Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

For about the hundredth time in this thread "empirical evidence" is an interpretation of what you already believe. Most of that evidence fits my theory better or is irrelevant to the reality. Science and theory are based in experiment, not evidence.

I have a great deal of respect for experience as all true knowledge is experience, however just because something is true through experience does not prove it is the simplest explanation of reality. It can even be false. The witch doctor has lots of experience driving away bad mo jo but to at least some degree the knowledge, the experience, is most probably contradictory to reality.

How does that discount the value of experience? Why does it need to be the simplest explanation? If you respect it so much, why are you looking for ways to dismiss it?

If two things are true from experience and one is more complex than the other (the simplest) is the more complex suddenly false?

Is claiming that you have created a new species of fly a fact or is it a belief? Is it a real experience or a misinterpretation and believing what you wanted?

Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that you randomly killed some flies of indeterminate species with no knowledge of how much they represent a population and simply declare them a new species without benefit of any evidence you did anything except kill flies?

Isn't the witch doctor making an interpretation based on experience, but biased by his unsupported beliefs? Another could have the same experience (evidence) and come to a different conclusion that may be more accurate due to less bias?

I believe all induction is based on abstraction and animals do not understand abstraction.

How do you explain what appears to be an understanding of abstraction by dogs and cats? Good guessing?

I believe what you are mistaking for induction is simple pattern recognition and extrapolation.

Aren't dogs recognizing patterns and extrapolating? If a dog recognizes an overpass on the way to his favorite spa day place and becomes excited, hasn't that dog recognized a pattern and come to a conclusion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm having Mr ID flashbacks

And like Mr ID, I have been doing some research online and further afield. There is much out there and many experiences out there are similar to ours on this forum.

 

[John53]

And like Mr ID, I have been doing some research online and further afield. There is much out there and many experiences out there are similar to ours on this forum.

I'm looking forward to the answers to your posts. I don't know why because I'm sure I'll be disappointed.

Someone asked earlier something along the lines of do you hope to change anyone's mind.... I don't want to change anyone, I'd just like to see a sensible discussion and maybe learn a few things myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm looking forward to the answers to your posts. I don't know why because I'm sure I'll be disappointed.

Someone asked earlier something along the lines of do you hope to change anyone's mind.... I don't want to change anyone, I'd just like to see a sensible discussion and maybe learn a few things myself.

I would love to see sensible discussion, but I have no expectation of it.

I'm not sure that there can be between people that rely on evidence and reason have a discussion with those that rely almost solely on what they believe is real without any evidence.

I know that sounds hypocritical coming from someone that follows an established belief system. But in my interpretation of the Bible and Christianity, we were given gifts and abilities for a reason and not using them or using them poorly seems to be slap in the face of the Giver. I also know that such statements will be seen as fodder for those that want to establish the dominance of their own interpretations or at least the interpretations they have been told to have. Let em. I don't care. I've no need to engage them.

There is no mention of a fossil record in Genesis, but it exists in reality. Should I ignore it? Pretend it isn't there? Using all manner of logical fallacy to wish it into the cornfield like that kid in the Twilight Zone? Simply lie about it? Or should I consider that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not the best way to interpret that work?

 

[Audie]

Can you list Darwin's premises for us?

Then show that each is wrong and why?

As if

 

[John53]

I would love to see sensible discussion, but I have no expectation of it.

I'm not sure that there can be between people that rely on evidence and reason have a discussion with those that rely almost solely on what they believe is real without any evidence.

I know that sounds hypocritical coming from someone that follows an established belief system. But in my interpretation of the Bible and Christianity, we were given gifts and abilities for a reason and not using them or using them poorly seems to be slap in the face of the Giver. I also know that such statements will be seen as fodder for those that want to establish the dominance of their own interpretations or at least the interpretations they have been told to have. Let em. I don't care. I've no need to engage them.

There is no mention of a fossil record in Genesis, but it exists in reality. Should I ignore it? Pretend it isn't there? Using all manner of logical fallacy to wish it into the cornfield like that kid in the Twilight Zone? Simply lie about it? Or should I consider that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not the best way to interpret that work?

Is the kid Will Robinson from Lost in Space?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is the kid Will Robinson from Lost in Space?

Yes. Same actor.

Bill Mumy

Bill Mumy is an American film and television actor.

www.themoviedb.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually I think you'd like it better not knowing
what the lyrics mean in that particular case.

It is enjoyable regardless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is the kid Will Robinson from Lost in Space?

Yeah!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Feng Fei Fei. "When I hear the applause"

Thank you. I think I just heard parts that sounded familiar enough to wonder, but it isn't a song I am familiar with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There has to another reason to do this, and for me, there are several. I would love to be able to help whomever I am answering, but I understand that I don't have much impact there. Two great passions for me are trying to understand how other minds that are different from mine process information, and analyzing arguments. That's what I call the lab part, where interactions are like tapping the glass to see what they elicit. I think that there is benefit to critical thinkers, who learn from one another. I call that the lecture part of the course.

Where else can one get endless access to faith-based thinkers for extended discussions going over weeks at times where there are no negative social consequences of the discussion and anonymity makes it safe for all parties to express themselves? You probably shouldn't have these discussions with family, neighbors, or coworkers. It's usually not possible anyway, and would likely lead to bad blood if it were.

Thanks for that, and it comes at a good time. We seldom know how we affect other critical thinkers if at all.

It was a good idea in the sense that irreducible complexity would be an indication of intelligent design, but doomed to failure, since there is no algorithm that can decide irreducible complexity, and anything that appears irreducibly complex might not be.

A superior force is involved, nature, but there is no evidence that it is awake or intelligent.

Do you mean they can't explain it to you? Do you think that reflects a deficiency in the theory?

Do you consider the use of such language evidence that the theory is incorrect? Do you have something more effective at explaining and predicting observations, where explaining means offering an evidenced argument that includes a mechanism rather than unfalsifiable religious claims? If you don't, what's your specific complaint with the scientific theory?

Here's the problem for you. You are asking people to replace a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, with an idea that can do none of that? Why would they do that?

I do see some value in it for me and for others that reason similarly, but I have doubts it will have much impact on those mired in their favorite belief about reality. Perhaps it doesn't have to. Perhaps it is best to read and learn where there is little chance of breaking through a much-loved personal belief that exists on denying what has been learned or valid methods of learning.

Maybe the biggest value is examining my own views through that lens.

 

[Audie]

Thank you. I think I just heard parts that sounded familiar enough to wonder, but it isn't a song I am familiar with.

Think 1980s, Taiwan

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Think 1980s, Taiwan

At least there is a 1980's Taiwan to think about.

 

[gnostic]

The "science" of irreducible complexity is not far-fetched and no amount of fossils will change that. If it's not natural, what then? uh oh, might mean a superior force is involved. Nah, many don't want that!

The fossils are evidence.

Irreducible Complexity cannot even offer that.

Dna testing, anatomy & physiology comparisons, are evidence.

Again, Irreducible Complexity have nothing new to offer.

There are no evidence and no experiments to support Irreducible Complexity, which makes iC unfalsifiable and untested, so what you said about Irreducible Complexity bring “is not so far-fetched”, is really only your personal opinion, and that’s unsubstantiated claim, YoursTrue.

Any hypothesis should be at least falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “testable”. This is what make a hypothesis “scientific”. And the way to do that is that a scientist must include 2 essential things to make the hypothesis “falsifiable”:

1. Must include predictive model - some predictions of what to expect evidence to be, should the evidence ever be “discovered”.
2. Must include instruction on HOW to find TO TEST the predictive model.

In point 1, the prediction is like a baseline of whether the hypothesis “succeed” or “fail”.

It would only succeed, if the evidence support the prediction. But the evidence can be something very different from what was predicted, which mean the evidence refuted the prediction.

In point 2 - the testing of the predictive model, a scientist must include instructions on ways to test the hypothesis through observations, and there are 2 main ways to do this tests:

1. in the lab, like instructions on HOW one would set up an experiment
2. in the fields, like instructions on HOW, WHERE & WHEN to find the evidence, hence fieldwork

There is a 3rd option - do both points 1 & 2.

Lab experiments are obvious ways to find evidence. Scientists have more control over the environment and the variables.

So I don’t need to explain this. Finding evidence in the field, scientists would have less control.

Michael Behe provided no such predictive models, hence Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable.

And since Behe has never discovered any evidence, nor has he supported his concept with test results of some experiments, so Irreducible Complexity untested.

Behe even admitted in 2005, during being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, that he has never submitted Irreducible Complexity to be "peer-review" by any scientific publishers, and that IC & in his book, Darwin's Black Box, there were no original research, experiment & data for them...the lack of evidence for IC HAVEN'T CHANGED, TODAY. There are still no evidence and data to support Irreducible Complexity.

Without verifiable evidence/experiments & data, Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

Your personal view about Irreducible Complexity, don't make IC anymore plausible, YoursTrue.

 

[Audie]

The fossils are evidence.

Irreducible Complexity cannot even offer that.

Dna testing, anatomy & physiology comparisons, are evidence.

Again, Irreducible Complexity have nothing new to offer.

There are no evidence and no experiments to support Irreducible Complexity, which makes iC unfalsifiable and untested, so what you said about Irreducible Complexity bring “is not so far-fetched”, is really only your personal opinion, and that’s unsubstantiated claim, YoursTrue.

Any hypothesis should be at least falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “testable”. This is what make a hypothesis “scientific”. And the way to do that is that a scientist must include 2 essential things to make the hypothesis “falsifiable”:

1. Must include predictive model - some predictions of what to expect evidence to be, should the evidence ever be “discovered”.
2. Must include instruction on HOW to find TO TEST the predictive model.

In point 1, the prediction is like a baseline of whether the hypothesis “succeed” or “fail”.

It would only succeed, if the evidence support the prediction. But the evidence can be something very different from what was predicted, which mean the evidence refuted the prediction.

In point 2 - the testing of the predictive model, a scientist must include instructions on ways to test the hypothesis through observations, and there are 2 main ways to do this tests:

1. in the lab, like instructions on HOW one would set up an experiment
2. in the fields, like instructions on HOW, WHERE & WHEN to find the evidence, hence fieldwork

There is a 3rd option - do both points 1 & 2.

Lab experiments are obvious ways to find evidence. Scientists have more control over the environment and the variables.

So I don’t need to explain this. Finding evidence in the field, scientists would have less control.

Michael Behe provided no such predictive models, hence Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable.

And since Behe has never discovered any evidence, nor has he supported his concept with test results of some experiments, so Irreducible Complexity untested.

Behe even admitted in 2005, during being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, that he has never submitted Irreducible Complexity to be "peer-review" by any scientific publishers, and that IC & in his book, Darwin's Black Box, there were no original research, experiment & data for them...the lack of evidence for IC HAVEN'T CHANGED, TODAY. There are still no evidence and data to support Irreducible Complexity.

Without verifiable evidence/experiments & data, Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

Your personal view about Irreducible Complexity, don't make IC anymore plausible, YoursTrue.

A pseudoscience is known by its fanboyz

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, not really for objective, inter-subjective and subjective. You can do them all as natural, but you can't reduce them to only one of the 3 I mentioned.

I'm sorry, I missed this among the volume of other posts.

I base my claim on the fact that all possible reduced iterations cannot be determined and even if they could, how would anyone know.

Is that what you were thinking here. I'm not sure. I don't know if I fully understand your comment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, I missed this among the volume of other posts.

I base my claim on the fact that all possible reduced iterations cannot be determined and even if they could, how would anyone know.

Is that what you were thinking here. I'm not sure. I don't know if I fully understand your comment.

In short the IC argument has always been an argument from ignorance. Here is what it amounts to:

Wow, that flagellum is neat, and it is a simple engine. I can't figure out how it evolved, That must mean that God did it!!!

Others thought:

Wow! That flagellum is neat, and it is a simple engine. I wonder if I can figure out any of the steps in its evolution?

Behe took the easy way out, others studied the problem seriously and found out how it could have happened. They used the scientific method and had falsifiable hypotheses. Behe never devised a test for his concept. No tests, then by definition no evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm looking forward to the answers to your posts. I don't know why because I'm sure I'll be disappointed.

Someone asked earlier something along the lines of do you hope to change anyone's mind.... I don't want to change anyone, I'd just like to see a sensible discussion and maybe learn a few things myself.

I was reading through my response to you and see that I was responding with a more general and rather vigorous expansion on your points that was not directed at you, though I worry that it may have looked that way.

Sorry if it even looked that way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In short the IC argument has always been an argument from ignorance. Here is what it amounts to:

Wow, that flagellum is neat, and it is a simple engine. I can't figure out how it evolved, That must mean that God did it!!!

Others thought:

Wow! That flagellum is neat, and it is a simple engine. I wonder if I can figure out any of the steps in its evolution?

Behe took the easy way out, others studied the problem seriously and found out how it could have happened. They used the scientific method and had falsifiable hypotheses. Behe never devised a test for his concept. No tests, then by definition no evidence.

I rather enjoyed the fact that scientists were quickly able to find reduced, yet functional, versions of those constructs that he used as examples of irreducible complexity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fossils are evidence.

Irreducible Complexity cannot even offer that.

Dna testing, anatomy & physiology comparisons, are evidence.

Again, Irreducible Complexity have nothing new to offer.

There are no evidence and no experiments to support Irreducible Complexity, which makes iC unfalsifiable and untested, so what you said about Irreducible Complexity bring “is not so far-fetched”, is really only your personal opinion, and that’s unsubstantiated claim, YoursTrue.

Any hypothesis should be at least falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “testable”. This is what make a hypothesis “scientific”. And the way to do that is that a scientist must include 2 essential things to make the hypothesis “falsifiable”:

1. Must include predictive model - some predictions of what to expect evidence to be, should the evidence ever be “discovered”.
2. Must include instruction on HOW to find TO TEST the predictive model.

In point 1, the prediction is like a baseline of whether the hypothesis “succeed” or “fail”.

It would only succeed, if the evidence support the prediction. But the evidence can be something very different from what was predicted, which mean the evidence refuted the prediction.

In point 2 - the testing of the predictive model, a scientist must include instructions on ways to test the hypothesis through observations, and there are 2 main ways to do this tests:

1. in the lab, like instructions on HOW one would set up an experiment
2. in the fields, like instructions on HOW, WHERE & WHEN to find the evidence, hence fieldwork

There is a 3rd option - do both points 1 & 2.

Lab experiments are obvious ways to find evidence. Scientists have more control over the environment and the variables.

So I don’t need to explain this. Finding evidence in the field, scientists would have less control.

Michael Behe provided no such predictive models, hence Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable.

And since Behe has never discovered any evidence, nor has he supported his concept with test results of some experiments, so Irreducible Complexity untested.

Behe even admitted in 2005, during being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, that he has never submitted Irreducible Complexity to be "peer-review" by any scientific publishers, and that IC & in his book, Darwin's Black Box, there were no original research, experiment & data for them...the lack of evidence for IC HAVEN'T CHANGED, TODAY. There are still no evidence and data to support Irreducible Complexity.

Without verifiable evidence/experiments & data, Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

Your personal view about Irreducible Complexity, don't make IC anymore plausible, YoursTrue.

There is no valid reason a person can simply look at a biological construct and determine its present condition and function renders it irreducible. Basically declaring irreducible as the answer on face value. Perhaps, given the eventual target audience and their limited scientific literacy, it was strategically seen as good enough. But that isn't science.

Since evolution works with what is available, an existing construct that served an entirely different, past function in the biological history of the organism examined might look like it sprang into existence in completed without the knowledge of its origin.

If you look only at the antifreeze, glycoprotein complex of notothenoid fish of the Antarctic, a cursory examination with ignorance of its origins and related proteins might lead one to conclude what they desire and say it is irreducibly complex. But further, wider examination reveals its origins in a digestive enzyme already a part of the biochemistry of those fish.

Doing so demonstrates it is an argument from ignorance as @Subduction Zone pointed out.