Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

Page 9 of 9 [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Dec 2009, 9:41 pm

Meta wrote:
If I then may add a conclusion: For alternative theories like ID to be considered one first need to change the paradigm.

Well... yes, and the reason for the opposition is because most scientists consider evolution to be a satisfactory theory, and other possibilities as too negative for that moment.

Quote:
Note however then when one presents evidence in this direction one is often label as only presenting negative evidence not positive evidence. Any positive evidence can't be presented because it does not fit within established paradigm. This might be the main reason why progress sometimes requires generations: The old paradigm needs to literally die out for their to be any progress.

Well... to a certain extent I will agree somewhat. Switching directions does require some powerful shifts in perspective that can make each paradigm fail to be comprehended by past ones. Before Newton, theology was the mother of the sciences, but afterwards science took on some of it's own direction. I doubt that this most changes are just a matter of negative evidence though, but rather of compelling theories that answer compelling questions with compelling methods, even if they ignore the questions of past paradigms.

Quote:
I find only one point of disagreement with your (very well written) post:

One does not have to present an (better) alternative if one points out the defects of any theory. To quote Leslie Orgel:
Quote:
Theories ... cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.
Missing any positive evidence is a bad thing, regardless if there are or aren't better alternative theories.

Well, I am going to continue to disagree here, simply because the best theory at the present moment still has to be considered valuable on the ground of being the best theory available. You yourself have admitted that each theory is just an attempt to be less wrong. Not only that, but to leave one theory for no theory is to give up the scientific process, as if there is no faith in the possibility of solving a problem and efforts to do so, then scientific progress has completely ceased.

Not only that, but all theories will miss evidence. That's why there are further efforts to refine them.

In any case, I am still going to be cynical towards ID on the grounds that I still cannot see the scientific viability of ID. After all, although I will admit it logically possible that science changes to incorporate ID, I am quite cynical to such a movement without discovering some sort of ancient genetic manipulation technology or something like that. Not only that, but I doubt that I will rethink my position unless I start hearing about changes in the community of scientific models of how or why or when things were designed, and something adequately specific.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

07 Dec 2009, 10:36 pm

Nambo wrote:
All this talk about fossils now being found to prove evolution, can somebody post a link or two showing these please?, I have a book promoting evolution, a few years old now I admit, but without exception, wherever one creature evolves into another it states no fossils found of the inbetween stage.

The notion of "intermediary" forms is actually a bit of a confusing one to many people. We certainly have forms that are intermediate between those found earlier in the fossil record and those found later (or extant today) and between a form construed as ancestral to some other form.

The problem is one of classification. If A is the ancestor of C, and B is a descendent form of A and ancestral to C, then the form B is either sufficiently like A to be a subunit of A, or sufficiently like C to be a subunit of C, or actually a form of its own B. If it is a form of its own, then it is construed as its own species. Then someone might come along and say we have no intermediary between A and B or B and C, but if we found one, then it is either itself, A B or C, or a distinct form for which we would give another name. No matter how many forms we add, they are either a subset of the earlier forms or distinct and classified accordingly. So it might appear there are no intermediary forms, but it's merely a semantic classificatory issue, not an actual absence of obviously closely related fossils that shows stages between earlier fossils/forms and later fossils/forms (oversimplifying here a little as often ancestral forms continue sympatrically with descendant forms).

The most significant point is that all forms are intermediary.

Quote:
I was under the impression that it was due to the absence of said intermediate fossils despite modern digging equipment, that had lead scientists down the mutation theory route?

Er......put shortly, no.

Mutation refers to genetic variations. The simplist mutation is a "single point" mutation. DNA is made of individual molecules. The removal, addition, or substition of a single molecule in a DNA strand is a single point mutation. The discovery of the structure and properties of DNA is the source from which information about mutation derives.

The theory that evolution occurs is actually rather ancient, some old dead Greek people believed it occured as a result of "love" for instance. Lamarck beleived it occured as a result of what one's parents did (so would believe that the reason a giraffe has a long neck is because the ancestors of modern giraffes were always stretching their necks a lot). Darwin proposed that as forms are varied, some are more succesful than others, and resultingly they contribute more off-spring to the next generation. Those of their off-spring who have inherited the advantageous variation will have the same reproductive advantages, and consequently the net effect over generations is that the trait becomes fixed at a high level or even pervasive to the breeding population concerned.

Darwin did not know how variation arose, nor the mechanics of its inheritance. Mendel (a monk) studied sweet pea plants and was able to demonstrate a number of important aspects of the mechnics of inheritance, including independent assortment, and dominance/recession. The structure of DNA was discovered much later still (about halfway through last century).



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Dec 2009, 1:14 am

The critical point about the basic concept of intelligent design and its fundamental necessity of a mysterious and total initiator and the currently scientifically accepted concept that life and its consequent diversity is the result of the tendencies of certain combinations of basic elements to fall into patterns under the observable forces of chemistry and environment is that the evolutionary paradigm provides manipulative handles for making changes and exploration.

The intelligent design concept provides a black box with a little hole at the bottom from which proceeds ducks and dinosaurs and diatoms, alligators and antelopes and aardvarks, simians and squirrels and songbirds, etc. No relationships or antecedents or consequent variations. That's the way it was, is, and always will be unless cataclysm and human culture intervene and wipe away a few species.

Evolution provides handles. You can either take one form of DNA and jiggle it into another variety to provide fluorescent fish or crops that have caterpillar capabilities or find ways to prolong life or invest it with peculiar capabilities that never have appeared before in nature. No laboratory, as far as I know, offers up prayers to an insubstantial being to change the methods of DNA interaction. There are physical tools in laboratories that also exists in natural environments and these tools have been operative for many millions of years.

The cry that life forms could not be formed by accident is relevant only in the sense that there are no accidents in nature. An accident is something that happens unexpectedly when something else was desired. Nature has no desires. Things just happen, period. You can be sure that the laboratory of the universe is somewhat bigger than that at Monsanto or Dupont. And nature does not try just a few things to see what happens. It tries everything and doesn't give a damn whatever happens. It no more makes accidents than Jackson Pollock made accidents. He just made interesting stuff and sold it for lots of money and if it wasn't interesting he threw it away. That's what nature does too with no intent or goal whatsoever.

There simply is no fun or money in intelligent design. Curious humans like to screw around with stuff and all the religious doctrines I have heard of are horrified about screwing around in all senses of the phrase. From the Frankenstein monster to the ancient calling up of demons to Dr.Jekyll's attempts at self improvement religion is terrified that humans should get their hands on the levers that run the cosmos and, unfortunately, that's where all the fun is. A few miscalculations along the way like blowing up Hiroshima and Chernobyl and the soon to be forthcoming robot military soldiers may shake up things along the way but be assured, nature makes no accidents and humanity is definitely part of nature even if only a temporary amusement.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

08 Dec 2009, 1:21 am

Totally irrelevant, but i've noticed AG started his rebuttals with "Well" when he quoted three times in his last post. <.<



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Dec 2009, 3:03 am

phil777 wrote:
Totally irrelevant, but i've noticed AG started his rebuttals with "Well" when he quoted three times in his last post. <.<

I did that mostly because I like "well" and because it is a good way to show hesitation in accepting a person's statement while still giving ability to agree or disagree.



Meta
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 276

08 Dec 2009, 9:29 am

@Sand We seem to have very different (almost exactly reversed) views.

I see Intelligent Design as familiar: ID only requires intelligence and knowledge, nothing more. Life is then just advanced nano-technology. It means that we have a decent chance to be able to figure out how life works, how it was constructed, and duplicate this process. It does not require anything out side of our abilities. It demonstrates that AIs are possible? To be allows us to consider purpose, goals, etc., both how and why questions do make sense; and the answer follows from the design choices made. ID will make it much more fun!

A process of genetic mutation and natural selection without intelligence, design or plan is totally different from how we would create stuff. Even very simple systems generated by such a process totally baffles us. We would have no hope at all of ever figuring out how a complicated system like life works if that's the process by which it became what it is. Biology would be fundamentally different from any human designed technology. Both the how and why will in most cases remain forever unknowable -- leave us only speculation -- because most of the steps did not leave anything behind. Something like that just happened to happen would be the best we could manage most of the time. Life would forever remain a mysterious black box that we just can't open. We will never be able to control it. It just wouldn't be much fun.

Like I said, an almost exactly reversal of views and expectations.



Last edited by Meta on 08 Dec 2009, 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Dec 2009, 10:03 am

Meta wrote:
@Sand We seem to have a very different (almost exactly reversed) view.

I see Intelligent Design as familiar: ID only requires intelligence and knowledge, nothing more. Life is then just advanced nano-technology. It means that we have a decent chance to be able to figure out how life works, how it was constructed, and duplicate this process. It does not require anything out side of our abilities. It demonstrates that AIs are possible? To be allows us to consider purpose, goals, etc., both how and why questions make sense. ID makes it much more fun!

A process of genetic mutation and natural selection without intelligence, design or plan is totally different from how we would create stuff. Even very simple systems generated by such a process totally baffles us. We would have no hope of ever figuring out how a complicated system like life works if that's the process by which it became what it is. Biology would be fundamentally different from any human designed technology. Life would forever remain a mysterious black box that we just can't open. This just wouldn't be fun.

Like I said, an almost exactly reversal of views and expectations.


Your basic inherent assumption seems to be that the universe functioning on random situations could not produce the complex forms that life demonstrates all around us. The key, of course, is the assumption of random forces and again that intelligence requires a conscious mind directed by intent.

First of all, the universe is not random. Aside from radioactive decay and quantum activity the universe at our macro scale is exceedingly predictable. The success of many missions into space wherein forces can be accounted for and directed to a purposeful end many years ahead indicates that randomness is located only at a few distinct isolated phenomena. Cause and effect are still very much in appearance.

When human intelligence is analyzed it can be seen to function in a specific way. A problem requiring a solution demands an understanding of how the components of a solution interact and how they might be modified and controlled to produce a desired result. Intelligence works through virtual inputs and outputs on a conceived model to economize effort in reaching a solution. Nature has no desired solutions and it has the immense space and energies and facilities to industrially work through all the possibilities its huge fund of time permits. It does not work economically but its tremendous resources require no economy and it can build upon its solutions in a way human capabilities never have nor possibly ever could have. This is a very different form of intellect without mind and without intent and people who think only in human terms of intellect can, it seems, not perceive how these automatic processes are capable of producing all the organic wonders we see around us. But this is how it happened.



wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

08 Dec 2009, 10:55 am

[quote="Meta"]@wesmontfan: What does "supernatural" mean?



I admit that 'supernatual' is hard to define-becasue 'natural' is hard to define.
I take my cues from creationists who are opposed to the "materialistic" theories of Darwin because said theories dont include God. I use supernatural to mean what creationist consider outside the realm of matter- or what is "materialistic".

When I offer an olive branch to creationists and suggest that "well ofcorse god created everything- and he did so using the tool of -evolution through natural selection" they just get more alienated because that way leads to "christian evolution" which is a heresy.


So- take that up with a creationist- they insist on removing creation from nature not me.

In a nut shell: I just came back from the Dentist who I asked to find the source of a tooth ache.
He used X-rays and other empirical tools. Considered cavaties caused by bacteria etc.
Finnally he concluded it must be resorption. But he referred me to a specialist just to make sure.

Apparently zeronetgain would have branded my dentist as "unscientific" because the dentiist "didnt consider the possibility" that it was God punishing me for some reason.

On the other hand (apparently) you would brand my dentist as "unscientific" for "not considering the possibliity" that the probliem was caused by evil spirits, or by a nieghbor sticking a voodoo pin into the mouth of my effigy.

Ill just let you and zeronetgain duke it out over which non-materialistic forces to believe in. When you two work that out-then you two can complian to my dentist about about it!

lol!



wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

08 Dec 2009, 12:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:
If a life type were found on this planet that was not based on DNA, that would falsify the Theory of Evolution which assumes were are all descended from one or a very few kinds of life that originated somehow by natural means.

So far every last living creature be it plant, animal or other is a DNA based life form indicating a common origin sometime in the deep past.

Humans and cabbages are cousins.

The fact that all creatures use dna or rna (it varies in bacteria) does indeed point to all creatures on earth having a common ancestor.
But if they found a creature on another planet that used some other unrelated compound for heridity it would not be evidence against evolution.

You would expect the inhabitants of other planets to evolved seperatley from Earth creatures and thus to have a seperate biochemical legacy. Maybe even a very bizarre biochemistry. So such a finding would be a nonsequitar on evolution.

What would be a thorn in the side of evolution would be the opposite. If you could survie on blood transfusions from a Crayfish, but not from a chimp nor even from some huaans- that would be a problem for Darwin. Because it would demenstrate that a creature supposidly far removed from us on the family has a greater biochemical kinship to us than does a close supposed cousin. Likewise - if you could mate with a alien and produce offspring- that would be a problem for Darwin. Because even a human-like alien is farther removed from usin evolution than is a terrestrial oak tree. The implications of darwin is that you would be able to breed with an oak tree more easily than with a human like alien. Im ofcouse assuming that there is no panspermia- the notion that life can spread through space via mircoscopic spores which implies that extraterrestrial creatures could indeed be on the same family tree as us. But thats another kettle of fish.

ruveyn



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

08 Dec 2009, 3:41 pm

Meta wrote:
A process of genetic mutation and natural selection without intelligence, design or plan is totally different from how we would create stuff. Even very simple systems generated by such a process totally baffles us. We would have no hope at all of ever figuring out how a complicated system like life works if that's the process by which it became what it is.

That is quite an assumption.
Quote:
Biology would be fundamentally different from any human designed technology.

Not necessarily. The very characteristics that facilitate human design arise from human biology. It is not the case that human design preceded or arose independently of human biology, or of life itself. On the contrary our intelligence is an effect of biology and has evolved in correlation with the biological facts of other life-forms. Our intelligence arose in a context where if it is utilitarian for "finding our way" around the world, then it is more likely to be selected for than if it lacks utility or has negative implications for our capacity to "find our way" around our world. It stands to reason then that we ought not assume without evidence that our intelligence and the how and why of our design capabilities will be incompatible with the reality of our universe, including the biological elements within it.



Meta
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 276

09 Dec 2009, 4:43 am

pandd wrote:
Meta wrote:
A process of genetic mutation and natural selection without intelligence, design or plan is totally different from how we would create stuff. Even very simple systems generated by such a process totally baffles us. We would have no hope at all of ever figuring out how a complicated system like life works if that's the process by which it became what it is.
That is quite an assumption.
Not really. It's just observation: Genetic algorithms come up with solutions no human would be able to. Our minds just don't work the same way as a process of variation-and-selection does.

pandd wrote:
Quote:
Biology would be fundamentally different from any human designed technology.
Not necessarily.
Well, that is the point isnt it? We discovered that biology looks like nothing a genetic algorithm would generate and totally like something a intelligent human would design. Please explain that (in context of the majority opinion totally unexpected) observation.

It does not mean that life does not use genetic algorithms, but it seems to do so only in well designed places where it does little more then (re)configure some optional parts of the design. This mode of auto-configuration has to have been designed with great care and foresight.

I don't say that our intelligence is incompatible with the reality of our universe, including the biological elements within it. What I say it that a process of variation-and-selection can't explain the design of the biological elements present within out universe.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

09 Dec 2009, 5:54 am

Meta wrote:
Not really. It's just observation: Genetic algorithms come up with solutions no human would be able to. Our minds just don't work the same way as a process of variation-and-selection does.

We do not have to come up with the solutions to understand them, we can use observation instead. The premise that one must themselves 'come up" with something to understand is very clearly not a true one.
Quote:
Well, that is the point isnt it? We discovered that biology looks like nothing a genetic algorithm would generate and totally like something a intelligent human would design. Please explain that (in context of the majority opinion totally unexpected) observation.

Actually every biological thing I am aware is "generated" by a genetic algorithm. Biology does not necessarily look like anything a particularly intelligent designer designed to me.

Quote:
It does not mean that life does not use genetic algorithms, but it seems to do so only in well designed places where it does little more then (re)configure some optional parts of the design. This mode of auto-configuration has to have been designed with great care and foresight.

So far as the phrase appears to have any meaning in my view, there is not a life form alive on this planet that does not use "genetic algorithms". What precisely do you think this means to use or not use "genetic algorithms"? What is DNA or RNA if not genetic and occuring as algorithms.
Quote:
I don't say that our intelligence is incompatible with the reality of our universe, including the biological elements within it. What I say it that a process of variation-and-selection can't explain the design of the biological elements present within out universe.

You've not given any particular reason to doubt it though.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2009, 11:05 am

Meta wrote:
Not really. It's just observation: Genetic algorithms come up with solutions no human would be able to. Our minds just don't work the same way as a process of variation-and-selection does.



Genetic algorithms are exhaustive and rote. The do not require consciousness to execute. There is no more to genetic algorithms, in essence, then in a potato sorter consisting of sheets of metal with various size holes.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2009, 11:18 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Though as a creationist, I view evolutionism as more of a theological problem then the process of natural selection allowing for healthier creatures to propagate more than unhealthy ones, my question is this: is even biological evolution falsifiable? What would falsify biological evolution?


Not a thing. Variation of species over time is a fact. The only question is what are the underlying processes for this variation. Currently the changes in species and creation of new species is explained by natural selection. That is a hypothesis and like any scientific hypothesis it can be falsified by contrary empirical data.

ruveyn



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

09 Dec 2009, 11:42 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Though as a creationist, I view evolutionism as more of a theological problem then the process of natural selection allowing for healthier creatures to propagate more than unhealthy ones, my question is this: is even biological evolution falsifiable? What would falsify biological evolution?


Not a thing. Variation of species over time is a fact. The only question is what are the underlying processes for this variation. Currently the changes in species and creation of new species is explained by natural selection. That is a hypothesis and like any scientific hypothesis it can be falsified by contrary empirical data.

ruveyn


Yay, me and Ruveyn are on the same page. Piggybacking on this.

I got into like page 5 and the misuse of the words "theory" and "fact", and "hypothesis" had already grated on my sensibilities and I thought I'd clarify.

In a scientific setting or discussion, the word Theory is not a minor statement. A Theory starts as a supposition, which after thought, data gathering and testing can become a hypothesis. After much testing and more data gathering, this hypothesis is released unto the scientific masses, whereby they too gather data, test, and even attempt to disprove said hypothesis. Only after the original concept has been thoroughly tested, fleshed out, explained, and essentially proved does it become a Theory.

Now, the word itself lacks the conviction of the word Fact, And the simple answer is because scientifically, there is no point to declare something a fact, skepticism is an important aspect of scientific thinking. A theory has room for changes, growth, and further understanding. A declaration of fact means it can only be proved or disproved.

So, when you encounter a scientific "theory", you've encountered what is essentially as close to known truth as is available.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.