What is evidence?

[Micaiah]

I walk into a bank and see man A shoot man B.

I walk into a bank, and see man A holding a smoking gun, while man B is dead on the floor.

I am a detective who goes to the house of man A, and find a gun. Ballistics test indicate that the weapon is the same one that shot man B three days ago.


Here are three different scenarios. Each has evidence that could convict a criminal. Some evidence is stronger than others.

The first is indisputable evidence to the witness that man A shot man B. The second seems conclusive, though it is not as certain as the first. It could have been that the man holding the gun wrestled it from the murderer. The third is largely based on inference, and is the least certain of them all. There could be many reasons why the man who owns the house was not the murderer. The gun could have been planted. Itcould have recently been purchased etc.

The further you get from the crime scene, the less certain the evidence. The same difference in the strength of evidence exists in science today.

 

[notto]

Science (especially well developed theories) often (almost always) has multiple independent lines of evidence on which to draw. Corroborating evidence is also used in court.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

from: http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind

* 1) Hybridizational Criterion
* 2) Discontinuity Systematics
* 3) The Kind Boundaries
...
The hybridizational criteria can be commonly stated as:
As long as two organisms can successfully hybridize with true fertilization, the two organisms are descended from the same original kind (Marsh, 1976).

this is nothing more than the early 20thC definition of a species.
something that over the last 100 years has been seen to be impossible to justify.

see:

Darwinism Evolving Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection
David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber

for the best discussion of the changing species definition that i am aware of, what they have been, why they don't work and the philosophy underneath the efforts.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Micaiah - the evidence for evolution is more along the lines of:

a detective suspects man A shot man B. He examines man A and finds recent flash burns on his right hand. He finds a gun with only man A's fingerprints on it. He finds man B's mobile phone and finds from the text messages thereon that man B was a rival drug baron to man A's mafia group, and had been threatened with death if he did not move off their turf, some of the messages coming from man A's mobile phone.

He then examines man A's computer, and after sending it to the lab for decription, finds instructions from man A's mafia boss to shoot man B.

He then finds papers detailing the plan, which tally with exactly how man B died.

Man A also freely confesses to the murder.

That's a bit closer.

(disclaimer - I have no idea how the mafia actually organises its activities)

 

[Micaiah]

KLB,

You seem to know too much about how the mafia works.

In the absence of witnesses, the more evidence you have leading to the same conclusion, the greater the probability that the conclusions are right. But, history has proven that in the absence of eye witnesses, the second and third types of evidence can lead to wrong convictions. Pressures from politicians and heads of police can cloud the waters.

 

[Micaiah]

I believe these examples show some of the important features of evidence. I propose the following definition of evidence:

The observed facts that are used to prove a case.

In the example above, there were 3 types of evidence. The strength of the evidence varied in each case dependent largely on how close in time and proximity the person was to the event. It would also depend on the ability of the observer. If man A was blind, nobody would take much notice of him. In a court of law, given that a person has normal eyesight, hearing etc. a more important consideration than ability is the bias or lack of bias of a witness. Witnesses are excluded from a jury if it is known there are influences that will cloud their judgement.

 

[Micaiah]

Though the above comments relate to general evidence that is used in court, the same principles are used in scientific enquiry.


Much of what we know about science is readily established by repeatable experiments. Experiments on the temperature at which water boils, the speed of a body dropping from a height, and biological experiments are used to establish scientific laws and theories. Observation of those experiments can be witnessed today. In that sense, it is like the type 1 evidence discussed above.

We like to give explanations of how and why things happen. If you have a good explanation, then you can generalise and predict what will happen in a slightly different situation. Those explanations can be called theories. If the theory accurately predicts what happens in other situations, then it is on the right track.

I support a steel beam at either end, put a load in the middle, and measure how much it deflects. I increase the load and again measure the deflection. If I do enough tests, I can establish the variation of load to deflection is linear. If I do only three tests, and one was wrong, I may conclude the relationship is non linear. If I made that assumption and predicted the deflection between the known points, it would be wrong. If I did lots of tests, found the relationship was linear and predicted what would happen with a massive load, I'd also be wrong. The linear relationship only holds up to a certain load. Beyond that load, the relationship changes as the beam starts to bend permanently.

In the beam example, I got faulty results with my theories when I had inadequate measurements (observations) and when I went too far outside the known conditions. Predicting what will happen outside observed evidence is called extrapolation. Predicting what will happen between points of observed data is called interpolation. If the frequency of points of observed data is not adequate, interpolations can be wrong. Extrapolating too far beyond observed data can also lead to wrong conclusions.

Today’s evolutionist takes a very small snap shot in time. Darwin's theory of evolution was an attempt to explain how animals evolved from 'slime to scientist'. He recognised there was little evidence at the time to support his case. His theory was essentially speculation based on type 2 and 3 evidence. He never witnessed the kind of changes that were required to go from 'slime to scientist', and he extrapolated what he observed over a few years and assumed it occurred over millions of years.

If you could observe the theorised changes to animals over millions of years, you'd have type 1 evidence supporting the theory. If you were around for a lot of that time, and witnessed most of the theorised changes in animals, you'd have type 2 evidence to support you theory. Even though you didn’t see all the animals evolving, you could infer some did based on your observations. Those inferences may or may not be correct. If you were around for part of the time and saw fish change to scientist, you could infer changes from slime to fish, but that would be extrapolating beyond the evidence, and could be wrong. If you saw some of the changes occurring over a few thousand years, then left for a few millions years, and came back for a few thousand years etc, you could interpolate and theorise about how animals evolved during the time you were not present. Again, such interpolation could be wrong.

Today we understand a lot more than Darwin about genetics. He did not know about the DNA. The type of genetic change we see is not the type that can result in 'slime to scientist' evolution. We observe mutations and population variations occurring in an infinitesimally small snapshot of the time assumed for evolution. If you extrapolated over long periods of time based on know evidence, you'd predict a reduction and corruption of genetic information. You'd predict devolution rather than evolution.

The theory of evolution is bad science for many reasons. What we do know about genetic change today indicates completely the opposite to what is theorised. Even if we saw elements of the right kind of genetic change, the theory would be a gross extrapolation beyond the known data, that could easily lead to wrong conclusions.

Throw into the equation the belief of some TE’s that God intervened at certain stages of the evolutionary process. You then have to decide what stages were the result of purely natural processes, and those that resulted from Divine intervention. Unless you witnessed the theorised changes occur at every stage, you could not be sure that God didn’t intervene supernaturally in those stages you did not witness. Actually, the notion of God guiding the evolutionary process is not evolution. It is Intelligent Design. Evolution assumes that changes in populations resulted from natural selection and random changes.

Good science is based on good evidence. Much of the evidence used to substantiate debate by both YEC’s and TE’s is type 2 and type 3 ie. inferred evidence. No one except God actually witnessed what, when and how things occurred, and people on both sides of the debate should avoid being dogmatic about the conclusions derived from such evidence.

I’d like to see more consideration by both sides of the debate to the quality of the evidence we derive our conclusions from. We should recognise the serious limitations that we work under when we strive to provide a theory of things that happened at best about six thousands of years ago. We should also recognise that in many cases, the evidence that is being offered to support a theory may only be correctly ‘interpreted’ by someone well qualified in that particular branch of science. Grossly different interpretations of the same evidence, and the frequency of changes to interpretations over the years of the same evidence should make us very wary of theories that promoted by the ‘expert’ witnesses.

Both YEC’s and TE’s believe in God. Both would recognise that He is the true Expert Witness. He saw the events of Creation as they unfolded. He is the Creator. He has given us a record of the events that a person with even average ability can understand. We should pay careful heed to what God clearly asserts about the Creation. His Word prevents foolish and futile speculation.

 

[notto]

It is interesting that creationists now need to turn to redefining science because all efforts to falsify evolutionary theoy have failed. If evolutionary theory was in such bad shape, you would think that fasification would be a piece of cake. Of course, that would still leave a young earth as a falsified theory. There is too much evidence that cannot be explained if the earth is young. Creationists seem to not understand how falsification works. If evolution is falsified, that does not unfalsify young earth theory, it just means that we need to come up with another explaination for diversity that explains what we find in genetic studies and the fossil record.

Your comments on what we know about genetics are way off. Each find only supports Darwin's general ideas and he predicted much of what we find. The genetic evidence is also supported by independent evidence from the fossil record. The double nested hierarchy is one of the strongest evidences that evolutionary theory is correct and there has not been a piece of falsifying evidence found (why no cows, mammoths, or people with the dinosaur fossils?)

If you can't play the game, change the rules (and rant).

Considering that 99.% of experts in the field of biology and geology interpret the evidence the same way and have spent their lives analysing and reanalyzing the evidence and keep coming to the same conclusions, I think it is safe to say that this analysis is fairly sound. It is only when someone lets their objectivity become clouded by their simplistic interpretation of scripture that they refuse to evaluate the evidence objectively.

When the conversations between creationists still revolve around stating things like mutation can't add information to the DNA or that moon dust shows the earth is young, then it becomes apparent that they have not objectively analyses, or even looked at the evidence that is used to support evolution and mainstream geology. Yet, they rant that the evidence is not valid or that it is not 'good' evidence.

How can they pass judgement on something when they don't even understand it?

Just a question for Micaiah. Do you think that Intelligent Design is bad science as well? Where is the rant against ID scientists why are trying to get their bad science taught in classrooms?

 

[Micaiah]

Judging by the frauds and changes in interpretation from the experts, we could safely say that the fossil record would be type 3 evidence.

 

[notto]

Judging by the frauds and changes in interpretation from the experts, we could safely say that the fossil record would be type 3 evidence.

The experts debunked the frauds, they did not start them. They don't continue to use them.

If we look at the fossil record and genetic evidence, they corroborate each other. If you took the time to understand just how true this is, then you could critique it but few creationists will take the time to understand the evidence. Take this with other evidence, and a comprehensive theory is developed which explains the evidence. Unless another is brought forth that can explain the evidence, it will remain the path science takes.

Interpretation changes because of new evidence. That is the way that science works. Creationists should try that some time if they want to be considered to be participating in science. Take for instance the moon dust argument. It is currently in a new thread in the creationist only forum. The validity of this argument has been shown to be poor for quite a few years now, yet it continues to come up. The same cannot be said about the 'frauds' that scientists have debunked. They do not use evidence or arguments that they know are false. We also keep seeing the argument that mutation cannot add information to the DNA. This has been observed directly (type 1 evidence), yet still creationists continue to deny that it can happen (which is currently in a thread in the open forum).

 

[adam149]

No, the examples of evolution observed in the present are not simply variation. Variation is what we speak of when we say that individuals in a species are not clones of each other, but show varying characteristics.

As long as these varying characteristics are distributed more or less randomly through a species, that is not evolution.

But when one variation or set of variations can be used consistently to distinguish one part of a species from another, as in cats, a Siamese can be distinguished from a short-haired tabby, that is evolution. And it is evolution again when there is a consistent change toward one variant rather than another---like the change of colour distribution in the pepper moth to take advantage of new camouflage needs. (Note that no moth actually changed colour, but one colour became more common in the species. That is called a "change in the frequency of an allele" and is the basic definition of evolution.) And, of course, it is evolution when one part of a species independently acquires as set of variations which lead to lack of mating and/or inability to produce viable or fertile offspring between the parent group and the changed group.

In all of these last three cases, variation = evolution.

All that is necessary to infer that evolution happened in the past is to assume that the past is not so different from today: as species vary today, so they varied in the past; as they developed different breeds today, so they did in the past; as the frequency of alleles changed under environment pressures today, so it did in the past; as speciation occurs today, so it did in the past.

I understand all of this. I am not arguing that variation doesn't take place, or that speciation doesn't take place. What I'm saying is that we have never seen what you just described result in the supervention of the boundaries between kinds of animals. The moth stayed a moth, the frog stays a frog, the cat stays a cat. I'm saying that there are biological limits between these kinds of animals that cannot be crossed. The genetic material is simply not available and the postulated solutions to this don't survive careful scrutiny.

Why should that assumption not be made barring evidence to show that the past did indeed operate by different natural laws?

I'm not saying that it shouldn't, necessarily. I'm saying that there are limits to how far you can take that assumption without it becoming nonsensical.

 

[adam149]

I'm sure you have been hit over the head with the forensic science analogy to this so I wont repeat it.

Yes, I have, and it hits the floor with a very satisfying smack.

What evidence is never interpreted. That is an essence of science as opposed to Creationism where evidence is never interpreted because as we know Creationism brooks no alternatives.

THere is no evidence that is not interpreted. At least creationists have the common courtesy to admit their bias.

 

[notto]

I understand all of this. I am not arguing that variation doesn't take place, or that speciation doesn't take place. What I'm saying is that we have never seen what you just described result in the supervention of the boundaries between kinds of animals. The moth stayed a moth, the frog stays a frog, the cat stays a cat. I'm saying that there are biological limits between these kinds of animals that cannot be crossed. The genetic material is simply not available and the postulated solutions to this don't survive careful scrutiny.


I'm not saying that it shouldn't, necessarily. I'm saying that there are limits to how far you can take that assumption without it becoming nonsensical.

When the genetic evidence of speciation and variation within populations is combined with the biodiversity and patterns we find in the fossil record, evolution is apparent. Life in the past was much different than life today. The changes to this diversity took lots of time. The mechanisms that could do this are mutations plus natural selection. The only conclusion is that evolution happens. Nothing nonsensical about it.

There is no demonstrated limit as you discuss. If there was, evolution would be falsified. It is simply an unsupported assertion that flies in the face of what we see in the history of life on this planet.

 

[adam149]

When the genetic evidence of speciation and variation within populations is combined with the biodiversity and patterns we find in the fossil record, evolution is apparent. Life in the past was much different than life today. The changes to this diversity took lots of time. The mechanisms that could do this are mutations plus natural selection. The only conclusion is that evolution happens. Nothing nonsensical about it.

There is no demonstrated limit as you discuss. If there was, evolution would be falsified. It is simply an unsupported assertion that flies in the face of what we see in the history of life on this planet.

Ok, what evidence do you have that mutation + natural selection can do what you say it can do? Have you any observational data to support the idea that these two things can cross kind boundaries? All you have said so far is an inference.

 

[notto]

Ok, what evidence do you have that mutation + natural selection can do what you say it can do? Have you any observational data to support the idea that these two things can cross kind boundaries? All you have said so far is an inference.

What kind boundary? Can you define a kind?

Speciation happens. That is evolution. By looking at the fossil record, we can infer that this has happened quite a bit. Life in the past was much different than life today. That is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact. Variation plus natural selection (and sexual selection) cause populations to evolve. Genetic mutations provide the variation in popluations. There is nothing nonsensical about it. That was my point. If it was nonsensical, 99.9% of professional biologists and geologists wouldn't accept it.

That is the theory of evolution. It remains the only valid unfalsified theory that explains the evidence in a consistent, predictable way.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is interesting that God could have designed life so that the kinds boundary was scientifically obvious to us. simply by making each kind with a different 3 dna base codon to tRna code.

All biologists would be creationist with a well defined kinds.

He didn't. Everything looks like it evolved. how come?

....