Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

By that definition, it is primarily bad and unreliable evidence since it is neither objective nor verifiable.

You can show and verify objectively that the testimony exists.

If there is a long ness monster, we would predict such testimonies

I see nothing in that definition that prevents these testimonies from being evidence.

Also, it's not exactly data either. "eyewitness testimony" isn't really data. It's claims.

If we change “Long ness Monster” (LNM) for “Rat” or any other common animal , would that same testimony suddenly become evidence?

Besides, all the evidence that we have for evolution, big bang, relativity, the existence of other galaxies etc…………… is based on testimonies………….. you are trusting the testimonies (claims) of other scientists (since you haven’t done any experiment)………. So you shouldn’t reject testimonies as evidnece

It's also not really clear to me how "loch ness monster exists!" is a falsifiable hypothesis.

why not?

The hypothesis “rats excists” is falsifiable isen´t ?............. why change the criteria when we change Rat for LNM

All of that put together, no, I wouldn't exactly say that some person claiming that (s)he has seen X, to be "evidence" of X.
I'ld call it evidence of that person believing to have seen X. Not that that person has actually seen X.

Well a “person believing” that he saw “X” is evidence for X isn’t it?............... by your definition if “ X “exists we would predict to have observations of people who think that have seen “X”


So lets see

“Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis.
Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable.”

1 Testimonies of people having seen the LNM would be predicted if the LNM Exists

2 The existence of the testimony could be objectively and independently verifiable

3 the Hypothesis LNM exists is falsifiable, all you need to do is show that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true

So I don’t think “testimonies of the LNM” fail as evidence according to your definition. so ether there is something wrong wit the definition or testimonies for the LNM are evidence.

 

[leroy]

How is that a strawman?
You LITERALLY stated that you don't see survival benefit in "complex brains" (which directly relates to intellect and mental capacity).
Since "complex brains" (= intellect and mental capacity) directly accomodates tool building, tech innovation, social organization etc, it very much provides a survival benefit to our species.





First, you're moving the goalposts (as usual...)

What I tried to say is that the brain is complex beyond necessity

The ability to reflect and think about the deep philosophical questions requires and extra layer of complexity in our brain that has no selective benefit…………so why did it evovled?

Contemplating existence and / or the unknown is an obvious side effect of increased intellectual capacity which plays into imagination and alike to innovate.

Not too convincing for me.

It is easy to imagine an Alien (or a ROBOT) that is very good in innovating and solving problems but that doesn’t care (or even wonders) about deep philosophical stuff.

In simple terms

1 wondering about deep philosophical stuff requires an extra layer of complexity

2 this extra layer of complexity has no selective benefit.

In my opinion both 1 and 2 are at least probably true , I don’t even find them controversial

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can show and verify objectively that the testimony exists.

If there is a long ness monster, we would predict such testimonies

I see nothing in that definition that prevents these testimonies from being evidence.




If we change “Long ness Monster” (LNM) for “Rat” or any other common animal , would that same testimony suddenly become evidence?

Besides, all the evidence that we have for evolution, big bang, relativity, the existence of other galaxies etc…………… is based on testimonies………….. you are trusting the testimonies (claims) of other scientists (since you haven’t done any experiment)………. So you shouldn’t reject testimonies as evidnece




why not?

The hypothesis “rats excists” is falsifiable isen´t ?............. why change the criteria when we change Rat for LNM


Well a “person believing” that he saw “X” is evidence for X isn’t it?............... by your definition if “ X “exists we would predict to have observations of people who think that have seen “X”


So lets see

“Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis.
Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable.”

1 Testimonies of people having seen the LNM would be predicted if the LNM Exists

2 The existence of the testimony could be objectively and independently verifiable

3 the Hypothesis LNM exists is falsifiable, all you need to do is show that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true

So I don’t think “testimonies of the LNM” fail as evidence according to your definition. so ether there is something wrong wit the definition or testimonies for the LNM are evidence.

The evidence we have for "evolution, big bang, relativity, the existence of other galaxies, etc." is NOT based on testimonies. It's based on measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable data.
Where did you come up with that??

 

[leroy]

The evidence we have for "evolution, big bang, relativity, the existence of other galaxies, etc." is NOT based on testimonies. It's based on measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable data.
Where did you come up with that??

and how do you know that the data is measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable?
All you have are testimonies, from scientist who claimed to have done the experiments the math and the observations……….. You haven’t done any experiments yourself…… all you have is your trust in the testimonies of other people

My point is that testimonies are not non-evidence necessarily………. This is not supposed to be controversial, you shouldn’t have problems in granting this simple and obvious claim

 

[YoursTrue]

I'LL say that the issue is that evolution by definition is a mechanisms that aims at survival of the organisms (only things that are good for survival would be selected)

Yes, because I suppose if something evolves that is not conducive to the organisms survival, it would go bye-bye.

 

[SkepticThinker]

and how do you know that the data is measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable?

Because anyone can access and view it.

All you have are testimonies, from scientist who claimed to have done the experiments the math and the observations……….. You haven’t done any experiments yourself…… all you have is your trust in the testimonies of other people

Uh no. Like I said, we have quantifiable data in published peer reviewed science journals where scientists show us the math they've used. Then we have other scientists publishing their data and comparing and verifying it against other previously published data.

The scientific method exists for a reason. And it works for a reason.

We're not just taking some guy's word for it.

My point is that testimonies are not non-evidence necessarily………. This is not supposed to be controversial, you shouldn’t have problems in granting this simple and obvious claim

Testimonies are claims that require quantifiable data to back them up, before they become accepted. We don't just take some guy's word for it.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I tried to say is that the brain is complex beyond necessity

The ability to reflect and think about the deep philosophical questions requires and extra layer of complexity in our brain that has no selective benefit…………so why did it evovled?



Not too convincing for me.

It is easy to imagine an Alien (or a ROBOT) that is very good in innovating and solving problems but that doesn’t care (or even wonders) about deep philosophical stuff.

In simple terms

1 wondering about deep philosophical stuff requires an extra layer of complexity

2 this extra layer of complexity has no selective benefit.

In my opinion both 1 and 2 are at least probably true , I don’t even find them controversial

If I may add, it is apparent to me that one's thinking can be developed or enhanced. Another interesting thing about development. And, as another poster brought out, there is quite a bit of difference between the cognitive ability of a chimpanzee and a human. But I am pretty sure the cognition of either can be changed, depending upon circumstances.

 

[leroy]

leroy said:
Nothing, it is obvious that both appeared simultaneously

So you were just trolling with that question?

I am asking the question, because I don’t know if you would answer the same thing. We have different world views, what is obvious to me, might not be so obvious from your perspective

 

[leroy]

Because anyone can access and view it.

Uh no. Like I said, we have quantifiable data in published peer reviewed science journals where scientists show us the math they've used. Then we have other scientists publishing their data and comparing and verifying it against other previously published data.

So you have the testimonies of the authors + the testimonies of the reviewers……… you still have just testimonies

The scientific method exists for a reason. And it works for a reason.

And how do you know that the authors of a paper really used the scientific method? (answer Testimonies)

Testimonies are claims that require quantifiable data to back them up, before they become accepted. We don't just take some guy's word for it.

Yes but this quantifiable data comes from other testimonies too


How do you know that the universe is expanding? You simply trust in the testimony of scientists who claim to have done the observations and the math that show that the universe is expanding ……….. you haven’t verified the expansion of the universe yourself.



All I am saying is that the claim “testimonies are always *non evidence*” is false………. At least sometimes testimonies are evidence. … this is not supposed to be controversial…………

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you have the testimonies of the authors + the testimonies of the reviewers……… you still have just testimonies

No, you have DATA.

And how do you know that the authors of a paper really used the scientific method? (answer Testimonies)

Have you ever read a scientific paper? They have to show their work, as I just said to you. That's how you know. And you know further, when someone else tries to replicate the data and finds that it confirms or doesn't confirm it.

Yes but this quantifiable data comes from other testimonies too

No it comes from quantifiable DATA.

How do you know that the universe is expanding? You simply trust in the testimony of scientists who claim to have done the observations and the math that show that the universe is expanding ……….. you haven’t verified the expansion of the universe yourself.

DATA.

All I am saying is that the claim “testimonies are always *non evidence*” is false………. At least sometimes testimonies are evidence. … this is not supposed to be controversial…………

What you're saying is that you don't understand the difference between personal testimonies and actual quantifiable data.

 

[leroy]

If I may add, it is apparent to me that one's thinking can be developed or enhanced. Another interesting thing about development. And, as another poster brought out, there is quite a bit of difference between the cognitive ability of a chimpanzee and a human. But I am pretty sure the cognition of either can be changed, depending upon circumstances.

I agree, in terms of mental capacity there seems to be something fundamentally different between humans and animals……………. If a monkey becomes more and more intelligent, then he might create better and better tools and better shelter and things like that……….. but it doesn’t follow that the monkey will wonder about things like the origin of the universe.

Even 3yo children wonder about deep philosophical stuff despite the fact that they have the mental capacity of an adult chimp ………and it doesn’t seem to me that chimps wonder about this stuff.

 

[shunyadragon]

What I tried to say is that the brain is complex beyond necessity

The ability to reflect and think about the deep philosophical questions requires and extra layer of complexity in our brain that has no selective benefit…………so why did it evolved?

This is a subjective claim often used to justify Intelligent Design as to what is necessary (?) for survival of the human species. The ability of humans to reflect and think about the deep philosophical questions nay not be a necessary product of the evolution of the brain, As in the course of that is known of evolution. Physical properties that are beneficial may not be necessary for survival.

 

[John53]

Even 3yo children wonder about deep philosophical stuff despite the fact that they have the mental capacity of an adult chimp ………and it doesn’t seem to me that chimps wonder about this stuff.

You have a special ability that lets you know what animals are thinking?

 

[leroy]

You have a special ability that lets you know what animals are thinking?

No, thá is why I didn't say....... I am 100% sure........ rather than it seems to me

 

[John53]

No, thá is why I didn't say....... I am 100% sure........ rather than it seems to me

Ok, maybe a misunderstanding of terms, if I say "seems to me" I'd have some evidence I could use. You're saying it's just a guess?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can show and verify objectively that the testimony exists.

If there is a long ness monster, we would predict such testimonies

I see nothing in that definition that prevents these testimonies from being evidence.




If we change “Long ness Monster” (LNM) for “Rat” or any other common animal , would that same testimony suddenly become evidence?

Besides, all the evidence that we have for evolution, big bang, relativity, the existence of other galaxies etc…………… is based on testimonies………….. you are trusting the testimonies (claims) of other scientists (since you haven’t done any experiment)………. So you shouldn’t reject testimonies as evidnece




why not?

The hypothesis “rats excists” is falsifiable isen´t ?............. why change the criteria when we change Rat for LNM


Well a “person believing” that he saw “X” is evidence for X isn’t it?............... by your definition if “ X “exists we would predict to have observations of people who think that have seen “X”


So lets see

“Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis.
Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable.”

1 Testimonies of people having seen the LNM would be predicted if the LNM Exists

2 The existence of the testimony could be objectively and independently verifiable

3 the Hypothesis LNM exists is falsifiable, all you need to do is show that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true

So I don’t think “testimonies of the LNM” fail as evidence according to your definition. so ether there is something wrong wit the definition or testimonies for the LNM are evidence.

You cannot "cheat" in that fashion when forming a hypothesis. You are using things that we already know, in effect you already knew the answer. You are just making an ad hoc explanation and not giving a proper test.

I can explain a very specific proper test for evolution. It was not long after Chromosomes were discovered that they were numbered and we could tell how many humans had and how many other great apes have. We have only 23 pairs of chromosomes and other apes have 24. When we were first able to sequence the genome that gave us a chance to test the theory of evolution. If true the odds were very high that our genome was the one where the number of chromosomes had to change. Either the three other great ape families all had the same chromosome of theirs split independently or two of our chromosomes joined only once. Assuming that two of our chromosomes joined once they were able to make predictions. If they were wrong it would look bad for the hypothesis of human evolution. At that time we had already identified centromeres and telomeres. Telomere are sequences at the end of the chromosome that tell the RNA polymerase that it is coming to the end of a chromosome that it is reading. And centromeres are the anchor points for when the chromosome splits down the length of it during reproduction. If two of our chromosomes joined we should find both telomeres and an abandoned centromere in a human chromosome and that was exactly what was found in Chromosome Number 2. They had a clear test, they had clear observations that could either confirm or refute the theory. And that answer was not known ahead of time.

That was a properly testable hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, in terms of mental capacity there seems to be something fundamentally different between humans and animals……………. If a monkey becomes more and more intelligent, then he might create better and better tools and better shelter and things like that……….. but it doesn’t follow that the monkey will wonder about things like the origin of the universe.

Even 3yo children wonder about deep philosophical stuff despite the fact that they have the mental capacity of an adult chimp ………and it doesn’t seem to me that chimps wonder about this stuff.

Three year old children ask a lot of questions but that may be mere curiosity. I do not think that quite qualifies as deep philosophical thought. And chimps may be as curious as humans at times as they grow up.

 

[leroy]

Ok, maybe a misunderstanding of terms, if I say "seems to me" I'd have some evidence I could use. You're saying it's just a guess?

The central point of my claim is that wondering about deep philosophical issues requires an extra layer of complexity in our brains, and this additional complexity has no selective benefit (therefore can´t be expalined by natrual selection)


as for the evidnece, well it´s my intution........... that counts as evidence in my opinion

 

[leroy]

You cannot "cheat" in that fashion when forming a hypothesis. You are using things that we already know, in effect you already knew the answer. You are just making an ad hoc explanation and not giving a proper test.

I can explain a very specific proper test for evolution. It was not long after Chromosomes were discovered that they were numbered and we could tell how many humans had and how many other great apes have. We have only 23 pairs of chromosomes and other apes have 24. When we were first able to sequence the genome that gave us a chance to test the theory of evolution. If true the odds were very high that our genome was the one where the number of chromosomes had to change. Either the three other great ape families all had the same chromosome of theirs split independently or two of our chromosomes joined only once. Assuming that two of our chromosomes joined once they were able to make predictions. If they were wrong it would look bad for the hypothesis of human evolution. At that time we had already identified centromeres and telomeres. Telomere are sequences at the end of the chromosome that tell the RNA polymerase that it is coming to the end of a chromosome that it is reading. And centromeres are the anchor points for when the chromosome splits down the length of it during reproduction. If two of our chromosomes joined we should find both telomeres and an abandoned centromere in a human chromosome and that was exactly what was found in Chromosome Number 2. They had a clear test, they had clear observations that could either confirm or refute the theory. And that answer was not known ahead of time.

That was a properly testable hypothesis.

And the point that I am making is that you are reeling on testimonies …….. You personally haven’t done the tests with the chromosomes ………. The implication is that testimonies (at least sometimes) count as evidence……………. There is no secret agenda; this is not supposed to be a controversial claim all you have to do is say “Yes Leroy you are correct, testimonies can also count as evidence”

Then , if God wills it, we can have a nice dialogue on when should we consider testimonies evidence (hopefully this would include a definition of "evidence")

 

[leroy]

Three year old children ask a lot of questions but that may be mere curiosity. I do not think that quite qualifies as deep philosophical thought. And chimps may be as curious as humans at times as they grow up.

Welll ok perhaps my example with monckeys and children was not the best example.

But take for example artificial intelligence (Robots). They are (or soon will be) much more intelligent than humans, they are much better in than us in solving problems, (problems like creating tools or building houses)

But Artificial Intelligence ( AI) doesn’t care nor reflects about deep philosophical stuff, any AI capable of that would be much more complex than one that can solve problems like building tools or building houses,

All I am saying is that a brain (or computer) capable of reflecting upon deep philosophical stuff would require an extra layer of complexity ………………… (Again this is not supposed to be controversial)