proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

if so i can say the same for the car. you never proved that a car cant evolve stepwise.

So... you didn't know that all flagella are not the same?

 

[bhsmte]

It demonstrates how one's bias causes them to see evidence for their position, even though that same evidence can be used to disprove their position.

Note that in my post I didn't even get into which side may or may not be right. My post was not about that. It was about how our minds process information.

Data is data, it doesnt change on ones whim.

 

[rjs330]

I'm hardly asking for a thesis on the subject. But it would be nice if you could post a little more than just one liners.



If you can't explain why an example is evidence for 'common design', then it's clearly not a good example.

It's what we call a matter of self evidence. All creatures have the same make it in order to be considered life. We all have cells and genes. Those things make up the building blocks of life. Give me one thing that evolutionists use as an example of evolution from a common ancestor and the same argument could be used for common design.

 

[pitabread]

This picture demonstrates the way evidence is percieved in the evolution/id debate. One side sees evidence that PROVES this is two faces, but the other sees evidence that proves it is a vase. It isn't until you get past the picture to full knowledge do you really know which it is.

Personally, I see both, but I know which view has the most evidence supporting it.

That implies there are two equally valid sides. The way things currently have sussed out, that's not the case. Creationists have decided on what they believe regardless of the way anything looks. In effect, they are claiming the above picture is a rabbit.

 

[Belk]

It demonstrates how one's bias causes them to see evidence for their position, even though that same evidence can be used to disprove their position.

Note that in my post I didn't even get into which side may or may not be right. My post was not about that. It was about how our minds process information.

You must be using a very odd definition of evidence.

 

[Almost there]

Data is data, it doesnt change on ones whim.

Absolutely correct. But the interpretation of data most certainly does. I say this as someone who has worked in IT for a data mining firm.

It was always fun to try to divine which of several addresses was best to use to direct mail to a person or group. And though certain interpretation rules worked often, sometimes they were way off base.

We know what we see. It is undeniable. Where we get off the tracks is when we come up with theories and hypotheses regarding the meaning of what we see.

 

[pitabread]

It's what we call a matter of self evidence. All creatures have the same make it in order to be considered life. We all have cells and genes. Those things make up the building blocks of life. Give me one thing that evolutionists use as an example of evolution from a common ancestor and the same argument could be used for common design.

You're just repeating yourself. The fact you claim all evidence for evolution is also evidence for design merely suggests that life was created to appear as though it evolved.

If that's really your belief, well okay, but I don't see how it adds anything of value.

 

[tas8831]

No problem. Just throw some monkeys and typewriters at it.

 

[tas8831]

Absolutely correct. But the interpretation of data most certainly does. I say this as someone who has worked in IT for a data mining firm.

...Where we get off the tracks is when we come up with theories and hypotheses regarding the meaning of what we see.

Providing the hypotheses and theories are not premised on unwarranted assumptions or presuppositions that dictate the mode of interpretation.

The major presuppositions of science are that the universe is real, and that we have the ability to understand it if we try (there are others, of course, but I don't employ them).

How do my presuppositions taint my interpretations?

 

[Almost there]

You must be using a very odd definition of evidence.

I'm talking about how we interpret evidence.

Man A is shot by a .380 bullet. Man B standing next to him has a .380 handgun. That is evidence. This may cause one to believe that man B shot man A, and they may even go as far as to say that future ballistic tests will prove that man B shot man A, but it is unwise to state it as fact until the test is completed.

And when the test results come back, it may turn out that the gun in the posession of man B has not been fired, blowing a hole in what was a logical assumption by any reasonable person.

This is a trap a lot of evolutionists fall into. They base a lot of what they believe on results of tests that have not been completed. They even turn a blind eye to the fact that past tests have caused them to change their theories and hypotheses to the point that the original theory is no longer recognizable.

CI advocates do not have this problem. Their position is not testable and they know it. However, when they interact with the world based on their belief, it serves them well. Most scientists that ever lived were religious men who believed in a creator.

 

[Speedwell]

That right there is the conundrum the evolution theory proponents find themselves in. It's one thing to say,

"We don't have the tools to test that, therefore we don't know if it is true or not."

Which is the position science takes.

It's quite another to say, "Science can't be used to test that therefore it is not true."

Which is the creationist misrepresentation of the position science takes.

 

[Almost there]

That implies there are two equally valid sides. The way things currently have sussed out, that's not the case. Creationists have decided on what they believe regardless of the way anything looks. In effect, they are claiming the above picture is a rabbit.

Two sides in this case, for illustrative purposes. And my point is about both sides. One sees a certain attribute and sees proof of evolution. The other sees the exact same attribute and sees proof of a designer.

Interestingly, as the former gains evidence, they need to change their position while the latter does not.

 

[Almost there]

Providing the hypotheses and theories are not premised on unwarranted assumptions or presuppositions that dictate the mode of interpretation.

The major presuppositions of science are that the universe is real, and that we have the ability to understand it if we try (there are others, of course, but I don't employ them).

How do my presuppositions taint my interpretations?

I also believe we have the ability to understand it through reverse engineering.

 

[Belk]

I'm talking about how we interpret evidence.

Man A is shot by a .380 bullet. Man B standing next to him has a .380 handgun. That is evidence. This may cause one to believe that man B shot man A, and they may even go as far as to say that future ballistic tests will prove that man B shot man A, but it is unwise to state it as fact until the test is completed.

And when the test results come back, it may turn out that the gun in the posession of man B has not been fired, blowing a hole in what was a logical assumption by any reasonable person.

This is a trap a lot of evolutionists fall into. They base a lot of what they believe on results of tests that have not been completed. They even turn a blind eye to the fact that past tests have caused them to change their theories and hypotheses to the point that the original theory is no longer recognizable.

CI advocates do not have this problem. Their position is not testable and they know it. However, when they interact with the world based on their belief, it serves them well. Most scientists that ever lived were religious men who believed in a creator.

Yes, I hear a lot about "interpreting evidence" from people who don't believe scientists know what they are doing. Oddly enough I never hear it from scientists. Likely because the tests they perform are designed to falsify a position and there is no way to interpret that.

 

[Almost there]

Which is the position science takes.

Science, yes. Evolution theory proponents, not so much.

 

[tas8831]

It demonstrates how one's bias causes them to see evidence for their position, even though that same evidence can be used to disprove their position.

Not really.

That picture is more about perceptions and how the brain interprets visual inputs. More about physiology than presuppositions.

I don't want to come across as a broken record, but I have offered up this group of pubs in a couple of different contexts:


This paper is a classic - they took KNOWN phylogenies of inbred mice, sequenced some of their DNA, then ran those sequences though programs assessing patterns of mutation:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

This research did something similar, except that they MADE their own known phylogeny, of VIRUSES, not bacteria (you know the difference, do you not?) and analyzed their sequences:



Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

This paper assessed the reliability of such methods:


Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.




It should be obvious (especially with my 'hints') what these are about, what the data is, why it is being interpreted as it is, etc.

Yet, each time I have presented these on this forum so far*, the most common response I have gotten from creationists is something along the lines of 'the mice are still mice'.

So yes, presuppositions matter - but one sides' presuppositions, it seems, require adherents to make fools of themselves.



*I should point out that this group of citations are not unique to me, I first saw some of them on another forum, then discovered a few weeks ago that the same group (plus additional ones) had also been posted here..

 

[xianghua]

Why would anyone think about a self-replicating HUMAN-MADE DEVICE?

why not? its fit well with biological systems, since in this case they are both able to reproduce.

 

[tas8831]

Science, yes. Evolution theory proponents, not so much.

Do tell.

I'm sure your background in IT will make your interpretations of evolutionary biological data/evidence top-notch.

 

[tas8831]

why not? its fit well with biological systems, since in this case they are both able to reproduce.

Ok - how about we consider a human carved Idol is actually a deity?

 

[tas8831]

I also believe we have the ability to understand it through reverse engineering.

Is that a presupposition?

Do you consider living things to be engineered?