Revealing the data behind the science of evolution

[SkyWriting]

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.

Thanks. That's what I've been trying to tell people as well.

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent
or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot
reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one
plausible explanation for that evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Consilience is the refuted idea that when differing disciplines happen upon the same answer that the result is somehow quite strong.

You illustrated support for the idea.

 

[The Cadet]

You have played right into my hands.

You see, you have made a rational argument that empiricism is necessary. In short, you think that logic tells us that empiricism is superior to logic.

Um... No? Logic plus empiricism tells us that logic plus empiricism is superior to pure logic. Pure logic only ever gets you as far as "I think therefore I am". Any sensible form of empiricism has logic baked in - you cannot draw conclusions from evidence without logic - but pure rationalism does not necessarily have empiricism built in, and you explicitly seem to be rejecting sensory data.

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.

Boy, I guess we sure are lucky that science demonstrably works, huh? Because if it didn't, this video might actually have a useful or valid point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were are not to refer to evolution.

I know there was a typo in my post where I left out a word, but the meaning was obvious from context. What the heck is this supposed to mean?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm agnostic.

If the matter is critical to you, can you afford to be agnostic?

 

[Zosimus]

For the time being, can we please just stick with the topics as they come up? For example you have said that my marbles scenario APPEARS to work because of sample size. Can you please elaborate on why you use the term "appears" rather than stating that what I have described so far works?

First of all, if you have 200 marbles in a bag and you want to know exactly what is in the bag, taking a billion samples is a poor idea. You should simply sample each marble one at a time. Assuming that this is impossible, you should simply mark each marble as you pull it out so that when you pull it out again, you don't think you are getting new data when you are not.

Additionally, you have not said how you know (or think you know) that there are 200 marbles in the bag. Nor have you shown your math.

The Probability that there is a blue marble in the bag depends heavily on the a priori probability that one of the marbles is blue. How are you calculating that probability?

 

[Zosimus]

If the matter is critical to you, can you afford to be agnostic?

I don't see what this has to do with evolution, but let's imagine that it's not impossible that Jesus is the Christ.

"Oh Jesus, I think it's not completely impossible that you're there, so I invite you into my heart so that I can be saved forever in the mansion in your Father's house."

Am I saved now? Great. Now let's get back to rationalism vs. Darwinism.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see what this has to do with evolution, but let's imagine that it's not impossible that Jesus is the Christ.

"Oh Jesus, I think it's not completely impossible that you're there, so I invite you into my heart so that I can be saved forever in the mansion in your Father's house."

Am I saved now? Great. Now let's get back to rationalism vs. Darwinism.

The reason that this decision is critical because it has consequences. Are you ready to consider retionalism and Darwinsium based on Biblical point of view. If you are not ready, then what you just said won't actually count. God is not in your heart yet.

In religion, any religion, there is no place for the sense of statistics.

 

[Zosimus]

The reason that this decision is critical because it has consequences. Are you ready to consider retionalism and Darwinsium based on Biblical point of view. If you are not ready, then what you just said won't actually count. God is not in your heart yet.

In religion, any religion, there is no place for the sense of statistics.

I think I'm being witnessed to. It's been awhile.

I have no problem with that, but this isn't the right place for it. Go to http://www.christianforums.com/threads/decision-theory.7925358/ where you can witness to me to your heart's content.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Your ready made excuse to ignore any and all evidence.

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?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/incongruent.html

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

There's the math. Let me guess? You don't care, right? You could care less about p values or the actual math, actual evidence, or even reality in general. You will continue to deny the evidence.

Just to stress this again, the p value for this study alone is:

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure. Data can reduce you from an infinite number of theories to an infinite number of theories. Some infinities are larger than others. What's your point?

What other theories? Can you find a single peer reviewed paper that proposes an alternate theory which predicts the same consilience between morphological and sequence data? What other theory predicts a nested hierarchy?

 

[The Cadet]

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.

And yet science works. And that's where your argument comes unstuck every single time. Your position essentially relies on using heady philosophical arguments to make a case for why something that demonstrably and constantly works doesn't work. You might as well form an impressive philosophical argument demonstrating that it's impossible for planes to fly - that's all well and good, but do you know what it takes for all that to come crumbling down? For me to point to a plane in midair.

Science works, ergo your argument doesn't. You might want to find a new argument.

 

[Zosimus]

Your ready made excuse to ignore any and all evidence.



View attachment 168238
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/incongruent.html

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

There's the math. Let me guess? You don't care, right? You could care less about p values or the actual math, actual evidence, or even reality in general. You will continue to deny the evidence.

Just to stress this again, the p value for this study alone is:

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001

Well, congratulations! You have succeeded in killing the straw man. I'm really proud of you... well, sort of. You see, you didn't do any math at all. You just took someone else's math, and you didn't actually even understand it.

Let's look at your link, shall we? Here is the crucial point.

"Thus, the probability of finding two similar trees...

-----> by chance <-----

...via two independent methods is extremely small in most cases."

---------------------
Well, congratulations. You have succeeded in proving that it didn't happen by chance.

But can you prove that it didn't happen by creationism or by intelligent design? (Or is there even a difference?)

Or do you really think that disproving chance affects the creationist argument in the least bit?

 

[Zosimus]

And yet science works. And that's where your argument comes unstuck every single time. Your position essentially relies on using heady philosophical arguments to make a case for why something that demonstrably and constantly works doesn't work. You might as well form an impressive philosophical argument demonstrating that it's impossible for planes to fly - that's all well and good, but do you know what it takes for all that to come crumbling down? For me to point to a plane in midair.

Science works, ergo your argument doesn't. You might want to find a new argument.

Well, you can say that science works till you're blue in the face. It doesn't make it true.

Most Published Research Findings Are False. Therefore, science doesn't work nearly as well as you pretend that it does.

What you want to say is that since technology is growing quickly, science works. Yet the technological boom started during World War 2. Were there scientists before World War 2? Of course. So what makes you think that science or scientists were responsible for that?

 

[Loudmouth]

But can you prove that it didn't happen by creationism or by intelligent design? (Or is there even a difference?)

Can you show that either creationism or intelligent design would predict a nested hierarchy?

I don't have to disprove unfalsifiable hypotheses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, you can say that science works till you're blue in the face. It doesn't make it true.

Most Published Research Findings Are False. Therefore, science doesn't work nearly as well as you pretend that it does.

What you want to say is that since technology is growing quickly, science works. Yet the technological boom started during World War 2. Were there scientists before World War 2? Of course. So what makes you think that science or scientists were responsible for that?

Zosimus: I don't accept evolution because it is unfalsifiable.

Loudmouth: Here are 29 potential falsifications for the theory of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Z: That doesn't count.

Z: I won't even consider a theory until it can show a statistical significance of at least 0.00001.

L: This evolutionary study showed a statistic significance of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Z: That doesn't count.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[Zosimus]

Can you show that either creationism or intelligent design would predict a nested hierarchy?

I don't have to disprove unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Nor do I. That's why I don't dispute natural selection. It's not a scientific theory. I simply remain agnostic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nor do I. That's why I don't dispute natural selection. It's not a scientific theory. I simply remain agnostic.

The theory of evolution does predict a nested hierarchy, and the data supports this prediction with a p value of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Are you still ignoring the very math you requested?

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus: I don't accept evolution because it is unfalsifiable.

Loudmouth: Here are 29 potential falsifications for the theory of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Z: That doesn't count.

Z: I won't even consider a theory until it can show a statistical significance of at least 0.00001.

L: This evolutionary study showed a statistic significance of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Z: That doesn't count.

Does that about sum it up?

I think you have it all wrong.

The conversations go more like this:

Zosimus: Darwinism suffers from the tacking paradox. Natural selection, one component of Darwinism, is not testable. Merely tacking this untestable part onto other parts that are testable does not make Darwinism testable.

Loudmouth: You can't dispute science without using science to do so, so science wins!

Z: If science disproves science, then why do you believe in science?

L: You refuse to listen to evidence!

Z: Where does the evidence come from?

L: From scientific studies.

Z: Are the studies randomized? You do realize that 80 percent of non-randomized studies are wrong, don't you?

L: You refuse to accept data! You are a heathen! You will burn in hell forever!

Z: You sound a lot like the Christians. Are you sure this isn't a faith-based endeavor?

L: You lie! All truth is in talkorigins.org! Repent and accept evolution!

Z: Well, talkorigins.org says that evolution is merely a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation. I don't have a problem with that. I just dispute Darwinism.

L: You lie! You cannot quote from the holy site! It's blasphemy! Stone him!!

 

[The Cadet]

Well, you can say that science works till you're blue in the face. It doesn't make it true.

Well, given that you're speaking to someone on the other side of the planet via the same machine you can use for research, work, entertainment, recreation, nourishment, and mindless self-indulgence, I'm more than at a loss what you could be talking about.

Science works. This epistemology has shaped every single aspect of our modern world, largely for the better, to the point where to claim otherwise is simply absurd.

Most Published Research Findings Are False. Therefore, science doesn't work nearly as well as you pretend that it does.

And yet:

Huh. Weird. It's almost as though the fact that we can spot a whole lot of errors and problems in research doesn't invalidate the strength of the research which does hold up, and in fact allows us to self-correct.

Of course, as is the case 9 times out of 10 this study is brought up, you don't seem to understand it.

Alex Tabbarok wrote this superb summary of Ioannidis’ research and put it into a much more meaningful context. He points out that statistics alone would cause many positive research results to be false positives. This results from the fact that most new hypotheses are going to be wrong combined with the fact that 5% of studies are going to be positive (reject the null hypothesis) by chance alone (assuming a typical p-value of 0.05 as the cutoff for statistical significance).If 80% of new hypotheses are wrong, then 25% of published studies should be false positives – even if the research itself is perfect.

Oh, by the way - this failing research? It's substantially increased cancer survival rates and survival durations for almost every cancer in the last 40 years.

But ultimately, I think that explaining the paper is a bit besides the point. I could take your interpretation of it at face value, and it still would be a very weak argument. After all, if this is how badly science is working now, and it still managed to build essentially every part of the world around us, what would happen if we got our act together? No, I'm sorry, the claim that some theoretical research does not pan out does nothing to diminish the fact that the scientific method works, works better than anything else anyone has proposed, and that as a result, your argument completely fails.

EDIT: misunderstood what you mean by falsification of natural selection. My bad. That said, if you want a criteria of falsification for natural selection: how about species evolving away from traits that would help them survive in their environment for multiple generations (for example, bacteria becoming less resistant to antibiotics in their immediate environment)? Get this happening to a significant degree, and it would be a fairly clear falsification of natural selection.

...Of course, that doesn't happen, because mutations that negatively affect survival tend to get weeded out of the population very quickly, but the fact that a theory is not false does not mean it is not unfalsifiable.