[_ Old Earth _] Can atheistic evolution explain this?

[Khristeeanos]

I often wonder how an eye could "evolve" in segments. The odds that it could happen by mere chance are so overwhelming as to be impossible.

Yes you’re right that the eye could not have occurred by random chance. But, it could, and did, evolve via natural selection, which is decidedly non-random.

The steps are actually pretty reasonable. You would start with a single cell that is sensitive to light, which we see quite often in nature. If one cell is good, several cells are better. You get enough cells, and you can start to make out subtlety and detail, and instead of just detecting light, you have a low-res image of whatever's in front of you. A membrane over those cells would protect them, and if that membrane becomes lens shaped - hey, awesome. In time, you work your way up to a modern eye.

I am sorry, but this is just absurd. To say that a patial eye is of any use is just absurd.

It just so happens that thousands and thousands of species all developed a smiliar eye by natural-selection?

Absurd.

The obvious truth is that there is a Creator God who used a similiar design on many of His creatures.

 

[cubedbee]

I often wonder how an eye could "evolve" in segments. The odds that it could happen by mere chance are so overwhelming as to be impossible.

Yes you’re right that the eye could not have occurred by random chance. But, it could, and did, evolve via natural selection, which is decidedly non-random.

The steps are actually pretty reasonable. You would start with a single cell that is sensitive to light, which we see quite often in nature. If one cell is good, several cells are better. You get enough cells, and you can start to make out subtlety and detail, and instead of just detecting light, you have a low-res image of whatever's in front of you. A membrane over those cells would protect them, and if that membrane becomes lens shaped - hey, awesome. In time, you work your way up to a modern eye.

I am sorry, but this is just absurd. To say that a patial eye is of any use is just absurd.

Umm....my contacts are a -11.0 prescription, with astimigmatism--pretty much a partially useless eye. Everything farther than a few inches is a blur. Yet, I can get around a thousand times better than a blind person.

Survival is about finding food and avoiding being eaten. Any light sensitive cells are going to help an animal do this--to deny this is absolutely absurd and illogical.

It just so happens that thousands and thousands of species all developed a smiliar eye by natural-selection?

No, species don't develop eyes independently. The eyes of all mammals work the same--it is a feature that a common ancestor of this class, not species, of animals evolved. The heirarchy of classification, if you don't know, is Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species.

There are thousands of species, and it would indeed be unlikely they would all independently evolve eyes. But that's not what happened. Instead, the eye developed a handful of times, in the common ancestors of the classes--broad groups of animals like mammals, reptiles, birds, arthropods, amphibians.

Absurd.

The obvious truth is that there is a Creator God who used a similiar design on many of His creatures.

Yes, and he designed it through the aweseome process of evolution, which we're trying to explain to you.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I think it's improbable to the the point of being impossible for the eye to

evolve from atoms, molecules, one cell organisms, etc...period. The odds of a

eye evolving in this manner is way more than 1 over the number of subatomic

particles that are thought to exist in the universe. Then we're

expected to believe that the eye evolved independently...numerous times.


And far from being a non-random force, evolution depends on genetic drift and

mutations, upon which the supposed more predictable natural selection acts.


Peace

 

[ArtGuy]

The steps are actually pretty reasonable. You would start with a single cell that is sensitive to light, which we see quite often in nature. If one cell is good, several cells are better. You get enough cells, and you can start to make out subtlety and detail, and instead of just detecting light, you have a low-res image of whatever's in front of you. A membrane over those cells would protect them, and if that membrane becomes lens shaped - hey, awesome. In time, you work your way up to a modern eye.

I am sorry, but this is just absurd. To say that a patial eye is of any use is just absurd.

Your mistake is an assuming that the steps would have relied, at any point, on a "partial eye". Yes, if you take a modern eye and tear a random chunk out of it, it will cease to function. But there is a progression of intermediate steps along which the eye could have, in theory, evolved. In fact, you can see most of these intermediate steps in existence today in assorted animals.

As to my example, which step in particular did you find "absurd"? Let me know so I can find an example of an animal who uses just that.

 

[reznwerks]

all

Creation is indeed a miracle. It is so complex yet all comes from a plan that man has tried for centuries to explain as non-miraculous in order to deny that God exists. The problem is that man's understanding is so narrow that he cannot even fathom why this all happens even though he thinks he can. But he always overlooks a myriad of systems and and facts in his explanations. Man still cannot explain how the stars, sun, moon, earth, and all living things were formed, but nevertheless they exist. It's really sad that man sees himself as master of the universe which leads him to believe he can understand it all. This kind of thinking is what leads him to invent a creature from which he thinks the human being was formed. :o

When you can show that there is a God your post will be seriously considered. You continue to try to discredit evolution but still fail to offer any alternative that you can demonstrate. Your God is a God of default or as I have put if many times before the God of the gaps. Any question or state of affarirs not understood is evidence of a God. In science it is just questions waiting for answers to be found. Like the song says" Tiiiimmmmmme issss onnnnn my siiiiiiiddddde. Yes it is ".

 

[Simple Mind]

Re: all

Creation is indeed a miracle. It is so complex yet all comes from a plan that man has tried for centuries to explain as non-miraculous in order to deny that God exists. The problem is that man's understanding is so narrow that he cannot even fathom why this all happens even though he thinks he can. But he always overlooks a myriad of systems and and facts in his explanations. Man still cannot explain how the stars, sun, moon, earth, and all living things were formed, but nevertheless they exist. It's really sad that man sees himself as master of the universe which leads him to believe he can understand it all. This kind of thinking is what leads him to invent a creature from which he thinks the human being was formed. :o

When you can show that there is a God your post will be seriously considered. You continue to try to discredit evolution but still fail to offer any alternative that you can demonstrate. Your God is a God of default or as I have put if many times before the God of the gaps. Any question or state of affarirs not understood is evidence of a God. In science it is just questions waiting for answers to be found. Like the song says" Tiiiimmmmmme issss onnnnn my siiiiiiiddddde. Yes it is ".

Mmmmm, then may I ask if "science of the gap" is OK? I've often wondered about the idea that "I have no explanation, but I'm sure I will someday" - is that a strong enough scientific argument to stop considering any other theory?

Please don't take this the wrong way - I really do want to explore this issue because I've run into it a lot but never took time to dig into it. I'm not refuting the argument, but I'm just not sure how it works exactly.

Thanks in advance, and blessings,
Lou

 

[Grengor]

Re: all

Mmmmm, then may I ask if "science of the gap" is OK? I've often wondered about the idea that "I have no explanation, but I'm sure I will someday" - is that a strong enough scientific argument to stop considering any other theory?

The search for testible empirical repeatable answeres is the basis of science. So thinking "I probably will have an answere someday" is ok, as it's the very foundation of science. About the "other theory", there's a big difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory, and to date there is no scientific alternative to Evolution. If there was, it would have to have positive evidence for it and not just engative evidence against Evolution. Then it would have to explain why Evolution to date has withstood the test of time with rigurous testing and has made such successful predictions. Then it would have to go in to make it's own predictions. Leaving it at "Goddidit" does not cut in in science.

Please don't take this the wrong way - I really do want to explore this issue because I've run into it a lot but never took time to dig into it. I'm not refuting the argument, but I'm just not sure how it works exactly.

Thanks in advance, and blessings,
Lou

Anything else?

 

[Simple Mind]

Re: all

Mmmmm, then may I ask if "science of the gap" is OK? I've often wondered about the idea that "I have no explanation, but I'm sure I will someday" - is that a strong enough scientific argument to stop considering any other theory?

The search for testible empirical repeatable answeres is the basis of science. So thinking "I probably will have an answere someday" is ok, as it's the very foundation of science. About the "other theory", there's a big difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory, and to date there is no scientific alternative to Evolution. If there was, it would have to have positive evidence for it and not just engative evidence against Evolution. Then it would have to explain why Evolution to date has withstood the test of time with rigurous testing and has made such successful predictions. Then it would have to go in to make it's own predictions. Leaving it at "Goddidit" does not cut in in science.

Thanks! I understand the search for answers - that's not a problem - my issue is using "I'll find another answer someday" as an argument to not look at an existing theory today.

Where we agree - I actually understand you to say that we should be open to other theories, as long as they satisfy a certain criteria. And your definition of that criteria is "testible empirical repeatable answeres" (I take you to mean "testible empirical repeatable evidence"), as would mine.

So from that point of view I understand microevolution to be supported by such evidence, and I have no problems with that. But how does macroevotution fare against this criteria? What if macroevolution does not meet that criteria either? That's kind of where my simple mind is now - neither macroevolution nor ID meets the above test for being "science" - no repeatable experiments can be done to prove history - repeatable experiments can only show what is happening today, and extrapolating what one sees today to all of history is not scientific nor logical. (Scientific theories predict what would normally happen given the same conditions and if no anomolies, it never extrapolates the past since it cannot be sure about conditions nor anomolies.) Please help me understand if this simple thinking is flawed.

BTW, the statement that "Goddidit does not cut it in science" is a claim that I'm trying to understand with my question. So restating it does not help us to understand why we should not consider alternative theories.

Peace,
Lou

 

[jwu]

While we cannot observe large scale changes in organisms bigger than bacteria today due to a lack of time, there is plenty of testable evidence that these happened in the past, e.g. for common ancestry of humans and other contemporary apes.
We can make predictions about what genetic evidence should be found if humans and other apes share a common ancestor, and then check if these a-priori predictions hold true - and they do.

E.g. ERVs ("endogenous retroviral insertions") conclusively demonstrate common descent of humans and today's apes (i keep saying "today's" and "contemporary" because technically humans are a species of apes too, to differentiate between these apes and the shared ancestor who was an ape as well). The nice thing about ERVs is that they cannot be handwaved away as being due to a common designer - they are the result of virus infections, not a part of the species' own genome, and they form a very specific pattern which is consistent with the phylogenic tree.
The chance that this pattern coincidentally fits the phylogenic tree without common descent is astronomically low, and the pattern was predicted before it was checked to occur. So it was not like "here are the facts, let's see how we can make them fit the theory", but what happened (and continues to happen) was "that's exactly how it should be if the theory is correct, let's check if it actually is that way...yep, it is"

 

[Drew]

I think that the "God of the Gaps" issue is a bit of a non-starter.

Even if it were true that we had a scientific explanation or model for all phenomena in the universe, this would really not be evidence for the non-existence of God. A scientific model is a description and really makes no commitments about whether a God is responsible for the creation of a world that behaves according to that model.

God could easily have created a world that is highly regular - its workings are subject to codification through scientific models. This should not really be all that surprising to people - I would actually expect God's universe to be regular and predictable, exactly the kind of a uinverse where one could develop a scientific model for all phenomena.

On the other hand, if all phenomena that we can observe and measure can be subsumed into a scientific model, it certainly does say something about God (if He exists) - namely that his created world is not capricious and arbitrary.

I suppose that the atheist will argue that a world that seems to operate according to intelligible laws really leaves no "room" for God to act in the world - after all if the outcome of any event is determined by laws, how can God change anything, except if he sets aside the law? And if he did this, we should be able to observe it. There are interesting issues here, but I think that the laws of nature do indeed give God the "loophole" that he needs in order to work out his purposes.

 

[ArtGuy]

I suppose that the atheist will argue that a world that seems to operate according to intelligible laws really leaves no "room" for God to act in the world - after all if the outcome of any event is determined by laws, how can God change anything, except if he sets aside the law? And if he did this, we should be able to observe it. There are interesting issues here, but I think that the laws of nature do indeed give God the "loophole" that he needs in order to work out his purposes.

Enter quantum mechanics. QM contains elements that are truly "random" based on our observations. God could subtly manipulate subatomic phenomena without ever leaving his fingerprints on them, and in the process he could guide the workings of the universe on a macroscopic scale. He could subtly direct the evolution of the universe, and to us it would all look completely random.

 

[Drew]

Enter quantum mechanics. QM contains elements that are truly "random" based on our observations. God could subtly manipulate subatomic phenomena without ever leaving his fingerprints on them, and in the process he could guide the workings of the universe on a macroscopic scale. He could subtly direct the evolution of the universe, and to us it would all look completely random.

Dude! My thoughts exactly! It would be very interesting to try to "work out the details" of how this might work.

 

[Simple Mind]

While we cannot observe large scale changes in organisms bigger than bacteria today due to a lack of time, there is plenty of testable evidence that these happened in the past, e.g. for common ancestry of humans and other contemporary apes.
We can make predictions about what genetic evidence should be found if humans and other apes share a common ancestor, and then check if these a-priori predictions hold true - and they do.

E.g. ERVs ("endogenous retroviral insertions") conclusively demonstrate common descent of humans and today's apes (i keep saying "today's" and "contemporary" because technically humans are a species of apes too, to differentiate between these apes and the shared ancestor who was an ape as well). The nice thing about ERVs is that they cannot be handwaved away as being due to a common designer - they are the result of virus infections, not a part of the species' own genome, and they form a very specific pattern which is consistent with the phylogenic tree.
The chance that this pattern coincidentally fits the phylogenic tree without common descent is astronomically low, and the pattern was predicted before it was checked to occur. So it was not like "here are the facts, let's see how we can make them fit the theory", but what happened (and continues to happen) was "that's exactly how it should be if the theory is correct, let's check if it actually is that way...yep, it is"

This is where I have a problem. I've heard similar statements about "testable evidence that these happend in the past". How was it teatable and is that test based on the scientific method? I think the method you outlined at the end has strayed from the scientific method and created room for errors and assumptions to creep in.

My understanding is evidence of "consistency" with a certain pattern does not guarantee a causal relationship (or an evolutionary relationship). I've seen this type of thinking commonly rejected in all spheres of science since statistical correlation says nothing about the cause. The similarity/consistency can equally point to design or evolution.

On the other hand, if ever there is evidence of inconsistency, then it positively shows the proposed evolutionary chain is broken. For example if certain human proteins or hormones turn out to be unlike our supposed primate ancestors but much more similar or identical to another animal on another branch of the proposed evolutionary tree, then the evolutionary relationship could not have been true, and design is the only explanation. I don't know for sure if there is such evidence today, but if they exist, then it's a solid argument.

Thanks for your patience!

Blessings,
Lou

 

[jwu]

This is where I have a problem. I've heard similar statements about "testable evidence that these happend in the past". How was it teatable and is that test based on the scientific method? I think the method you outlined at the end has strayed from the scientific method and created room for errors and assumptions to creep in.

The scientific method is that one makes predictions based on theories, and then tests if these predictions are accurate. That is exactly what happened in case of ERVs. Very specific predictions were made about the distribution of ERVs that should occur if common descent of humans and other apes is correct - predictions which are specific enough to only occur coincidentally without common descent at a very low probability. Had they then not been found in that particular distribution, this would have dealt a serious blow to the theory of evolution, and potentially even falsified it. But that did not happen, the distribution that was found was the predicted one. And if a theory makes a successful prediction that is unlikely to get right by coincidence, then that supports the theory.

My understanding is evidence of "consistency" with a certain pattern does not guarantee a causal relationship (or an evolutionary relationship).

It's not guaranteed of course - nothing in science ever is. But it's established at a very high degree of probability. ERVs alone set the probability of common descent of humans and other apes at about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
(i actually did a probability calculation once, it came up at a chance of a coincidential distribution of the known ERVs in a way that is consistent with the theory of evolution at about 1:10^50)

I've seen this type of thinking commonly rejected in all spheres of science since statistical correlation says nothing about the cause.

If you find another possible cause for that specific distribution of ERVs which explains it just as good as the theory of evolution does, then i'm sure the scientific community would like to learn about it.
The important aspect is that the theory of evolution predicted the distribution before it actually was checked. That's fundamentally different than just looking at tons of charts and finding a few that seem to correlate. If there actually is a correlation however can be checked by making the prediction that one chart will continue to behave like a specific other one. If the past correlation was coincidence, then that is unlikely to continue. But iuf it keeps correlating, then one can safely say that there indeed is a causal correlation between the two after a while, as that happening by coincidence is very unlikely then. It's all about the difference between a posteriori and a priori.

Another example:
I throw a handful of dice, and they come up with four 3's and two 5's. Afterwards i claim that i used psychic powers to make them come up that way. That of course is not in any way proven by this.

If i announce that i am going to roll exactly like that before i then indeed manage to do it on the first try, then that supports my assertion that i have psychic powers over the dice, doesn't it? Exactly that is what the theorty of evolution did with ERVs...it basically precisely predicted the outcome of a throw of 64 dice (1:10^50 chance).
If i did that and there was no sign of the dice being manipulated, you would believe me that i had psychic control over the dice, wouldn't you?

On the other hand, if ever there is evidence of inconsistency, then it positively shows the proposed evolutionary chain is broken. For example if certain human proteins or hormones turn out to be unlike our supposed primate ancestors but much more similar or identical to another animal on another branch of the proposed evolutionary tree, then the evolutionary relationship could not have been true, and design is the only explanation. I don't know for sure if there is such evidence today, but if they exist, then it's a solid argument.

That is the other side of the coin. If no explaination for such a divergence can be found, the theory of evolution would be in serious trouble. I strongly object against the "and design is the only explaination" though. Design needs own positive evidence. If the theory of evolution was falsified, then that wouldn't support other concepts in any way - it'd just put us back to "we don't know". Unless design proponents can find own positive evidence and make successful predictions, of course.

 

[Simple Mind]

[quote="jwu

The scientific method is that one makes predictions based on theories, and then tests if these predictions are accurate.

But there is a subtle but very important difference. The scientific method tests by repeating the very thing we are trying to prove again and again to verify that what the theory says is really true. For example, if my theory is "gravity will cause an apple that I hold in mid-air to fall if I let go" then I can actually verify it happens. That's science. However, this now common (I know you're not the only person using this definition) but loose definition has allowed people to erroneously say that "a correlation observed today" proves a theory of "something happened in the past". Note that there is no experiment that repeats the postulated event, which is the key step in the scientific method.

That is exactly what happened in case of ERVs. Very specific predictions were made about the distribution of ERVs that should occur if common descent of humans and other apes is correct - predictions which are specific enough to only occur coincidentally without common descent at a very low probability. Had they then not been found in that particular distribution, this would have dealt a serious blow to the theory of evolution, and potentially even falsified it. But that did not happen, the distribution that was found was the predicted one. And if a theory makes a successful prediction that is unlikely to get right by coincidence, then that supports the theory. ... It's not guaranteed of course - nothing in science ever is. But it's established at a very high degree of probability. ERVs alone set the probability of common descent of humans and other apes at about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
(i actually did a probability calculation once, it came up at a chance of a coincidential distribution of the known ERVs in a way that is consistent with the theory of evolution at about 1:10^50)

I don't think you understood my point. I totally agree there is a correlation that cannot be explained by coincidence. But correlations do not inform us about the cause of the correlation. This amazing correlation can be equally well explained by design or evolution - it doesn't point to one or the other. The "probability of common descent" speaks to correlation, not to any cause or process of how the two datapoints (human and ape) came to be.

If you find another possible cause for that specific distribution of ERVs which explains it just as good as the theory of evolution does, then i'm sure the scientific community would like to learn about it.

The important aspect is that the theory of evolution predicted the distribution before it actually was checked. That's fundamentally different than just looking at tons of charts and finding a few that seem to correlate. If there actually is a correlation however can be checked by making the prediction that one chart will continue to behave like a specific other one. If the past correlation was coincidence, then that is unlikely to continue. But iuf it keeps correlating, then one can safely say that there indeed is a causal correlation between the two after a while, as that happening by coincidence is very unlikely then. It's all about the difference between a posteriori and a priori.

Another example:
I throw a handful of dice, and they come up with four 3's and two 5's. Afterwards i claim that i used psychic powers to make them come up that way. That of course is not in any way proven by this.

If i announce that i am going to roll exactly like that before i then indeed manage to do it on the first try, then that supports my assertion that i have psychic powers over the dice, doesn't it? Exactly that is what the theorty of evolution did with ERVs...it basically precisely predicted the outcome of a throw of 64 dice (1:10^50 chance).
If i did that and there was no sign of the dice being manipulated, you would believe me that i had psychic control over the dice, wouldn't you?

Many in the scientific community do accept design as an alternative to evolution. I guess I'm trying to understand in some depth the reasoning of those who don't accept it (like you). You made an interesting claim here - I will look at this in some detail and see if I can understand. But overall, being able to predict something does not mean we can know its cause or the process by which it came to be - we've had the ability to predict the effects of gravity for hundreds of years now, but neither Einstein nor anyone else has been able to state the cause. But thanks for pointing me in the direction of the ERVs!

[quote:c731d]On the other hand, if ever there is evidence of inconsistency, then it positively shows the proposed evolutionary chain is broken. For example if certain human proteins or hormones turn out to be unlike our supposed primate ancestors but much more similar or identical to another animal on another branch of the proposed evolutionary tree, then the evolutionary relationship could not have been true, and design is the only explanation. I don't know for sure if there is such evidence today, but if they exist, then it's a solid argument.

That is the other side of the coin. If no explaination for such a divergence can be found, the theory of evolution would be in serious trouble. I strongly object against the "and design is the only explaination" though. Design needs own positive evidence. If the theory of evolution was falsified, then that wouldn't support other concepts in any way - it'd just put us back to "we don't know". Unless design proponents can find own positive evidence and make successful predictions, of course.[/quote:c731d]
And that was my contention - that neither design nor evolution are scientifically proven currently. I'm not sure what is exactly meant by "positive evidence" - when there is no absolute proof as in this case, evidence either increases or decreases the probability that a theory is true. If evidence is found in the area I mentioned, then it deminishes the probability of evolution being true to nearly zero, and increases the probility of design being true significantly.

Much blessings,
Lou

 

[jwu]

But there is a subtle but very important difference. The scientific method tests by repeating the very thing we are trying to prove again and again to verify that what the theory says is really true. For example, if my theory is "gravity will cause an apple that I hold in mid-air to fall if I let go" then I can actually verify it happens. That's science. However, this now common (I know you're not the only person using this definition) but loose definition has allowed people to erroneously say that "a correlation observed today" proves a theory of "something happened in the past". Note that there is no experiment that repeats the postulated event, which is the key step in the scientific method.

That'd disqualify all astronomy, most geology, a lot of physics and all forensics from being called science.

Measuring things indirectly is perfectly acceptable in science, one doesn't have to view the event in question directly. We have never directly observed atoms split - it's only by indirect evidence that we can tell that they did. Does that mean that nuclear reactors are not a product of science?

I don't think you understood my point. I totally agree there is a correlation that cannot be explained by coincidence. But correlations do not inform us about the cause of the correlation.

Of course, there may always be a different cause. Anything else would meant that there is such a thing as 100% certainty in science, which there is not. But each time a theory makes predictions which come true the odds that the theory is incorrect decrease. Do you disagree?

This amazing correlation can be equally well explained by design or evolution - it doesn't point to one or the other. The "probability of common descent" speaks to correlation, not to any cause or process of how the two datapoints (human and ape) came to be.

Then what is the explaination of the design proponents? Note that explainations which include common descent do not count here - these are indistinguishable from evolution then, and evolution makes no claim about what exactly causes mutations, only that they appear to be random. It may very well be a designer who is tinkering with our genes, careful enough not to get noticed.

And that was my contention - that neither design nor evolution are scientifically proven currently.

In science nothing is ever proven. "Provisionally considered correct" is as good as it gets. Proof is for math and alcohol.

If evidence is found in the area I mentioned, then it deminishes the probability of evolution being true to nearly zero, and increases the probility of design being true significantly.

Not at all. That implies that there can be only either evolution or design, it rules out other alternatives. E.g. it being an intristic property of the universe to develop life. It's a false dichotomy.

"Positive evidence" is evidence from which someone who never heard of any other theories could deduce the one in question. Evidence which specifically supports the theory in question, as opposed to "negative" evidence which falsifies "rival" theories.

 

[Simple Mind]

[quote="jwu]

That'd disqualify all astronomy, most geology, a lot of physics and all forensics from being called science.

Not at all - much of astronomy and physics deals with theories about the present and not the past. Yes, there are two types of what we call "science" today - I'm just pushing for a distinction between the two.

Measuring things indirectly is perfectly acceptable in science, one doesn't have to view the event in question directly. We have never directly observed atoms split - it's only by indirect evidence that we can tell that they did. Does that mean that nuclear reactors are not a product of science?

I'm not talking about direct vs indirect measurement. I can have a theory that I can repeatedly verify in experiments using indirect methods. (But there will have to be another proven theory that establishes the validity of the indirect methods first of course.) Indirect measurement would still follow the scientific method. What is a direct measurement anyways - even when we use our eyes it goes through some instruments and coding/decoding.

Of course, there may always be a different cause. Anything else would meant that there is such a thing as 100% certainty in science, which there is not. But each time a theory makes predictions which come true the odds that the theory is incorrect decrease. Do you disagree?

The point is the correlation doesn't point to evolution as the cause. It has nothing to say about any cause.

I'm not insisting on 100% certainty here - even at 100% correlation, the correlation still says nothing about the cause. If we find two identical objects we can conclude they are related somehow but we cannot conclude whether one evolved from the other, one reproduced the other, or both were made by another entity, or that there was some other relationship.

As for predictions, it depends on the specific nature of the prediction and exactly how that prediction supports the theory - but yes I do agree some predictions increases the credibility of a theory when they come true - but we cannot make a blanket statement about predictions.

Then what is the explaination of the design proponents? Note that explainations which include common descent do not count here - these are indistinguishable from evolution then,

Bingo! Common descent doesn't favor either design or evolution. I'm so glad you understand my point despite my poor communication skills.

and evolution makes no claim about what exactly causes mutations, only that they appear to be random. It may very well be a designer who is tinkering with our genes, careful enough not to get noticed.

Agreed. But we need to recognize that neither of us have scientific evidence for or against it at this point. For both of us, what we base our evaluation on is revelation and faith.

[quote:87bbc]And that was my contention - that neither design nor evolution are scientifically proven currently.

In science nothing is ever proven. "Provisionally considered correct" is as good as it gets. Proof is for math and alcohol.[/quote:87bbc]
OK, neither is "provisionally considered correct" if we go by the scientific method. :-D

[quote:87bbc]If evidence is found in the area I mentioned, then it deminishes the probability of evolution being true to nearly zero, and increases the probility of design being true significantly.

Not at all. That implies that there can be only either evolution or design, it rules out other alternatives. E.g. it being an intristic property of the universe to develop life. It's a false dichotomy.[/quote:87bbc]
We're in agreement - two theories cited for simplicity - we can expand the number of theories but the principle of probabilities would work the same way.

"Positive evidence" is evidence from which someone who never heard of any other theories could deduce the one in question. Evidence which specifically supports the theory in question, as opposed to "negative" evidence which falsifies "rival" theories.

Agreed, but some evidence does both at the same time.


Blessings,
Lou

 

[jwu]

Not at all - much of astronomy and physics deals with theories about the present and not the past. Yes, there are two types of what we call "science" today - I'm just pushing for a distinction between the two.

Any extrasolar astronomy deals with the past - anything we see there happened at least four years ago (the closest other star is four light years away).

Could you define those two types of science and back this up? I am only familiar with one, and that does not distinguish between indirect evidence for concurrent events and indirect evidence for past events in a relevant way.

I'm not talking about direct vs indirect measurement. I can have a theory that I can repeatedly verify in experiments using indirect methods. (But there will have to be another proven theory that establishes the validity of the indirect methods first of course.) Indirect measurement would still follow the scientific method. What is a direct measurement anyways - even when we use our eyes it goes through some instruments and coding/decoding.

Again, things are never ever proven in science.

What relevant difference is there between indirectly measuring things which we cannot see directly today by the traces that they leave, and measuring the traces that past speciation events left?

I'm not insisting on 100% certainty here - even at 100% correlation, the correlation still says nothing about the cause.

We however can make predictions about what else we should see if that is indeed the cause, and if these things are found, the probability of the proposed cause being responsible increases.

As for predictions, it depends on the specific nature of the prediction and exactly how that prediction supports the theory - but yes I do agree some predictions increases the credibility of a theory when they come true - but we cannot make a blanket statement about predictions.

A prediction with a 1:10^50 chance of becoming fulfilled for other reasons if the theory is incorrect is quite specific, in my opinion.

We're in agreement - two theories cited for simplicity - we can expand the number of theories but the principle of probabilities would work the same way.

Without knowledge of the number of possible theories no conclusions can be drawn at all.

Agreed, but some evidence does both at the same time.

It can - but then it needs to be explained how exactly it supports design.

Bingo! Common descent doesn't favor either design or evolution. I'm so glad you understand my point despite my poor communication skills.

[snip]

Agreed. But we need to recognize that neither of us have scientific evidence for or against it at this point. For both of us, what we base our evaluation on is revelation and faith.

I'm not sure for how long you have taken part in E/C debates...but according to my experience that position is generally called "theistic evolutionist", which happens to be mine as well. As soon as someone uses the term "design" it generally refers to "intelligent design" though, which is not congruent with theistic evolution. It differs in so far as that the designer supposedly left evidence of his interventions.

 

[Simple Mind]

Not at all - much of astronomy and physics deals with theories about the present and not the past. Yes, there are two types of what we call "science" today - I'm just pushing for a distinction between the two.

Any extrasolar astronomy deals with the past - anything we see there happened at least four years ago (the closest other star is four light years away).

The observations are made in the present in our time. But I do agree part of astronomy deals with the past.

Could you define those two types of science and back this up? I am only familiar with one, and that does not distinguish between indirect evidence for concurrent events and indirect evidence for past events in a relevant way.

I thought we did. One is the type that follows the original scientific method including the experimentation step where the repeatable experiment "substantially verifies" (I so much want to say prove) the theory. Anything else should be classified differently since the validity of its claims have not and often cannot be verified the same way.

[quote:aa0a1]I'm not talking about direct vs indirect measurement. I can have a theory that I can repeatedly verify in experiments using indirect methods. (But there will have to be another proven theory that establishes the validity of the indirect methods first of course.) Indirect measurement would still follow the scientific method. What is a direct measurement anyways - even when we use our eyes it goes through some instruments and coding/decoding.

Again, things are never ever proven in science.[/quote:aa0a1]
OK, "substantially verified to be reliable".

What relevant difference is there between indirectly measuring things which we cannot see directly today by the traces that they leave, and measuring the traces that past speciation events left?

As I said, the difference is not between direct and indirect measurements (and I even indicated I cannot really differentiate between the two). The issue is there is a huge difference between theories that has been "substantially verified" through repeated experiments and theories that never had this done even once. They are two totally different classes of sciences.

[quote:aa0a1]I'm not insisting on 100% certainty here - even at 100% correlation, the correlation still says nothing about the cause.

We however can make predictions about what else we should see if that is indeed the cause, and if these things are found, the probability of the proposed cause being responsible increases.

As for predictions, it depends on the specific nature of the prediction and exactly how that prediction supports the theory - but yes I do agree some predictions increases the credibility of a theory when they come true - but we cannot make a blanket statement about predictions.

A prediction with a 1:10^50 chance of becoming fulfilled for other reasons if the theory is incorrect is quite specific, in my opinion.[/quote:aa0a1]

It has nothing to do with the probabilities of the prediction. It has to do with the nature of the prediction and how the prediction relates to the conclusion.

[quote:aa0a1]We're in agreement - two theories cited for simplicity - we can expand the number of theories but the principle of probabilities would work the same way.

Without knowledge of the number of possible theories no conclusions can be drawn at all.[/quote:aa0a1]
By this method no conclusions can ever be drawn about anything - how can you be sure at any time you have all the possible theories listed about even one simple subject? We put the reasonable candidate theories on the table and go from there.

[quote:aa0a1]Agreed, but some evidence does both at the same time.

It can - but then it needs to be explained how exactly it supports design.[/quote:aa0a1]
Sure, agreed.

[quote:aa0a1]Bingo! Common descent doesn't favor either design or evolution. I'm so glad you understand my point despite my poor communication skills.

[snip]

Agreed. But we need to recognize that neither of us have scientific evidence for or against it at this point. For both of us, what we base our evaluation on is revelation and faith.

I'm not sure for how long you have taken part in E/C debates...but according to my experience that position is generally called "theistic evolutionist", which happens to be mine as well. As soon as someone uses the term "design" it generally refers to "intelligent design" though, which is not congruent with theistic evolution. It differs in so far as that the designer supposedly left evidence of his interventions.[/quote:aa0a1]
I'm very new to the forum - so you spotted it right on. What I agreed with was your "evolution makes no claims ..." statement and that your proposed scenario could be true, based on your language of "it may very well be". I currently lean more towards a designer creating lifeforms substantially as they are today but I'm open to being wrong. (More importantly I believe that Designer is the God of the Bible.) So I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

Much blessings,
Lou
(signing off for the day - catch up with this great conversation later)

 

[jwu]

I thought we did. One is the type that follows the original scientific method including the experimentation step where the repeatable experiment "substantially verifies" (I so much want to say prove) the theory. Anything else should be classified differently since the validity of its claims have not and often cannot be verified the same way.

And in the scientific method verifying predictions of a theory is exactly that. There is no need to repeat the event in question in a laboratory (that even happened in case of evolution, as speciation has been directly observed, just not the speciation events that happened in the distant past of course). "If it happened, then what evidence should it have left", followed by checking if that evidence is present already is sufficient.

Note that the ERV test is repeatable. New sequences keep being discovered, so each time that this happens the test is essentially repeated. And that's just the ERVs of humans...just about any species has ERVs waiting to be checked.

As I said, the difference is not between direct and indirect measurements (and I even indicated I cannot really differentiate between the two). The issue is there is a huge difference between theories that has been "substantially verified" through repeated experiments and theories that never had this done even once. They are two totally different classes of sciences.

No. Once successfully tested it is a "theory", before that happened it is called a "hypothesis", not a "theory". Both are part of the same "science".

It has nothing to do with the probabilities of the prediction. It has to do with the nature of the prediction and how the prediction relates to the conclusion.

Could you elaborate on that? The precise probability of the prediction being a false positive appears very important to me.

By this method no conclusions can ever be drawn about anything - how can you be sure at any time you have all the possible theories listed about even one simple subject? We put the reasonable candidate theories on the table and go from there.

Indeed, we can never be absolutely sure that we got it right. And while there is an elimination process due to falsification, an elinination of a rival does not support other theories in any way - their weight is exclusively gained by own positive evidence. If some physicists falsify string theory, then M-theory gains nothing from that. It has to stand on its own legs.

Have a good night!