Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[whois]

1993?! do you have any idea how many fossils have been found since then? That article is older than me!

yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.
OTOH, they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.

 

[Papias]

whois wrote:

they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.

Um, would it change your mind if the world's largest professional society of geologists issued a statement saying that the fossils have confirmed Darwin?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[sfs]

correlation does not imply causation, and you know it.

did you know reading skills are correlated to show size?

i can "prove" all kinds of nonsense with "statistical correlations".
and you have the gall to tell me i'm wrong for distrusting it????????????
no scientist on the planet would ever tell me such a thing.

my original assertion stands:
you are either no scientist, or you aren't being honest.

Have you ever studied statistics? There are two quite different reasons why correlation does not imply causation. The first is that the correlation may be spurious, i.e. just a fluke. Statistical analysis, which you distrust, gives you tools to tell how likely it is that your correlation is spurious. Statistical analysis does not consist of pointing to a correlation and saying, "Hey, this causes that." Instead, statistical analysis is precisely what the skeptic should be employing, to test whether a correlation is genuine or not.

The second reason is that correlation does not tell you what is cause and what is effect. If you have a robust, repeatable correlation (and have eliminated artifacts, and have accounted for multiple testing), then the correlation does indeed imply that there is some kind of causal relationship operating. Why else would two things be consistently correlated? What it can't tell you is whether A is caused by B, B caused by A, or whether both are caused by C, D and E. But it does tell you that something is going on that requires a causal explanation.

There is no magic path in science for going from correlation to a causal relationship, but there are plenty of approaches available. Multiple independent correlations, all predicted by a single causal model, provide evidence supporting the accuracy of the model. Controlled experiments let you manipulate and distinguish possible causal factors. Discovery of a mechanism that you can test independently is solid evidence for causation.

This is what we do as scientists. We don't just see a correlation and conclude that we know what's going on(*), but we also don't ignore correlations because they're not definitive by themselves. We try to understand them and explain them.

As an example, here is a paper based entirely on a correlation (an autocorrelation, actually); I'm using it because I was one of the principle authors. In it, we identify the correlation, study its characteristics and consider multiple possible causal explanations for it. The one we conclude is probably true -- that recombination rates vary a lot across the human genome -- makes possible all kinds of predictions that can later be used to test our conclusion. That's how science is done. If you think our paper is not scientific, then you have a seriously distorted notion of what science is. (Either that, or none of us are scientists, in which case Harvard, Oxford, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and the president of the United States are all going to be really embarrassed, because they think we're scientists.)

(*) Well, some of us do. A lot of crappy science gets published.

 

[PsychoSarah]

yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.
OTOH, they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.

We have been mining gold for thousands of years, and yet at least half of all the gold we have ever mined was dug up after the Industrial Revolution. 20+ years for a scientific paper rendures it practically useless for most fields. Here are some of the new species that were dug up after that was published:

Ardipithecus kadabba 1997
Ardipithecus ramidus 1994
Australopithecus anamensis 1995
Australopithecus sediba 2008
Homo floresiensis 2003
Orrorin tugenensis 2001
Sahelanthropus tchadensis 2001

out of the 18 accepted by most scientists according to The Smithsonian Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program , that means more than 1/3 of the species relating to our evolutionary tree that we have discovered were discovered AFTER that paper was published. and this isn't even counting the more recent discoveries that people have to debate about before they will accept, because the differences between some of these can be slight enough that we have a hard time telling if they are a new species or if they are a variant of one we have already found. And this is saying nothing of the numbers or completeness of fossils we now have of the ones we had already previously discovered.

and a nice link to answer a lot of questions, such as how we know what fossils are early humans, etc How Do We Know? | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[whois]

Have you ever studied statistics?

self taught.

There are two quite different reasons why correlation does not imply causation. The first is that the correlation may be spurious, i.e. just a fluke. Statistical analysis, which you distrust, gives you tools to tell how likely it is that your correlation is spurious. Statistical analysis does not consist of pointing to a correlation and saying, "Hey, this causes that." Instead, statistical analysis is precisely what the skeptic should be employing, to test whether a correlation is genuine or not.

yes, but you didn't post this stuff.
you simply posted the results of a statistical analysis and said "there it is".
"surveys" are notorious in this regards.
not only can the questions be "fraudulent", the analysis that is applied to them can also be "fraudulent".
so, you wind up with something that is utterly useless but is presented as absolutely unbiased and legit.

The second reason is that correlation does not tell you what is cause and what is effect. If you have a robust, repeatable correlation (and have eliminated artifacts, and have accounted for multiple testing), then the correlation does indeed imply that there is some kind of causal relationship operating. Why else would two things be consistently correlated? What it can't tell you is whether A is caused by B, B caused by A, or whether both are caused by C, D and E. But it does tell you that something is going on that requires a causal explanation.

this was exactly my point, and you essentially told me i was wrong for feeling that way.

you know, i caught a lot of flak for standing my ground over this even to the point of being told i lost credibility because of it.

There is no magic path in science for going from correlation to a causal relationship, but there are plenty of approaches available. Multiple independent correlations, all predicted by a single causal model, provide evidence supporting the accuracy of the model. Controlled experiments let you manipulate and distinguish possible causal factors. Discovery of a mechanism that you can test independently is solid evidence for causation.

i understand that, but this stuff (raw data) is usually left out when presenting the results.

This is what we do as scientists. We don't just see a correlation and conclude that we know what's going on(*), but we also don't ignore correlations because they're not definitive by themselves. We try to understand them and explain them.

yes, but even most well intentioned analysis is questionable, for the reasons you stated.

As an example, here is a paper based entirely on a correlation (an autocorrelation, actually); I'm using it because I was one of the principle authors. In it, we identify the correlation, study its characteristics and consider multiple possible causal explanations for it. The one we conclude is probably true -- that recombination rates vary a lot across the human genome -- makes possible all kinds of predictions that can later be used to test our conclusion. That's how science is done. If you think our paper is not scientific, then you have a seriously distorted notion of what science is. (Either that, or none of us are scientists, in which case Harvard, Oxford, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and the president of the United States are all going to be really embarrassed, because they think we're scientists.)

well see, the thing here is, the questions you are asking yourselves can be "begging the answer", and i'm not sure how to explain that.
IOW, although the questions seem unbiased, they aren't.
i'm sure you are aware of that.
"surveys" can be made that appear completely unbiased, except they are anything but that.

(*) Well, some of us do. A lot of crappy science gets published.

but yet i get chastised for questioning YOUR science.

i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.
what do you say to those people SFS?

 

[crjmurray]

self taught.
yes, but you didn't post this stuff.
you simply posted the results of a statistical analysis and said "there it is".
"surveys" are notorious in this regards.
not only can the questions be "fraudulent", the analysis that is applied to them can also be "fraudulent".
so, you wind up with something that is utterly useless but is presented as absolutely unbiased and legit.

this was exactly my point, and you essentially told me i was wrong for feeling that way.

you know, i caught a lot of flak for standing my ground over this even to the point of being told i lost credibility because of it.

i understand that, but this stuff (raw data) is usually left out when presenting the results.

yes, but even most well intentioned analysis is questionable, for the reasons you stated.

well see, the thing here is, the questions you are asking yourselves can be "begging the answer", and i'm not sure how to explain that.
IOW, although the questions seem unbiased, they aren't.
i'm sure you are aware of that.
"surveys" can be made that appear completely unbiased, except they are anything but that.
but yet i get chastised for questioning YOUR science.

i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.
what do you say to those people SFS?

Well when you try and discuss something with people who have actually studied the subject at hand and may even work in that field you can expect a little criticism when you show that you don't know what you're talking about but you still insist that you're right.

 

[whois]

Well when you try and discuss something with people who have actually studied the subject at hand and may even work in that field you can expect a little criticism when you show that you don't know what you're talking about but you still insist that you're right.

you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.

 

[crjmurray]

you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.

I agree with the first part but the exactly part is probably pretty far off.

 

[bhsmte]

you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.

How does he feel?

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, it isn't exactly fresh from the field.
OTOH, they have been looking for them a very long time, well, ever since darwin made his claims.

How much of the fossil record do you think they have searched? Have you personally ever seen an active dig site in your lifetime?

I think you overestimate the rate of fossilization and how much of the fossil record has actually been searched. It took 3 years of concerted effort just to find this one fossil:

Tiktaalik roseae: Home

 

[Loudmouth]

you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.

You don't know how he feels. When you have spent multiple years working in a field and becoming an expert in the field, and then have someone completely ignorant of that field tell you are wrong, then you will know how sfs feels.

You may want to read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude."
Dunning?Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.

You have lost credibility because you are using a double standard. When it comes to papers you like, you accept the statistical correlations without blinking an eye. That is why you lose credibility. You only reject the statistics when it leads to conclusions you don't like.

 

[sfs]

yes, but you didn't post this stuff.
you simply posted the results of a statistical analysis and said "there it is".
"surveys" are notorious in this regards.
not only can the questions be "fraudulent", the analysis that is applied to them can also be "fraudulent".
so, you wind up with something that is utterly useless but is presented as absolutely unbiased and legit.

So you don't trust statistical analyses, and your complaint is that I didn't post a statistical analysis? Which is it? I didn't post a statistical analysis because most people wouldn't understand or trust one. Just looking at the data should be enough to convince most people that there are real relationships between them. For example, do you really need to have a statistical analysis to determine that there's a correlation between these two variables?

If you do, a correlation test gives a p-value of 2.2x10[sup]-16[/sup], i.e. the probability that the correlation is a statistical fluke is smaller than that number. Does that fact change your mind, or was your complaint here a red herring?

Yes, you can get fraudulent data and fraudulent analyses. You can also get counterfeit money and phony merchandise. Do you refuse to accept cash and refuse to buy anything as a result? If you think my data are inaccurate, look for yourself: all of these data are publicly available, and you can do your own analysis. Or point to something wrong in my analysis.

this was exactly my point, and you essentially told me i was wrong for feeling that way.

you know, i caught a lot of flak for standing my ground over this even to the point of being told i lost credibility because of it.

I told you not to simply dismiss correlations because you don't trust statistics. If there's a real relationship between genetic diversity within a population and genetic differences between populations, then offer an alternative explanation for it. Common descent predicts that relationship, so finding it is evidence supporting common descent.

I would love to see a creationist attempt to explain these data. I've even written to creationist organizations, asking for their explanation. They didn't offer one. I've had countless creationists tell me that they accept all the data, but that they have a different interpretation of them -- and yet not one of them has been able to tell me what that interpretation is. You yourself offered two vague suggestions, neither of which actually explains anything about the data. At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that critics of evolution have no substantive arguments, just a selective skepticism they deploy to fend off conclusions they don't like.

i understand that, but this stuff (raw data) is usually left out when presenting the results.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

yes, but even most well intentioned analysis is questionable, for the reasons you stated.

So question the analysis. Find something wrong with it. Do your own analysis. "It could be wrong" is a statement you can make about absolutely everything, and that therefore tells you nothing about anything. This is why I asked you what conceivable evidence there could be that you would accept. If all you're going to do is dismiss evidence because there could be something wrong with, you're not looking for evidence at all, so stop pretending.

well see, the thing here is, the questions you are asking yourselves can be "begging the answer", and i'm not sure how to explain that.
IOW, although the questions seem unbiased, they aren't.
i'm sure you are aware of that.
"surveys" can be made that appear completely unbiased, except they are anything but that.
but yet i get chastised for questioning YOUR science.

Biased surveys can be analyzed, and the mechanism of bias can be determined. Can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

i've been told i employ double standards and that i've lost credibility because i stood my ground.
what do you say to those people SFS?

I'd say they're pretty much spot on.

 

[sfs]

you know, i i'll bet a million to one SFS wishes he never joined the discussion, and i know exactly how he feels.

There seems to be a negative correlation between how strongly you express your certainty about something and the probability that it's wrong. I've been engaging in conversations like this for something like 25 years now.

 

[whois]

So you don't trust statistical analyses, and your complaint is that I didn't post a statistical analysis? Which is it?

my complaint is i don't know what you are trying to prove.
if you put it into language i can understand, then maybe we can discuss it.

I didn't post a statistical analysis because most people wouldn't understand or trust one.

yes, i think i brought that point up.

Just looking at the data should be enough to convince most people that there are real relationships between them.

i have no doubt you believe you found a causal relationship.
i have no clue if you actually did.

For example, do you really need to have a statistical analysis to determine that there's a correlation between these two variables?

If you do, a correlation test gives a p-value of 2.2x10[sup]-16[/sup], i.e. the probability that the correlation is a statistical fluke is smaller than that number. Does that fact change your mind, or was your complaint here a red herring?

i have no idea what the graph means.

Yes, you can get fraudulent data and fraudulent analyses.

thanks for confirming my stand.

If you think my data are inaccurate, look for yourself: all of these data are publicly available, and you can do your own analysis. Or point to something wrong in my analysis.

i never questioned your analysis.
i said i don't trust statistical analysis, and for good reason.

I told you not to simply dismiss correlations because you don't trust statistics. If there's a real relationship between genetic diversity within a population and genetic differences between populations, then offer an alternative explanation for it. Common descent predicts that relationship, so finding it is evidence supporting common descent.

HOX genes would seem to suggest that each organism has its own origin.
any mutation in these genes quickly results in a non viable organism.

I would love to see a creationist attempt to explain these data.

in order for someone to explain your data, they must see what you see.

You yourself offered two vague suggestions, neither of which actually explains anything about the data.

the problem with DNA analysis is the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms.
transposons further complicate the matter.

At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that critics of evolution have no substantive arguments, just a selective skepticism they deploy to fend off conclusions they don't like.

it makes no difference to me who "wins".

So question the analysis. Find something wrong with it.

this is another thing about statistical analysis, unless you have all the data and thoroughly understand the problem, you can't effectively analyze it.

If all you're going to do is dismiss evidence because there could be something wrong with, you're not looking for evidence at all, so stop pretending.

i do not dismiss your work nor do i think it's wrong.
i simply stated i mistrust statistical analysis, and for good reason.

I'd say they're pretty much spot on.

if you want to fault me for mistrusting statistical analysis, then be my guest.

i can understand though, you are seeing this as a slight to your work, and it isn't.
it boils down to this:
1. i don't trust statistical analysis, for good reason.
2. i do not understand the problem.
3. i do not have all the data.
4. i probably couldn't offer an opinion even if i had the data because of 2

 

[PsychoSarah]

whois, are you going to at least acknowledge that the source we talked about is too outdated to use?

 

[bhsmte]

4. i probably couldn't offer an opinion even if i had the data because of 2

But, you seem to have offered an opinion in past posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

i never questioned your analysis.
i said i don't trust statistical analysis, and for good reason.

You have only given bad reasons, as sfs showed. You are rejecting evidence out of hand which is never a "good" reason.

HOX genes would seem to suggest that each organism has its own origin.

You have HOX genes. Your siblings have HOX genes. Does this mean that you each have a different origin, or do you have a common ancestor?

any mutation in these genes quickly results in a non viable organism.

Then explain why different species have HOX genes with different sequences. If changing HOX genes is lethal, how can they be different?

the problem with DNA analysis is the commonality of DNA to all lifeforms.
transposons further complicate the matter.

How so?

it boils down to this:
1. i don't trust statistical analysis, for good reason.
2. i do not understand the problem.
3. i do not have all the data.
4. i probably couldn't offer an opinion even if i had the data because of 2

You don't even understand what the statistical analyses are, but you reject them.

That is not a good reason.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I accept evolution because of the magnitude of evidence for it.

I actually thought about this forum during a doctor's appointment this afternoon because he brought up evolution. I've been a vegetarian since I was nine and recently became a vegan, which apparently is a choice not supported by evolution. Or my parents, haha. He was trying to teach me about the evolutionary reasons for why a vegan diet isn't ideal for humans and compel me to eat eggs and fish and try to gradually gain fifteen pounds as I move into adulthood. I never thought I'd be kindly lectured about evolution, fish farming, and my ovaries all in one conversation.

I wonder how a creationist would react to a conversation like that one that just organically sprang up during a doctor's consultation. It was obvious that the possibility that I didn't "believe" in evolution never flickered across his mind. He just launched into it. Do creationists also avoid museums like the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and..... virtually every other natural history museum in the world to avoid encountering evolution, or do they go and just dismiss what is presented? What do you tell your kids? And how do you authentically study biology at an advanced level without evolution? I'd love to be able to tell my biology teacher I've converted to creationism to try to get out of this ridiculous paper but she'd never buy it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually thought about this forum during a doctor's appointment this afternoon because he brought up evolution.

It's interesting, because during my last doctor's visit, I asked my doctor, a Christian, if he believed in evolution, and he said YES.

I've been a vegetarian since I was nine and recently became a vegan, which apparently is a choice not supported by evolution. Or my parents, haha. He was trying to teach me about the evolutionary reasons for why a vegan diet isn't ideal for humans and compel me to eat eggs and fish and try to gradually gain fifteen pounds as I move into adulthood.

Be careful with that.

Look for adverse side effects of vegetarianism.

For instance, if you find yourself starting to lean toward the sunlight, I'd change my diet pronto!