For scientists who accept evolution

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'll try this one more time before I conclude that your level of debating honesty is exactly on a par with Kumar.

OK, what's your alternative to evolution?

 

[Taffer]

I appreciate the response, but what you're describing here is an abductive inference, not an empirical event, which this mechanism must necessarily describe. If it doesn't, then it doesn't belong in a scientific theory. It's that simple.

Oddly enough, I've asked this question at various times, in different forums, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

You are simply confusing Inductive and Deductive methods. This same objection to was raised against Darwin, and swiftly answered.

 

[hammegk]

Let's try this again before I conclude that your level of debating honesty is exactly that of Kumar;

LOL. Tell me why placebos ever "work", and why homepathic solutions can't do the same. Discussing conmen who sell snake-oil is a different topic, and I'm confident we are 100% in agreement in that discussion, a discussion that would actually fall within the JREF 'mission'.

OK, what's your alternative to evolution?

Nice try, but that is not a requirement for me to request better empirical justification for your theory than is currently available.

Question for your consideration: How many abiogenesis events led to the Cambrian critters? One, 2, dozens, thousands? Parallel development intrigues me.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I thought that statement was pointed towards abiogenesis. You said I was wrong. What is the falsification principle of evolution you are suggesting?

Artificial life programs have simulated lifeforms with genes, programmed mutation rates, and so forth. In short, scientists define conditions where different genes are beneficial, which ones are negative, etc, and predict what sort of simulated life forms will result. Last I heard, those predictions tend to be accurate. And they've produced irreducibly complex results.

"Anachronistic fossils" are a red herring. Some revision of narrative might be required.

Depends somewhat on how anachronistic the fossil is. For slightly early or late fossils, Theory of Evolution version 157.3.2 might need to be modified into 157.3.3 to fit the evidence, which is how science works.

If a T-rex fossil contained homo sap bones in its' stomach, that might be difficult, I'd agree. I predict that one won't be happening.

In this particular case, it might break the theory completely. But I doubt that'll happen, too.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Some of the articles I've been stumbling on lately seem to have a common theme to them. Unfortunately, I don't have access to your full link to read their justification for the above statement. But the common theme has been a sort of assertion that genetic homology or molecular biology doesn't always wash with the narrative account of evolution. Everything I've been looking at seems to be coming from Darwinists, so don't here me saying their out there trying to disprove evolution. But the common theme is, "Hey, after a closer look we might need to re-figure this..."

I wonder your opinion on this subject, and the accusation by many that evolutionists keep moving the goalposts whenever evidence from homologies other than anatomical are now being increasingly utilized.

This is really too vague for a response.

I don't even see how one could "move the goalposts". The prediction is that the faimliy tree of life as revealed by genetics should match up with the family tree suggested by cladistic morphology and confirmed by the fossil record.

So for example birds should (and do) have closer genetic affinities with crocodiles than with other vetebrate groups. If their genetics had turned out to be closer to the marsuipials, then where would we move the goalposts? That would be a clear falsification of the theory of evolution.

I would also wonder your opinion on the article I've linked to twice, since no one else wants to comment on it. Specifically with regard to evolution, of what accuracy is a genetic study without a defined outgroup?

I too just get a French error message when I follow the link. In general, the answer depends on what the genetic study is meant to find out. To determine that birds are most closely related to the crocs, you need representatives of all the other vertebrate outgroups. To discover how, say, the Felidae are related to one another, there's no particular point in comparing them all to, say, a frog.

 

[stamenflicker]

Is that the link you complain no one has followed?

Error 404: Le document que vous avez demandé n'est pas/plus disponible sur le serveur Web de l'ULB.

Grrrrrr. It's a .pdf file so I'll see if I can find it again. But even without it, what's the method for utilizing genetic homology without a defined outgroup, or worse, an outgroup that seems to change every so often?

 

[hammegk]

Artificial life programs have simulated lifeforms with genes, programmed mutation rates, and so forth. In short, scientists define conditions where different genes are beneficial, which ones are negative, etc, and predict what sort of simulated life forms will result. Last I heard, those predictions tend to be accurate. And they've produced irreducibly complex results.

Er, ok, those models. And how do they, now or ever, falsify Theory of Ev?

Depends somewhat on how anachronistic the fossil is. For slightly early or late fossils, Theory of Evolution version 157.3.2 might need to be modified into 157.3.3 to fit the evidence, which is how science works.

Agreed, but again no hint here of falsification of the Theory.

So for example birds should (and do) have closer genetic affinities with crocodiles than with other vetebrate groups. If their genetics had turned out to be closer to the marsuipials, then where would we move the goalposts? That would be a clear falsification of the theory of evolution.

You suggest with a straight face morphology has been that wrong? If you can't tell butterflies from spiders, maybe you are in the wrong field as a classifier.

Maybe you should argue Popperian falsifiability is not pre-req for your "Theory".

 

[Dr Adequate]

... or worse, an outgroup that seems to change every so often?

This is more puzzling still. Why should geneticists always use the same outgroup?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You suggest with a straight face morphology has been that wrong?

No, I suggest with a straight face that the morphologists are right. You state with a clown nose that the morphologists are wrong.

Do try to pay attention.

 

[drkitten]

Agreed, but again no hint here of falsification of the Theory.

Oooh, an out-of-context quotation, too.

Did you miss the next paragraph? You know, the one that YOU WROTE?

If a T-rex fossil contained homo sap bones in its' stomach, that might be difficult, I'd agree. I predict that one won't be happening.

In this particular case, it might break the theory completely.

Goodness, "breaking the theory completely" isn't falsifying it? What is it, then?

Maybe you should argue Popperian falsifiability is not pre-req for your "Theory".

Why? You yourself have shown one way that evolution can be falsified.

 

[hammegk]

No, I suggest with a straight face that the morphologists are right. You state with a clown nose that the morphologists are wrong.

Do try to pay attention.

I am. And I just pointed out your hypothetical is silly.


Dear Kitty: You really believe that other, insane, hypotheticals offer falsifiability?

 

[delphi_ote]

Er, ok, those models. And how do they, now or ever, falsify Theory of Ev?

These models mimic the process of evolution. They would not work if evolution did not work. They work. Natural selection and mutation are sufficient to move species toward an optima according to these simulations. One more potential way that evolution could've been falsified, but wasn't. There's a substantial pile of such research, but I know you don't want to see it.

Agreed, but again no hint here of falsification of the Theory.

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If we falsified the theory, we would be searching for a new one right now. We haven't. All research for the past 100 years points to common ancestry for all species, who have been modified over millenia. Darwin's central hypothesis was right.

You suggest with a straight face morphology has been that wrong? If you can't tell butterflies from spiders, maybe you are in the wrong field as a classifier.

I note that you didn't comment on my previous dog post, which addresses preciesly this issue. Was it too hard for you? Too many big words? If you want to talk about science, maybe you should do a little research first. If you want to say that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of biologists are wrong, maybe you should do a lot of research first.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've seen hammy use this argument before, but it's still funny.

We point out that the theory falsifiable in principle, because if it was false observation would prove this. To which hammy replies that he and his fundie friends have given up all hope of falsifying it in practice, because all the evidence does in fact support it.

(This is why they confine themselves to writting halfwitted "philosophical" gibberish about evolution, rather than looking for a fact which disproves it. Besides, scientific research is difficult and requires a modicum of intelligence.)

Therefore, he concludes, the theory is "unfalsifiable", and a "just-so-story".

Just like the theory that I have two legs. I find myself completely unable to falsify that. According to Popper-as-interpreted-by-hammy, I'd better dismiss my "bipedal" theory as untestable and metaphysical.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am. And I just pointed your hypothetical is silly.

I know that it's silly because I know the theorry of evolution is correct, and that no such disconfirmation will be found. From a Creationist standpoint there is no reason at all why it shouldn't be found.

See my previous post. On what basis do you rule out finding such a piece of contrary evidence other than knowing damn well that the theory of evolution is correct?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Er, ok, those models. And how do they, now or ever, falsify Theory of Ev?

If they didn't live up to the predictions evolution makes, that'd be a falsification.

Agreed, but again no hint here of falsification of the Theory.

A falsification of the old version. But, as I said, something as anachronistic as humans and dinosaurs together would probably falsify it.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I know that it's silly because I know the theorry of evolution is correct, and that no such disconfirmation will be found. From a Creationist standpoint there is no reason at all why it shouldn't be found.

See my previous post. On what basis do you rule out finding such a piece of contrary evidence other than knowing damn well that the theory of evolution is correct?

It's kind of hard to argue with a person who effectively keeps saying there'll be no evidence to fit the falsification criteria for evolution.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What a field day hammy would have if only every species had undergone genetic analysis.

"Well it's impossible to use genetics to falsify evolution now, because we've looked at all the evidence and it all supports evolution! So evolution is a just-so-story!"

 

[drkitten]

Dear Kitty: You really believe that other, insane, hypotheticals offer falsifiability?

You really believe that they don't?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's kind of hard to argue with a person who effectively keeps saying there'll be no evidence to fit the falsification criteria for evolution.

You see my point. But will hammy?



Listen, hammy: predicting that there'll never be any evidence to fit the falsification criteria for the theory of evolution is what believing in the theory of evolution means.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dear Kitty: You really believe that other, insane, hypotheticals offer falsifiability?

For "insane" read "contrary to the theory of evolution, but perfectly possible if creationist nutters were correct".