08 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
I was being facetious. Evolution accurately predicts what we already see is fact. Maybe I'm woefully ignorant of what a prediction is, but I always thought predictions were verifiable by the discoveries they predicted, and not by facts which are already readily apparent. Any fool can predict an outcome after the fact.
It's ridiculo to preserve evidence in the form of fossils and preserved bones and insects caught in amber.
but I always thought predictions were verifiable by the discoveries they predicted, and not by facts which are already readily apparent.
the are two flaws you are making here; one in logic (and this is in addition to your absence of understanding of what circular reasoning actually is that you made clearly apparent in the post before this one) and the other with you false premise which can be readily dismissed with a trivial observation.
firstly, why would valid predictions have to necessarily exclude those that predict the “ facts which are already readily apparent”? -obviously, there is no reason to exclude such predictions as being perfectly valid predictions for, if they explain what we already know, this would help vindicate them.
To reject all predictions that predict the “facts which are already readily apparent” would also be to reject many predictions that also predict what we do not yet know! this is because predictions can BOTH predict what we already know AND what we don't yet know -why should the two be mutually exclusive?
Secondly, Evolution has done more than merely predict the “ facts which are already readily apparent” for it predicted things that were not immediately apparent but which became apparent later on. For example, it predicted that the would sometimes be less than perfect anatomy with some occasional obvious flaws. This we have now seen confirmed. Evolution also predicted that we should expect to occasionally discover new evidence of transitional forms of life that we didn't discover earlier -this has in fact happened. Evolution also predicted, and this was BEFORE we know about DNA, that we should expect to occasionally discover new evidence of common ancestry of living things -this has in fact happened for we see this evidence in the DNA. So, here we have just 3 examples of predictions evolution has made that were NOT merely “ facts which are already readily apparent” at the time.
Well?
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyWe have a true believer. No doubt about that!but I always thought predictions were verifiable by the discoveries they predicted, and not by facts which are already readily apparent.
the are two flaws you are making here; one in logic (and this is in addition to your absence of understanding of what circular reasoning actually is that you made clearly apparent in the post before this ...[text shortened]... n has made that were NOT merely “ facts which are already readily apparent” at the time.
Well?
We have a world that contains less than perfect anatomy with some occasional obvious flaws! Absolute proof that evolution must be true!
As I said, a true believer.
08 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarWell, that is enough about me. I wasn't talking about me. So lets go back on topic: What is your counter argument?
We have a true believer. No doubt about that!
We have a world that contains less than perfect anatomy with some occasional obvious flaws! Absolute proof that evolution must be true!
As I said, a true believer.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyWhat counter argument? That science is limited to understanding what we can see? Science is limited to what can be tested? Science is unable to determine if God exists or not?
Well, that is enough about me. Lets go back on topic: What is your counter argument?
Do these facts really need to be explained to you?
08 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarObviously I said/implied nothing about the 'limits' of science or lack of.
What counter argument? That science is limited to understanding what we can see? Science is limited to what can be tested? Science is unable to determine if God exists or not?
Do these facts really need to be explained to you?
So you just change the subject completely -first change the subject to be about 'me' and then make it out to be 'limits' of science -a sure sign of desperation because you know you have lost the argument completely.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by EladarYes, you are right, science is essentially apathetically agnostic. We cannot prove your god does not exist. But then again so what? You cannot prove your god exists either. So we have a symmetric position. The world gives the appearance of the scientific narrative, science has to go along with that.
What counter argument? That science is limited to understanding what we can see? Science is limited to what can be tested? Science is unable to determine if God exists or not?
Do these facts really need to be explained to you?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTo many of us, the world gives the appearance of being intelligently design, so we have to go along with that.
Yes, you are right, science is essentially apathetically agnostic. We cannot prove your god does not exist. But then again so what? You cannot prove your god exists either. So we have a symmetric position. The world gives the appearance of the scientific narrative, science has to go along with that.
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere is a very good reason for why PM is included in the evolution package. It's directly related to all of the accumulated physical evidence we have thus far unearthed, which is quite a bit compared to say 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. PE serves a purpose, and that purpose is to explain something we should be seeing but don't see. Having said that, can you tell me in your own words what your understanding of PE is, and what this supporting theory is designed to explain?
Yes, you are right, any fool can, given the current evidence, trivially conclude that evolution theory is valid.
Evolution theory does not predict that anything will end up in the fossil record. The features of the species we do find in the fossil record can be explained using evolution theory, but in terms of supplying evidence they are not required; you don't need an apple falling from a tree to support the theory of gravity.
If the fossil record supports evolution through gradual changes, then where is the need for a supporting theory to explain consistently spaced gaps in the fossil record? These aren't just random gaps, which would be perfectly predictable and acceptable in an incomplete record. But these gaps representing evidence that should exist are not random... they form a very consistent pattern throughout the fossil record. IMO the very existence of PE as a supporting theory is in itself evidence for the need to explain something we should be seeing but don't see.
A creationist could look at the same evidence and say there is no need for a theory like PE, because from his point of view what is seen in the fossil record is consistent with what he would expect to see. I don't know if Occam's razor can be applied to this comparison, but if it can then what should I expect to see as a result of applying Occam's razor?
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeEvolution theory doesn't predict anthing about the fossil record. It really, really doesn't. If you want to discredit evolution theory, you need to refute the evidence supporting the existence of DNA or the evidence supporting that it mutates or affects the phenotype.
There is a very good reason for why PM is included in the evolution package. It's directly related to all of the accumulated physical evidence we have thus far unearthed, which is quite a bit compared to say 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. PE serves a purpose, and that purpose is to explain something we should be seeing but don't see. Having said that, c ...[text shortened]... on, but if it can then what should I expect to see as a result of applying Occam's razor?
The fossil record can help explain how species evolved, not that they evolved. We know species evolved, we don't necessarily know how (in the sense of changes in the genotype). PE can help explain how species evolved. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDNA refutes EVIL-LUTION because DNA contains an information language code that is programmed to reproduce every cell and molecular machines in the body and that could only come from a source of knowledge and intelligence with that capability. The molecular machines and factory assembly operations in the cell refutes EVIL_LUTION because machines used in factory assembly processes must be created by a knowledgeable and intelligent source.
Evolution theory doesn't predict anthing about the fossil record. It really, really doesn't. If you want to discredit evolution theory, you need to refute the evidence supporting the existence of DNA or the evidence supporting that it mutates or affects the phenotype.
The fossil record can help explain how species evolved, not that they ...[text shortened]... can help explain how species evolved. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, really.
The Instructor
09 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
DNA refutes EVIL-LUTION because DNA contains an information language code that is programmed to reproduce every cell and molecular machines in the body and that could only come from a source of knowledge and intelligence with that capability. The molecular machines and factory assembly operations in the cell refutes EVIL_LUTION because machines used in fact ...[text shortened]... assembly processes must be created by a knowledgeable and intelligent source.
The Instructor