Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, snowflake said:

David Berlinski wrote a great book on the questions and assumptions made with Darwinian theory called The Devil's Delusion.

Here is a short video on why he thinks the theory is more "religious" than science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

Your hero David Berlinsky is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Wedge Document

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

 

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Your link and his link use the same definition for metaphysics. How is that abusing science? 

 

Take the money out of science and see what happens. People have a tendency to not rock the boat when their financial security is threatened. 

 

Metaphysics has no basis is observable reality.

Take the money out of science and you move back into the caves.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I have been in agreement with you the whole time (although I don't think I have responded to any of your posts yet).

I apologize JAHS, I didn't pay close enough attention  to who I was responding to. 

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

That has always been clear to me, although I have to say that the archaeological evidence and testing that has been done so far "suggests" that it is the best explanation that science can come up with so far. 

My problem is that science shouldn't be making "scientific' theories around untestable and non-empirical evidence.  I believe in evolution.  But the theory of evolution delves too far into metaphysics to be considered a scientific theory.  

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I apologize JAHS, I didn't pay close enough attention  to who I was responding to. 

My problem is that science shouldn't be making "scientific' theories around untestable and non-empirical evidence.  I believe in evolution.  But the theory of evolution delves too far into metaphysics to be considered a scientific theory.  

I'd appreciate if you were more specific. Exactly what part of evolution, which ideas, belong in the metaphysics category, and which don't?

[pogi]

On April 2, 2016 at 5:10 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

I'd appreciate if you were more specific. Exactly what part of evolution, which ideas, belong in the metaphysics category, and which don't?

I have mentioned all of these before, but I will list them again here:

1) Any "theory" of common descent is not testable or observable, and is therefore not falsifiable through empirical means.  It is based on several auxiliary assumptions which cannot be falsified.  It is more of a metaphysical hypothesis, than an empirically established scientific theory.  Some of these assumptions are listed below.

2) Science can say a lot about fossils, but any attempt to 'connect-the-dots' requires drawing lines of assumption through the empty spaces between the often very distant dots.  These assumptions are not observable, they are not testable, and are therefore not falsifiable through empirical means.  Creating evolutionary trees through the fossil record is a metaphysical game of connecting empirical evidence (fossils) by means of empty spaces (assumptions), and when you stand back and look at the picture, you realize that it is mostly empty spaces (assumptions) with very limited dots of empirical evidence.  The creation of evolutionary trees through the fossil record is based in ontology.  Ontology happens to be the central branch of metaphysics.

3) Any theory that requires the qualifying statement, "given enough time (millions of years)..." is not a scientific theory.  Example: Natural selection, given enough time, can help to explain the evolutionary traits between classes of life.  Again, It has not been observed, is not testable, and therefore not falsifiable through empirical means. It is a rational approach to the data, not a scientific one.  There is no empirical evidence which does not require large gaps of assumption to show that one kind or class of life can evolve into another kind or class of life.  It is based purely in metaphysical musing and not the scientific method. 

4) Another auxiliary assumption of the theory of evolution is that mutations are random.  Convergent genetic evolution demolishes genetic family trees and questions the assumption of the randomness of mutations.  The idea of random mutation is falsifiable however, and therefore belongs to science and not metaphysics.  However, random mutation has not been sufficiently tested and has not met the rigorous requirements of a "scientific theory".  What tests have been performed to try and falsify the idea that all mutations are random?  Only now are they starting to test this idea.  It is more of a hypothesis than a well established theory.  I believe that convergent genetics has already disproven the idea that all mutations are random.

This all begs the question, what parts of the theory of evolution are observable, testable, and based in empirical evidence then?  Not much.  The best they can say is that evolution happens on a micro level for sure, and the extent to which it happens on a macro level is untestable and unobservable (non-scientific).  

It is abundantly clear to me why Popper came to the conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program", and why he stood by that statement generations later. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution at or above the species level. 

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[snowflake]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution at or above the species level. 

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

You are free to "believe" whatever you want but it is simply not science. I call it a state sponsored "religion".

[pogi]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution at or above the species level. 

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Maybe from a "philosophical perspective", but according to your article, that is "hotly debated" among scientists and has been for the last 60 years.  Reductionists would agree with you, but non-reductionists would argue that: (from your article)

Quote

There are entities and processes, they say, that affect macroevolutionary dynamics which are not in their nature microevolutionary.

and:

Quote

Nonreductionists will argue, however, that there are emergent processes and entities in macroevolution that cannot be captured ontologically.

This is the basic conclusion from your article:

Quote

If there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time.

In response to that conclusion, please re-read #3 listed in my last post. 

[thesometimesaint]

We all are free to believe whatever we want. My belief is God used Evolution to Create us and our world/universe.

Then you'd be wrong. 

SEE

 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

My belief is God used Evolution to Create us and our world/universe.

Ah yes, when all else fails, bear your testimony. 

To be clear, I respect your belief, and I believe similarly (not exactly the same), but it is more metaphysical than scientific. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ah yes, when all else fails, bear your testimony. 

To be clear, I respect your belief, and I believe similarly (not exactly the same), but it is more metaphysical than scientific. 

I never said my belief isn't metaphysical.

SEE Metaphysical #2a-b

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I never said my belief isn't metaphysical.

SEE Metaphysical #2a-b

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical

Obviously the "God" part is metaphysical, but I am talking about your belief in the "scientific" notion of the evolution of man.  It is not scientific.

See Metaphysical #2a and #3

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical

Edited April 5, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Obviously the "God" part is metaphysical, but I am talking about the "scientific" notion of the evolution of man.  It is not scientific.

See Metaphysical #2a and #3

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical

Evolution of man is science.

SEE http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

I have many more if you want.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Evolution of man is science.

SEE http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

I have many more if you want.

A link with somebody's opinion from wikipedia etc. doesn't make it so.  I can post links that say it is not scientific, whoopdie-doo! 

How 'bout you try to address my points instead posting irrelevant opinions. 

Address my 4 points listed in my previous post, and show me how the following conclusion from your link qualifies to be included in a scientific theory.

Quote

If there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time.

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

If there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time.

 

 

Not quite true. Evolution isn't concerned with the size of the changes. Speciation is the accumulation of enough individual non-speciation events to form a new species(The inability to interbreed with the parent generation).. All house dogs are canines, but not all canines are house dogs.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not quite true. Evolution isn't concerned with the size of the changes. Speciation is the accumulation of enough individual non-speciation events to form a new species(The inability to interbreed with the parent generation).. All house dogs are canines, but not all canines are house dogs.

Umm...are you even reading your own links?  

That is a direct quote from your own link.  If you want to argue against your own links used against me, that is fine, you can argue against yourself all day for all I care, but I am still waiting for an argument against my 4 points. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Pogi:

3) Any theory that requires the qualifying statement, "given enough time (millions of years)..." is not a scientific theory.  Example: Natural selection, given enough time, can help to explain the evolutionary traits between classes of life.  Again, It has not been observed, is not testable, and therefore not falsifiable through empirical means. It is a rational approach to the data, not a scientific one.  There is no empirical evidence which does not require large gaps of assumption to show that one kind or class of life can evolve into another kind or class of life.  It is based purely in metaphysical musing and not the scientific method. 

Evolution does not require millions of  years. All that is required is the transmission of changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next that produce viable offspring. A horse and a donkey reproduce to form a mule, but mules are sterile with horses, donkey's, and mules.

Class in biology has a specific meaning. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28biology%29     

No biologist is suggesting that biological Class changes.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Evolution does not require millions of  years. All that is required is the transmission of changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next that produce viable offspring.

If you want to limit the ENTIRE theory of evolution to "the transmission of changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next that produce viable offspring" then I have no problem with calling it scientific.  You don't even need Darwin to make that statement, because he didn't even know about genes.  Let's not leave out all of the good stuff!

What you have explained is the mechanism of evolution (well, you left out natural selection), the theory of evolution goes far beyond simply explaining the mechanism of evolution.

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No biologist is suggesting that biological Class changes.

Let me spell this out for you.  Biologists do suggests that small microevolutionary changes accumulating from one generation to the next, over millions of years, can add up to "large-scale" evolutionary changes, requiring new taxonomic divisions of class.  Biologists do state that all biological Classes share a common ancestor.  In other words "given enough time..."

Quote

Evolution does not require millions of  years.

No, but the entire theory of evolution does. 

P.S. Your non-response to points 1,2, and 4 is duly noted. 

Edited April 6, 2016 by pogi

[bcuzbcuz]

On 4 April 2016 at 7:41 PM, pogi said:

I have mentioned all of these before, but I will list them again here:

1) Any "theory" of common descent is not testable or observable, and is therefore not falsifiable through empirical means.  It is based on several auxiliary assumptions which cannot be falsified.  It is more of a metaphysical hypothesis, than an empirically established scientific theory.  Some of these assumptions are listed below.

2) Science can say a lot about fossils, but any attempt to 'connect-the-dots' requires drawing lines of assumption through the empty spaces between the often very distant dots.  These assumptions are not observable, they are not testable, and are therefore not falsifiable through empirical means.  Creating evolutionary trees through the fossil record is a metaphysical game of connecting empirical evidence (fossils) by means of empty spaces (assumptions), and when you stand back and look at the picture, you realize that it is mostly empty spaces (assumptions) with very limited dots of empirical evidence.  The creation of evolutionary trees through the fossil record is based in ontology.  Ontology happens to be the central branch of metaphysics.

3) Any theory that requires the qualifying statement, "given enough time (millions of years)..." is not a scientific theory.  Example: Natural selection, given enough time, can help to explain the evolutionary traits between classes of life.  Again, It has not been observed, is not testable, and therefore not falsifiable through empirical means. It is a rational approach to the data, not a scientific one.  There is no empirical evidence which does not require large gaps of assumption to show that one kind or class of life can evolve into another kind or class of life.  It is based purely in metaphysical musing and not the scientific method. 

4) Another auxiliary assumption of the theory of evolution is that mutations are random.  Convergent genetic evolution demolishes genetic family trees and questions the assumption of the randomness of mutations.  The idea of random mutation is falsifiable however, and therefore belongs to science and not metaphysics.  However, random mutation has not been sufficiently tested and has not met the rigorous requirements of a "scientific theory".  What tests have been performed to try and falsify the idea that all mutations are random?  Only now are they starting to test this idea.  It is more of a hypothesis than a well established theory.  I believe that convergent genetics has already disproven the idea that all mutations are random.

This all begs the question, what parts of the theory of evolution are observable, testable, and based in empirical evidence then?  Not much.  The best they can say is that evolution happens on a micro level for sure, and the extent to which it happens on a macro level is untestable and unobservable (non-scientific).  

It is abundantly clear to me why Popper came to the conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program", and why he stood by that statement generations later. 

Thank you for your reply. I have read from your earlier posts that you accept evolution, but it is an acceptance with certain "riders" attached. From the sites you quote, including the authors you quote, you seem inclined to include the concept of Intelligent Design, ID. I interpret your viewpoints as being that an ID started the whole procedure of populations for this planet and then lets evolution develop from those points. Have I understood you correctly?

[thesometimesaint]

Pogi:

The entire theory of evolution does not require millions of years. All that is required is a change in gene frequency that is past down from one generation to the next. That maybe a few months to millions of years depending on the parent species.

 

[pogi]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Thank you for your reply. I have read from your earlier posts that you accept evolution, but it is an acceptance with certain "riders" attached. From the sites you quote, including the authors you quote, you seem inclined to include the concept of Intelligent Design, ID. I interpret your viewpoints as being that an ID started the whole procedure of populations for this planet and then lets evolution develop from those points. Have I understood you correctly?

That is pretty close.  I don't have any problems with the idea of evolution, but I do believe that it happens differently than explained in Neo-Darwinism.  My biggest problem with the theory is simply that it should not be considered a scientific theory.  I think the theory of evolution is a fairly reasonable (but not the best) explanation of the data, but it is far from being scientific, and it is far from being the only reasonable explanation.  Other ideas which question Darwinism are crushed by the dogmatic and biased mindset which exists in the biological sciences.  It really has become an almost religious and fascist enterprise, which hushes anyone who dares question or teach alternative ideas in the class room (even if they are not religious ideas).  Yet, there is no empirical and falsifiable means to question it.  It is craziness!  I feel much like Masatoshi Nei feels in regards to Darwinism.  I think that Masatoshi's ideas are far closer to the truth than natural selection.  But if you question Darwin, you will not be taken seriously, regardless of how accomplished or credentialed you are.  

At present, my best guess as to how it all works is that all life on earth did not descend from one common ancestor.  There are no intermediaries between classes of life found in Cytochrome C studies in the fossil record or in living species.  This to me suggests that each class (at least) of life evolved independently, with potentially several ancestors from each class of life.  I believe that genes have limits to evolutionary expression, and that they may be "biased" or "predisposed for a given novel function".  I am beyond confident that genetic mutations are not all random as evidenced by convergent genetic mutation.  I believe like Masatoshi Nei, that mutation is the primary driver of evolution and not natural selection.

My theory challenges every major principle in Neo-Darwinism (common descent, random mutation, and natural selection as the primary driver of evolution).  If the the theory of evolution is as well established in empirical observation and testing as SS would have me believe, then it should be easy to disprove my theory.  However, just like the theory of evolution, my ideas are not testable, observable, or grounded in empirical evidence.  It, like Darwinism, is simply a reasonable (but not scientific) explanation of the data.  Neither are falsifiable and neither are scientific.

Now for the God part.  I believe that God planted these seeds of life on the earth, each to reproduce after its kind or class.  I believe that God's design is embedded in the ancestral genes.  Even leaving the God part out, Cytochrome C and convergent genetic mutations are easily explained in my theory, while Darwinists are left scratching their heads.

Edited April 6, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Special Creation is a fraud.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation

You also might like Wallace.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Special Creation is a fraud.

No, it is simply a non-falsifiable metaphysical theory, just like Neo-Darwinism.  The only difference is that Special Creation acknowledges that it is not scientific. 

Fraud is claiming to be something you are not. 

Example: The Theory of Evolution is a falsifiable scientific theory. 

Edited April 6, 2016 by pogi

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

That is pretty close.  I don't have any problems with the idea of evolution, but I do believe that it happens differently than explained in Neo-Darwinism.  My biggest problem with the theory is simply that it should not be considered a scientific theory.  I think the theory of evolution is a fairly reasonable (but not the best) explanation of the data, but it is far from being scientific, and it is far from being the only reasonable explanation.  Other ideas which question Darwinism are crushed by the dogmatic and biased mindset which exists in the biological sciences.  It really has become an almost religious and fascist enterprise, which hushes anyone who dares question or teach alternative ideas in the class room (even if they are not religious ideas).  Yet, there is no empirical and falsifiable means to question it.  It is craziness!  I feel much like Masatoshi Nei feels in regards to Darwinism.  I think that Masatoshi's ideas are far closer to the truth than natural selection.  But if you question Darwin, you will not be taken seriously, regardless of how accomplished or credentialed you are.  

At present, my best guess as to how it all works is that all life on earth did not descend from one common ancestor.  There are no intermediaries between classes of life found in Cytochrome C studies in the fossil record or in living species.  This to me suggests that each class (at least) of life evolved independently, with potentially several ancestors from each class of life.  I believe that genes have limits to evolutionary expression, and that they may be "biased" or "predisposed for a given novel function".  I am beyond confident that genetic mutations are not all random as evidenced by convergent genetic mutation.  I believe like Masatoshi Nei, that mutation is the primary driver of evolution and not natural selection.

My theory challenges every major principle in Neo-Darwinism (common descent, random mutation, and natural selection as the primary driver of evolution).  If the the theory of evolution is as well established in empirical observation and testing as SS would have me believe, then it should be easy to disprove my theory.  However, just like the theory of evolution, my ideas are not testable, observable, or grounded in empirical evidence.  It, like Darwinism, is simply a reasonable (but not scientific) explanation of the data.  Neither are falsifiable and neither are scientific.

Now for the God part.  I believe that God planted these seeds of life on the earth, each to reproduce after its kind or class.  I believe that God's design is embedded in the ancestral genes.  Even leaving the God part out, Cytochrome C and convergent genetic mutations are easily explained in my theory, while Darwinists are left scratching their heads.

I have stated before that I accept evolution as the most reasonable explanation of how life, animal and vegetable, exist in their current forms on this planet. I do not, however, view evolution with the limititaions that you describe. You have repeatedly stated that the theory of evolution is "unfalsifiable". Your view is much more locked into a concept that mine. I believe evolution is falsifiable and I'm willing to abondon it as an idea the second that the evidence can be xplained in a better manner. 

I agree that mutation is a primary driver of evolution. Natural selection would not exist were it not for mutations. The survival of any group of animals is dependent upon their having mutations that make their survival possible after their life factors have changed. If a mutation reduces survivalablity, the offspring do not survive, if offspring have been possible.

I only accept the concept of a common ancestor based on what we know so far. I am of the opinion that many changes from one species to another have been insufficiently resolved to date. But, and this is a big but, I know that the DNA evidence shows that chimpazees are very closely related to humans. I can see the physical evidence whenever I visit a zoo. I look like a primate, my children look like primates. My DNA varies less than 10% from primates ranging from chimpanzees to bonobos to orangutans. The similarities range from 5 digits to fingerprints to facial expressions. The DNA links are much closer.

Humans and the other primates cannot interbreed. We are significantly different as species to prevent having each others offspring. Where your opinion and mine differ is that I think the line drawn between chimpanzees to humans, on a family tree, is no where the same distance of chimpanzees being not linked to humans since your opinion requires God to be an intermediary.

 

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I believe evolution is falsifiable

You can believe whatever you want, but that is not how science works.  Show me.  Show me how you are right by addressing my 4 points in the previous post. 

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I agree that mutation is a primary driver of evolution.

I didn't say 'a' primary driver, I said 'the' primary driver.  If you agree with me, than you don't believe in the theory of evolution as presently constituted. 

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I only accept the concept of a common ancestor based on what we know so far.

What exactly do we "know" scientifically speaking about common descent that can be falsified through testing and observation?

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I am of the opinion that many changes from one species to another have been insufficiently resolved to date.

All species face this problem of assumption gaps leading back to one common ancestor.  If there is "insufficient" evidence, then it has no business being part of a scientific theory.  

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Where your opinion and mine differ is that I think the line drawn between chimpanzees to humans, on a family tree, is no where the same distance of chimpanzees being not linked to humans since your opinion requires God to be an intermediary.

You misunderstand my theory.  I said that I believe each class of life evolved from a common ancestor.  Chimps and humans belong to the same class and may have the same common ancestor.  I recognize however that this is purely metaphysical musing as DNA similarities between species do not prove relation.  There is no falsifiable way to test this theory.  If so, show me. 

Convergent genetic mutation throws a major wrench in genetic family trees, to which scientists "currently have no way of dealing with this".  They can no longer say with any degree of certainty that two species are closely related due to similar genes.  Very similar genetic sequences independently evolved in bats and dolphins, there are many, many other examples as well. 

Again, if the theory of evolution is falsifiable and has been thoroughly tested and observed, than my theory should have been proven false already.  Show me where.

Edited April 6, 2016 by pogi