Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[Freedom]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Just a quick chime in (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak).  I am fine with calling darwinian evolution a "theory" (a very useful one I might add) as long as we all recognize that it is a metaphysical theory and not a scientific one.

To be a scientific theory, it must be testable, repeatable, observable, and capable of being falsified through empirical testing.  Theories about history can help to explain a lot and lead to other discoveries, but they do not qualify as "scientific" theories.  Any theory that explains the origins of life from one ancestor, and the evolution from that ancestor, cannot meet those requirements.  It is as observable and testable as creationism and requires some faith as well.  Some may argue that it explains things better than creationism.  That may or may not be true, but that doesn't make it any more observable. 

Some may argue, "well, it is the best theory we have", that may or may not be true, but that still does not meet the rigorous requirements to qualify as a scientific theory.

Unfortunately the entire scientific community disagrees with you. It is universally accepted as a scientific theory and it has no challengers. You will not find a single qualified scientist that refers to evolution as a metaphysical theory. If it did not meet the rigorous requirements to qualify as a scientific theory then it would not be accepted as a scientific theory by every educational institution on the planet. 

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Just a quick chime in (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak).  I am fine with calling darwinian evolution a "theory" (a very useful one I might add) as long as we all recognize that it is a metaphysical theory and not a scientific one.

To be a scientific theory, it must be testable, repeatable, observable, and capable of being falsified through empirical testing.  Theories about history can help to explain a lot and lead to other discoveries, but they do not qualify as "scientific" theories.  Any theory that explains the origins of life from one ancestor, and the evolution from that ancestor, cannot meet those requirements.  It is as observable and testable as creationism and requires some faith as well.  Some may argue that it explains things better than creationism.  That may or may not be true, but that doesn't make it any more observable. 

Some may argue, "well, it is the best theory we have", that may or may not be true, but that still does not meet the rigorous requirements to qualify as a scientific theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. You haven't been paying attention. Evolution has met every test thrown at it for the last 100+ years. Please give ONE example where evolution can't meet those requirements. Creationism is only about faith. Evolution has been observed in nature and the lab. It is the best explanation we have so far. Science can only falsify any given hypothesis. IE; It can not prove it under any and all condition. IE; It can never prove Godzilla never existed, but a well recognized theory says there is no evidence for it.  

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, ERayR said:

Ah But that is where the rub comes.  It is not at all clear what we do know.  However, I think we can all agree that things do change (evolve).  It is just how far reaching that evolution is, that is the question.

So far evolution has shown a continuation of life for the last 3.5 billion years. Every living thing is descendant from some living thing. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

So far evolution has shown a continuation of life for the last 3.5 billion years. Every living thing is descendant from some living thing. 

Were you ever a boxer?

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Were you ever a boxer?

I took Greco-Roman Wrestling in High School does that count?

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Freedom said:

Unfortunately the entire scientific community disagrees with you. 

Oh good, then you should have no problem showing me what I asked for here:

Quote

 

Show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that natural selection has ever caused one class to evolve into another class.  If you cannot, then it is not a scientific theory as Popper points out.  He said it is “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Now, show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that genes are not "biased" or "predisposed" [for a "given novel function"].  If you cannot, again, it is not a scientific theory as there is no empirical evidence to support it - only auxiliary assumptions which have not been falsified

 

 

12 hours ago, Freedom said:

You will not find a single qualified scientist that refers to evolution as a metaphysical theory.

If only I was a betting man!

Remember the principle of "falsifiability"?  Ya, that was Sir Karl Popper who was responsible for establishing falsifiability in the world of science.  He is the father of scientific falsifiability. He is the one who asserted that "if a statement is to be scientific rather than metaphysical, it must be falsifiable."  Guess what the father of scientific falsifiability called evolution?  He called it a "metaphysical research program."  Ooh, and don't forget Masatoshi Nei, who I referenced previously.  He is a renowned geneticist and molecular evolutionary biologist who called natural selection a "dogma". I have also named a few other "qualified scientists" who agree with Popper already, but I guess you missed that part.  

A quick google search found me a list of 3,000 scientists who are Darwin skeptics.

Then there was this:

Quote

estimated 113,000 Darwin Skeptic scientists and academics in the United States alone, accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross and Simmons, 2006)

And that was just the first two or three links in the google search!

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Please give ONE example where evolution can't meet those requirements. 

I already have.  I am still waiting for some examples:

Quote

 

Show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that natural selection has ever caused one class to evolve into another class.  If you cannot, then it is not a scientific theory as Popper points out.  He said it is “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Now, show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that genes are not "biased" or "predisposed" [for a "given novel function"].  If you cannot, again, it is not a scientific theory as there is no empirical evidence to support it - only auxiliary assumptions which have not been falsified

 

Here is a quick hypothesis that I just made up.  If Darwinian evolution is "falsifiable", you should be easily able to refute my hypothesis with empirical evidence.  Go ahead, give it a try. 

Here is my hypothesis:

Evolution is not driven by natural selection, but it is primarily driven by genetic mutation.  Adaptive evolutionary traits may be explained by the biased or predisposed nature of some genes for a given novel function, as no other hypothesis currently exists to explain convergent genetic mutation (which cannot be explained by “random mutation”), other genetic mutations may be random.  

The mitochondrial protein called cytochrome C divides all life in to given classes.  This protein is found in the fossil record as well.  In studying this mitochondrial protein, there is no evidence of evolution between classes found in the fossil record.  This suggests multiple ancestral origins of life.  One or more for each class of life (mammal, reptile, fish, bird, etc.). 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution doesn't claim one Class can evolve into another Class.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Evolution doesn't claim one Class can evolve into another Class.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Oh, ok, so life didn't evolve from one common ancestor?  At least any such claim would not be considered scientific but metaphysical, right?   

That is not part of Neo-Darwinism or the contemporary theory of evolution?

Don't make this a game of semantics, I know that a fish does not give birth to a bird (one class to another), you know what I mean.  Show me "falsifiable" and "empirically testable" evidence, which is required for scientific distinction, that each class of life did not evolve separately from different origins, because Cytochrome C in the fossil record seems to suggest different origins as there are no "in-betweeners" of the classes based on Cytochrome C studies. 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Oh, ok, so life didn't evolve from one common ancestor?  At least any such claim would not be considered scientific but metaphysical, right?  

That is not part of Neo-Darwinism or the contemporary theory of evolution?

Don't make this a game of semantics, I know that a fish does not give birth to a bird (one class to another), you know what I mean.   Show me falsifiable evidence that each class of life did not evolve separately. 

 

 

Life is a product of Abiogenesis. Evolution is what happens after life exists.

That is the problem when you deliberately use non-scientific terms to describe a scientific theory. Class has a specific meaning in biology, and birds and fish are not in the same Class, and can not evolve into the same Class. Though there are birds that swim and fish that fly.

Special Creationism is still Creationism.

SEE http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/special_creation.aspx

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Life is a product of Abiogenesis. Evolution is what happens after life exists.

That is the problem when you deliberately use non-scientific terms to describe a scientific theory. Class has a specific meaning in biology, and birds and fish are not in the same Class, and can not evolve into the same Class. Though there are birds that swim and fish that fly.

Let me simplify this for you.  Does the theory of evolution state that all life evolved from one common ancestor?  All classes of life evolved from the same common ancestor, right?

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I took Greco-Roman Wrestling in High School does that count?

I don't know about Greco-Roman Wrestling but when you answer you bob and weave like a boxer.

[thesometimesaint]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let me simplify this for you.  Does the theory of evolution state that all life evolved from one common ancestor?  All classes of life evolved from the same common ancestor, right?

No; the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species. We don't know which of those, if any, were. we're still trying to figure it out.

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

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I don't know about Greco-Roman Wrestling but when you answer you bob and weave like a boxer.

In Greco-Roman Wrestling you firmly grab hold of the subject preventing its escape.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No; the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species. We don't know which of those, if any, were. we're still trying to figure it out.

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

I see, so the theory of evolution states that life evolved from "probably three common ancestors".  Yes, that sounds like a solid scientific theory to me, and not metaphysical at all.  Obviously there is empirically tested evidence to substantiate such a theory to make it "scientific". 

If the "current theory" has been falsified, somebody didn't let these guys know:

Quote

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating the common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth's biodiversity. 

No, no metaphysics at all!

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution has not been falsified.

SEE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

If you really want to disprove(falsify) evolution.

SEE http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Evolution has not been falsified.

That's because major parts of it are not falsifiable (which makes it metaphysical and not scientific).  There is no way to falsify this statement, it cannot be empirically tested: 

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species.

This is an example of a metaphysical hypothesis and not a well substantiated and empirically tested scientific theory. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

In Greco-Roman Wrestling you firmly grab hold of the subject preventing its escape.

Yes I can see that in your posts.  You certainly maintain a firm grasp even when you have nothing to hold on to.

[thesometimesaint]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's because major parts of it are not falsifiable (which makes it metaphysical and not scientific).  There is no way to falsify this statement, it cannot be empirically tested: 

This is an example of a metaphysical hypothesis and not a well substantiated and empirically tested scientific theory. 

Newton proposed a theory of gravity. Einstein's theory modified it for very large objects. Quantum Physics theory modified it for very small objects. All three are scientific theories and not metaphysical. Scientific Theory are subject to change. Well established scientific theories can change but harder to do.

NAS on the Theory of Evolution

SEE http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

AAAS on the Theory  of Evolution

SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Newton proposed a theory of gravity. Einstein's theory modified it for very large objects. Quantum Physics theory modified it for very small objects. All three are scientific theories and not metaphysical. Scientific Theory are subject to change. Well established scientific theories can change but harder to do.

Bob and weave, bob and weave...and throw in a straw-man while we are at it. 

I never argued that scientific theories are not subject to change.  I argued that major parts of the theory of evolution are not falsifiable, and therefore belong in the field of metaphysics and not science. 

Is this statement empirically falsifiable?

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species. 

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Bob and weave, bob and weave...and throw in a straw-man while we are at it. 

I never argued that scientific theories are not subject to change.  I argued that major parts of the theory of evolution are not falsifiable, and therefore belong in the field of metaphysics and not science. 

Is this statement empirically falsifiable?

Deny reality all you want. The NAS and the AAAS support the Theory of Evolution.

For it to be a scientific theory it must be falsifiable. That doesn't mean that it has.

Put in false definitions while you're at it.

Please read the definition of metaphysics. I've already posted it one hour ago.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

For it to be a scientific theory it must be falsifiable.

That's what I have been saying all along, now answer the question:

Is the following statement falsifiable?  Show me the empirical evidence for it. 

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species.

According to Karl Popper, any "statements which lie beyond the reach of empirical evidence" belong to metaphysics.    He said, "that meaningful non-analytic statements about the world must rest on empirical support and that statements which lie beyond the reach of any empirical evidence are meaningless metaphysical nonsense."

 I am not going to argue with Popper (the father of scientific falsifiability) on the meaning of metaphysics.  He seems like a pretty smart guy, so I am going to use his definition.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by pogi

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

According to Karl Popper, any "statements which lie beyond the reach of empirical evidence" belong to metaphysics.    He said, "that meaningful non-analytic statements about the world must rest on empirical support and that statements which lie beyond the reach of any empirical evidence are meaningless metaphysical nonsense."

Popper's definition of metaphysics lines up with TSS's Webster link above which states, "b  :  abstract philosophical studies :  a study of what is outside objective experience"

Evolutionary theory as posited by their believers, is certainly extrapolation that is outside of their experience. 

[Freedom]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 

A quick google search found me a list of 3,000 scientists who are Darwin skeptics.

Then there was this:

And that was just the first two or three links in the google search!

I'm sorry, but I burst out laughing when I went to your link. Do you have any idea who Jerry Bergman is? He is a fraud. You keep demanding answers and we keep giving them to you and you just pretend we didn't answer and keep on with your rants. 

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

That's what I have been saying all along, now answer the question:

Is the following statement falsifiable?  Show me the empirical evidence for it. 

According to Karl Popper, any "statements which lie beyond the reach of empirical evidence" belong to metaphysics.    He said, "that meaningful non-analytic statements about the world must rest on empirical support and that statements which lie beyond the reach of any empirical evidence are meaningless metaphysical nonsense."

 I am not going to argue with Popper (the father of scientific falsifiability) on the meaning of metaphysics.  He seems like a pretty smart guy, so I am going to use his definition.  

You abuse Popper.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution