Science vs. Evolution

[Wiccan_Child]

Catarrhine common ancestor was more like 25-35 million years ago. 100 million years ago we probably had the common ancestors of the Laurasiathere, Afrothere and Euarchontoglire groups.
Euarchontoglires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Euarchontogliers is our clade so I'm linking to it.)

Ah, super I wasn't too far off then, kinda maybe sorta if you squint a bit

 

[Cassiterides]

You need observational evidence to call something science. Check the definition of the scientific method in my original post if you are not sure with what qualifies as scientific.

As some of your posts prove evolution can not be observed. Apes have not been observed to evolve into man. Also your belief in 'common descent' is not scientific, you can not go back in time to observe you share ancestry with an ape, dog, rock (or whatever).

Let's atleast try and find some common ground, science is what is observable. The belief we evolved from apes is not observable. If you want to believe you evolved from something that's your personal belief, but scientifically speaking you have no evidence for it since it's not based on observation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You need observational evidence to call something science. Check the definition of the scientific method in my original post if you are not sure with what qualifies as scientific.

''The collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''.

A criterion evolution satisfies.

As some of your posts prove evolution can not be observed. Apes have not been observed to evolve into man. Also your belief in 'common descent' is not scientific, you can not go back in time to observe you share ancestry with an ape, dog, rock (or whatever).

And as previous posts point out, this doesn't preclude something from being scientific. A detective didn't have to witness the crime occur to deduce what happened. That an event occurred in the past doesn't preclude it from being observed (in the scientific sense of the word), experimented upon, nor from hypotheses being formulated and tested.

In other words, past events are indeed the purview of science.

Let's atleast try and find some common ground, science is what is observable.

No. Science is the acquisition of knowledge by the experimentation and falsification of hypotheses. Observation is one tool of science, but it is by no means the only one.
At the end of the day, all that matters is the veracity of the claim. Does the evidence support the claim? Is it likely to be true?
The claim, in this case, is that all life is descended from a single common ancestor, and that biodiversity arises from evolution by natural selection.

The belief we evolved from apes is not observable.

In a literal sense, no. But science doesn't use 'observation' to mean 'see with your eyeballs' per se. When scientists piece together the fossil record documenting the evolution of a particular species, that constitutes an observation. Obviously the scientists didn't see the species evolve directly, but they can nonetheless look upon the fossils.

If you want to believe you evolved from something that's your personal belief, but scientifically speaking you have no evidence for it since it's not based on observation.

Non sequitur. Scientifically speaking, there is evidence. We don't need to have been there to know what happened. Deductive logic is one of the most powerful tools of the rational human mind; to arbitrarily redefine science so that it cannot use deductive reasoning to support its claims is ludicrous.

At the end of the day, the facts support the claim. You can redefine 'observation' and 'science' till the cows come home, but the facts remain the same. The claim remains the same.

 

[Cassiterides]

A detective didn't have to witness the crime occur to deduce what happened.

He won't be sure 100% of the facts though, since he wasn't there to directly observe. Therefore what you are admitting is that evolutionists don't know all the facts, and are guessing.

The claim, in this case, is that all life is descended from a single common ancestor, and that biodiversity arises from evolution by natural selection.

This claim falls outside of the scientifc method though, since it can not be observed or experimented.

How do you observe or experiment ''common descent''?

You are confusing science with a belief.

In a literal sense, no. But science doesn't use 'observation' to mean 'see with your eyeballs' per se. When scientists piece together the fossil record documenting the evolution of a particular species, that constitutes an observation.

And yet there are thousands of fossil experts who don't believe the fossils show evolution. In fact the modern founder of palaeontology was a creationist (Georges Cuvier). Fossils thus can only be interpreted, but what you are doing is this:

I believe in theory x.
Since theory x is not y, the theory y is wrong.

x = evolution. y = creation.

I could use the exact same argument to support my view of y. But the facts remains with the evidence. Since fossils can only be interpreted they are not evidence for anything. Just because you believe fossils show evolution doesn't mean they do, you just interpret them that way Creationists interpret them differently.

Obviously the scientists didn't see the species evolve directly, but they can nonetheless look upon the fossils.

See above.

And thanks for also agreeing evolution is not directly observable. This is how an actual debate can start, with some common ground and honesty. Evolution is not observable.

 

[sfs]

He won't be sure 100% of the facts though,

Of course he won't be 100% sure of the facts. No one can ever be 100% sure of any facts. The uncertainty may be tiny or it may be large, and that is true whether the facts are directly observed or not. Looks are often deceiving.

since he wasn't there to directly observe.

Irrelevant. Scientists aren't 100% sure of the facts even when they do directly observe. In quite a lot of science, scientists have quite substantial uncertainty about processes that are happening right in their labs.

Therefore what you are admitting is that evolutionists don't know all the facts, and are guessing.

Perhaps in your world the only possibilities are 100% certainty and guessing, but in the world of science, we routinely deal with degrees of uncertainty.

How do you observe or experiment ''common descent''?

You don't observe common descent. You observe DNA sequences and the geographic distribution of species and the morphology of species and a bunch of fossil bones, and use them to test the hypothesis of common descent. That's how science works. Physicists don't observe radioactive nuclei decaying; they observe ionizing radiation emitted by the nuclei, and detect changed nuclei, and test the hypothesis that the nuclei decayed in a certain way.

You are confusing science with a belief.

I don't know how to say this politely: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please try to understand -- if you have a definition of science that says that evolution is not science, then your definition is wrong, or more likely, you've misunderstood the definition. Real scientists know perfectly well that evolution is good science; this isn't a subject on which there is any doubt at all.

And yet there are thousands of fossil experts who don't believe the fossils show evolution.

No, there aren't. I know of exactly one PhD in paleontology, Kurt Wise, who doesn't believe that fossils represent evolution -- and even he thinks that the evidence points toward an old earth and evolution, but he refuses to believe it anyway. Or are you counting self-taught dentists and the like in your list of experts?

In fact the modern founder of palaeontology was a creationist (Georges Cuvier).

Of course, Cuvier died well before The Origin of Species was published.

And thanks for also agreeing evolution is not directly observable. This is how an actual debate can start, with some common ground and honesty. Evolution is not observable.

Evolution is not directly observable. Pretty much all of science is based on indirect observation of one sort or another.

By the way, I'd still like to see you support your claim that all radioactive dating methods start with index fossils.

 

[USincognito]

You need observational evidence to call something science. Check the definition of the scientific method in my original post if you are not sure with what qualifies as scientific.

And observing the analysis of DNA in different organisms, the location of fossils in different strata, the physiological similarity of certain organisms, etc. is not observation?

You don't have to watch the egg hatch to know where the chicken came from.

As some of your posts prove evolution can not be observed. Apes have not been observed to evolve into man. Also your belief in 'common descent' is not scientific, you can not go back in time to observe you share ancestry with an ape, dog, rock (or whatever).

No. You're buying the Creationist canard that you need a time machine to understand things that happened in the past. That's balderdash. When we see the Sun we don't observe it as it is at that moment. We're observing it 8 minutes ago (time dependent on location of observer). The same applies to evolution. We don't observe it here and now. We observe it in the past.

Let's atleast try and find some common ground, science is what is observable. The belief we evolved from apes is not observable. If you want to believe you evolved from something that's your personal belief, but scientifically speaking you have no evidence for it since it's not based on observation.

Since you don't understand the basics of scientific observation, much less how science works, I think common ground will be harder to find that you are hopping for.

 

[USincognito]

He won't be sure 100% of the facts though, since he wasn't there to directly observe. Therefore what you are admitting is that evolutionists don't know all the facts, and are guessing.

Really? A murder accusation after finding a bloody knife that belonged to the suspect with his fingerprints on it and his DNA in skin cells under the victims fingernails is guessing?

I really wish Creationists would realize that words mean things and they can't define them as they see fit.

 

[USincognito]

Fossils thus can only be interpreted...

Really? Could you explain how this would work with a few fossils? Let's say a Homo erectus, a Basilasaurus and a Tiktaalik. Explain to us how they are "interpreted".

 

[The4thrider]

I shall quote Holy Scripture

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

​

 

[Split Rock]

You need observational evidence to call something science. Check the definition of the scientific method in my original post if you are not sure with what qualifies as scientific.

I am a scientist. Please do not attempt to lecture me on what science is... especially when you don't know what you are talking about. All evidence is "observational.' Therefore, your qualifier is redundant.

As some of your posts prove evolution can not be observed. Apes have not been observed to evolve into man. Also your belief in 'common descent' is not scientific, you can not go back in time to observe you share ancestry with an ape, dog, rock (or whatever).

Do you read what others post? Common decent is infered from all the physical evidence. It is not a "belief."

Let's atleast try and find some common ground, science is what is observable. The belief we evolved from apes is not observable. If you want to believe you evolved from something that's your personal belief, but scientifically speaking you have no evidence for it since it's not based on observation.

The theory of evolution makes testable predictions, and has yet to be falsified. Once again, I will ask you not to tell me what science is... it is clearly not a subject you understand.

 

[tanzanos]

You need observational evidence to call something science. Check the definition of the scientific method in my original post if you are not sure with what qualifies as scientific.

I seriously doubt if you know what science is and therefore you must lack the foundations to be able to define anything scientific such as observational evidence.

As some of your posts prove evolution can not be observed. Apes have not been observed to evolve into man. Also your belief in 'common descent' is not scientific, you can not go back in time to observe you share ancestry with an ape, dog, rock (or whatever).

Let's atleast try and find some common ground, science is what is observable. The belief we evolved from apes is not observable. If you want to believe you evolved from something that's your personal belief, but scientifically speaking you have no evidence for it since it's not based on observation.

Again you lack the knowledge to be able to judge scientific methods.

Click on the link below and all your queries shall be answered:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

 

[Split Rock]

Since fossils can only be interpreted they are not evidence for anything. Just because you believe fossils show evolution doesn't mean they do, you just interpret them that way Creationists interpret them differently.

So, fossils are not evidence for anything? Does that mean that there is no evidence for anything.. only "interpretations" that are all equal? Are fossils not evidence of extinct organisms that lived in the past? Is it not evidence that we find that humans are only found in the most recent geological strata? Is it not evidence that the earliest fossils are all microorganisms? Are therapsid fossils with both reptile and mammalian jaw joints not evidence of a transition between the two groups? Are not fossil whales with hind legs (e.g. Durodon) not evidence of a transition between four legged and two-legged whales?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He won't be sure 100% of the facts though, since he wasn't there to directly observe. Therefore what you are admitting is that evolutionists don't know all the facts, and are guessing.

Indeed, as is the case for all science. Nonetheless, he can acquire 99.99999% of the facts, and, from them, be 99.9999999% confident that his hypotheses as to what happened in the past is true.
No one says they have all the facts. Facts are coming in all the time. That's why science is so powerful: it can change. If a new fact contradicts an established theory, then that theory is thrown out the window. Scientists perform experiments with the sole intention of disproving their theory.

This claim falls outside of the scientifc method though, since it can not be observed or experimented.

How do you observe or experiment ''common descent''?

You observe the various mechanisms and phenomena that the theory predicts occur: the theory predicts various natural selection and kin selection, a variety of types of speciation (allopatric, peripatric, etc), a twin-nested heirarchy (i.e., we can classify organisms top-down by anatomy, and bottom-up by genetics, and these taxonomic classifications would be identical), convergent evolution, island speciation, etc, etc.
All of these things we observe. All of these things are what we expect to see if the theory is true. If we didn't see any of these things, then the theory isn't true.

We can experiment on the theory by tinkering with population dynamics: we can cause a group of fruit flies to speciate into two separate species, precisely as predicted by the theory. We can experiment to observe the evolution of new, specified, complex functions (such as a population of E. coli evolving the ability to ingest citric acid). We can even make predictions that organism X should exist (or should have once exist) - Darwin successfully predicted the existence of a species of moth with an exceptionally long proboscis, because he found a species of plant with an exceptionally specialised body. Lo and behold, he found it. We can also predict various 'transition' forms (a creationist misnomer if ever there was one, but whatever). Lo and behold, we find them. We find them in such abundance that we've actually virtually completed several evolutionary lineages, such as the horse and the whale.

Furthermore, even if we didn't observe these things, even if we didn't perform these myriad of experiments, the sheer evidence that has been built up over the past 150 years is enough to prove the theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

You say that it isn't science. Yet, virtually all scientists today not only believe the theory is true, they believe it is proven to the degree that the chemical theory of atoms is true.
Which is an interesting aside: we cannot directly observe atoms. Do you therefore say that atoms don't exist? Or that atoms aren't sceince?

You are confusing science with a belief.

Science is a method for acquiring knowledge about the world. A belief is any statement affirmed to be true. I believe in the theory of common descent because I consider it to be true.

And yet there are thousands of fossil experts who don't believe the fossils show evolution.

Source?

In fact the modern founder of palaeontology was a creationist (Georges Cuvier).

He died before Darwin published his theory, so that's not really a big surprise, is it.

Fossils thus can only be interpreted, but what you are doing is this:

I believe in theory x.
Since theory x is not y, the theory y is wrong.

x = evolution. y = creation.

Where did I say anything like that? I haven't even mentioned Creationism once.

I could use the exact same argument to support my view of y. But the facts remains with the evidence. Since fossils can only be interpreted they are not evidence for anything. Just because you believe fossils show evolution doesn't mean they do, you just interpret them that way Creationists interpret them differently.

I disagree. Creationist must resort to this 'interpretation' argument because it a) puts theory religious dogma on par with a well-established scientific theory, and b) let's them hand-wave away any evidence that would otherwise support evolution or refute Creationism. It's a sad ploy from someone cornered.

At the end of the day, the facts are the facts. You can't twist them to support Creationism any more than you can twist the facts that support quantum mechanics to refute quantum mechanics.

See above.

And thanks for also agreeing evolution is not directly observable. This is how an actual debate can start, with some common ground and honesty. Evolution is not observable.

If you want to find common ground and honesty, stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said that evolution is not directly observable.
I never said that "I believe in theory x. Since theory x is not y, the theory y is wrong.", nor anything to that effect.

 

[Cassiterides]

As i said my purpose was to find common ground, and then start an honest science debate from there. Some of you have admitted with my position that evolution is not observable.

Your quotes:

Evolution is not directly observable

We don't observe it here and now

Therefore we are in agreement that evolution can not be directly observed, so it is a belief system which falls outside of observation/the scientific method.

You have also agreed 'common descent' is not directly observable, but is just infered from the evidence.

Common decent is infered from all the physical evidence

Definition of infered:

''To reason from circumstance; surmise''

Again this is not observation or science, it is a mere belief. To reason from circumstance or surmise is highly personal, people 'reasoning' with their interpretation of evidence will get different results.

Since you all have agreed evolution is not directly observable, the next step should be to put forward what you believe to be evidence for evolution. Creationists then counter these claims of evidence. This is normally how a creation vs. evolution debate works.

 

[Cassiterides]

If you want to find common ground and honesty, stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said that evolution is not directly observable.
I never said that "I believe in theory x. Since theory x is not y, the theory y is wrong.", nor anything to that effect.

I wrote this:

The belief we evolved from apes is not observable.

And you responded (no point in denying it, go back and read what you wrote only one or two pages back):

In a literal sense, no.

Therefore you admit evolution is not observable. Since then we agree it is not observable and scientific, we can treat it as a unproven theory. What you are doing though is entering these debates on this forum thinking evolution is already a proven fact but as i have just demonstrated it isn't, since it isn't observable (which even you agree).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wrote this:

"The belief we evolved from apes is not observable."

And you responded (no point in denying it, go back and read what you wrote only one or two pages back):

"In a literal sense, no."

Therefore you admit evolution is not observable.

Non sequitur. Agreeing that the evolution of man from apes is not observable, is not the same as agreeing that evolution itself is not observable.
I cannot observe the murder of Lennon, but that doesn't mean every single murder is fundamentally unobservable. Obviously I could walk outside my house and witness a murder.
Just because we didn't directly observe a specific instance of evolution doesn't mean we can't observe any instance of evolution.

My answer was specifically that the evolution of man from ape is not observable. I never said anything about evolution, in general, being not observable.

I don't know how to make this point more clear.

Since then we agree it is not observable and scientific,

We do not. The specific evolution of a specific species that happened in the past is, obviously, not directly observable with our eyeballs. But that doesn't mean evolution is not observable.

we can treat it as a unproven theory.

All theories are scientific, and all theories are unproven. So, yes, I agree that evolution is an unproven theory. But, then, so too is the chemical theory of atoms. So too is quantum mechanics. So too is every single theory in science. Your objection that it is unproven is moot.

What you are doing though is entering these debates on this forum thinking evolution is already a proven fact but as i have just demonstrated it isn't, since it isn't observable (which even you agree).

First, 'evolution' means two things: it refers to a directly observed, biological fact, and it can also refer to the theory that explains that fact (otherwise known as the theory of common descent). The fact of evolution is indeed proven - we can see it, directly, with our own eyes. The theory of evolution, while unprovable like every other theory in science, is nonetheless proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Second, you haven't demonstrated that it isn't a fact, you've just put words into my mouth - I said the evolution of man isn't directly observable because we weren't there.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That doesn't mean we cannot acquire evidence to show that it did happened.
That doesn't mean we cannot observe the evolution of other species.
And that certainly doesn't mean it's not science.

Forensics is the science of working out what happened in the past, typically with crimes. Just because the crime happened in the past doesn't mean it's outside the purview of science - we don't need to have been there to be able to work out what happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

... we don't need to have been there to be able to work out what happened.

That's a nice speech, but in fact, you're basically saying it's evolution or it's nothing.

Why don't you apply this rhetoric to such things as punctuated equilibrium (hyperevolution) and panspermia?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's a nice speech, but in fact, you're basically saying it's evolution or it's nothing.

How so? I'm arguing that historical events, including evolutionary history, is not outside the purview of science. How does that equate to me saying "it's evolution or it's nothing"?

Why don't you apply this rhetoric to such things as punctuated equilibrium (hyperevolution) and panspermia?

Who says I don't?

 

[sfs]

As i said my purpose was to find common ground, and then start an honest science debate from there. Some of you have admitted with my position that evolution is not observable.

Therefore we are in agreement that evolution can not be directly observed, so it is a belief system which falls outside of observation/the scientific method.

No. Absolutely wrong. We agree that evolution that happened in the past cannot be directly observed. As several people have told you, that does not mean that evolution is a belief system that falls outside the scientific method. That's not something we agree on; it reflects instead your misunderstanding of what science is.

You have also agreed 'common descent' is not directly observable, but is just infered from the evidence.

No "just" about it. Science is all about inference. We infer that the earth has a metallic core, we infer that electrons exist, we infer that the sun is mostly made of hydrogen. Inference is the main way we learn about the world. Common descent is one of the many things we have learned that way.

Definition of infered:

''To reason from circumstance; surmise''

Scratch the second part, since that's not relevant to the scientific meaning of "infer". Reasoning from "circumstance" means reasoning from the available evidence.

Again this is not observation or science, it is a mere belief.

Again, your statement is simply wrong. Inference is central to all of science. Why do you insist on telling scientists what their job consists of? There is a very large literature on the role of inference; a good place to start is Harold Jeffreys' classic work on the subject, e.g. his 1931 book Scientific Inference.

To reason from circumstance or surmise is highly personal, people 'reasoning' with their interpretation of evidence will get different results.

Reasoning from evidence is what scientists do. And no, it's not highly personal; it's a collective enterprise. You assess the evidence and draw what conclusions you can from it; then you publish your evidence and your reasoning, and other scientists attack it. If the evidence is good and the reasoning is sound, then the community comes to a consensus around that conclusion. That's what has happened with evolution. If your reasoning is flawed, then other scientists reject it and you are embarrassed. If multiple possible explanations for the data are all viable, then it remains an open scientific question.

Since you all have agreed evolution is not directly observable, the next step should be to put forward what you believe to be evidence for evolution.

We have -- starting with Darwin, in the Origin of Species, and continuing through 150 years of scientific output.

Creationists then counter these claims of evidence. This is normally how a creation vs. evolution debate works.

Not the ones I've seen (and I've seen a lot). Scientists present evidence for evolution, and creationists respond by changing the subject, or by disappearing, or by making vague suggestions that something is going on that we don't understand.

Where are the creationist explanations for things like shared ERV insertions? And why should creationists only be countering scientific claims of evidence? Where is the evidence for creationism?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's a nice speech, but in fact, you're basically saying it's evolution or it's nothing.

But in fact, you're talking out of your hat.

Why don't you apply this rhetoric to such things as punctuated equilibrium (hyperevolution) and panspermia?

Both theories are still on the table -- what are you complaining about?