Evolution: The problem with..
Offline If I'm sitting on my porch and I see a red ball bounce past, I 'know' a few things about it:
1.) The ball is bouncing.
3.) The ball has speed, direction, and, by consequence, velocity.
4.) The ball is red.
Now.. things I can deduce.
1.) The ball has the ability to bounce.
2.) The ball has always been red.
Now.. things I can infer, (all things being equal, i.e., assuming the possible existence of perpetual motion), but not deduce.
1.) The ball has always been bouncing.
2.) The ball has always had this same speed, direction, and, by extension, velocity.
Now.. evolution. For the purpose of this construct, 'thing' is used in two forms: 1.) a particular thing, 2.) a group of things defined by particular attributes.
1.) Things mutate.
2.) Groups characteristics change over time.
Things I can deduce.
1.) Things have the ability to mutate.
2.) Groups characteristics can change over time.
Things I can infer, but not deduce.
1.) The thing that now is, came about through a certain series of mutations.
So. This is a very simple summary.. may not be perfectly representative, yet, for the purpose of this point I am using it.
Deductions from FACT are FACT. Inferences from FACT are not necessarily FACT.
Thus. While Evolution may be fact with regards to current processes, inferences regarding past processes are not.
I think this distinction is important because without it a conversation regarding evolution between a theist and an atheist gets rather antagonistic, rather quickly.
Even if the universe is 6 billion years old, to say that men and apes evolved from some common ancestor because fossils have been found that appear to be transitional.. is an inference.
I said my peace Amen. Heh, not really. I'm just getting tired now and wanted to bring up a point.
- Login to post comments
MY GAWD! This has been rehashed so many times on these forums.
The pope believes in evolution. Case closed.
Only if you're a catholic. Heh.
And.. in case you missed it.. I'm not trying to disprove evolution, just making a distinction.
Heh, geez, people are so quick to the trigger sometimes....
What has? This distinction? Or something else? Because.. I've been around this forum for a bit of time.. and I still see the distinction being ignored without so much as a whimper.
I do believe that molecular biology has all but proven evolution. You should read some of deludedgod's posts.
YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!
I have. The same problem still applies.. a lack of distinction between what is an inference and what is an a deduction.
Delude, often times, avoids making any mention of whether it is an inference or a deduction.. which is fine.
My "problem with" however, applies more to a theist/atheist conversation.. it is a problem of application and distinction.. not of the theories validity, necessarily.
However.. I could be wrong, if delude has 'deduced', from fact, a specific, historical, evolution.. then, so be it. He can refer me to it.
Otherwise..
Ok, it is possible to work out that a creature you see before you has evolved when you know the specific features of the species you see before you.
Atheist Books
Congratulations, Rhad. You have successfully discovered that scientific reasoning is inductive.
Or wait, not "discovered." What's the word I want? Oh yeah, "pointed out the fact that everyone is supposed to learn in elementary science education."
So, granted, you deserve credit for independent discovery, but maybe not so much credit for not paying attention in science class.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Um.. no.
If you see evolution take place in a species over time (lets say, watching bacteria evolve over the course of there many short generations), then you can say that a later form has evolved.
To see, however, a species and to know its features.. grants you no ability to someone deduce that it has evolved to that point.
And.. even if you could (which, granted, you may be able to do to some certain extent), to consider it a deduction when one states "A evolved from animal B 100 million years ago" is not valid.
Congratulations Textom, you missed the point.
The point, as stated before, is that people, within the course of an atheist/theist conversation, ignore that scientific theory is inductive.
Science allows me to predict the reaction I get when I mix two chemicals.. and thus.. allows me to make some sort of use of this knowledge.
Great! I created medicine.
Wait.. so of what use to me is the theory of historical evolution? Of what predictive nature?
Evolution occurs. Fact of life. Yet the inferences necessary to construct a theory of past evolution is not very useful (IMO).. and while all science (maybe--I might consider much of science to be deductive) might be the product of induction, not all science is useful.
And thus, the point of the thread was to state.. keep this in mind when debating theism and atheism.
Atheist: Evolution is a fact!
Theist: Not its not!
Atheist: Yes it is. You can see bacteria evolve over the course of months!
Theist: Oh yah.. well I guess your right.
Atheist: Exactly! So it's a fact that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor!
Theist: What?
A theist is not being hypocritical (as he would be if arguing the validity of microbiology, since he uses much of the products of microbiology), for arguing the validity of historical evolution.
I don't think I missed the point, Rhad. I think you changed premises and asked a different question.
A quick Google search and a bit of reading will give you the answer to this question. The examples are so numerous that they aren't hard to find. But since I was just looking at an article linked in another thread, I'll save you the trouble (bearing in mind that this is just one small example of the way that an understanding of evolution helps scientists figure out how to design experiments and methods for things that directly benefit humanity):
From the article "Scientists Evolve New Proteins from Scratch" located here:
"'Would proteins that we evolve in the lab look like proteins we see today in nature or do they look totally different from the set of proteins nature ultimately chose" By gaining a better understanding of these questions, we hope to one day create new tailor-made catalysts that can be used as therapeutics in molecular medicine or biocatalysts in biotechnology.'"
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I never changed premises however, I did ask a different question.. since, well, I never asked an 'original question'.
This is the benefits of evolution.. the current process. You're missing things again..
I said 'historical evolution'.. this refers to the many inferences made from the recognition that evolution occurs.
If I draw a map of every species that has existed.. and draw lines from every species to every subsequent species that I theorize came from it.. what purpose have I served?
It is induction-- it is not necessarily true. It is induction regarding history-- it's not very useful, not necessarily true, history.
The former can be said about many things scientific.. the later, only a few.
Ahhhhh, okay. I think I got it now (I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm still confused
)
Firstly, I hope you're not saying that areas of study that don't have an immediately apparent payoff in practical terms aren't worth studying. There's a good argument for the value of general research.
Secondly I hope you're not saying that science shouldn't study things that threaten somebody's religion. That privileges religion in a way that it arguably doesn't deserve.
Thirdly I hope you're not saying that researching something that is inductive is not worth researching. That's factually incorrect since *all* of science is based on inductive evidence. No matter how many times you drop the ball, that doesn't mean it will fall toward the earth again the next time--but that doesn't stop us from inferring the theory of gravity (and the benefits that come from that).
So assuming you're not saying any of those things, one direct benefit of historical evolution research that I can think of off the top of my head is that it greatly benefits the field of evolutionary psychology. By understanding, for example, the details of the evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor, we come to a better understanding of how primate studies relate to human studies. Then that gives us a lot more data for figuring out useful things about human psychology, neurology and behavioral studies.
For example specifically, mirror cells were first discovered in primate studies (rhesus monkeys IIRC--It's easier and more ethical to implant electrodes in monkey brains than human brains, so they might not have been identified otherwise). Awareness of the common ancestry of humans with other primates then lets us predict and then identify the corresponding structures in human brains. Research on mirror cells has helped us better understand some of what's going on in people with autistic spectrum disorder.
Again, just one example off the top of my head. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find others.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Hah. I like you already.
I definitely AM....not.
Definitely agree.
Heh. Definitely not.
Inductive reasoning? or inductive evidence? Hmm.. If I use a rock as evidence for a theory.. is the rock inductive? or is the connection between rock and theory inductive?
If, by this, you mean that science many times uses these "connections" as evidence.. then yes, in these cases I would agree. But the rock, itself, is not inductive, yet is evidence.
This is semantics however.
Yup. And what a practical theory it is. The rock falling is evidence for the theory of gravity. The fact that it does it everytime is evidence for the theory of gravity. To assume that these things happen because of what one would call "the mechanicisms of the theory of gravity".. would be induction.
It might be helpful in furthering research.. yet still, not necessarily true. Which is why science is so great and so seems to never stop asking questions.
Whether or not we evolved from a common ancestor bares no necessary connection with the usefulness of studying primates for the purpose of insight into humans. This usefulness is found in the the current similarities between the two animals.
To put this in perspective.
If humans and toads evolved from some more distant common ancestor.. does that mean I will study a toad because we had a common ancestor?
This is all a tangent discussion.. the original was more "keep in mind while discussing", but nonetheless I'm finding it interesting.
There maybe use to what I am refering to as "historical evolution" but I do not believe this to be it. The same argumentation I used above would be used here as well.
Are we using primates in the study because we have a common ancestor? or because we have so much in common (anatomically, genetically, etc)?
Trouble is, your analysis is flawed. You can show that you can make an inference that is flawed, but that does not show that all inferences are universally flawed, nor that people are too dumb to spot the flaws, nor that people are unaware that flaws can exist (that's why scientists are so strong on things like peer review, experimental reproduction, finding independent ways to test results, and public publication).
If we see a bouncing red ball, we cannot infer that it has always been doing that. But if we can see that each bounce is the same size, not reducing in size, and we can see some worn patches of ground where it has hit countless times in the past, we can at least hypothesise "well, it, or something similar, may have been past quite a few times before."
But evolution is closer to... we see a shattered plate on the floor. We can deduce that floors can hold bits of pottery.
We can infer that they have NOT always been lying there in that state, and that there was some previous state. We can infer that since the pieces fit together in an improbably good way, they must have been connected in the past. Looking around at the evidence, we can hypothesise that the plate came to its existing state by being dropped. We can test this hypothesis by dropping more plates to see if they do something similar. Then we go public with our results publishing them in a peer reviewed journal, so everyone can try it.
And so Greek dancing is born.
T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }
Just to make sure we're on the same page:
Inductive reasoning = moves from specific instances to general principles
Deductive reasoning = moves from general principles to specific instances
Inductive evidence = evidence used in an inductive argument
The key practical difference: Conclusions of deductive arguments can sometimes be known 100% to be true; Conclusions of inductive arguments can never be 100% known to be true.
Without doing any research, I'd have to get into something more speculative to show evidence of the advantages of historical evolution. Again, off the top of my head, there's some suspicion that the fused chromosome in humans--the one that is still two chromosomes in our ape cousins--might be related to something key about homonids like language or upright walking.
There's some research going on that's checking around on the differences in the human and chimpanzee geneome and trying to understand how the (historically demonstrated) fusing of that chromosome might be related to something uniquely human. If they find it, it might lead to some kind of treatment for speech and language disorders or congenital problems with human bone structure or something like that. But if scientists didn't know--or refused to believe--that human chromosome 2 is a fused version of the two ape chromosomes, they wouldn't even be aware of this area of inquiry, much less have any idea where to start looking.
Without doing any looking around, I'd also guess that research into historical evolution probably benefits embryology in the same kind of way (suggesting directions for research or creating shortcuts based on historical evolutionary sequences). Embryology is, of course, helpful in figuring out how to make sure that human babies develop healthy.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Rhad, you seem to be doing the old creationist trick of attacking the ability of the scientific method to accurately predict the unobserved from the observed. It's an attack on Science in general rather than the theory of evolution.
What analysis specifically?
But yes.. for the most part you are right. I will state, once again, that my purpose was not to say that historical evolution is FALSE.. merely that it is not FACT.. as many people like to state it is.
True. Over a sufficient amount of time you may be able to come to more specific and specific inferences.. yet, how much could you really observe regarding a ball bouncing by your porch?
In the same way.. how much can we really infer regarding evolution of 6 billion years.. when we have only been observing it for 100 or so?
Uh.. no I would contend. It is perhaps closer, IMO, to.. we see a shattered PLATE on the floor and "infer" that the floor has held bits of pottery in the past.
I have no problems with inferences with current applicability.. historical evolution doesn't seem to have it.
Perhaps this would be a good representation.. yet, still, a bit simplified.. because I am not stating that evolution is not a fact.. but inferences regarding specific past processes are not necessarily fact.
The analogy is not applicable to historical evolution in so many ways.. unless you are to argue that the evolution, as theorized to take place over millions or billions of years, has been tested and retested again?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here..
I love when people define things. Thanks.
Deductions are considered 100% only if there premises are considered 100% true.
Why might this be useful again? And if it is.. why is the usefullness dependent upon "historical evolution" as opposed to just commonality (genetic, anatomical, etc)?
I would need some sort of source or further explanation in order to accept this one.. which, of course, I'm completely willing to do.
[edit] I thought of something after I posted.. there are many things of "general research" which bring about somewhat useful things.. say for instance.. "general research of stars" has brought about many inventions which we now find useful. So, in much the same way, some usefullness may have come about through the "general research of historical evolution", yet, I would still argue that any of these things benefits are dependent upon the validity of "historical evolution" and thus I would not be hypocritical in arguing against the validity of "historical evolution" while taking advantage of some of the things that came about because of it.
Such as.. I would say.. I would be hypocritical for arguing against the validity of physics while making daily use of my car. [end edit]
Not you to Strafios!. Heh.
No, of course not.. I would never "attack the ability" of science-- it has its uses.. very practical ones at that. My point, in the beginning, was merely to consider the distinction between scientific fact and scientific inference when in the midst of the debate-- since it brings about a lot of unnecessary antagonism.
I cannot argue against "evolution" without being thought mad.. I can, however, argue the inferences made regarding what "evolution" necessitates happened in the past.
Rhad Atheist: Evolution is a fact! Theist: Not its not! Atheist: Yes it is. You can see bacteria evolve over the course of months! Theist: Oh yah.. well I guess your right. Atheist: Exactly! So it's a fact that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor! Theist: What?
I think you misunderstand the thought processes of most atheists. Naturally I can't speak for anyone but myself and I know there are some atheists who also dont have a great grasp on science and would insist that evolution is 'fact' in the same way that a fundamentalist christian insists that the bible is 'fact'.
I start from Descartes - "I think, therefore I am"... the only thing I know for certain is that I exist, maybe not in the way I think I do but my mind has to exist in some form to be thinking this. That is fact in the strictest sense of the word.
Moving out from that point there are things I can see, touch, taste, smell and hear.. the computer in front of me, my hands typing on the keyboard. These are not absolute certainties but I'll still call them facts since without these basic assumptions I can't function in reality (if this is infact reality).
As the evidence gets further removed from my own experience 'facts' become less certain. I'll still call the existence of America fact, despite the fact that I've never been there. I accept the fact that there were many generations of human beings before me despite the fact I didn't meet them.
I call well-tested scientific theories fact (in casual discussion, not scientific discussion) Universal graviation is fact. Relativity is fact etc.
If I say evolution is a fact. I mean it is the only valid scientific theory to explain certain observations. It has been tested repeatedly (through finding more fossils that fit predictions made based on it and failing to find fossils that contradict it's core (eg A mammal fossil dated earlier than the ealiest vertibrates). It has been refined as new evidence is found, but never falsified. This is all the certainty you get in science. So in a casual discussion I may call it fact the same way I will call relativity fact.
The difference between my 'facts' and a fundametalist's 'facts' are that All of my facts are questionable... except "I think therefore I am". I am prepared to alter them based on new evidence.
Sure I could change the language I use. Reserve 'Fact' for the one absolute certainty... but then the word 'fact' is useless and I put myself at a disadvantage linguistically to anyone with a less strict criteria for their facts. If my science is 'theory' and your god is 'fact' how can science compete?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
It's possible..
Heh. Sometimes.. yes.
Hey.. me to.
Yet, I for the sake of argument I tend to not argue from this point.. I've tried.. it's rough. :/
Wow.. I would say the same thing.. in almost the exact same way-- in fact, I think I have before! Weird.
True.. I can agree with the use of language in such a way and the designation of 'fact', even though it might be possible to argue that in the strictest sense of "objective reality", it may not be so.
Hm. Okay. Conceded.
Conceded. Although.. someone more knowledgeable might be able to shed light on other theories.
Finding "supporting evidence" and "testing" are not one in the same. At least I do not consider them so.. forgive me, I may be wrong.
"Evolution" can be tested in that.. you put a bacteria culture in a dish and expose it to different stimuli.. and watch it evolve. You could do many other "tests" in order to observe the end results and making conclusions. "Evolution" never seems to be placed on the chopping block.. as you rightly state later on. However.. with regards to "historical evolution", which is what we are speaking of, it is not the same.
For instance, let me see if this works. IF I pick up a rock, drop it, pick it up, drop it, pick it up, drop it.... I will have been testing the theory "rocks drop".. if I "find rocks on the floor" or "find rocks within divots on the floor" this can be used as "evidence", it is not, however, "testing whether a rock drops".
Granted.. I am being a little strict in the usage of testing.. but I do not believe "overly strict". For further clarification:
I find a fossil in the ground. I will date the fossil and the surrounding rocks and "see" whether it fits in or not. I would not consider this "testing" the theory, the findings regarding the evidence are only meant to support or lead to refinement of past effects of the theory.
This is because the new evidence is not "testing" evolution.. merely "refining", through induction, what evolution has led to in the past.
As am I. However, "evidence" is hardly ever exclusive to one thing regarding ideas such as "beginnings", "past processes", "God", etc..
True.
(edit: I've been highly assertive lately.. so I apologize if I come across as arrogant or anything of the sort.. I'm actually quite relativistic.. skeptical.. and such-- it's quite strange. Anyways.. sorry bout that.)
Well, then if you are defining "testable" as "anything which isn't in the past", then no, nothing in history can be testable.
Let's try a definition that allows us to claim "facts" about the unwritten past.
We can make a hypothesis, from that hypothesis make a prediction, then attempt to falsify that prediction.
Situation: Detective finds corpse, blood everywhere. Knife sticking out.
You could claim we can't know about the past, can't know how the corpse got like that, can only know about stuff in the present and future. I would claim that this claim is unreasonable.
Hypothesis: murdered.
Prediction: murderer will be likely to have blood on.
Test: look for blood-splattered people in the vicinity.
Prediction: murderer may have left prints on knife
Test: dust for prints
Hypothesis: accidental death
Prediction: a study of the body's position will show feasible positions from which it could have fallen and impaled itself.
Test: take photos of scene, get autopsy to show knife entry angle and force, run simulations.
Hypothesis: suicide
Prediction: Knife will be in a position that would realistically be expected to be used in a suicide.
Test: as above, compare to other known suicides
...and so on. We can establish stuff about the past without having been there.
This is not just a "bouncing ball", this is a vast weight of independently supportng evidence.
Situation: "Hey, we dug up a fossil from 4MYA which is kinda like this fossil from 3MYA, only the newer one has eyes."
Hypothesis: Eyes evolved within 1MYA
Prediction: >3MYA there'll be a form with less developed eyes.
Test: Dig stuff up, look for fossils.
Situation: "Hey, this carbon-14 stuff seems to decay linearly, and atoms don't have memory, so it absolutely must, but let's prove it anyway."
Hypothesis: Other dating methods work too... or if they don't, they won't all break in the exact same way.
Prediction: if it's linear, other dating methods will show similar dates.
Test: try various dating types on the same samples and see if you get the same dates, including:
The dates in brackets are the date ranges over which the dating method has shown to be reliable. Where there's no reasonable upper limit, eg because of a huge half-life, I've put "rocks" if it's used for dating rocks.
argon-argon (rocks 2%)
asparagine amino-acid racemization (0-100,000y)
cation-ratio ?
coral (?y)
cl-36 (0-50y)
dendrochronology (0-10,000y),
faunal correlation (relative),
faunal succession (relative),
fission tracks (rocks),
helium (rocks),
horizontality
ice cores (annual layers, 800,000yrs),
isoleucine amino-acid racemization (5,000-2,000,000y)
lead magnetic corrosion (0-2,500y),
lichenometry (0-10,000y),
lutetium-hafnium (rocks),
marker horizons (relative),
obsidian hydration (?y),
optically stimulated luminescence (500-100,000y, 5%),
oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy (?y),
paleomagnetism (?-4,000,000,000y),
potassium-argon (rocks >100,000y),
radiocarbon (0-60,000y),
rhenium-osmium (rocks),
rubidium-strontium (rocks 1%),
samarium-neodymium (rocks),
sediment cores (?y),
seriation (relative),
speleothems (0-500,000y),
stratification (geology)
superpoition (relative),
tephrochronology (relative),
thermoluminescence (?y),
thorium-protactinium (?-700,000y)
uranium-lead (1,000,000-4,500,000,000y, <1%),
uranium-thorium (?-500,000y),
uranium-uranium (10,000-2,000,000y),
varves (annual sediment layers: 0-13,200y),
vole clock (1,000,000y)
T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }
Rhad
We seem to agree on a lot. That's good. It would probably be a bad idea to derail this into a philosophy debate
"Finding "supporting evidence" and "testing" are not one in the same. At least I do not consider them so.. forgive me, I may be wrong."
Lab testing is only one way we test things in science. Yes it is probably the ideal since you can control most variables (there's more uncertainty in the field).
In science we test ideas by making a prediction based on the idea (or a prediction that would contradict the idea) then showing that prediction to be true or false. In many cases these predictions are about future events (If I drop this ball it will fall to the ground) But sometimes when there is no posibility of tests based on observing future events we can use evidence of past events as those observations.
We make predictions like "If evolution happened the way we think it did then we could expect to find fossils of organisms with with traits between one species and a later one, we would also expect to be able to date it at a period after the earliest fossil of the first species and before the earliest fossil of the second." We then dig up more fossils and find them. We have tested the theory.
It's the same concept as saying "If the theory of universal gravitation is true I should be able to measure the movements of the planets and find that it matches the results of an equation derived from the theory." Then you take those measurements, compare them to the results of the equation. You have just tested the theory.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!