Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"?

Post Reply New Topic

You know Ragtime, I agree with you. Which is why I want to raise my own beef about one of the glaring lies being taught in the class rooms everywhere, a horrible consipricy against all right thinking humans.

There is no such thing as Australia.

Has anyone here ever been to Australia? Who here can prove it exists? I mean, if there really was an 'Australia', it would be exactly like the United States. After all, it was colonized by Britain, and later threw off the yoke of oppression. It's all a big hoax, to make us doubt in America. It is an evil falsehood, that should be removed from all classrooms immediately

I hope you're being satirical, because otherwise, I am living nowhere.

You made a claim about empirical data. That can be checked. I didn't say it had to be in the lab.


That is a claim about empirical data. If your own experience and its interpretation is all you've got, you can tell us what that experience is. And think about whether you want to modify your statement into a probabilistic one. As you have formulated it at the moment, the most natural interpretation is that you claim a strong sense of nihilism is inevitable. Right in this thread there are people who think there is no reason to believe God is a necessary part of the explanation for the origin of life on Earth. I am one of them. Where is my strong sense of nihilism?

Inevitabilities are rare in human behaviour, so shall we treat your claim as a probabilistic one? That is still testable, though you need better data.


These are fields of study. you can't prove a field of study. And mathematics is the only of the fields you mentioned where you can prove a theorem. In the natural sciences, and even more in history, the best you can do is to say that a theory or idea is consistent with the data, and those alternative ideas that have been considered so far are either inconsistent with the data, less consistent, or have less predictive power. If a theory has no remotely serious competitor, it may be treated as fact for practical purposes. That is when something is called a scientific fact. That's the closest you ever get to proof in the natural sciences or in history. If you want to apply the same standard of proof as in mathematics, then no theory in the natural sciences is proven. To call a theory unproven without making clear what standard of proof you mean is either ignorant or misleading enough to be dishonest. Make clear what you mean.

If you want to understand this better, have a look at a post where Escuerd discusses Lakatos, and follow that up. This is how science works in practice. If you don't want evolution taught in school, the way to prevent that is to come up with a better theory, or at least one that can compete. I had a thread on that topic, Orwell has one. In mine you said it would be absurd to say ID is science, so you don't seem to have any scientific theory to offer as an alternative to evolution. Of course, there is the problem that you use the term to cover topics which are not strictly part of evolutionary theory.


If we ignore that the idea of "lower life forms" is part of the scala naturae, a pre-Darwinian concept coming out of theological ideas, your claim is only true in the same sense as relativity has been not been proven. But both relativity and the claim that humans had a common ancestor with other species have been tested. Look again how you test theories in natural science and prove or disprove theorems in mathematics.


That is just what I want to ask you. And I did ask before. I don't remember getting an answer. If I missed it, please direct me to it.

We had the beginning of a real discussion. Now you are drifting back into the tactics of political campaigning. Can we get back to a real discussion? You've shown that you can do that.

Paleontology is like Archeology. If one thinks that evolution over geological time scales isn't science because it "can't be tested in the lab" one would have to logically say the same thing of historical facts of cultural change and migrations based on archeology. Studying the evolutionary relationships of life in earth using fossil evidence is little different epistemologically from studying the evolution of human societies using archaeological artifacts.

And Evolution does make predictions that can be tested. In the early 90s an increasing number of paleontologists hypothesized that bird-like theropod dinosaurs, such as dromeosaurs ("raptors") should have feathers. Sure enough, in the late 90s at a fossil site in China we started finding feathered dinosaurs. These fossils also shows how feathers evolved. "Raptors" and related groups have full-blown quill-type feathers while compsagnathids, basal tyrannosaurs, and other less bird-like dinosaurs had only downy protofeathers.

to be fair... several of these dino with feather fossils are fakes. i can't say all... but there are some.

Apparently none because even though it's been sufficiently scientifically proven for years we're still arguing it. Why?

Let's say you meant abiogenesis. Why do you think it's impossible to know whether humans descended from an ancient (not modern) ape, why do you think it's impossible to know whether abiogenesis occurred? Remember that the evidence relevant to these two claims is very different before you declare it all irrelevant.


Religions make statements about supernatural events, and make moral claims. Where is the supernatural in evolution, where are the moral claims? Try to avoid moral claims that depend on the naturalistic fallacy. That is not part of evolutionary theory.

And again, for those in this thread who still don't get it, my argument is not
that evolution didn't happen. Why would I care one way or the other?
God exists either way. My only contention is scientists and teachers who are
not being completely honest with students and the general public about their data.

But some people apparently are for dishonesty, as long as it advances "Science".
For, only honesty of one's findings can advance real science,
while "Science" as a proper noun and underground political movement
is always advanced through dishonesty.

Maybe I should make a poll asking WP members if they believe in practicing
1) Honesty
or
2) Dishonesty



Some people are clearly for dishonesty, and that's okay, so long as they are
at least honest enough to, just this once, say so.

Firstly, yes, I meant a biogenesis, and have now corrected that post.

Secondly, let's cut the BS: Are you suggesting that those two claims have been proven?
Say yes or no.



Would you prefer the term cult? Both the true, all-encompassing definitions of cults and of religions are murky at best.
Therefore, I will call it either term you perfer: cult or religion.

Obviously you're in on it .

I think that there is a good amount of honesty going on.


Um.... yeah. Are you trying to talk about positivism vs spiritualism? Frankly, this seems like a conspiracy theorist's talk, and seems to mislabel a lot of people.


Actually, I think most people here practice honesty, they just don't necessarily practice it with themselves.


The most dishonest seeming person in this discussion is likely you, and I already created a poll on that topic.


Abiogenesis must be true. I mean, we all agree that there was non-life and then there was life, so there is nothing to prove, only theories on how this could have happened. ID just is invokes a supernatural cause. As well, as for the second claim, well, the issue isn't proof but evidence. This isn't math, it is science, we cannot prove things only advance better or less good theories. The skeletons of various beings such as homo erectus, homo habilus, and others before homo sapiens and less like some variant of monkey seem to provide good evidence for man's descent from more monkey-like. They don't prove it, but what could?


Why not use the proper term: scientific theory, rather than subjecting it to your ridiculous games.

Yes, let's cut the BS. I have twice asked you whether you understand the concepts of proof and testing, and how they are used in the natural sciences and in mathematics. You didn't respond. I have explained the difference to you in this thread, before the post you replied to. No theory in the natural sciences is ever proven the way a mathematical theorem can be proven. No single claim in the natural sciences is ever proven the way a mathematical theorem can be proven.

You have not stated what you have in mind when you ask whether either claim is proven. That is either ignorant, or dishonest. You are asking a trick question, much like "Have you stopped beating your wife? Say yes or no." If I said yes to that, I would concede having a wife whom I have beaten in the past. If I say no, I would concede to carrying on beating my wife. I haven't got a wife. Therefore "yes" and "no" are both wrong answers.

Your question about descent and abiogenesis is of the same type, and I gave you all the information you needed to understand that. No claim in the natural sciences is ever proven the way mathematical theorems are proven. Claims in the natural sciences can only range from disproven over unsupported to well supported. By the strict definition of proof, there is no proof in the natural sciences, ever. But if I say "no", you can then use a colloquial interpretation of "proof" and pretend that evolutionary theory, or an individual claim derived from evolutionary theory being applied to a specific data set, is unsupported or disproven. If I say "yes", you apply the concept of mathematical proof, and say that is wrong. Your question is a setup so you can switch the meaning of "proof" to claim I'm wrong, whatever I say. To avoid that sort of BS, I asked you before to make clear what you mean by proof. You evaded the question. I then explained the different meanings to you on the same page and before the post you responded to.

You also demonstrated that you have a more general problem understanding the concept of proof.

That is impossible. You can't prove a whole field of study. If you meant proving all claims in a field, Goedel has proven that is not possible in maths. You can't even prove single claims or theories in history of physics. Your understanding of the concept of proof is rather shaky. Read again my last post in this thread. Your response shows that either I wasn't clear enough (but then you'd have asked for clarification), or you haven't got the brains to get the point, or you are deliberately ignorant (a lie by your own standards), or you are knowingly and directly dishonest. Pick one, and we can carry on from there, without BS. Or perhaps you just didn't read my post. If that is the problem, go back and do read it.


You are evading the question again, in the best style of political campaigns, where impression is everything, and only the appearance of honest debate is needed. I ask again, where is the supernatural in evolution, where are the moral claims? If you don't want to imply both, you should not use the term religion or cult. If you are willing to cut the BS, that is.

Last edited by Gromit on 14 May 2008, 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

Humans are apes. Biologically, there is no doubt about it. You and I are apes. Our immediate ancestors (parents, grandparents, ...) were apes. The idea that we descended from apes is not unusual if ones accepts the fact that we are in fact animals, and that we are in the category of apes.

Genesis talks of abiogenesis in metaphorical terms - man was fashioned from clay. Was this clay literally potter's clay, or does it mean minerals in general? Would it really shatter your world view if God worked over millions of years instead of 7 days, and if evolution was the mechanism God used?

Just because I'm not following your particular line of reasoning?
Get ready to dismiss virtually everyone on the planet,
if they must either follow your exact way of thinking or be wrong.



I wish we could!

If only people would agree to basic, widespread, and obvious facts,
we could actually been to make progress.
But as it is, neither you nor anyone else appears to be listening.
And I've made it SO, SO simple, and yet seemingly all of you
still will not admit to simple logic, let alone basic premises and occurances.

So, I'm basically done with this thread.
I don't talk to deaf people, and I don't make slides for blind people.

You didn't follow my line of reasoning or my way of thinking when I thought we were finally getting to a real discussion. Your allegation itself is an example of the tactics from political campaigning, you are trying to divert my attention by annoying me.

I have explained in detail what makes me think you mostly behave like a troll. Perhaps it was coincidental that just after you must have reached that post (just after you had replied to the posts before mine) you did at last put forward a substantial argument. Now you are back to unsubstantiated allegations, and when you are asked to back them up, you try to divert attention by trick questions and by attempting to be insulting or annoying.


I suggest we start by looking at how scientific theories are tested. You keep going on about evolution as a whole being unproven, and specific claims following from the theory being unproven, but you demonstrate ignorance of what proof is. If you believe something like "history, math, and physics have been tested and proven over and over again", how can you hope to understand the status of a scientific theory? If you merely expressed yourself badly (happens to all of us), how can you hope to have a discussion if you don't want to make clear what you really mean?


I've been begging you to give us all that, but usually after making a sweeping claim you ignore all requests for clarification. What you really ask is that we uncritically accept your conclusions, that we simply have faith in you, without cause or question.

The way I see it, is that lots of posts on these related threads seem to be logic based and their arguments comes from knowledge and logical analysis about the issue.


Curiously, your accusations made to people here, are very likely how they see you.