Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Willamena]

You can fix your analogy in at least two ways: you can add the fact that you observe the ball falling (because we can observe, through the fossil record, that different organisms existed in the past).

But all we observe with fossil evidence is a ball here, a ball there, a ball there. We see "falling" through the connections we draw from one image to the next. A living or dead bunny species does nothing to present an image of change.

Or, you can revise your analogy to say: "This ball was in one place earlier, and it's in a different place now. Therefore the ball has moved."

Right. It's not really evidence of gravity, or the prior images evidence of evolution.

The second analogy may be better, because it avoids discussion of a mechanism (gravity) by which the ball got from one place to the other.

Equally, we should avoid discussion of evolution in the images you present of trilobyte and bunny. It's just a trilobyte and a bunny, nothing more. It's sad that the bugs died, and it's nice the bunnies are here, but this is not evidence of change.

I'm not discussing mechanisms by which life has evolved (i.e., changed) over time. I'm merely making the straightforward (and still, I think, inarguable) observation that it has, in fact, changed over time.

I'm not going to take your word for it.

 

[Autodidact]

4pillars seems to have a set of pre-written posts that he inserts from time to time, with no reference to anyone else's post, and apparently without even reading them. He seems to assume that someone must have made some "strawman" statement about creationism, without ever quoting what on earth it may have been, and assumes that someone has equated creationism and ID, which is not even what the thread is about. Meanwhile, he does a marvellous job of ignoring the actual evidence laid out at length in this thread. He seems to think that if he ignores certain questions long enough, the people asking them will get tired and go away. He underestimates my stubborness.

To recap, 4pillars made a concrete, false, unsupported assertion, which is that "information" cannot increase via genetic mutation. I can show that it's false, if he will make it clear what he means by this. Therefore he carefully avoids doing so.

4pillars: What is "information?" Can you define it?

4pillars made a second, concrete, false, unsupported assertion, which is that organisms cannot evolve beyond something called a "kind." This is false, and I can show it's false, if he will make it clear what he means by this. Therefore he carefully avoids doing so.

4pillars: What is a "kind?" Can you define it?But my absolute favorite part is how he's "on vacation" and only has time to pop in, make some irrelevant unsupported assertions, and vanish without addressing the questions that have been put to him ten or more times.

My experience of the integrity of creationists leads me to suspect his story.

 

[Autodidact]

Willamena:

There are bunnies now. There weren't bunnies before. That's a change. There were trilobites before. There aren't now. That's a change. That the simple fact of evolution. It may seem self-evident, but then so is the fact that things fall. The ToE explains how they change. Theory explains self-evident fact.

 

[ericmurphy]

Ta-da! The Theory of Evolution in its essence as it relates to biology.

I am not discussing the theory of evolution. I thought I was clear about that. I was at some pains to make a distinction between the observable fact of evolution, and the theory (evolutionary theory) that attempts to account for that observable fact.

I have to agree, and I have no problem with that, just that the evidence you'd pointed at wasn't evidence of change.

If rabbits exist now, but did not exist in the past, how is it possible that life has not evolved, i.e., changed? Once more, I am not discussing any proposed methods by which rabbits evolved from anything. That is a separate subject.

I am trying (and, apparently, failing) to get across the distinction between an observable fact (evolution) and a theory that attempts to explain that fact (evolutionary theory).

 

[ericmurphy]

But all we observe with fossil evidence is a ball here, a ball there, a ball there. We see "falling" through the connections we draw from one image to the next. A living or dead bunny species does nothing to present an image of change.

It's not the fact that a bunny is dead or alive that's the issue. The issue is that bunnies have not always existed.

Right. It's not really evidence of gravity, or the prior images evidence of evolution.

If you want to exclude an explanation for why the ball fell, but still agree it's inarguable that the ball fell for some reason, i.e., some process made it fall, then we're in agreement.

Equally, we should avoid discussion of evolution in the images you present of trilobyte and bunny. It's just a trilobyte and a bunny, nothing more. It's sad that the bugs died, and it's nice the bunnies are here, but this is not evidence of change.

In fact, I don't even need the trilobites. All I need is evidence that bunnies have not not always existed.

I'm not going to take your word for it.

You're not going to take my word for it that bunnies have not always existed? Good for you (and I'm not being sarcastic). But if you think they have always existed, you need an explanation for why they only appear in the fossil record in the past few tens of millions of years, while other organisms appear much earlier in the fossil record.

 

[Willamena]

One can argue that everything alive today is descended from organisms alive in the past (which although pretty obviously true probably should not be considered factual), and one can go even further and argue that all organisms share a common ancestor. I think the evidence for common descent is conclusive, and not really open to rational dispute anymore, but common descent is not a fact.

You seem to be confused about what a fact is. A fact is not immutable; facts change over time. A fact is information, observer based. It is "knowledge or information based on real occurrences." A theory can be a fact if it is built on information and real occurances.

 

[Autodidact]

You seem to be confused about what a fact is. A fact is not immutable; facts change over time. A fact is information, observer based. It is "knowledge or information based on real occurrences." A theory can be a fact if it is built on information and real occurances.

And it's a fact that we have bunnies now, and did not in the past. I know it seems like ti would go without saying, but it's worth noting.Those "kinds" did not always exist.

 

[Willamena]

It's not the fact that a bunny is dead or alive that's the issue. The issue is that bunnies have not always existed.

Then Jay was right: what you are effectively saying is that the evidence you present of evolution is evolution itself.

You're not going to take my word for it that bunnies have not always existed? Good for you (and I'm not being sarcastic). But if you think they have always existed, you need an explanation for why they only appear in the fossil record in the past few tens of millions of years, while other organisms appear much earlier in the fossil record.

No, what I'm not talking your word about is what you said: I'm merely making the straightforward (and still, I think, inarguable) observation that evolution has (happened).

I was not being sarcastic (sorry).

 

[Willamena]

I am not discussing the theory of evolution. I thought I was clear about that.

Pshaw! You are, you just don't know it.

If rabbits exist now, but did not exist in the past, how is it possible that life has not evolved, i.e., changed? Once more, I am not discussing any proposed methods by which rabbits evolved from anything. That is a separate subject.

Without the method (evolution) presented, you are simply asking us to take your word for it.

 

[ericmurphy]

You seem to be confused about what a fact is. A fact is not immutable; facts change over time. A fact is information, observer based. It is "knowledge or information based on real occurrences." A theory can be a fact if it is built on information and real occurances.

Actually, I would say that you are confused about what a fact is. Facts, ideally, should never change. It is a fact that 2 + 2 = 4. There will probably never be a time when we discover that 2 + 2 = some other number. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The sun will never set in the east and rise in the west.

It's true that some things which were believed to be facts turn out not to be facts. But that doesn't mean facts change; it means we are sometimes wrong about what is factual and what is not.

But it will never, ever be true that life is the same now as it was in the past. We will never find out that life has not changed in the almost four billion years it has existed on earth.

I also think you're wrong about scientific theories. A theory by its nature cannot ever become a fact. Quantum theory will never become "quantum fact." General relativity theory will never become "general relativity fact."

Some theories become so well-established that there is no longer room for rational doubt that they are accurate explanations for observation. Evolutionary theory is one of those theories, as is quantum theory and relativity theory. All three theories are incomplete, in that they do not account for every observation (on the other hand, they are not contradicted by any observation that has been made so far).

Theories are always tentative, always contingent, and the best that can be said for any of them, no matter how well supported by evidence, is that they have not been falsified so far.

Thus, theories can never become "facts."

 

[ericmurphy]

Then Jay was right: what you are effectively saying is that the evidence you present of evolution is evolution itself.

Yes. Evolution is self-evidently factual. That's why I'm surprised you and Jay are having such trouble with it.

But I still don't think you're making the distinction between evolution and evolutionary theory, or you wouldn't be getting hung up on this point.

Think of it this way: the evidence that evolution has happened is that life has changed over time. Does it make more sense that way? Because that is all I'm saying.

No, what I'm not taking your word about is what you said:

I'm merely making the straightforward (and still, I think, inarguable) observation that evolution has (happened).

I was not being sarcastic (sorry).

I didn't think you were. I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was being sarcastic.

And I don't expect you to take my word for it. But if you think there's doubt that evolution has happened, then you must doubt that life has changed over time. Do you doubt that life has changed over time?

 

[ericmurphy]

Pshaw! You are, you just don't know it.

No I absolutely am not discussing the theory of evolution. There are two different concepts at work here that while related are absolutely not the same thing. One is the simple, straightforward observation that life is not the same today as it was in the distant past.

That is what I am talking about.

The other is that an attempt has been to explain how that change has occurred: what are the mechanisms by which it has happened.

That is the theory of evolution. I am not making any claims about the factual nature of the theory of evolution.

Without the method (evolution) presented, you are simply asking us to take your word for it.

I absolutely am not asking you to take my word for it that life has changed over time. There is abundant evidence for it that you are very aware of yourself. That's why I say it is self-evident that life has evolved over time.

I'm not talking about methods at all, and "evolution" is not a method. "Random mutation coupled with natural selection," for example, would be a method. Evolution itself is an effect, not a cause. It is an observation, not an explanation.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, I would say that you are confused about what a fact is. Facts, ideally, should never change. It is a fact that 2 + 2 = 4. There will probably never be a time when we discover that 2 + 2 = some other number. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The sun will never set in the east and rise in the west.

If new information comes our way, how can the facts not change? To each their own ideal.

It's true that some things which were believed to be facts turn out not to be facts. But that doesn't mean facts change; it means we are sometimes wrong about what is factual and what is not.

So, do we have the "right" ones now?

But it will never, ever be true that life is the same now as it was in the past. We will never find out that life has not changed in the almost four billion years it has existed on earth.

Still, there are some perspectives from which life has not changed at all in four billion years.

I also think you're wrong about scientific theories. A theory by its nature cannot ever become a fact. Quantum theory will never become "quantum fact." General relativity theory will never become "general relativity fact."

I guess there really is no "falling".

Some theories become so well-established that there is no longer room for rational doubt that they are accurate explanations for observation. Evolutionary theory is one of those theories, as is quantum theory and relativity theory. All three theories are incomplete, in that they do not account for every observation (on the other hand, they are not contradicted by any observation that has been made so far).

Theories are always tentative, always contingent, and the best that can be said for any of them, no matter how well supported by evidence, is that they have not been falsified so far.

Thus, theories can never become "facts."

That theories are tentative, not complete, and constantly tested is a good thing, and not a strike against their factuality. As you said earlier, they work.

 

[Willamena]

Yes. Evolution is self-evidently factual. That's why I'm surprised you and Jay are having such trouble with it.

It's kind of a rule of evidence: you're not supposed to hold up the thing as evidence of itself. Like, if they did that in court --hold up the criminal as evidence that he's a criminal --anyone could be put in jail.

But I still don't think you're making the distinction between evolution and evolutionary theory, or you wouldn't be getting hung up on this point.

Think of it this way: the evidence that evolution has happened is that life has changed over time. Does it make more sense that way? Because that is all I'm saying.

Right, but they are also distinctly related. It is a theory of evolution. One is set in nature, the other set in science; but science is knowing nature.

And I don't expect you to take my word for it. But if you think there's doubt that evolution has happened, then you must doubt that life has changed over time. Do you doubt that life has changed over time?

I don't doubt that evolution has happened, or that the theory of evolution has usefulness in describing and predicting it.

 

[ericmurphy]

If new information comes our way, how can the facts not change? To each their own ideal.

Facts don't change. Our assessments of what are facts and what are not may change over time, but facts themselves do not. I don't think 2 + 2 will ever = anything but four.

So, do we have the "right" ones now?

Some are. See above. That life has changed over time is astronomically unlikely ever to be shown not to be a fact.

Still, there are some perspectives from which life has not changed at all in four billion years.

Which perspectives are those?

I guess there really is no "falling".

There really is falling. Falling is a fact. Gravitational theory attempts to explain why things fall. Gravitational theory is not a fact; so far it has passed all attempts at falsification, but that does not mean it will pass all future tests.

That theories are tentative, not complete, and constantly tested is a good thing, and not a strike against their factuality. As you said earlier, they work.

They work, but they are not "facts." I think you are conflating the everyday sense of the term "fact" with the scientific meaning of the term "theory."

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

From here.

 

[ericmurphy]

It's kind of a rule of evidence: you're not supposed to hold up the thing as evidence of itself. Like, if they did that in court --hold up the criminal as evidence that he's a criminal --anyone could be put in jail.

Of course you can. A witness states that a particular document exists. Opposing counsel expresses doubts. The witness produces the document. The document is evidence for its own existence.

In the same sense, change over time is evidence for change over time. If we can observe that such change has happened (and we can), then we are justified in saying that such change has happened.

I know this sounds tautological. Of course it does. That's why it seems so insane to me to deny that evolution has happened.

Right, but they are also distinctly related. It is a theory of evolution. One is set in nature, the other set in science; but science is knowing nature.

Of course they're related. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that one is an attempt to explain the other. One is a fact, the other is a theory.

I don't doubt that evolution has happened, or that the theory of evolution has usefulness in describing and predicting it.

If you don't doubt that evolution has happened, why do you doubt its factual nature? It appears, based on your past few posts, that you believe that the theory of evolution is factual, but the fact of evolution is not. This seems paradoxical to me, so maybe you can set me straight on your true position.

 

[Willamena]

Facts don't change. Our assessments of what are facts and what are not may change over time, but facts themselves do not. I don't think 2 + 2 will ever = anything but four.

What is the difference between facts (which are information, i.e. our assessment of things) and "our assessment of what are facts"?

Some are. See above. That life has changed over time is astronomically unlikely ever to be shown not to be a fact.

I meant the facts that we have, not those we don't. Are they all the "right" ones, and so will never change (as you assert)?

Which perspectives are those?

It's still alive. It still grows. It still multiplies.

There really is falling. Falling is a fact. Gravitational theory attempts to explain why things fall. Gravitational theory is not a fact; so far it has passed all attempts at falsification, but that does not mean it will pass all future tests.

If it's not a fact, then would you trust it to predict your trajectory if projected out of a cannon at high velocity?

They work, but they are not "facts." I think you are conflating the everyday sense of the term "fact" with the scientific meaning of the term "theory."

From here.

All hail the wiki. :bow:

But what about the scienitic term "fact"?

 

[ericmurphy]

What is the difference between facts (which are information, i.e. our assessment of things) and "our assessment of what are facts"?

You've mixed up our assessment of what are facts from the facts themselves.

I meant the facts that we have, not those we don't. Are they all the "right" ones, and so will never change (as you assert)?

Again, our assessment of what are facts and what are not may change, but the facts themselves don't. If we once thought it was factual to assert that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't change the factual nature of the statement 2 + 2 = 4.

It's still alive. It still grows. It still multiplies.

My claim is not that life changes out of all recognition. My claim is that life has changed. Surely you don't argue the converse, i.e., that life has not changed at all?

If it's not a fact, then would you trust it to predict your trajectory if projected out of a cannon at high velocity?

I trust theories all the time. I trust the theory of relativity enough to trust its ability to correct for the earth's gravitational field in GPS systems. That a theory is trustworthy doesn't make it a fact. It makes it an unfalsified theory.

All hail the wiki. :bow:

I'm not putting forth Wikipedia as an infallible source of truth. I just didn't feel like typing out the distinction between fact and theory myself.

But what about the scienitic term "fact"?

I can give you examples:

2 + 2 = 4

The earth revolves around the sun

The moon has positive curvature

There are 92 naturally occurring elements

The mass of the electron is ~.5Gev

Examples of theories:

Quantum theory

Theory of relativity

Germ Theory

Theory of evolution

String theory

M theory (whatever that is)

The distinction is largely a matter of scale. It's pretty hard to reduce a theory such as relativity theory or evolutionary theory down to a pithy statement like "The earth has a mass of 6 X 10[sup]24[/sup] kg. Facts are also less likely to change over time. The mass of the electron is much less likely to be wrong than the theory of quantum mechanics is likely to be wrong.

Are we done with this? I still would like to know your answer to my earlier question: you seem to think evolution itself is not factual, but the theory of evolution is. I'm assuming that's not what you're saying, so what is it that you are saying?

 

[Willamena]

You've mixed up our assessment of what are facts from the facts themselves.

How so?

Again, our assessment of what are facts and what are not may change, but the facts themselves don't. If we once thought it was factual to assert that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't change the factual nature of the statement 2 + 2 = 4.

Let's say what we assess is a fact. Then isn't our assessing of facts untrustworthy because our assessment of facts may change? How can we know which facts we assess are the "right" facts and which ones are untrustworthy, if they are all assessed as facts?

I guess what I'm trying to say is you're speaking nonsense.

My claim is not that life changes out of all recognition. My claim is that life has changed. Surely you don't argue the converse, i.e., that life has not changed at all?

I did, in the item that this is a reply to. It's all relative.

I trust theories all the time. I trust the theory of relativity enough to trust its ability to correct for the earth's gravitational field in GPS systems. That a theory is trustworthy doesn't make it a fact. It makes it an unfalsified theory.

But have you considered that the reason you can trust them is because they're factual? They are built on factual observation, facts of prior theories, and they present us with data and results that we consider factual (such as how hard you will hit the ground after you catapult) on which to build future theories.

I can give you examples:

2 + 2 = 4

The earth revolves around the sun

The moon has positive curvature

There are 92 naturally occurring elements

The mass of the electron is ~.5Gev

All true! Did you know it's still a fact that the sun revolves around the earth? I can even see it every day, as I look up at the sky. So what if we discover the 93rd naturally occuring element: is the fact that there are 92 naturally occuring elements still true? (hint: yes) It's all a matter of context.

The distinction is largely a matter of scale. It's pretty hard to reduce a theory such as relativity theory or evolutionary theory down to a pithy statement like "The earth has a mass of 6 X 10[sup]24[/sup] kg. Facts are also less likely to change over time. The mass of the electron is much less likely to be wrong than the theory of quantum mechanics is likely to be wrong.

Are we done with this? I still would like to know your answer to my earlier question: you seem to think evolution itself is not factual, but the theory of evolution is. I'm assuming that's not what you're saying, so what is it that you are saying?

No; I'm a big fan of both evolution (the process of development) and the Theory of Evolution that sets parts of it in stone. Both are true, factual and informative --and how can we not appreciate the things that inform us? We'd be nothing without them.

I think I'm done butting heads.

 

[Willamena]

Of course you can. A witness states that a particular document exists. Opposing counsel expresses doubts. The witness produces the document. The document is evidence for its own existence.

In the same sense, change over time is evidence for change over time. If we can observe that such change has happened (and we can), then we are justified in saying that such change has happened.

I know this sounds tautological. Of course it does.

The document exists; that it exists is evidenced by our senses; our senses are the evidence of the document, not the document itself.

If you don't doubt that evolution has happened, why do you doubt its factual nature?

I don't.

I don't know where you got that from.