Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[PowerEngineer]

The problem is that science has not yet answered everything about the natural world. All it can do is try to predict new observations. It cannot distinguish between two theories which make equal predictions for those observations. The latter is a philosophical exercise, at least until science progresses to the point where it can observe something new wherein the two models offer different predictions.

Science will produce more answers as time goes on but never answer everything about the natural world. I'd have been smarter to acknowledge in my previous post that aspects of the natural world not currently addressed by science can also be an added, shrinking domain of religion/philosophy. Shrinking because religion/philosophy should yield to science as knowledge of our natural world expands.

Science discerns the best (i.e. most likely) theory based on its ability to explain known facts and observations as well as the theory's ability to correctly predict new facts and/or observations. Science can therefore usually distinguish between two theories that are identical only in their predictions. It seems to me that it's in this ability to explain known facts that the theory of evolution beats out all other theories.

That said, I agree it's possible that different theories could seem equally meritorious (in matching facts and predictions), in which case the current theory probably prevails.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If the earth was 6000 years old, radioactive isotopes with a relatively small halflife would be everywhere. Being as we have to create them by neutron bombardment in order to have any, I would naturally suppose the earth was older than 6000 years. If I was really clever I would try to determine the age of the universe with background radiation and the prevalence of certain types of matter.

http://creationwiki.org/The_earth_is_6000-10000_years_old_(Talk.Origins)



2. If the earth is old, then radioactive isotopes with short half-lives should have all decayed already. That is what we find. Isotopes with half-lives longer than 80 million years are found on earth; isotopes with shorter half-lives are not, the only exceptions being those that are generated by current natural processes.

There is no requirement within a young-Earth model that such short-lived isotopes be present. They could have been excluded for purposes of long-term stability. Many of these isotopes are heavy elements that simply may not have had any uses.

Secondly, Accelerated decay would have eliminated them within hours or days if they were originally present.

3. Loess deposits (deposits of wind-blown silt) in China are 300 m thick. They give a continuous climate record for 7.2 million years. The record is consistent with magnetostratigraphy and habitat type inferred from fossils. [Sun et al. 1997; Ding et al. n.d.; Russeau and Wu 1997]

There is so little available information on these deposits that a proper analysis is not possible, but based on the available information the following analysis can be made.

These deposits consist of different types of material, and there is red clay underlying the upper layers of loess. While the upper layers (162.5 m) show evidence of being deposited by wind, the underlying red clay does not show such a pattern. This suggests the possibility that red clay may be Flood deposits while the loess is post-Flood, with most of it deposited during the early post-Flood period.

Neither source makes reference to a continuous climate record or fossils, nor is there any detail on the magnetostratigraphy. Without independent information this claim is baseless. Furthermore, none of these qualify as independent dating methods as there is mutual calibration among them and other methods. Also, paleomagnetic data tend to be somewhat chaotic, so there is likely to be plenty of room for subjectivity in the analysis of the raw paleomagnetic data—so the correlation may not be as natural as Talk Origins implies.

 

[CycloWizard]

If the earth was 6000 years old, radioactive isotopes with a relatively small halflife would be everywhere. Being as we have to create them by neutron bombardment in order to have any, I would naturally suppose the earth was older than 6000 years. If I was really clever I would try to determine the age of the universe with background radiation and the prevalence of certain types of matter.

That's not necessarily true. You're assuming that the initial condition in both theories must be equal.

 

[CycloWizard]

Science will produce more answers as time goes on but never answer everything about the natural world. I'd have been smarter to acknowledge in my previous post that aspects of the natural world not currently addressed by science can also be an added, shrinking domain of religion/philosophy. Shrinking because religion/philosophy should yield to science as knowledge of our natural world expands.

Science discerns the best (i.e. most likely) theory based on its ability to explain known facts and observations as well as the theory's ability to correctly predict new facts and/or observations. Science can therefore usually distinguish between two theories that are identical only in their predictions. It seems to me that it's in this ability to explain known facts that the theory of evolution beats out all other theories.

That said, I agree it's possible that different theories could seem equally meritorious (in matching facts and predictions), in which case the current theory probably prevails.

Science can only discern which is "better" between two hypotheses if they offer differing predictions about an outcome. Differentiating between hypotheses which make equal predictions in all observable cases is therefore a philosophical exercise. I can't say scientifically whether green or blue is a better color but I can have some internal heuristics which predispose me to preferring one over the other. Western science has adopted Occam's Razor almost as an axiom. This seems to be the source of confusion because it itself is nothing but a philosophical tool which can enable us to sift through the infinitely many theories which are scientifically indistinguishable.

 

[CycloWizard]

Ok, so how does that apply to Evolution v YEC? Clearly the mere act of being proposed does not make them have Identical Properties or the fact they both attempt to explain Life as we know it. What exactly are these Identical Properties you are talking about?

I pose two initial states governed by identical physical laws. In state 1, billions of years ago, we have the big bang and everything since. In state 2, ~6000 years ago, we have an initial state exactly what would be predicted using a perfectly accurate simulator of a perfect cosmological model yielding an identical universe to that predicted ~6000 years in the past by solving the model with the initial condition from state 1. From that point ~6000 years ago, both of these offer identical predictions for everything at all future times. How, then, can you scientifically distinguish one from the other without a time machine?

 

[sandorski]

I pose two initial states governed by identical physical laws. In state 1, billions of years ago, we have the big bang and everything since. In state 2, ~6000 years ago, we have an initial state exactly what would be predicted using a perfectly accurate simulator of a perfect cosmological model yielding an identical universe to that predicted ~6000 years in the past by solving the model with the initial condition from state 1. From that point ~6000 years ago, both of these offer identical predictions for everything at all future times. How, then, can you scientifically distinguish one from the other without a time machine?

It's a ridiculous presupposition. Sure, an All Powerful All X being could set it up that way, but why would it do it full knowing that we would be deceived by it?

Your argument makes no sense.

 

[AViking]

These kinds of discussions are not useful. They provide no new knowledge and answer zero questions. They are a complete waste of time. They are no different than when I was a little kid playing tag and every time someone got me I came up with an excuse like "Na uh! I was invisible!" or "Na Uh, there was lava there and you died in it before you got me!".

Using the flying spaghetti monster argument to try to debunk science is ridiculous. Nothing can be gained by simply saying that the earth is 6000 years old because a kid has a magic lamp and wished it that way, god planted evidence on purpose, or that we're living in the matrix and we don't even exist.

Total waste of time.

There is nothing to discuss if people are just going to make up absurd theories to try to debunk one that has actual evidence.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's a ridiculous presupposition. Sure, an All Powerful All X being could set it up that way, but why would it do it full knowing that we would be deceived by it?

Your argument makes no sense.

It's not an argument: it's a statement of fact. I'm sorry you feel that my statement of fact makes no sense, even immediately following your acknowledgement that it is correct. The question you ask (why?) is a philosophical question. And that's the whole point.

 

[DrPizza]

That's not a refutation of anything I said. It is possible to pose the young Earth creationism "hypothesis" such that it is mathematically equivalent to any other cosmological theory which predicts all obsevables. We cannot scientifically distinguish whether
(1) the universe formed 6,000 years ago with all of these features in place after which time things progressed according to all of the scientific theories which explain this natural progression or
(2) the universe formed billions of years ago and evolved via those same governing equations.

Both 1 and 2 can be posed such that they yield identical predictions regarding fossil records and everything else. Thus, no amount of evidence can contradict one without contradicting the other. Note that this is not how such creationist theories are usually formulated but my only argument is that such a formulation is possible.

I'm glad you finally agree with me. Occam's Razor is a philosophical heuristic, not a scientific method.

I'm going to let you in on a secret. I am God. I created all existence 5 minutes ago. All of your memories didn't actually happen - they are false memories that I planted in your head when I created you 5 minutes ago. In fact, I created everything 5 minutes ago so that it would be indistinguishable from a universe that began with a "big bang" roughly 14 billion years ago.


^^^ So, your point is that the above is a valid theory. I think our point is that your point isn't even worthy of discussion.

edit: Oh, and as a huge cosmic joke, I have created all this reality such that if you ever create a time machine, which I'm allowing the rules of physics to make it seem possible, that if you "go back in time," you will "see" a false reality.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I agree that a scientific theory can never be proven correct - it can only be proven false with some finite probability of support for the null hypothesis. Along that same line of reasoning, there is no scientific support (other than a lack of contradictory evidence) for any scientific theory. That is more or less the crux of the argument. There are infinitely many models which yield identical predictions over the observable variable space. You cannot scientifically distinguish between the two theories (if properly posed) that (1) you have pressed the key or (2) the key is sentient and moves to avoid your finger's approach. We have plenty of accurate models which explain a mechanistic basis for (1) but it is also possible to formulate a model which makes (2) indistinguishable from (1). The only distinction, then, is philosophical: we choose (1) because it's a simpler model and has equal predictive power for any case we care to study. We also choose it because we as yet have no way to distinguish between (1) and (2).

It's actually not just a philosophical difference, and that was the point I was trying to get across. You can make a creation model fit evidence of a common ancestor, but it does not predict the presence of a common ancestor. Let me try to explain this in an abstract manner:

Let's say you have a distribution of data, as shown below:

Now, this data can be fit multiple ways. On such approach is what we would call a linear fit (y=a+bx):

Obviously, this fit does not precisely correlate with the data, but it can, with a measurable accuracy, predict where additional data points would show on the graph.

A second way to fit the data would be an infinite polynomial (y=a+bx+cx^2+dx^3...):

Such a fit can be made to precisely match any present data point. It will exactly mold to any new data. Yet it is scientifically useless, because it cannot predict where the next data point will appear. I will never be able to prove that this kind of model doesn't match the data, but it is not useful for me to consider it as it doesn't provide me with predictive information. Thus, even though it appears to be a better fit to the data, the scientist would prefer the linear fit above.

Creationism is the second kind of fit. While you're right that it can be made to match any data set, the difference between it and a predictive model (such as evolution by natural selection) is not merely semantic.

Again, I make no claims as to absolute proof, but science is not interested in such things. As my (super awesome) HS physics teacher put it "I know God spoke to Muhammad, but that is not science. It was a miracle, and science is not about miracles."

 

[Mursilis]

I'm not the one who started criticizing a person instead of discussing the actual topic, Rob. It has devolved to this so quickly because you don't like me, and for no other reason.

But you did critize a person, in a way, by attacking theist beliefs. Few beliefs are more personal. How could someone educated not see that? If you truly cared about teaching, as you claim, you'd see how abrasive your style is, but I really don't think that's your motive. Mostly I think you're just here to show off how smart you are, and to score some points on whichever theists you can bait.

 

[JD50]

But you did critize a person, in a way, by attacking theist beliefs. Few beliefs are more personal. How could someone educated not see that? If you truly cared about teaching, as you claim, you'd see how abrasive your style is, but I really don't think that's your motive. Mostly I think you're just here to show off how smart you are, and to score some points on whichever theists you can bait.

Why are certain theist beliefs so sacred, and why shouldn't you be able to criticize them?

 

[dphantom]

Why are certain theist beliefs so sacred, and why shouldn't you be able to criticize them?

Nothing wrong with a critique. The attacks though seem to be very personal among several and that may be what mursilis refers to.

I certainly don't mind having an open discussion about my beliefs. But when you begin attacking me or my beliefs, then the discussion for me ends because you have lost all chance at ever changing my mind once that happens.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why are certain theist beliefs so sacred, and why shouldn't you be able to criticize them?

Its all about the manner in which it is done. As the old saying goes: "you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar".

See how crashtestdummy approaches religious people. He's very respecful, and I don't recall him ever getting the ire from us the way Taxt does.

 

[AViking]

People do need to understand how truly important religion is to some. It is the very fabric of their being. Their entire life revolves around it. So if you're going to disrespect religion you're going to disrespect them very deeply.

However with that said these same people who take it that personally are, in my experience, those who take the bible literally. That's a class in itself. If you take the bible literally in the year 2014 you do kinda have to be prepared for some hurt feelings. It's unfortunate for both sides really since discussions here do not get very far before those of you who take the bible very literally get butthurt. Compared to real life discussions that I have about religion where people can be religious but not believe that the earth is 6000 years old and you can have some much more interesting discussions that get somewhere and where people learn something. It is easier to back off face to face though unlike here where we can't read your facial expressions plus we don't know you.

Just keep this in mind, from my point of view, but I have regular discussions about religion with religious friends from all over the world. Several are from Italy and South America. They're catholic and it's part of their life. Unlike some of you though they do not take everything so literally and are not into crazy things like creationism and being anti-evolution. Religion is just there to teach moral lessons, give guidance, and not make them feel so alone in this world. Normal people, religious, and we can sit at a table with them, my atheist friends, muslims, coptic Christians, agnostics, and have a pretty fun conversation. So everyone here should really think long and hard about whether they're part of the problem when a religious conversation goes south. Sometimes it's best for me to just listen. Same could be said for many of you too. Just stop typing, start reading, and try to open your mind to the other side's point of view.

No need to pussy foot around the subject though. If you state that the earth is 6000 years old expect to be confronted. This is no different than me being prepared to be confronted when I call into question jesus. In this thread we have had some absurd arguments and it should come as no surprise that it's not going to be all peaches and cream.

 

[JD50]

Its all about the manner in which it is done. As the old saying goes: "you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar".

See how crashtestdummy approaches religious people. He's very respecful, and I don't recall him ever getting the ire from us the way Taxt does.

Probably because he's new to the debate, those of us that have been here a while get frustrated explaining the most basic things over and over again, making little or no progress.

 

[beginner99]

Wouldn't your time be better spent talking people out of using drugs, or drinking to much, or eating an unhealthy diet?

Do you know that I do not do those things also?

Funny joke about this subject:

A guy goes to the doctor and asks:

"What do i need to to to get very old?"

The doctor then replies:

"Do you drink often?"

"No"

"Do you smoke?"

"No"

"Do you have sex often?"

"No"

"Why do you want to get old?"


There is nothing black and white. Drugs aren't all bad if used wisely but they aren't' hail marry either. I can only say that one specific drug has influenced my life very positively.

 

[dphantom]

No need to pussy foot around the subject though. If you state that the earth is 6000 years old expect to be confronted. This is no different than me being prepared to be confronted when I call into question jesus. In this thread we have had some absurd arguments and it should come as no surprise that it's not going to be all peaches and cream.

And I think that is very fair. Nowhere can I find in the Bible or other religious texts the age of the earth. Nor do I think that creation happened in 6 24 hour days. I do not know what a day is to God.

I do think the books of the Bible are the Word of God. But being of flesh, I have an incomplete understanding of there meaning. I know that may be a cop-out to some, but I study, listen to the teachings of my pastor and try to practice my beliefs as well as I can in accordance to my understanding of God's plan.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I'm going to let you in on a secret. I am God. I created all existence 5 minutes ago. All of your memories didn't actually happen - they are false memories that I planted in your head when I created you 5 minutes ago. In fact, I created everything 5 minutes ago so that it would be indistinguishable from a universe that began with a "big bang" roughly 14 billion years ago.


^^^ So, your point is that the above is a valid theory. I think our point is that your point isn't even worthy of discussion.

edit: Oh, and as a huge cosmic joke, I have created all this reality such that if you ever create a time machine, which I'm allowing the rules of physics to make it seem possible, that if you "go back in time," you will "see" a false reality.

Actually, I created both you and what you misinterpret as pre-creation 10 minutes ago! I was tempted to post a similar response, but I'll agree that as a mod you make a more believeable claim of divine powers.

But you did critize a person, in a way, by attacking theist beliefs. Few beliefs are more personal. How could someone educated not see that? If you truly cared about teaching, as you claim, you'd see how abrasive your style is, but I really don't think that's your motive. Mostly I think you're just here to show off how smart you are, and to score some points on whichever theists you can bait.

Sadly (and again), there are plenty of examples of what might charitably be characterized as "too spirited" responses from both believers and non-believers in these discussion club threads. It'd be best if we all took more care to express ourselves civilly. IMHO cerpin taxt isn't among the most noteworthy transgressors, and I see a bit of a "pot calling kettle" problem when you ascribe his motivations to "showing off" how smart he is.

Nothing wrong with a critique. The attacks though seem to be very personal among several and that may be what mursilis refers to.

I certainly don't mind having an open discussion about my beliefs. But when you begin attacking me or my beliefs, then the discussion for me ends because you have lost all chance at ever changing my mind once that happens.

I agree that personal attacks, including name calling and accusations of evil intent, should be out of bounds in this forum. I do wonder where you draw the line between an "attack" on your beliefs and the skeptical questioning and/or expression of disagreement with your beliefs. What you and other believers have posted also has me thinking that the personal nature of faith may make it hard for a believer to make a distinction between him/herself and his/her beliefs. Is a strident rejection of your beliefs an attack? Is it against you? And is there really a chance that your mind (or perhaps more accurately your soul) can be changed about a faith-based belief?

 

[Retro Rob]

Probably because he's new to the debate

Actually, he's not. We've had good discussions, both private and public about God, to homosexality etc, and they don't reflect the type of behavior here.

Some people simply aren't jackasses, plain and simple.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm going to let you in on a secret. I am God. I created all existence 5 minutes ago. All of your memories didn't actually happen - they are false memories that I planted in your head when I created you 5 minutes ago. In fact, I created everything 5 minutes ago so that it would be indistinguishable from a universe that began with a "big bang" roughly 14 billion years ago.


^^^ So, your point is that the above is a valid theory. I think our point is that your point isn't even worthy of discussion.

edit: Oh, and as a huge cosmic joke, I have created all this reality such that if you ever create a time machine, which I'm allowing the rules of physics to make it seem possible, that if you "go back in time," you will "see" a false reality.

You dismiss it using a philosophical argument (i.e. it's ridiculous). However, you can never scientifically prove that it's incorrect. That's the difference. The premise of the OP is that the two are scientifically distinguishable. The conclusion of my original post here is that that premise is false. I'm not arguing for one model or the other. I'm simply arguing that, if one presumes to appeal to higher faculties to dismiss something by invoking science, he'd better be damn sure that it's really science he's using. Otherwise he opens himself to ridicule.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's actually not just a philosophical difference, and that was the point I was trying to get across. You can make a creation model fit evidence of a common ancestor, but it does not predict the presence of a common ancestor. Let me try to explain this in an abstract manner:

Let's say you have a distribution of data, as shown below:

Now, this data can be fit multiple ways. On such approach is what we would call a linear fit (y=a+bx):

Obviously, this fit does not precisely correlate with the data, but it can, with a measurable accuracy, predict where additional data points would show on the graph.

A second way to fit the data would be an infinite polynomial (y=a+bx+cx^2+dx^3...):

Such a fit can be made to precisely match any present data point. It will exactly mold to any new data. Yet it is scientifically useless, because it cannot predict where the next data point will appear. I will never be able to prove that this kind of model doesn't match the data, but it is not useful for me to consider it as it doesn't provide me with predictive information. Thus, even though it appears to be a better fit to the data, the scientist would prefer the linear fit above.

Creationism is the second kind of fit. While you're right that it can be made to match any data set, the difference between it and a predictive model (such as evolution by natural selection) is not merely semantic.

Again, I make no claims as to absolute proof, but science is not interested in such things. As my (super awesome) HS physics teacher put it "I know God spoke to Muhammad, but that is not science. It was a miracle, and science is not about miracles."

I'm not disagreeing that it's a scientifically useless theory - only that it is not scientifically distinguishable from cosmological theories. As long as the theory is formulated as I've posed it here (i.e. that all physical laws are admitted), then my theory makes the same predictions regarding all observable events. The only question is the initial state (or, perhaps a better way of looking at it, the initial time) from whence our current reality has propagated according to these laws. Since the time of the big bang/creation of the earth/whatever other starting point you'd like to choose is scientifically unknowable, the difference is not scientific.

I say that it's scientifically unknowable because we can never formulate a test which will falsify either hypothesis (without a time machine). Therefore, neither hypothesis is truly scientific. Choosing the big bang over the young Earth is, therefore, a purely philosophical choice wherein one chooses to assume that the laws of nature have remained the same for billions of years and that everything we see originated in a singularity. We cannot observe the singularity so this extrapolation is not testable except on a philosophical basis.

 

[sandorski]

You dismiss it using a philosophical argument (i.e. it's ridiculous). However, you can never scientifically prove that it's incorrect. That's the difference. The premise of the OP is that the two are scientifically distinguishable. The conclusion of my original post here is that that premise is false. I'm not arguing for one model or the other. I'm simply arguing that, if one presumes to appeal to higher faculties to dismiss something by invoking science, he'd better be damn sure that it's really science he's using. Otherwise he opens himself to ridicule.

You keep saying it is not Science. However, that is incorrect. You are redefining Science to fit your premise.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You're conflating the origin of the universe and life with Darwinian evolution being the driving force behind speciation to this present day. The singularity, OK, afaik we have only rough conjecture on how the first self-replicating biomolecules may have arisen and what they may have been composed of. The evolutionary relatedness between various members of a given clade, however? DNA sequencing and genetic conservation provide measurable and predictable data. There are still assumptions at play and we cannot go back in time to see at what point a given point mutation or domain shuffle occurred and in what ancestor, but I don't see why that matters in terms of something being scientific and testable. Can you give an example of something you do consider to be scientifically useful? For example, we cannot "see" subatomic particles or forces, yet people design equations and models describing them using sophisticated algorithms from computers connected to some kind of transducer feeding us data which we assume describes what we think it's measuring.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'm not disagreeing that it's a scientifically useless theory - only that it is not scientifically distinguishable from cosmological theories. As long as the theory is formulated as I've posed it here (i.e. that all physical laws are admitted), then my theory makes the same predictions regarding all observable events. The only question is the initial state (or, perhaps a better way of looking at it, the initial time) from whence our current reality has propagated according to these laws. Since the time of the big bang/creation of the earth/whatever other starting point you'd like to choose is scientifically unknowable, the difference is not scientific.

You keep using the term "prediction" when I think you mean "explanation." These are not the same thing. There is an enormous amount of information that no other model predicted we would find that has been predicted by Natural Selection theory and then verified by paleontology, experimental biology, genetic analysis and so on. Some of the links provided in this thread will enumerate a small fraction of those, but the most concise way to put it is that biological research as we know it today would be essentially impossible without the concept of Natural Selection.

Creation theory has no produced a single original prediction. That it can be adjusted ex post facto to fit the data does not mean that it is at all predictive. Thus, any creation theory that does not provide an original prediction is not scientific theory and does not, for example, belong in a science classroom.

It is also worth noting that predictions don't have to be for events in the future (although evolution certainly has a lot to say about those as well). What they have to do, though is predict the presence of some observation that is not currently known. Thus, predicting a common ancestor between species, and the form that the common ancestor would hold, were new predictions created by natural selection that were not previously available.*

I say that it's scientifically unknowable because we can never formulate a test which will falsify either hypothesis (without a time machine). Therefore, neither hypothesis is truly scientific. Choosing the big bang over the young Earth is, therefore, a purely philosophical choice wherein one chooses to assume that the laws of nature have remained the same for billions of years and that everything we see originated in a singularity. We cannot observe the singularity so this extrapolation is not testable except on a philosophical basis.

I think at this point we are having different conversations. You appear interested in the Truth of the universe. That is fine, but please do not consider your approach scientific. It does not belong in a science class. If you wish for our kids to have basic instruction in metaphysical thought, or to partake in a comparative religion coursework, I won't argue with you. When you equate creation with scientific theory, though, you hamper our ability as a nation and as a species to make useful scientific discoveries. The inability of the average person (and even many scientists) to distinguish between a predictive and a non-predictive correlation holds us back probably more than any other scientific misconception (hence why you see all those people who don't believe in vaccines).

Lastly, both as a scientist and as a person, I am uninterested in the notion of absolute Truth or even of a stable reality. The best I can hope to achieve is a notion of usefulness. If I cannot take a piece of information and use it to make a verifiable test, then I simply don't care about it. That information may as well simply not exist. If you tell me there is a God, but cannot provide me with a way to use that information in a way that is independently verifiable, then there might as well be no God. Life is too short and I am too busy to bother with ideas that are merely possible. That is indeed a philosophical choice (the as a person part, as a scientist it's required to function). I can understand why that wouldn't be enough for many people, but it is more than sufficient for me.

*You can make a comment about Lamarkism here, but that provided other predictions that were very much shown to be false, and Natural Selection predicted the eventual discovery of information that would not have been predicted by Lamark or his philosophers.