Evolution... good, bad or ugly?
- Thread starter outside looking in
- Start date
ris
New Member
just a short one - long masses of cut and paste are going to put a breezeblock through the window of debate. you read it, great, so summarise and post a link. or post the pertinent bits and a link.
huge wads of cut and paste piss me off because at 7am in my brief, coffee soaked, sojourn through the site i don't have time to read them, and when they are clearly ripped from another site and aren't written by the member i lose any interest in wasting valuable time doing it.
huge wads of cut and paste piss me off because at 7am in my brief, coffee soaked, sojourn through the site i don't have time to read them, and when they are clearly ripped from another site and aren't written by the member i lose any interest in wasting valuable time doing it.
ris
New Member
thats as maybe, rightly or not i feel obliged to read every thread all the way through [if only to check for luis' spreading taxi's of evil 
] so i advise to everyone, when posting - think once, think twice, think poor ris in the morning bleary eyed sweet mother of *erk* that's a monster thread D D
] so i advise to everyone, when posting - think once, think twice, think poor ris in the morning bleary eyed sweet mother of *erk* that's a monster thread D D
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
outside looking in said:
Wrong on an empirical level, OLI, and you know it. Science can't prove anything without faith in the numbers. Everything is based, one way or another, on faith. Your theory on intelligence is based on the 'fact' that what you have come up with has been proven. How do you know your data isn't flawed on a fundamental level? The only fact is that you don't. You know it, and I know it. You have 'facts' because you have faith in your data. Anything else is pure conjecture. The concepts of my argument only requires the intelligence to realize that the alternative is both pointless and ridiculous. Faith is required for anything to work in this universe. If you don't believe me, then prove it. Explain why something works the way it does. You pick the subject. Just remember that there is a big difference between how and why.
now I'm pissed. i wrote a really long post, maybe as long as an LL post, and somehow I got logged out an lost it
Well, I'm not about to write it all over again.
My point was only that the word "prove" can't be used, demonstrated yes, "proven" no. Outside, you missed my point clearly.
as far as whether that is philisophica, and whether we can really know anything is besides the point. That wasn't my intetion. My point was to explain that scientific method doesn't work the way you are assuming. Remember, how it works, you have 2 arguments, one is the straw man (the null hypothesis) and the second, the one you are actually testing, is the alternative. If you "reject the null" than you have demonstrated the alternative at whatever confidence level you were testing. You didn't prove it, you demonstrated that the null hypothesis was incorrect with x% confidence. You didn't prove x because it wasn't y. Science doesn't work this way. You may not have even captured the essence of the problem with your tests, indeed, you may be testing whether x varies directly with y, and you may demonstate that it does. But that doesn't mean necessarily if x increase y increase. I could be that x is directly correlated with z, and y actually changes because of a change in z, but x also changes with z, thus it appears that a change in x results in a change in y. Science isn't so straight forward as people pretend. I can run regressions and "prove" something with x% confidence, but ya know what, it doesn't mean I have answered the question at hand, at least not correctly. It may, or may not be correct.
Any way, back to the issue of life from nothingness. It isn't possible to calculate this, so I won't accept it. I need some probability to work with. I have nothing. We have no basis for calculating a probability for this. It has never been observed, anywhere, thus, we are making assuptions, based upon assumption, based upon further assumptions. No, I don't accept this. The scientific community does, for some reason, but I do not. I find it strange that they speak of things for which probabilities can be calculated, like say on the order of a billion to one, and speak of them is impossible, yet, at the same time, take something for which you can't even begin to calculate a probability and say its true, and that it has indeed happend.
You won't convince me on this. Some day, some scientist may, but it hasn't happened yet. Furthermore, with the current evidence, you won't.
Well, I'm not about to write it all over again.
My point was only that the word "prove" can't be used, demonstrated yes, "proven" no. Outside, you missed my point clearly.
as far as whether that is philisophica, and whether we can really know anything is besides the point. That wasn't my intetion. My point was to explain that scientific method doesn't work the way you are assuming. Remember, how it works, you have 2 arguments, one is the straw man (the null hypothesis) and the second, the one you are actually testing, is the alternative. If you "reject the null" than you have demonstrated the alternative at whatever confidence level you were testing. You didn't prove it, you demonstrated that the null hypothesis was incorrect with x% confidence. You didn't prove x because it wasn't y. Science doesn't work this way. You may not have even captured the essence of the problem with your tests, indeed, you may be testing whether x varies directly with y, and you may demonstate that it does. But that doesn't mean necessarily if x increase y increase. I could be that x is directly correlated with z, and y actually changes because of a change in z, but x also changes with z, thus it appears that a change in x results in a change in y. Science isn't so straight forward as people pretend. I can run regressions and "prove" something with x% confidence, but ya know what, it doesn't mean I have answered the question at hand, at least not correctly. It may, or may not be correct.
Any way, back to the issue of life from nothingness. It isn't possible to calculate this, so I won't accept it. I need some probability to work with. I have nothing. We have no basis for calculating a probability for this. It has never been observed, anywhere, thus, we are making assuptions, based upon assumption, based upon further assumptions. No, I don't accept this. The scientific community does, for some reason, but I do not. I find it strange that they speak of things for which probabilities can be calculated, like say on the order of a billion to one, and speak of them is impossible, yet, at the same time, take something for which you can't even begin to calculate a probability and say its true, and that it has indeed happend.
You won't convince me on this. Some day, some scientist may, but it hasn't happened yet. Furthermore, with the current evidence, you won't.
Ok, I'm no expert on radioactive dating and decay rates, how its done, etc etc. But tell me this, how long have we been doing it? How long have we tested this? How long have we known of this, and how much time have we had to know that all the rates are are aware of are constant over time? How much time? I'm sorry, but I have little confidence in a numbers proclaiming to be able to date things millions or even billions of years back when it hasn't existed for even a few hundred years to demonstrate its accuracy. Sure, it may be fine, sure maybe all these rates are constant over time. Sure, maybe they are indepenent of outside forces, but then again, what of relativity, and time dialation? What if there are factors we aren't aware of yet that affect these rates of decay, what if these factors varied over time? What if? We don't have such a perfect understanding of the universe around us. Each day we don't learn how much smarter we are, but rather how much more there is that we don't understand.
I'm not an expert in this field, or a number of other ones, but i know well enough that relatively young fields of study and relatively unproven techniques tend to be found to be incorrect later. Ok, we are speaking in terms of millions and billions of years, but we are doing it with techniques that cetainly can't be more than a 100 years old, and most certainly are younger. I have little "faith" of the predicitve power of tests that have only been in use for much less than a century (well I mean when they are trying explain million or billions of years based on only a few that were witnessed and tested), but that claim the ability to date millions or even billions of years prior. Don't you think there is an element of FAITH in the technique, and the method? The only constant in the world is change. I think we can agree on that, ok and maybe c, but thats up for debate in some circles as well!!! The gravitational constant has come under fire too, it seems it isn't so constant as was once believed.
Its just the magnitude of the time frames which these methods wish to explain that bothers me. So looking at the few objects we can date precisely, lets say a thousand or so years back, we now want to extrapolate back millions or billions of years based on the constant composition and distribuion of isotopes over a 1000 year period. i will concede, you can look at some very old trees, look at tree rings, and then verify your methods, but what happens beyond a thousand years or so? I don't know too many trees older than that. What can you be SURE was created at year x, and verify your methods with beyond this range? And even then, there are anomolies. I'm not entirely sure I trust this either. Clearly one would have to have FAITH in the method, and in the constancy of our "constants" over time, and under varying circumstances these methods to be accurate (gravitational fields and velocity have time dialating effects remember). Ok, that probably doesn't work since we are in the same frame of reference, but what if there is something else we don't quite understand yet?
This isn't so easy. the more you look for answers, the more questions you find.
I don't want to argue this issue. I have no concern for it really. It doesn't interest me so much. Bad assumptions and the incorrect use of the word PROOF tend to bother me But aside from that, I couldn't care less really. its an unwinable argument like so many others(at least with our current knowledge and understanding).
I'm not an expert in this field, or a number of other ones, but i know well enough that relatively young fields of study and relatively unproven techniques tend to be found to be incorrect later. Ok, we are speaking in terms of millions and billions of years, but we are doing it with techniques that cetainly can't be more than a 100 years old, and most certainly are younger. I have little "faith" of the predicitve power of tests that have only been in use for much less than a century (well I mean when they are trying explain million or billions of years based on only a few that were witnessed and tested), but that claim the ability to date millions or even billions of years prior. Don't you think there is an element of FAITH in the technique, and the method? The only constant in the world is change. I think we can agree on that, ok and maybe c, but thats up for debate in some circles as well!!! The gravitational constant has come under fire too, it seems it isn't so constant as was once believed.
Its just the magnitude of the time frames which these methods wish to explain that bothers me. So looking at the few objects we can date precisely, lets say a thousand or so years back, we now want to extrapolate back millions or billions of years based on the constant composition and distribuion of isotopes over a 1000 year period. i will concede, you can look at some very old trees, look at tree rings, and then verify your methods, but what happens beyond a thousand years or so? I don't know too many trees older than that. What can you be SURE was created at year x, and verify your methods with beyond this range? And even then, there are anomolies. I'm not entirely sure I trust this either. Clearly one would have to have FAITH in the method, and in the constancy of our "constants" over time, and under varying circumstances these methods to be accurate (gravitational fields and velocity have time dialating effects remember). Ok, that probably doesn't work since we are in the same frame of reference, but what if there is something else we don't quite understand yet?
This isn't so easy. the more you look for answers, the more questions you find.
I don't want to argue this issue. I have no concern for it really. It doesn't interest me so much. Bad assumptions and the incorrect use of the word PROOF tend to bother me
But aside from that, I couldn't care less really. its an unwinable argument like so many others(at least with our current knowledge and understanding).Oh, one more thing. i was really shocked at some of the recent publications I read about challenges to previously established "constants." I guess that was my only point on the radioactive dating issue. If we can't be sure of our most fundemental constants, what can we be "sure" of?
ok, I read it all now. I have a suggestion. What if we replace the word PROVEN with accepted, then things will go much better
Of course, LL will still disagree with whether what is accepted is correct or not.
I think this can be cleared up by quoting ages and time frames as accepted. Maybe they are correct, maybe they are not. given current technology, they are the best we can come up with, so they are accepted, but not necessariy correct.
Outside,
Man, I still disagree with your dismissal of the probability issue. That is the ONLY strong arguement LL had going for him. Sorry LL. Ok, maybe you had some other interesting points, but it all comes down to probability. given sufficiently high odds, and a long enough time frame, I think I can agree with you on evolution, but I need the odds first. I need to be able to calculate them first.
Again, it comes back to that break through where we can finally create life from non living materials in a lab. I think at that point, evolution will win, but until then, its not a fact. Ok, even then it wouldn't be a fact, but it would be very likely to be the answer we are looking for. It seems there is a lot of animostiy between the creation versus evolution issue. Its not such a big deal. I don't get this. I certainly wouldn't take the time to disect every sentence to "prove" my point. This shows almost a religous "faith" in your belief, on both sides. I'm sorry, but I see it that way.
I'm pretty open on these things. Or at least I think I am. I will tell you, it's a hell of a lot harder to "PROVE" or hell, for that matter demonstrate creationism than evolution, but I'm not trying to proove anything. I don't believe either side. I like the alien theory too, but that leads of course to the vicious circle where orginal life must still arise from somewhere. Where that was, I'm not certain. The idea, the concept even, that there was some being that created everything seems utterly absurd to a rational scientific mind. However, so does the idea that something arose from nothing. In any event, our current understanding can't explain what happened, and where it all came from. That is my stance on this. Neither side PROVES anything. However, since most scientists, and science in general rejects the God theory (the null hypolthesis in this case) you are left with the alternative, life arose from nothingness. Ok, in that sense, I see why the scientific community and the scientific method "proves" evolution. You can't accept what you can't find evidence to support, God Hypotheses for example, so you are left with the alternative, evolution. In this case, this really is a case of if not x then y, because at least to my knowledge there probably isn't another answer, but I still try to lean toward the none of the above in case we find another alternative (I don't see one yet though, I could be wrong however). Ok, in that sense, if you want to argue it that way, you can come to a logical conclusion in which evolution MUST have happened. Clearly it must have, somehow, if this is are starting point. Science MUST choose evolution, even with out evidence that life CAN be created from nothingness at all.
Ok problem solved, at least for me. I see how the argument always leads to evolution as the ONLY POSSIBLE answer using the scientific method. Clearly, in some form, it MUST be true, assuming we were correct in rejecting our null hypothesis, the God hypothesis.
Of course, LL will still disagree with whether what is accepted is correct or not.
I think this can be cleared up by quoting ages and time frames as accepted. Maybe they are correct, maybe they are not. given current technology, they are the best we can come up with, so they are accepted, but not necessariy correct.
Outside,
Man, I still disagree with your dismissal of the probability issue. That is the ONLY strong arguement LL had going for him. Sorry LL. Ok, maybe you had some other interesting points, but it all comes down to probability. given sufficiently high odds, and a long enough time frame, I think I can agree with you on evolution, but I need the odds first. I need to be able to calculate them first.
Again, it comes back to that break through where we can finally create life from non living materials in a lab. I think at that point, evolution will win, but until then, its not a fact. Ok, even then it wouldn't be a fact, but it would be very likely to be the answer we are looking for. It seems there is a lot of animostiy between the creation versus evolution issue. Its not such a big deal. I don't get this. I certainly wouldn't take the time to disect every sentence to "prove" my point. This shows almost a religous "faith" in your belief, on both sides. I'm sorry, but I see it that way.
I'm pretty open on these things. Or at least I think I am. I will tell you, it's a hell of a lot harder to "PROVE" or hell, for that matter demonstrate creationism than evolution, but I'm not trying to proove anything. I don't believe either side. I like the alien theory too, but that leads of course to the vicious circle where orginal life must still arise from somewhere. Where that was, I'm not certain. The idea, the concept even, that there was some being that created everything seems utterly absurd to a rational scientific mind. However, so does the idea that something arose from nothing. In any event, our current understanding can't explain what happened, and where it all came from. That is my stance on this. Neither side PROVES anything. However, since most scientists, and science in general rejects the God theory (the null hypolthesis in this case) you are left with the alternative, life arose from nothingness. Ok, in that sense, I see why the scientific community and the scientific method "proves" evolution. You can't accept what you can't find evidence to support, God Hypotheses for example, so you are left with the alternative, evolution. In this case, this really is a case of if not x then y, because at least to my knowledge there probably isn't another answer, but I still try to lean toward the none of the above in case we find another alternative (I don't see one yet though, I could be wrong however). Ok, in that sense, if you want to argue it that way, you can come to a logical conclusion in which evolution MUST have happened. Clearly it must have, somehow, if this is are starting point. Science MUST choose evolution, even with out evidence that life CAN be created from nothingness at all.
Ok problem solved, at least for me. I see how the argument always leads to evolution as the ONLY POSSIBLE answer using the scientific method. Clearly, in some form, it MUST be true, assuming we were correct in rejecting our null hypothesis, the God hypothesis.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
The terms "faith" and "proof" have come up again and again, and they have been quite abused, so let's take just a moment to clear up those waters.
First, faith. The problem here stems from our usage of different definitions of the same word. In my context, and what I think should be the proper context for this discussion, this is the definition of faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Using that definition, there is a tremendous difference in a belief that is supported by logic or evidence (such as the belief that the Earth is round), and one that is not supported by logic or evidence (such as the belief that God created the Earth and all living things 10000 or less years ago). Some of you insist that you must have "faith" that the observations are correct, that the equations are accurate, that our understanding is not flawed. In my opinion, the above definition is the correct one in this case. You do not need "faith" to "believe" they are true, because by definition you believe based on logical proof or observational evidence, thus not by "faith."
Now, there are other definitions of "faith" as well. I think this is the one some of you would rather use in this discussion:
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
In that context, then yes, you must have faith that your experiment was accurate, you must have faith that the measurements were not erroneous, you must have faith that your understanding is correct. Indeed, you must have faith that the Earth is round. You must have faith that the sky is blue. You must have faith that the people you speak to every day actually exist.
Do you see where that is going? That definition does nothing to clarify the discussion, and in truth that definition is synomous with "belief" in general. In my opinion, there is a distinct difference between "belief" and "faith" (one is true for anything, the other is true only for things which have no logical proof or evidence). The only reason that definition exists is because of popular usage. If you insist on declaring that I must have "faith" that the experiment was accurate, then I'll reply that you must also have faith that the experiment was carried out... faith that there are actually people to carry out the experiment and things actually exist to measure.
If used in that context, it becomes an absurd regression of dependencies. Everything then must be accepted on faith, and the word itself loses any useful meaning. And that, Gato Solo, is precisely the point I was making earlier. You have two choices: to accept (to believe) that everything you observe is real, or to reject it. There is no absolute proof (and we'll get to that in a moment). If you reject it, then you are the only real thing (or, at least your mind is), and you are a solopsist. I would argue that there has never been a human that truly believed he/she was a solopsist... our minds are not made for such a worldview. Your alternative then is to accept (believe) that the world is real, that other people are real, that there are things to measure, and the experiments actually do happen. This does not require faith in my opinion (since I believe the second definition is useless), only the intelligence to reject the absurdity of the solopsist viewpoint.
So which is it? Is the world real? Are experiments and observations (and the observers) real? If so, then the results of the experiments are real, and you have no more grounds for rejecting their reality than you do for rejecting the reality of the experiment itself. Validity of the results is bordering on the discussion of "proof," which I will get into next.
Relevant definitions of "proof":
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.
Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
So, hopefully we have established that it does not require faith to accept that the material world and observations about it are real. What then, about the accuracy or validity or proof of such observations?
We are now firmly in the realm of epistemology. Let's start with a simple example. You might be surprised how blurred the lines between "real" and "true" (or proven) become. I show you a rock on the ground, and ask you if it is real. You respond that it is, and I ask you to prove to me that it is real. You say that you can see it, and I respond that you might be fooled or tricked somehow. You say that you can kick the rock and feel it, and I respond that your brain might again be fooled. In fact, your concious perception of the world is just a rendered representation based on sensory inputs to your brain. There is no guarantee, at all, that the inputs are accurate or that the rendering is accurate.
So where does that leave us? Back at the beginning. You must either accept that the rock is real, based on physical evidence, and declare that that is proof enough, as much as there ever will be, or you accept that nothing but your mind is real. Look at the definitions above. Where, in any of those, does it say that proof is evidence in absolute certainty, beyond any doubt? It doesn't, because such a thing does not exist.
It is a fallacy that some people believe "proof" to be that which is absolute. So, what then have we defined "proof" to mean? Precisely what is stated above. When physical or logical evidence strongly supports an idea, then it has been proven. There is no other definition. There is no absolute thing. The English language does not even contain a word that has the meaning some of you are attempting to use.
RD_151, you especially seem to be hung up on this usage of proof. Has it been proven that the world is round? Of course. Is that proof absolute, beyond any doubt? No. Is the usage of "proven" still correct in that context? Yes, because that is what we have defined the word to mean.. It is not my usage that is incorrect, but yours. Historical evolution is proven. Both the observational evidence and and the logical argument are there. The definition of the word is fulfilled.
It sits uneasily in your mind for me to speak of Evolution being proven, becuase you wish for the proof to be absolutely certain, beyond question. However, you are simply deluding yourself to think that there any such things. You are holding Evolution to a higher standard then you are anything else in the real world. Why?
Now, it is another matter entirely to say that the Evolution of life from non-life is proven. It is not, and science does not declare that it is. There are compelling arguments for it, and indeed one such compelling argument is that there are not alternative explanations currently, but that alone isn't enough to prove the theory, therefore science still regards that aspect of evolution as unproven. If you are going to argue that Evolution is not proven, or that the age of the Earth (within a given certainty band) is not proven, you must separate and specifiy precisely what you are referring to.
First, faith. The problem here stems from our usage of different definitions of the same word. In my context, and what I think should be the proper context for this discussion, this is the definition of faith:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Using that definition, there is a tremendous difference in a belief that is supported by logic or evidence (such as the belief that the Earth is round), and one that is not supported by logic or evidence (such as the belief that God created the Earth and all living things 10000 or less years ago). Some of you insist that you must have "faith" that the observations are correct, that the equations are accurate, that our understanding is not flawed. In my opinion, the above definition is the correct one in this case. You do not need "faith" to "believe" they are true, because by definition you believe based on logical proof or observational evidence, thus not by "faith."
Now, there are other definitions of "faith" as well. I think this is the one some of you would rather use in this discussion:
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
In that context, then yes, you must have faith that your experiment was accurate, you must have faith that the measurements were not erroneous, you must have faith that your understanding is correct. Indeed, you must have faith that the Earth is round. You must have faith that the sky is blue. You must have faith that the people you speak to every day actually exist.
Do you see where that is going? That definition does nothing to clarify the discussion, and in truth that definition is synomous with "belief" in general. In my opinion, there is a distinct difference between "belief" and "faith" (one is true for anything, the other is true only for things which have no logical proof or evidence). The only reason that definition exists is because of popular usage. If you insist on declaring that I must have "faith" that the experiment was accurate, then I'll reply that you must also have faith that the experiment was carried out... faith that there are actually people to carry out the experiment and things actually exist to measure.
If used in that context, it becomes an absurd regression of dependencies. Everything then must be accepted on faith, and the word itself loses any useful meaning. And that, Gato Solo, is precisely the point I was making earlier. You have two choices: to accept (to believe) that everything you observe is real, or to reject it. There is no absolute proof (and we'll get to that in a moment). If you reject it, then you are the only real thing (or, at least your mind is), and you are a solopsist. I would argue that there has never been a human that truly believed he/she was a solopsist... our minds are not made for such a worldview. Your alternative then is to accept (believe) that the world is real, that other people are real, that there are things to measure, and the experiments actually do happen. This does not require faith in my opinion (since I believe the second definition is useless), only the intelligence to reject the absurdity of the solopsist viewpoint.
So which is it? Is the world real? Are experiments and observations (and the observers) real? If so, then the results of the experiments are real, and you have no more grounds for rejecting their reality than you do for rejecting the reality of the experiment itself. Validity of the results is bordering on the discussion of "proof," which I will get into next.
Relevant definitions of "proof":
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.
Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
So, hopefully we have established that it does not require faith to accept that the material world and observations about it are real. What then, about the accuracy or validity or proof of such observations?
We are now firmly in the realm of epistemology. Let's start with a simple example. You might be surprised how blurred the lines between "real" and "true" (or proven) become. I show you a rock on the ground, and ask you if it is real. You respond that it is, and I ask you to prove to me that it is real. You say that you can see it, and I respond that you might be fooled or tricked somehow. You say that you can kick the rock and feel it, and I respond that your brain might again be fooled. In fact, your concious perception of the world is just a rendered representation based on sensory inputs to your brain. There is no guarantee, at all, that the inputs are accurate or that the rendering is accurate.
So where does that leave us? Back at the beginning. You must either accept that the rock is real, based on physical evidence, and declare that that is proof enough, as much as there ever will be, or you accept that nothing but your mind is real. Look at the definitions above. Where, in any of those, does it say that proof is evidence in absolute certainty, beyond any doubt? It doesn't, because such a thing does not exist.
It is a fallacy that some people believe "proof" to be that which is absolute. So, what then have we defined "proof" to mean? Precisely what is stated above. When physical or logical evidence strongly supports an idea, then it has been proven. There is no other definition. There is no absolute thing. The English language does not even contain a word that has the meaning some of you are attempting to use.
RD_151, you especially seem to be hung up on this usage of proof. Has it been proven that the world is round? Of course. Is that proof absolute, beyond any doubt? No. Is the usage of "proven" still correct in that context? Yes, because that is what we have defined the word to mean.. It is not my usage that is incorrect, but yours. Historical evolution is proven. Both the observational evidence and and the logical argument are there. The definition of the word is fulfilled.
It sits uneasily in your mind for me to speak of Evolution being proven, becuase you wish for the proof to be absolutely certain, beyond question. However, you are simply deluding yourself to think that there any such things. You are holding Evolution to a higher standard then you are anything else in the real world. Why?
Now, it is another matter entirely to say that the Evolution of life from non-life is proven. It is not, and science does not declare that it is. There are compelling arguments for it, and indeed one such compelling argument is that there are not alternative explanations currently, but that alone isn't enough to prove the theory, therefore science still regards that aspect of evolution as unproven. If you are going to argue that Evolution is not proven, or that the age of the Earth (within a given certainty band) is not proven, you must separate and specifiy precisely what you are referring to.
I will disagree. Most scientists and researchers refrain from using the word PROOF, and choose instead to use less definite words. My favorite are the infomercials on TV saying clinical tests PROVE this, that or the other thing. The point is, the actually research will say it demonstrates a strong correlation, and we are confident with x% confidence. The use is not the same in science as it is used in the general public. That is my problem with is. Definitions aside, researchers "proving" theories don't use the word the in that sense. I'm sure you are aware of this as well. Think back to your stats classes. Nothing upset a stat prof more than to use the word prove, or causes, in the wrong context. Maybe i'm being anal, but since we are speaking of this with respect to research and scientific study, it SHOULD be kept in context. You won't find too many scholarly journals using the word as was used in Time magaizine or your local newspapers. There is a clear differnce in the meaning. I generally don't take the word proof, prove, or causes to have the same meaning when refering to scientific work. The media abuses these word regularly.
As for demonstrating nonliving material being converted into living material, well, thats kind of the base holding up the WHOLE theory, and its the weakest link. We can agree on that I am sure.
I really could care less who is correct. I don't care to get into an arguement with you over this. Its not so important to me what you believe. I only stated MY PROBLEMS with the theory. I didn't even say you were wrong, only that your theory has some holes in it, big ones. Granted, LLs has larger ones, but the topic is not about creationism, its about evolution, or did that get lost somewhere in the discussion?
Evolution... good, bad or ugly?
As for demonstrating nonliving material being converted into living material, well, thats kind of the base holding up the WHOLE theory, and its the weakest link. We can agree on that I am sure.
I really could care less who is correct. I don't care to get into an arguement with you over this. Its not so important to me what you believe. I only stated MY PROBLEMS with the theory. I didn't even say you were wrong, only that your theory has some holes in it, big ones. Granted, LLs has larger ones, but the topic is not about creationism, its about evolution, or did that get lost somewhere in the discussion?
Evolution... good, bad or ugly?
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
RD_151 said:
I made no such assumption, you did. You assumed it worked by deduction (or by some other strange method outlined below), and I simply stated that it did not always operate in such a manner.
You do not need two competing hypotheses to test one of them. Where did you get that idea?
So you're saying that you can only test the null hypothesis to see if it is inaccurate, and not actually test the theory you are investigating? That seems a truly bizarre idea. Many times theories have been tested where there simply no alternatives. Sometimes many theories in a certain field have been put forth and tested, one at a time, with no concurrent alternatives, and all failed the experiments. You don't need a competing theory, because you can actually test the one you are interested in.
The scientific communtity accepts that it is the only current explanation, and it seems logical, and there is some evidence in support of the idea. They also accept that further evidence or observations might reveal an alternative explanation, or disprove the current one. Science's view on this issue is not so different than your own; they vary only in the confidence level.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
RD_151 said:
Then we'll agree to disagree. "Proof" and "proven" are not words so commonly shunned in science as you are suggesting. In fact, they are compatible with one of the above statements of yours. Scientists regularly state "proven with X% confidence" or "proven within X limits of uncertainty." That is the definition of the word. Scientists, in my experience at least, use the word correctly, and they do use it.
This does nothing however to dismiss your incorrect usage of the word. You simply skimmed over that fact.
No, I completely disagree. Historical evolution (that all life was created from earlier life in a branching chain of descent with modification) is quite different from the Evolution of life from non-life. It is not 'holding up the whole theory,' but simply a part of it. True, it is the part with the least evidence, and that is why science doesn't regard it as being proven. However, you are suggesting that if we could prove life from non-life is impossible, then it would by association prove that all evolution did not occur. That is ludicrous... the fossil record and genetic observations stand on their own, completely apart from the question of the ultimate origins of life.
I need more evidence, thats all. I would like to see something created first. Maybe we are getting closer, but I haven't seen it just yet.
As far as proving in whatever sense you are trying, basically thats the way I understand scientific method to work out side. The statistical aspect of things, and confidence levels. Now, we are talking about an abstract theory like relativity or something we have difficulty demonstrating in practice, so it does indeed require a different method to prove it. However, if we could find some probabilities, we could probably come to an agreement on this issue. Absent those, I probably will not accept it out right.
However, as I said in the other thread, if you don't accept it, what do you have? So I guess you almost HAVE to accept it, barring a better alternative. I guess, one could argue it this way, its the best we have, its that or nothing, so better to accept what we have.
As far as proving in whatever sense you are trying, basically thats the way I understand scientific method to work out side. The statistical aspect of things, and confidence levels. Now, we are talking about an abstract theory like relativity or something we have difficulty demonstrating in practice, so it does indeed require a different method to prove it. However, if we could find some probabilities, we could probably come to an agreement on this issue. Absent those, I probably will not accept it out right.
However, as I said in the other thread, if you don't accept it, what do you have? So I guess you almost HAVE to accept it, barring a better alternative. I guess, one could argue it this way, its the best we have, its that or nothing, so better to accept what we have.
I NEVER argued against natural selection Outside, you have to look more closely. My complete and total problem is with life from nonlife. If you can fix this, I can go along with the rest. I never disputed the rest. Ok, I commented on radio carbon dating, but I only stated that there could be issues with it. I don't argue so much with the age of the universe etc etc. I only add that its accepted, not actual. WE can never know actually, but we can approximate to the best of our ablitiy and technology. Clearly better technologies will arise and estimates and accepted values will change.