Quick question on evolution

[dysert]

Because fossils and DNA are also evidence for creationism. It is about interpretation..

It *is* about interpretation! Two parties can look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions. Facts are facts, but judgment is required to make the facts meaningful.

 

[biggles53]

It *is* about interpretation! Two parties can look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions. Facts are facts, but judgment is required to make the facts meaningful.

And any 'judgement' you make must be able to be tested against those facts and against any further evidence that is gathered...

Importantly as well, you must be able to demonstrate how your 'judgement' could be shown to be false...

There are a myriad of ways in which the theory of evolution could be shown to be false......how would the proposition of special creation be able to be shown to be false...?

 

[lasthero]

Two parties can look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions.

Not all conclusions are equal. If you try hard enough, ignore enough data, you can come to any conclusion you want from anything. That doesn't mean it automatically holds any water.

 

[EternalDragon]

And any 'judgement' you make must be able to be tested against those facts and against any further evidence that is gathered...

Importantly as well, you must be able to demonstrate how your 'judgement' could be shown to be false...

There are a myriad of ways in which the theory of evolution could be shown to be false......how would the proposition of special creation be able to be shown to be false...?

You just said it. Darwinian evolution theory falsifies creation. Also, finding evolved life on another planet would falsify creation. There are many other ways it could be falsified.

 

[lasthero]

Darwinian evolution theory falsifies creation.

Depends on how you define 'creation'. One could simply say that an all-powerful being simply uses evolution as his tool to create life. There's no way to falsify such a statement.

 

[Zosimus]

Can you explain to us why transitional fossils are not evidence in support of evolution?

I certainly can. All of the information you need can be found at https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html wherein we read: "Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position....
"A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached."

Confirmation bias is a term that was coined by Peter Wason. He put volunteers in a test in which they had to determine the rule that determined a three number output. They were told, initially, that 2-4-6 conformed to this rule. They were allowed to propose any set of numbers and they were told whether their experiment was false or true. The underlying rule was "any ascending sequence" but the experimenter soon found that the volunteers had their own rules in place, some of which were far more specific than the real rule. Some volunteers suggested that the sequence of numbers always had to increase by 2 and were soon constructing tests that would CONFIRM their idea. When 4-6-8 and 9-11-13 were found to work they were satisfied. They never tried 4-6-9 for example. What they wanted to see was CONFIRMATION. Few participants tried alternates like 1-2-3 or 3-6-9.

I googled "transitional species confirmation bias" and soon found Darwin's God: The Stickleback and Confirmation Bias , the truth of which I have not attempted to test. I did note, however, with some satisfaction that the author had included links. The comments to his post are just as informative as the post itself.

 

[HitchSlap]

I certainly can. All of the information you need can be found at https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html wherein we read: "Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position....
"A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached."

Confirmation bias is a term that was coined by Peter Wason. He put volunteers in a test in which they had to determine the rule that determined a three number output. They were told, initially, that 2-4-6 conformed to this rule. They were allowed to propose any set of numbers and they were told whether their experiment was false or true. The underlying rule was "any ascending sequence" but the experimenter soon found that the volunteers had their own rules in place, some of which were far more specific than the real rule. Some volunteers suggested that the sequence of numbers always had to increase by 2 and were soon constructing tests that would CONFIRM their idea. When 4-6-8 and 9-11-13 were found to work they were satisfied. They never tried 4-6-9 for example. What they wanted to see was CONFIRMATION. Few participants tried alternates like 1-2-3 or 3-6-9.

I googled "transitional species confirmation bias" and soon found Darwin's God: The Stickleback and Confirmation Bias , the truth of which I have not attempted to test. I did note, however, with some satisfaction that the author had included links. The comments to his post are just as informative as the post itself.

How would you know when you are relying on evidence, and not confirmation bias?

 

[[serious]]

Speciation is not macroevolution!

Please define what you mean by macroevolution then.

 

[Loudmouth]

I certainly can. All of the information you need can be found at https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html wherein we read: "Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position....
"A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached."

Confirmation bias is a term that was coined by Peter Wason. He put volunteers in a test in which they had to determine the rule that determined a three number output. They were told, initially, that 2-4-6 conformed to this rule. They were allowed to propose any set of numbers and they were told whether their experiment was false or true. The underlying rule was "any ascending sequence" but the experimenter soon found that the volunteers had their own rules in place, some of which were far more specific than the real rule. Some volunteers suggested that the sequence of numbers always had to increase by 2 and were soon constructing tests that would CONFIRM their idea. When 4-6-8 and 9-11-13 were found to work they were satisfied. They never tried 4-6-9 for example. What they wanted to see was CONFIRMATION. Few participants tried alternates like 1-2-3 or 3-6-9.

I googled "transitional species confirmation bias" and soon found Darwin's God: The Stickleback and Confirmation Bias , the truth of which I have not attempted to test. I did note, however, with some satisfaction that the author had included links. The comments to his post are just as informative as the post itself.

Can you tell us what features a real transitional would have? What features would an unbiased scientists need to find in a fossil in order for it to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

 

[Loudmouth]

It *is* about interpretation! Two parties can look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions. Facts are facts, but judgment is required to make the facts meaningful.

How do we determine which interpretation is correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because fossils and DNA are also evidence for creationism. It is about interpretation..

What features would a fossil need in order to disprove creationism and support evolution?

Can you explain why creation would produce the exact same pattern of fossils, DNA, and shared features as evolution would?

 

[[serious]]

It *is* about interpretation! Two parties can look at the same evidence and come to very different conclusions. Facts are facts, but judgment is required to make the facts meaningful.

This is true, but we need to add a bit more. While the same set of data can be interpreted different ways, that does not mean all interpretations as valid or that all valid interpretations are equal. For example, let's say I have a jar of cookies. I get home and all of the cookies have been eaten. Let's say I have a 5 year old kid who I figure ate all the cookies because he has chocolate all over his face. That's interpretation 1. He argues, "Ah, but MY interpretation is that cookie monster broke in through a window and ate them all! He probably put the chocolate on my face so you wouldn't know it was him. Or maybe he used my face as a cookie plate and the chocolate got there that way" I could check if that theory is valid by checking o see if there were any unlocked or broken windows. He then comes up with another interpretation, "well, cookie monster must know how to pick locks!" Well, lock-picking-chocolate-smearing cookie monster could explain all the data, but does that make it an equal interpretation? What makes it less of an interpretation?

I'd propose:
1. Occam's razor. An explanation should not include an outside party or force that left no evidence of its presence when an explanation is possible using only forces already known to be present.
2. Previously established mechanisms. If a 5 year old was previously observed eating cookies and was present, that explanation would be favored over a mechanism that has not been observed.

Now, if we see a nested hierarchy consistent with previously observed descent with modification, that would be our go to explanation unless another theory explained all observation:
1. More simply or completely
or
2. Was more directly observable.

Now, descent with modification has a much more robust set of observations than miraculous intervention, so instead we must focus on finding an explanation that explains the data more completely or more simply than descent with modification.

 

[Zosimus]

Can you tell us what features a real transitional would have? What features would an unbiased scientists need to find in a fossil in order for it to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

Confirmation Bias and The Importance of Double-blinded Studies « Freethinking for Dummies

"The point of double-blinded studies is to remove bias, either on the part of the participant or the researchers, so that these biases don’t affect the outcome of the tests. This is very important because bias can influence the outcome of many tests. For example, if I knew that I was for certain getting meridian I might not try as hard to mange my diet or my exercise, thinking that the meridian would suppress my apatite. This would skew the results because I would most likely gain weight because of my actions. Conversely, if I knew I wasn't getting meridian, I might try harder to mange my diet or my exercise, resulting in better weight control, again skewing the results.

"Bias could also come into play on the part of the researchers. If the doctor conducting the study knew for a fact that I was getting meridian, and I was maintaining my weight successfully, he might be willing to discount the amount of calories I was consuming or the amount of exercise I was engaged in as factors in my success and therefore skew the results.

"Double-blinding allows for us to get as close as we can to the 'all things being equal' point that we really want to be at when conducting studies. This allows all factors except the thing being tested for to be controlled so that the real effect, if any, can be seen....

"What stands out in my mind, though, was that every time I saw the doctor who ran the study, he always made a point to mention that he was sure that I was getting the real drug because I was doing so well maintaining my weight. Even then, not knowing much about double-blind studies and bias, I found this [quite] odd and a little disturbing. I knew he was working for the company that made the drug and I wondered [whether] he had too much of a personal stake in the results of the study. I remember being really bothered by this. I couldn't put my finger on it then, but I felt that his bias could be dangerous to his patients and, if he had been my primary care physician, I surely would have switched to someone else.

"This doctor’s reaction is exactly why double-blind studies are important. We, as humans, have biases about everything. Most of the time, these biases are harmless, but when we are working in areas where knowing the truth is vital, we must remove the effect of our biases as much as is possible."
--------------
The first step to determine whether a fossil is a transitional type is to either eliminate bias or measure it. However, as the link shows, blinding is no guarantee that bias is removed. The doctor in the study was certain that the patient was taking the drug supposedly because of said patient's excellent weight loss. However, it is equally possible that the doctor felt certain the patient was taking the drug because the patient had reported known side effects of the medication in question. Perhaps the doctor subconsciously smelled the drug on the patient's breath. Many possibilities exist and it can be hard to control for all of them. Between 15 and 20 percent of large-scale randomized double-blind studies are wrong. Non-randomized studies are wrong at least 80 percent of the time.

Any radioisotope-determined age in which the laboratory was informed pre-test of the expected age of the sample is automatically suspect. Any study or information produced by an atheist or pro-evolution scientist is similarly suspect. Any person who has a financial stake in the outcome is also suspect. These people should be removed from the equation whenever possible.

Wherever possible the samples being taken and procedure done should be done by two independent labs, one of which is given false information to measure to what extent the labs are massaging the findings in order to provide the expected(desired) results.

When studies are submitted for peer-review to determine whether they will be published, the people doing the review should be similarly blinded. They should have no idea who has written the paper under review. They shouldn't simply say "Oh, it's Dawkins. Of course we'll publish him." http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(07)00270-4 "Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution..."

A simple google search for radiometric dating blind revealed the link at physics - Do radiometric dating labs throw out 8 of 10 specimens, and are the samples blinded? - Skeptics Stack Exchange where the person actually argues in one breath that blinding is pointless because the people doing the test cannot affect it materially and in the next breath argues that blind tests are bad because "...in fact, knowing the approximate age of a sample is important so you can select appropriate standards." So which is it? Is it impossible for a person to affect the outcome if he knows the age or not?

A simple google search for: "blind study" evolution yielded Why people reject evolution | God of Evolution , which certainly does not include blind studies of evolutionary findings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any radioisotope-determined age in which the laboratory was informed pre-test of the expected age of the sample is automatically suspect.

Can you show that this is the case with respect to the rocks that were dated for hominid fossils? It would seem a rather simple task to sample those same rocks and send a blind sample to a lab to be dated. If they came back with the same date on a blinded sample, would you accept it?

Any study or information produced by an atheist or pro-evolution scientist is similarly suspect.

Atheists don't make fossils.

Wherever possible the samples being taken and procedure done should be done by two independent labs, one of which is given false information to measure to what extent the labs are massaging the findings in order to provide the expected(desired) results.

You can look at the fossils yourself. You can date the rocks yourself.

What features would a fossil need in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps? What features should an unbiased scientific study look for?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(And now for some more blatant self-advertising! )

Zosimus: I notice your tagline says you are a "Non-Christian non-evolution believer". I also notice your icon says you are an agnostic, so I'm guessing you don't belong to any religious group.

I little while ago I made a thread: 20% of Unaffiliated Americans Believe in Creationism. Most people seemed to think the twenty percent were Scientologists or Christian creationists who didn't actually want to call themselves "Christians" - although both ideas seemed unlikely.

I know you aren't an American, but it would be interesting to hear why a non-religious person would doubt evolution. Since I don't want to derail the topic, would you be interested in answering my thread, or maybe starting a new thread?

(Ahem. OK back on topic...)

 

[Armoured]

Speciation is not macroevolution!

So what WOULD you expect to see in an example of, as you put it, "macroevolution", if not speciation, pray tell?

 

[Armoured]

You just said it. Darwinian evolution theory falsifies creation. Also, finding evolved life on another planet would falsify creation. There are many other ways it could be falsified.

Yes, and I'm sure our creationist regulars would accept life found on another planet as having evolved, and not use all the same PRATTs they use in relation to terrestrial life.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't understand how fossils with similar bone structures automatically are assumed they are direct descendants from each other and not just different species living together (like seals and sea lions for example)

Let me try to explain this. Every living seal, and every living sea lion, is a member of a lineage that extends indefinitely far into the past. Every individual seal and every individual sea lion that ever lived was the offspring of two previous animals of the same species. Therefore, every living seal or sea lion is descended by an unbroken lineage from ancestors that lived during the Miocene or Oligocene epochs. Since Oligocene and Miocene rocks do not contain fossils of modern seals or sea-lions (although they do contain fossils of other animals), every living seal or sea-lion is a descendant of a Miocene or Oligocene ancestor that was not itself a modern seal or sea-lion.

The thing is so simple that I can't see how anybody could fail to understand it. All life comes from life; ancient rocks contain fossils that belong to different species, genera, families, etc. from modern living things, and the older the rocks the more different the fossils are from modern living things; therefore modern living things must be descended from ancestors (now represented by fossils) that belonged to different species, genera, families, etc. from themselves. Where is the difficulty in understanding this?

 

[In situ]

I'm looking for a concise answer to how a human and a bird can have a common ancestor if humans always produce other humans and birds always produce other birds.

The most concise answer is: nested hierarchies.

 

[In situ]

I don't understand how fossils with similar bone structures automatically are assumed they are direct descendants from each other and not just different species living together (like seals and sea lions for example)

Relatedness is not determined by similarities but by shared unique characters. If you would try to establish relatedness by similarities then it would be a mess because such comparison is subjective. Instead you use shared unique characters, I wont go into details how this is done but it is sufficient to mention that this technique create an objective grouping. That means if two person tried to group the same organisms they will end up with the same grouping (they will even do the same grouping if blindfolded).

Because grouping based on shared unique characters is objective you can use computer to do the grouping for you. This is mostly the case as there are lot of parameters that must be considered during grouping and it would take way to long time for a human to do this by hand.

Once grouping is done we find that organisms always groups into nested sets. This independent of what kind of organisms we try to group; horses, bananas, fishes, tress, bacterias, birds, monkeys or cucumbers it does matter what you pick they will always form these nested sets.

This is very strange, because there is no obvious reason why a random selection of organisms would automatically organizer them self into nested sets. However, we know from life science that a nested set always implies kinship between organisms. We know this because there exists no other alternative explanations for how a nested set is formed; a nested set is formed when parents gives birth to off springs - the offspring is always nested with its parent organisms. We have never observed any exception to this rule. We can also prove mathematical that this is the only possible way to form a nested set with living beings. Therefore, there exist no other alternative explanation to why these nested sets exist more than kinship.

Lets summarize:

These are observed fact; living things forms nested sets, and nested set always implies kinship. Therefor it follows that all organisms that belongs to the same nested set shares a common ancestor.

Second observation:
We know from observations that all life (extant as well as extinct) forms one(1) single nested set.
Hence, all life shares a common ancestors.

In other words common ancestor is not assumed but an observed and proven fact...