Proof of evolution (Page 2)

axocanth: When challenged by Creationists that evolutionary theory is "unfalsifiable", therefore unscientific, a common reaction from people like yourself is to appeal to that pre-Cambrian rabbit. I've no doubt you've heard.

Do you believe this is an appropriate reaction? Do you feel that the discovery of a pre-Cambrian rabbit would falsify (= disprove) evolutionary theory?

Now, if there is any chance that evolutionary theory could be 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏, how on earth can you justify your claim that it has been 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏?

Surely that which has been 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏 cannot possibly be 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏?

ParallaxMan: Clearly you don’t understand the point I’m making. Don't worry. I’m certain it will come to you.

axocanth: Clearly not. Thank God you're here.

Now, moving onto models of scientific evidence and confirmation, given your education you're doubtless familiar with the "hypothetico-deductive" (HD) model.

Just to get us started, then, do you feel the HD model is compatible with your claim that there is no evidence for Creationism?

Please elaborate.

How about the Bayesian model of confirmation/evidence?

Or do you have another model in mind? Please share.

Thanks!

ParallaxMan: In 1975, six irishmen were imprisoned for life for the 1974 birmingham pub bombings.
In 1991, upon the discovery of new evidence, they were acquitted, released and compensated.

axocanth: Yes, great film! I especially love Daniel Day Lewis singing "Like a Rolling Stone" on the ferry over from Belfast to England.

Now, getting back to models of scientific evidence . . .

ParallaxMan: Until there is evidence of God, other than the rants of creationists, there can be no hypotheses.

axocanth: You continue simply to 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆 that there is no evidence for God. Now, if you concede that this is merely a personal opinion on your part, there is nothing whatsoever objectionable about your claim. As it stands, it's on a par with a Creationist claiming that there is no evidence for evolution.

A mere difference of opinion.

If you want to be taken more seriously, though, you'll have to tell us which model of evidence/confirmation you're appealing to -- something you continue not to do (for fairly obvious reasons).

ParallaxMan: There is in fact a great deal of evidence for evolution, some of which I shared on this forum. The only proof of a God is a belief system and nothing substantial. That is my position. Moreso, none of it matters, we are what we are, and when we shuffle off our mortal coil, perhaps then we’ll realise we were wrong - and that’s one hell of a way to lose an argument.

axocanth: Well, it might just be my suspicious nature again, but I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you're bloviating on a topic that you know precisely nothing about.

Welcome to the Wireclub science forums!

BelgianStrider: The clear evidence of axo being ultimately extremely consequent and never doing any contradictions in his all of his imeasurably intelligence !!!

Let's compare two inputs from axo:

First from here: Topic: Science



BelgianStrider: axocanth: "premise 1 of z is already false and can not be a theory. Thus what follows is pure nonsense"

- Belgian


Hard to make sense of this (I'm sincerely trying), but you appear to be saying that which is false cannot be a theory.

If this were the case (assuming a bivalent logic, i.e. if it's not false then it's true) then all theories would be true.

How do you explain all these theories that are now regarded as being false?

When it is falsified it looses the "scientific status of theory" and it becomes "obsolete". There are, indeed, in science undeniably many "obsolete theories"!
When it is even falsified before being accepted as a "theory": can you imagine it will ever be a "theory"? If you do; good luck!
And again you do give extreme good evidence you have no clue about the scientifical semantic of "theory" !!!
Again you also seem not to grasp what has been said before:
"𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡! 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐎𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲; 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨) 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲"

What can for sure falsify beyond reasonable doubt ToE? Many will say "precambrian rabbits" !!!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
7 months ago • Edit • Delete • Report
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: For me: it will be " kangaroo's fossils hopping from the middle east (Turkey) way up to "Down Under" " !!!
With Kangaroo, I 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 kangaroo and not ancient kangaroo like creatures !!!
My requirements should (seemingly), factually, be even lesser hard to find! (Edited by BelgianStrider)
7 months ago
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: "We have not been considering the theory that "All men are 200 cms tall . . . except for some"."

Again: a clear statement that confirms you do not have any understanding about "scientific theory"!
7 months ago
axocanth
axocanth: @ Belgian

Regarding your continued insistence that scientific theories are subject to definitive falsification, that they can be contradicted by evidence/data, e.g.

"Of course we know that any finding that contradict a theory it will fall." and

"Evidence can contradict or confirm a theory." - Belgian (both on page 3)

. . . since you seem unwilling to accept my own explanation for why this is grossly oversimplistic, I ask you to consider the following remarks from Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg:



"Pierre Duhem and W. Van Quine pointed out long ago that a scientific theory can never be absolutely ruled out [i.e. definitively falsified - Axo] by experimental data because there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiment."

-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p125




As for that pesky pre-Cambrian rabbit . . .

"What can for sure falsify beyond reasonable doubt ToE? Many will say "precambrian rabbits" !!!" - Belgian (above)


Oh yes, many scientists do SAY that the discovery of a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian strata would sound the death knell for the theory of evolution . . . and they are talking rubbish, I'm afraid, presumably due to naiveté about the philosophy and history of science.

Stop and think about this for a bit. Are you seriously suggesting that upon the discovery of a single, or several, pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils, the entire community of evolutionary biologists--EVERY SINGLE ONE!--would immediately and en masse declare evolution to be a load of crap?

This is the stuff of fairy tales, sir.



Well, what WOULD happen in the event of such an unlikely discovery? A few thoughts for your consideration:


* Such a finding would certainly raise eyebrows. It would be a shocking discovery indeed.


* It's possible that some scientists might indeed declare the theory of evolution (whatever that is today) to be false and cast it to the wind. But ALL of them? Again, I think you're forgetting that scientists are a wildly heterogeneous group -- they NEVER (or almost never) react in precisely the same way to novel evidence.


* What I suggest would happen, by and large, is that the reaction would be "Looks like we have some rethinking to do, boys". As history bears witness, what normally happens in situations such as these is that scientists will try to find some way to RECONCILE the puzzling new evidence with theory.

(c.f. Weinberg quote above: "there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiment." )


* As history also testifies, major paradigms DO sometimes get abandoned . . . but usually not until an alternative presents itself. Right now, there does not appear to be an alternative for evolutionary biologists to nail their colors to.

Um, except for the G-word

(Edited by axocanth)
7 months ago
axocanth
axocanth: "Again: a clear statement that confirms you do not have any understanding about "scientific theory"!" - Belgian


And presumably you are privy to this understanding? Be sure to share with the world.


If there's one thing in these forums to puts me to sleep it's when some likely lad offers his one-line solution to a vexed issue that has animated the finest minds of the human race for centuries, if not millennia.

Are you aware that philosophers and philosophically inclined scientists themselves have been trying to capture the essence of a scientific theory (assuming there is such a thing) for centuries?

Are you aware that nothing remotely resembling a consensus on this issue exists? (e.g. the "syntactic" model of theories vs the "semantic" model).

But you've nailed it, eh?"

With this one on page 1

"axocanth: Your claim that evolution -- whichever postulate(s) you have in mind -- has been 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏 also sits very uncomfortably with this:


"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions"

- Albert Einstein, "The New Quotable Einstein", p225



Do you feel Einstein is wrong about this?"

Doe that not seem to confimwhat I claimed 7 months ago and that he valiantly tried to disprove with pages od discussion based about the sole and exclusive bivalence of TRUE- FALSE aznd that a 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐄. Pages has been spent on it!

𝐍𝐎𝐖, 𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄, Axo comes up with a total other standpoint quoting Einstein !!!!!!
""The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions"

- Albert Einstein, "The New Quotable Einstein", p225"

Let's now play just a little game of guessing:

-If axo maintains what he told us 7 months ago and comes with Einstein's quotation: where might be the contradiction ????

-If axo just came in some fora just to tell the opposite: how consequential can he be in his opinions ????

𝐎𝐫
-does it play in the manipulative behaviour of axo to discredit every possible sciencitiic discipline in order to make Inteligent Design an acceptable hypotheses like his great philisopher berlinski does ????


Axo you know what I call that: "𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘨"

Oh btw all what I claim about axo and "scientific theories have to be true" can be found here: Topic: Science
There are enough pages with evidence validating beyond reasonable doubts my claim - even about his personal adoration of berlinski.

About his manipulative traits: Topic: Wireclub Help

ParallaxMan: That was my point earlier that, although evolution is supported by a huge cabale of evidence, one day a discovery might be made that proves that is nonsense. However, if evolution to be disproved, that doesn't mean creationism is true. Things are as they are.

axocanth: So what you're saying now is:

(i) Evolution is proven (see thread title), and

(ii) Evolution can be disproven (above)

?

Rather you than me, dude.

ParallaxMan: That is a possibility I wonder

axocanth: It's a logical impossibility, dude.

That which is proven to be true cannot -- by definition -- be shown to be untrue.

ParallaxMan: I guess yes, I chose the thread title to deliberately lure creationists, my bad

axocanth: Yes, it's every bit as silly as a thread entitled "The science of evolution is not science".

ParallaxMan: Indeed

axocanth: Lure Creationists? Hmm, seems like you're saying in the OP that Creationists are not welcome.

ParallaxMan: Devil’s advocate

BelgianStrider: Well in French they will say:
"le jour où la théorie de l'évolution est invalide, les poules auront des dents et les poissons des bretelles"!
Wat can be translated in " bad spoken French - dixit Victor Hugo - " as " When the theory of evolution is invalid, chickens will have teeth and fish will have braces "

𝐄𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬; 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 "𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥" !!!!

Extremely few 'experts' in the disciplines covering "evolution" will deny that 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝 claim : even Goul never did as he was clearly a 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧"


ᵒʰ ᶦᵗ ᶦˢ ᵉᵛᵉⁿ ᵖᵒˢˢᶦᵇˡᵉ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦᵗ ᶦˢ ᵃ ᵠᵘᵒᵗᵉ ᵒᶠ ᴰᵃʷᵏᶦⁿˢ

BelgianStrider: IF: it is a quote of Dawkins; that means I at least read his books and know what I am speaking about when Dawkins is mentionned. Some euuuuuuh

And when berlinski pretends "Von Neumann laughed and hooted Darwin's theory" it is highly probable that berlinsky is blatantly lying !!!!

BelgianStrider: one part of the original video of berlinsky



note also

Coldwater media

https://coldwatermedia.com/

Amongst the sponsors

Bible museum
Institution for faith, work & economics
the Colson center for Christian worldview

ᵖˢˢˢˢᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ ᵃʳᵉ ᶜᵒᵐᵖᵘᵗᵉʳ ᵐᵒᵈᵉˡˢ ˢᶦᵐᵘˡᵃᵗᶦⁿᵍ ᵗʰᵉ ᵇᶦᵒˡᵒᵍᶦᶜᵃˡ ᵉᵛᵒˡᵘᵗᶦᵒⁿ ...

ParallaxMan: Infamy infamy they’ve all got it in for me

axocanth: @PM

Before proceeding, a quick word on motivations, since comments such as your " . . . or are you merely filling the time between meals?" imply that perhaps you feel I'm just here to be gratuitously annoying.

That's not the case at all. If my motivations could be captured in one word it would be this: I want you to 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌.

If that makes you uncomfortable I'll stop posting hereafter. Just say the word!

In the meantime . . .



How would you feel, for example, if a Creationist came into your thread and proceeded to make one bald assertion after another -- "God exists!", "Jesus loves you!", or whatever -- supported by no evidence or argumentation whatsoever?

I suspect you'd say something like the following:

"This is a serious thread for thinking people. All claims, all assertions (except for the trivial that no one disputes), must be 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 -- they must be supported by evidence or rational argumentation. Anyone unable to do this is invited to go somewhere else."

Does that sound reasonable?



Now, just to focus on one example, you made the following assertion:

"There is no evidence for a Creator (or Creationism)"

As I've told you, I'm not a religious man myself. Nonetheless, I do not feel your assertion is obviously true, thus requiring no justification. Equally clearly, there are a great many people out there who 𝒅𝒐 feel there is evidence for their god or creator.

People, on the whole at least, do not believe the things they do for no reason. Scientists have reasons for believing the things they do, religious people do too. You're effectively telling us that these reasons of the latter, whatever they happen to be, do not constitute 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.

I strongly suspect the reason you say this is simply because you have heard other people say it -- perhaps high profile scientists such as Richard Dawkins. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I've also heard people like Dawkins say this many times; never once, though, have I heard them 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒚 the claim. Never once have I heard them specify their criteria for evidence, or scientific evidence in particular, and demonstrate how the putative evidence of Creationists fails to satisfy those criteria. Have you?

It remains, therefore, an unsupported bald assertion on a par with "Jesus loves you!", and -- unfortunately -- no doubt simply accepted unquestioningly and uncritically by the vast majority of their audience.

Do you wish to be included among the ranks of these unquestioning and unthinking people? I hope not.



So, if all this is granted, I'll ask again: How do you justify your assertion that there is no evidence for God/Creationism (or whatever)? In virtue of what fact or facts is the case that all the putative evidence adduced by believers to support their beliefs is not, in fact, evidence at all?



Just to get us started, I'll choose a random example. How about the argument from design? Believers often argue that design in nature -- what you would call the 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 of design in nature -- constitutes evidence for a designer. Indeed, many 𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔 considered this to be evidence for "special creation" prior to the Darwinian revolution. Darwin himself treats it a rival hypothesis in 𝑶𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏, presumably with the implication that he feels there 𝒊𝒔 evidence for special creation -- it is not a ridiculous, wholly unsupported hypothesis -- but the evidence for his own theory is weightier.

Now, if this is the case, what happened to all that evidence? On your account, there is no evidence 𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍, implying that the scientists of the period were mistaken in thinking they had evidence for special creation.



Is it your position, perhaps, that since the theory of special creation is 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒆, there can be no evidence for it? There can be no evidence for a false theory?

If so, this would have the unpalatable consequence of conceding that all those scientists, both throughout history and in the present, (the vast majority, I daresay) who nail their colors to a false theory are guilty of believing 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓.

Moreover, if it turns out that one of these theories of evolution (see the writer's various "postulates" ), or perhaps even 𝒂𝒍𝒍 of them, turns out to be false -- a possibility you have already conceded -- then all those mountains of evidence that you currently claim to be in possession of 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍.

Oh, and this view also implies that those Irish "terrorists" you mentioned, since they were innocent (they theory that "they did it" was false), were convicted 𝒐𝒏 𝒏𝒐 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒔𝒐𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓.

Can false theories, as well as true theories, be supported by evidence? If so, what criteria have to be satisfied?


I await elaboration . . .

ParallaxMan: An interesting post. A belief in creationism or indeed a God is subjective, I believe, and far from scientific, but based one one or more personal experiences - loss, the need for salvation or forgiveness; the holy crusades of antiquity, for example, were not about the resolution of land disputes but the absolution of sin and about forgiveness. And I suspect most are suspicious of an all loving and forgiving creator for whom men give their lives and take the lives of others. If there is evidence of God other than a bible or the faith of a flawed human nature, I would like to see it.

Of course, a lack of supporting evidence for one theory does not make the opposite true and, with each discovery say, a fossil, a sunken tree or an apparatus lifted from an ancient ship wreck, the time line is pushed back further. My hope is that discoveries will be made that tie it all together; humans, birds, dinosaurs and transitional forms. And God? That’s too simple an explanation, Occam would likely dispute this, but for something as complex as the living form, DNA, intellect and memories, God did it is cheating.

You are correct. There is no evidence save for shaped rocks, theories snd faith. We are passing the time between dreams.