! No doubt about that! I don't believe that my life has some inherent meaning other than what I make of it! I believe everyone around me has a value because we are all alive and I value them. But I don't see why there should be some mystical "meaning" to our existences!

And I'm happy to face oblivion at the end of life. Look forward to it in a sense! The fact that life doesn't last forever makes it kinda more "valuable" in that respect.

So, yeah, I'm a nihilist. But if you think that somehow makes me a lesser being I'd be glad to compare my morality to yours any day of the week.

 

[Obliquinaut]

They will mean they have proof in the same sense proof has always been proof, regardless of what nonsense you are seeing there.

In courts of law there are a variety of "Burdens of Proof:

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Note that it does not say 100% certainty. (Used in Criminal cases)

Preponderance of Evidence: Just enough evidence to make the case. (Often used in civil cases)

Clear and Convincing Proof: Evidence that establishes the HIGH LIKELIHOOD that a fact sought to be proven is true.

In none of those cases do we see 100% perfect "proof". Even in the court room the best you can do is achieve proof beyond a reasonable doubt (not a perfect doubtless truth)

beyond a reasonable doubt

And they often get that proof from science, meaning science DOES offer proof in spite of the recent cop out being interjected into the subject

Actually if you listen to what scientists say in courtrooms they will give you the odds of a certain DNA sample being from the accused. Or they will give the statistical data around the result. That statistical data tells you how likely a datapoint is.

in order to excuse you from proving evolution as you claimed you could.

How about we go with court-based burden of proof as you seem to want to go with? Under that situation we are, at worst "Preponderance of Evidence" level of proof, and at best "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

So we are in agreement then, you will not be proving evolution after all? If I'm not mistaken, I believe that's the only reason I'm involved in the conversation.

Wouldn't you actually have to be reading what others say to decree yourself "involved in the conversation"?

 

[pitabread]

<Staff Edit>
My experience is that creationists generally try to ignore it or deny it where possible.

The closest I've seen to even just an acknowledgement is this AiG article: How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters

Except all it really is is the author ranting about "evolutionary bias" in genomics and complaining that we need 'better tools and less bias'. They also don't properly discuss the application of phylogenetics in comparative genomics.

Creationist organizations tend to turn a blind eye to most applications of evolutionary biology and it's not surprising why. It's not something the lay public would be generally familiar with, and that's the target audience of your typical creationist org. Hence, they generally only respond to things people would hear about in the news (i.e. new fossil finds) or would encounter in high school level biology class. Other than that, they don't seem to care about real-world applied evolutionary biology.

Applied evolutionary biology is the elephant in the room that no creationist wants to touch. It's why evolution is going to remain a bedrock of modern biology and will continue to be taught in schools.

Creationists have no answer for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My experience is that creationists generally try to ignore it or deny it where possible.

The closest I've seen to even just an acknowledgement is this AiG article: How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters

Except all it really is is the author ranting about "evolutionary bias" in genomics and complaining that we need 'better tools and less bias'. They also don't properly discuss the application of phylogenetics in comparative genomics.

Creationist organizations tend to turn a blind eye to most applications of evolutionary biology and it's not surprising why. It's not something the lay public would be generally familiar with, and that's the target audience of your typical creationist org. Hence, they generally only respond to things people would hear about in the news (i.e. new fossil finds) or would encounter in high school level biology class. Other than that, they don't seem to care about real-world applied evolutionary biology.

Applied evolutionary biology is the elephant in the room that no creationist wants to touch. It's why evolution is going to remain a bedrock of modern biology and will continue to be taught in schools.

Creationists have no answer for that.

Of course one of the problems that creationist sites have is that they often require their workers to ignore the scientific method. They have to swear that creationism is right no matter what the evidence says to work there. That immediately eliminates all scientists with even a whit of ethics.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Applied evolutionary biology is the elephant in the room that no creationist wants to touch.

That was what you first indicated and now it seemed you backed off a bit and are now making the claim as an absolute again.

Is it challenged by some or not? Please save me the time if you can because it's just not fair to send someone on a wild goose chase when you know that's what it may well be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was what you first indicated and now it seemed you backed off a bit and are now making the claim as an absolute again.

Is it challenged by some or not? Please save me the time if you can because it's just not fair to send someone on a wild goose chase when you know that's what it may well be.

Creationists will "challenge" anything. The problem is that they can never support their claims.

There are even some creationists that can do science at times. The problem for them is that they can't do science when they oppose the theory of evolution. For some reason they simply avoid the scientific method whenever they do so. Perhaps that is because scientists that use the scientific method have to accept the theory of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

That was what you first indicated and now it seemed you backed off a bit and are now making the claim as an absolute again.

Is it challenged by some or not? Please save me the time if you can because it's just not fair to send someone on a wild goose chase when you know that's what it may well be.

I've never seen creationists explicitly address real-world applications of evolutionary biology. For example, phlyogenomics (essentially an application of evolutionary biology to genomics) is used in a variety of modern concepts including agricultural research and by pharmaceutical companies as part of the drug discovery pipeline.

But I've never seen any professional creationist organizations discussing this type of stuff. Usually when they attack the idea of applied evolution, it's in a very generalized way and without any relevant examples. It tends to read more like propaganda for the layman who wouldn't be familiar with real-world examples in modern biological industries.

So no, it's not being directly challenged, at least not in a way that actually addresses real application.

 

[Dirk1540]

Has common descent ever been observed?

 

[pitabread]

Has common descent ever been observed?

All the time. What do you think a family tree is?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Whatever you two decide on the proof thing, just get together on it

It's not us, Kenny. It's how life works. I'm sorry to be the first person to introduce this to you.

Perhaps you've heard of courts of law where a VERDICT WAS OVERTURNED or the GUILTY WERE LATER SHOWN TO BE INNOCENT. Perhaps you will better understand what we are talking about then.

, and let me know what you decide. I have one coming at me with proof and the other saying there is no such thing, and there is just nothing I can do with that.

There is. Here's how it works: the "proof" you seek will ALWAYS be with a caveat that it might have some small percentage chance of being in error.

If the percentage change of it being in error is small enough people loosely use the term "proven".

IF, however, you were talking MATHEMATICS it could be a "proof", not just a statistical inference.

We can say that "evolution is proven" by presenting the mountains and mountains of EVIDENCE of the proposition. At some point it becomes vanishingly small that it is not true.

Usually then the Intelligent Design advocate or the Creationist simply says "not enough evidence for me!" and proceeds to demand more. At that point we know that there will NEVER be enough evidence for them and it is a losing game to play. At that point we usually note that NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN. We hope against hope that this level of honesty will show you that none of us operates on 100% perfect proof of anything in science.

It's a reality of the limitations of science. It doesn't mean your hypotheses whatever they may be are ipso facto more correct because we cannot provide you 100% perfect proof. It means we now compare the relative levels of evidence. Right now evolution is winning by a long shot. (to be fair to intelligent design, it is astonishingly close to unfalsifiable and suffers from a number of foundational assumptions that are usually shown to be more parsimoniously explained without "intelligent design".)

 

[Obliquinaut]

Just popping in with this..and at least it doesn't start with a lie. Be sure to read it all....very interesting to say the least.

Enjoy.

Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality

Wow! Thanks for that enlightening website! I went to the home page Shock Dynamics set Plate Tectonics in motion and that's much more interesting than evolution! Geology stuff!

I LOVE the conjecture that plate tectonics can't build mountains! That's hilarious!

The C14 article looks like fun too! (Usually when young earthers try their hand at isotope dating they somehow muck things up, see Steve Austin's laughable attempt to U-Pb date Mt. St. Helens dacites! So I'll withhold detailed comments on this particular bit of fun for when I see the DETECTION LIMITS and other analytical data and sample processing.)

And nothing says GEOLOGY better than an article about the Shroud of Turin!

This looks like a fun webpage. I'm glad you have a source of evidence for your position.

 

[Dirk1540]

All the time. What do you think a family tree is?

Let's review this thread then...

I've been told common decent is observed all the time.
I've been told humans are not the most destructive species towards mother nature.
I've been told that humans do not have the most creative intelligence of all species.
And I've been told that evolution is rapid.

If common descent happens all the time, is geographical separation the key factor for it to take place? That's what I was told back when I used to talk about this a lot. Don't quote me, but I believe the example I was given was a certain squirrel that had it's population separated by a canyon formation, than 200 years later a totally distinct species resulted. I may have butchered the story but that's the basic idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's review this thread then...

I've been told common decent is observed all the time.

It is, but creationists do not understand what the word "observed" means either.

I've been told humans are not the most destructive species towards mother nature.

Yep, pretty hard to beat an asteroid that killed all of the dinosaurs.

I've been told that humans do not have the most creative intelligence of all species.

Are you sure about that, or perhaps pointed out that your definition of "intelligence" might not mean to much to a dolphin, or a chimpanzee. They each have their own sort of intelligence. Sometimes it is very difficult to compare apples and oranges.

And I've been told that evolution is rapid.

You probably misunderstood again. It can be relatively rapid.

If common descent happens all the time, is geographical separation the key factor for it to take place? That's what I was told back when I used to talk about this a lot. Don't quote me, but I believe the example I was given was a certain squirrel that had it's population separated by a canyon formation, than 200 years later a totally distinct species resulted. I may have butchered the story but that's the basic idea.

It can be. Some species will evolve faster than others, birth rate, environmental pressures, other factors, but 200 years for speciation in some squirrels seems beyond what I have ever heard of. Do you have more details?