Revealing the data behind the science of evolution

[46AND2]

In a discussion recently, I was posed a challenge to produce the DATA which supports evolution. The problem with this challenge is that most evolution supporters and deniers don't see eye to eye on certain definitions of key terms, and wind up arguing tangents and misrepresentations. So I told this poster that I'd be happy to show the data, as long as we could come to some common ground about a few terms.

To start out with, the first couple terms I'd like to discuss are nested hierarchy and consilience. People who have accepted evolution will understand why I have chosen these terms, and their importance. I think they will also recognize that there is a lot of misunderstanding about these terms. So I'd like to clear it up, if possible.

I posed two questions. The first one is: can you please describe a situation in which consilience is demonstrated, and how it pertains to the probability of said situation?

The second question is: Can you please describe a real life example of a nested hierarchy?

So, I'd like to ask these questions of the rest of you, but I'd like you to give me examples which have nothing to do with creation/evolution.

Primarily, I'd like to hear from people who deny evolution, first, and then people who accept evolution can chime in later.

I'd be more than happy to answer some clarification questions first, but I will not provide examples of my own for the time being.

 

[SkyWriting]

The first one is: can you please describe a situation in which consilience is demonstrated, and how it pertains to the probability of said situation?

Sure. Modern scholars believe that the 66 books of the Bible were written by at least 39 authors over a period of 1,500 years. Each author describes God from differing viewpoints yet the over all results are amazingly consistent. The variety of views all reaching the same conclusions provides an overall legitimacy to the idea that God exists and Jesus is His only Son.

Similarly, the synoptic books tell stories of Jesus ministry that are sometimes the same and other times covering different aspects of the stories. This leads us to the conclusion that the stories are about actual historical events. Each of the stories may individually have been fiction, but the addition of each variation adds legitimacy to the historical accounts.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you please describe a real life example of a nested hierarchy?

[1] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
[2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
[3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
[4] And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
[5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
[6] And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
[7] And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
[8] And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
[9] And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

 

[Zosimus]

In a discussion recently, I was posed a challenge to produce the DATA which supports evolution. The problem with this challenge is that most evolution supporters and deniers don't see eye to eye on certain definitions of key terms, and wind up arguing tangents and misrepresentations. So I told this poster that I'd be happy to show the data, as long as we could come to some common ground about a few terms.

To start out with, the first couple terms I'd like to discuss are nested hierarchy and consilience. People who have accepted evolution will understand why I have chosen these terms, and their importance. I think they will also recognize that there is a lot of misunderstanding about these terms. So I'd like to clear it up, if possible.

I posed two questions. The first one is: can you please describe a situation in which consilience is demonstrated, and how it pertains to the probability of said situation?

The second question is: Can you please describe a real life example of a nested hierarchy?

So, I'd like to ask these questions of the rest of you, but I'd like you to give me examples which have nothing to do with creation/evolution.

Primarily, I'd like to hear from people who deny evolution, first, and then people who accept evolution can chime in later.

I'd be more than happy to answer some clarification questions first, but I will not provide examples of my own for the time being.

Consilience is the refuted idea that when differing disciplines happen upon the same answer that the result is somehow quite strong. A good example would be the coincidence between Lord Kelvin's method of dating the Earth and Edmund Halley's method. Both methods came up with a date of around 100 million years of age. Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth started as a molten ball of rock and calculated how long it would take to cool. Edmund Haley calculated the rate of addition of salt to the ocean and arrived at a similar age. Nowadays, however, the 100 million years age for the Earth is widely discredited and the argument is whether the Earth is quite young (less than 12,000 years) or quite old (more than 4 billion years old).

A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well-defined super set which consists of and contains the lower levels. A good example would be the US army, which is broken up into field armies, which are further broken up into Corps, which consist of divisions, which consist of brigades, which consist of batallions, which consist of companies, which consist of platoons...

Perhaps a better question would be this: Why do you think that data are important? The answer to this will necessarily be that you are an empiricist. You believe that sense data are the key to understanding the world around us. How can you justify this claim?

 

[46AND2]

Consilience is the refuted idea that when differing disciplines happen upon the same answer that the result is somehow quite strong. A good example would be the coincidence between Lord Kelvin's method of dating the Earth and Edmund Halley's method. Both methods came up with a date of around 100 million years of age. Lord Kelvin assumed that the Earth started as a molten ball of rock and calculated how long it would take to cool. Edmund Haley calculated the rate of addition of salt to the ocean and arrived at a similar age. Nowadays, however, the 100 million years age for the Earth is widely discredited and the argument is whether the Earth is quite young (less than 12,000 years) or quite old (more than 4 billion years old).

The idea is most certainly not refuted. And your example only serves to support it, not nullify it. When more data was discovered, the results were NOT consilient. When you have only two data points which agree, the probability is, in fact, increased, that the result is correct. However, when other conflicting data points are added, it proves that the original idea is incorrect. Let me give you an example:

Say you have a bag of 200 marbles. You are asked to pull one marble out of the bag, then return it, where it is shaken back into the mix. You do this 100 times. Let's say you pull 60 black and 40 red marbles. What can we infer from this? Not much. Could there be blue marbles in the bag? Yes. Could there be 75% red marbles? yes. All we have determined is that there are red and black marbles in the bag.

Now, let's say you do it a second time, with the same bag. This time, you grab 50 of each color, black and red. What can we determine from this? Well, the probability that there are only red and black in the bag has increased, albeit marginally. The odds that there is less than 75% red marbles is also increased.

Now, you repeat the process 100 times. You draw an average of 55 black, and 45 red. What has happened to the probabilities? Is it more/less/equally likely that there is less than 75% red? That there are only red and black marbles? Clearly, the probability has increased in both circumstances.

Finally, you repeat the process a billion times. The average? 50 red, and 50 black. You never pull another color. What can we determine from this? There is a high probability that there are only two colors, and that they have equal quantities in the bag.

The results of each of the billion data points are consilient. Is it impossible for there to be a blue marble in the bag? No. Therefore it is not proof that there are only two colors...just extremely likely.

I'll have to get to the rest of your post later. I need to get ready for work.

 

[Zosimus]

The idea is most certainly not refuted. And your example only serves to support it, not nullify it. When more data was discovered, the results were NOT consilient. When you have only two data points which agree, the probability is, in fact, increased, that the result is correct. However, when other conflicting data points are added, it proves that the original idea is incorrect. Let me give you an example:

You have two data points that agree. I have bad news for you, bro. For any given data set there are an infinite number of theories that could explain that data set. That's what we call scientific underdetermination. It looks like someone needs to go back to university and take a basic class in the philosophy of science.

Say you have a bag of 200 marbles. You are asked to pull one marble out of the bag, then return it, where it is shaken back into the mix. You do this 100 times. Let's say you pull 60 black and 40 red marbles. What can we infer from this? Not much. Could there be blue marbles in the bag? Yes. Could there be 75% red marbles? yes. All we have determined is that there are red and black marbles in the bag.

Wow! You can make simplistic and irrelevant comparisons between marbles and the real world.

Now, let's say you do it a second time, with the same bag. This time, you grab 50 of each color, black and red. What can we determine from this? Well, the probability that there are only red and black in the bag has increased, albeit marginally. The odds that there is less than 75% red marbles is also increased.

And how is this relevant? Oh that's right–it isn't. Because in the real world you don't get to pick marbles out of a bag. It's not like you can pick an animal at random out of the history of the world and just happen to pluck a 75-million-year old insect out of the bag. All you can work with are the animals that are alive now. Then you make lots of assumptions, commit a few logical fallacies, and think that the data support your idea. Then you come on a forum such as this one and make a fool out of yourself. Brilliant.

Now, you repeat the process 100 times. You draw an average of 55 black, and 45 red. What has happened to the probabilities? Is it more/less/equally likely that there is less than 75% red? That there are only red and black marbles? Clearly, the probability has increased in both circumstances.

All of this runs into the problem of the Ravens Paradox. Imagine that two men are on separate islands, and each has a raven. One has a black raven and the other has a white raven. Each man is firmly convinced that all ravens are the color of the raven they have. Each hires a man to bring them birds so they can verify their theory. The man brings them all kinds of birds of varying colors, but no ravens. However, each man reasons as follows:

"Since this green parrot could have been a raven (thus falsifying my theory that all ravens are black [or white]), it counts as confirmation for the theory that all ravens are (insert color here)." So each one is more and more convinced that it's more and more probable that ravens are black (or white). But why does finding a green parrot make you think that all ravens are black?

Finally, you repeat the process a billion times. The average? 50 red, and 50 black. You never pull another color. What can we determine from this? There is a high probability that there are only two colors, and that they have equal quantities in the bag.

Again, no relation to the real world.

The results of each of the billion data points are consilient. Is it impossible for there to be a blue marble in the bag? No. Therefore it is not proof that there are only two colors...just extremely likely.

Show the math. Work the numbers. I'd like to see them. Or is that the "extremely likely" of "I have a gut feeling about something?"

I'll have to get to the rest of your post later. I need to get ready for work.

Take your time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zosimus, I know that you love the Raven's Paradox, but it seems that you continually misapply towards the theory of evolution.

Can you give a clear cut example of where and how it was applied by anyone here?

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus, I know that you love the Raven's Paradox, but it seems that you continually misapply towards the theory of evolution.

Can you give a clear cut example of where and how it was applied by anyone here?

Hey you guys are the ones who insist that confirmations increase the probability that your theory is true! If you find 1,000 white swans, then it follows that all swans are probably white (according to you). What do you base that on? As far as I can tell, it's based on blind faith! However, if confirmations really do increase the probability that something is true, then here's simple logic for you.

The theory that Richard Dawkins does not exist is logically equivalent to the theory that every person who exists is not Richard Dawkins. Now I can easily walk out of my house and find thousands of people who exist and aren't Richard Dawkins. Do you agree that every person I meet increases the probability that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist? If not, then why not?

 

[JackRT]

Hey you guys are the ones who insist that confirmations increase the probability that your theory is true! If you find 1,000 white swans, then it follows that all swans are probably white (according to you). What do you base that on? As far as I can tell, it's based on blind faith! However, if confirmations really do increase the probability that something is true, then here's simple logic for you.

The theory that Richard Dawkins does not exist is logically equivalent to the theory that every person who exists is not Richard Dawkins. Now I can easily walk out of my house and find thousands of people who exist and aren't Richard Dawkins. Do you agree that every person I meet increases the probability that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist? If not, then why not?

If the same population is sampled repeatedly and the same result is always observed then the probability that the result is always true is thereby increased --- but never absolute. Europeans had never observed black swans till they reached Australia. Expanding the population observed changed everything..

 

[Hoghead1]

Don't you think "infinite theories" is a bit of an overstatement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey you guys are the ones who insist that confirmations increase the probability that your theory is true! If you find 1,000 white swans, then it follows that all swans are probably white (according to you). What do you base that on? As far as I can tell, it's based on blind faith! However, if confirmations really do increase the probability that something is true, then here's simple logic for you.

The theory that Richard Dawkins does not exist is logically equivalent to the theory that every person who exists is not Richard Dawkins. Now I can easily walk out of my house and find thousands of people who exist and aren't Richard Dawkins. Do you agree that every person I meet increases the probability that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist? If not, then why not?

Another fail by you. I am sorry but your weak strawman argument does not count as a win. Show a case of someone on the evolution side using your All Ravens are Black argument. If you can't then you have nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the same population is sampled repeatedly and the same result is always observed then the probability that the result is always true is thereby increased --- but never absolute. Europeans had never observed black swans till they reached Australia. Expanding the population observed changed everything..

The problem is that Zosimus does not even seem to understand how to use his own argument. He spins a good game, but he is rather low on comprehension.

 

[46AND2]

You have two data points that agree. I have bad news for you, bro. For any given data set there are an infinite number of theories that could explain that data set. That's what we call scientific underdetermination. It looks like someone needs to go back to university and take a basic class in the philosophy of science.

Two data points for the 100 million yrs, yes. And I agree. There are LOTS of explanations for the consilience of two data points. Once MORE data points were determined, it was clear that the explanation of the first two data points was NOT that it was the correct age of the earth.

Wow! You can make simplistic and irrelevant comparisons between marbles and the real world.

All I'm doing at this point is demonstrating how consilience works. Do you disagree that the consilience of the billion samples indicates a high probability that there are no blue marbles?

And how is this relevant? Oh that's right–it isn't. Because in the real world you don't get to pick marbles out of a bag. It's not like you can pick an animal at random out of the history of the world and just happen to pluck a 75-million-year old insect out of the bag. All you can work with are the animals that are alive now. Then you make lots of assumptions, commit a few logical fallacies, and think that the data support your idea. Then you come on a forum such as this one and make a fool out of yourself. Brilliant.

Why so impatient? All I'm trying to do at this point is show you the usefulness of consilient data points.

All of this runs into the problem of the Ravens Paradox. Imagine that two men are on separate islands, and each has a raven. One has a black raven and the other has a white raven. Each man is firmly convinced that all ravens are the color of the raven they have. Each hires a man to bring them birds so they can verify their theory. The man brings them all kinds of birds of varying colors, but no ravens. However, each man reasons as follows:

"Since this green parrot could have been a raven (thus falsifying my theory that all ravens are black [or white]), it counts as confirmation for the theory that all ravens are (insert color here)." So each one is more and more convinced that it's more and more probable that ravens are black (or white). But why does finding a green parrot make you think that all ravens are black?

What does this have to do with red and black marbles in a bag?

Again, no relation to the real world.

Does the consilience of the billion data points with the marbles give us useful information? Yes or no? Are you willing to admit that consilence, as a method of garnering information, has definitely not been refuted?

Show the math. Work the numbers. I'd like to see them. Or is that the "extremely likely" of "I have a gut feeling about something?"


Take your time.

Why is it that evolution deniers always demand instant answers? I am taking my time. Why would I give you the numbers before you agree that consilience is useful? You'd just submit, incorrectly, that consilience has been refuted. I'm showing you that it has not.

 

[46AND2]

Sure. Modern scholars believe that the 66 books of the Bible were written by at least 39 authors over a period of 1,500 years. Each author describes God from differing viewpoints yet the over all results are amazingly consistent. The variety of views all reaching the same conclusions provides an overall legitimacy to the idea that God exists and Jesus is His only Son.

Similarly, the synoptic books tell stories of Jesus ministry that are sometimes the same and other times covering different aspects of the stories. This leads us to the conclusion that the stories are about actual historical events. Each of the stories may individually have been fiction, but the addition of each variation adds legitimacy to the historical accounts.

Almost. It is important to understand what information can be taken from the consilient data. There is no corroborating data, observed in real life, of the supernatural events in the Bible. However, the more historical data confirmed through current archaeological findings, the more likely that the Bible is historically accurate.

The book "Neverwhere" by Neil Gaiman has a lot of accurate descriptions of London. Does that mean that the fantasy aspect of the book is accurate as well?

 

[46AND2]

[1] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
[2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
[3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
[4] And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
[5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
[6] And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
[7] And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
[8] And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
[9] And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Genealogies do fall into a nested heirarchy, yes. More on this in a bit.

 

[SkyWriting]

Almost. It is important to understand what information can be taken from the consilient data. There is no corroborating data, observed in real life, of the supernatural events in the Bible.

Mostly, yes.
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

[46AND2]

A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well-defined super set which consists of and contains the lower levels. A good example would be the US army, which is broken up into field armies, which are further broken up into Corps, which consist of divisions, which consist of brigades, which consist of batallions, which consist of companies, which consist of platoons...

Correct. And the Army units is the example I am going to use shortly.

Perhaps a better question would be this: Why do you think that data are important? The answer to this will necessarily be that you are an empiricist. You believe that sense data are the key to understanding the world around us. How can you justify this claim?

What does this have to do with my worldview? I was asked to show the DATA of evolution. That's where this is heading.

 

[Zosimus]

Don't you think "infinite theories" is a bit of an overstatement?

No, it's not an overstatement. The problem of contrastive underdetermination points out that there are an infinite number of theories that can fit any dataset.

Don't take my word for it. Watch the video.

 

[Zosimus]

If the same population is sampled repeatedly and the same result is always observed then the probability that the result is always true is thereby increased --- but never absolute. Europeans had never observed black swans till they reached Australia. Expanding the population observed changed everything..

Incorrect. The probability may be rationally updated, but that updating process will depend entirely on the prior probabilities. It is entirely possible that confirmations may result in a theory being less true.

 

[Zosimus]

Another fail by you. I am sorry but your weak strawman argument does not count as a win. Show a case of someone on the evolution side using your All Ravens are Black argument. If you can't then you have nothing.

From Stanford University

The predicament Duhem here identifies is no rainy day puzzle for philosophers of science, but a methodological challenge that constantly arises in the course of scientific practice itself. It is simply not true that for practical purposes and in concrete contexts a single revision of our beliefs in response to disconfirming evidence is always obviously correct, or the most promising, or the only or even most sensible avenue to pursue. To cite a classic example, when Newton's celestial mechanics failed to correctly predict the orbit of Uranus, scientists at the time did not simply abandon the theory but protected it from refutation by instead challenging the background assumption that the solar system contained only seven planets. This strategy bore fruit, notwithstanding the falsity of Newton's theory: by calculating the location of a hypothetical eighth planet influencing the orbit of Uranus, the astronomers Adams and Leverrier were eventually led to discover Neptune in 1846. But the very same strategy failed when used to try to explain the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit by postulating the existence of “Vulcan”, an additional planet located between Mercury and the sun, and this phenomenon would resist satisfactory explanation until the arrival of Einstein's theory of general relativity. So it seems that Duhem was right to suggest not only that hypotheses must be tested as a group or a collection, but also that it is by no means a foregone conclusion which member of such a collection should be abandoned or revised in response to a failed empirical test or false implication. Indeed, this very example illustrates why Duhem's own rather hopeful appeal to the ‘good sense’ of scientists themselves in deciding when a given hypothesis ought to be abandoned promises very little if any relief from the general predicament of holist underdetermination.