Irony of the evolutionary belief

[IndigoChild5559]

the professor couldn't get past first base with me, I simply asked him if he expected me o accept that "everything came from nothing". He couldn't give me a straight answer,

It is not part of the ToE how life came from non-life. It appears that you were interrupting his lecture to ask an irrelevant question.

Abiogenesis is NOT the same thing as the ToE. It proposes the idea of molecular "evolution," but does not have adequate evidence for this to be a scientific theory. It is possible that in the future, such evidence may be found. But presently abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis.

The "reasons" for the Big Bang cannot be known. This is because science is only capable of inquiry into things that happen in space-time. Since space time had its origins in the Big Bang, anything that happened "before" is not the purview of science, when means we cannot know what precipitated the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that science is "wrong" or "inadequate." It simply means that science has obvious limits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, and then what? Is that relevant?

It is still true that predictions in science don’t have to follow logically I order to be valid

No, not really. The predictions has to be testable and thus it connects to logic.
In science it is not about logic as such. It is about testable and then at the higher level the axiomatic assumptions and logic also play a part there.

Yes, you have a limited point, but there is more to it than just logic in science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, and then what? Is that relevant?

It is still true that predictions in science don’t have to follow logically I order to be valid

The predictions have to be testable, or else you are not doing science.

 

[McBell]

For example it is logically possible that the pollination of trumpet shaped flowers where just hallucinations created by the Matrix , in which case the long-billed pollinators wounpt excist.

Show it.
Logically.
I mean, you just said it is logically possible.
So all you have to do to support your claim is show it logically possible.

 

[leroy]

What? It is very obviously a testable (and confirmed) prediction drawn from evolutionary theory.


"For example, I had heard about the fossil of Tiktaalik roseae that was found in 2004 that linked fish to amphibians. This was a huge deal because the animal that the bones came from had characteristics of both fish and amphibians. And it appeared in the fossil record at the right time to be a transitional animal between the two.

What I hadn't fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for.

They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik roseae would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the beast would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.

They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik roseae would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the beast would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.

This is important for a lot of reasons. One is that it obviously tells us a lot about how vertebrates emerged onto dry land. Another is that it provides further validation of geological dating methods. They had to rely on these methods to know where to look for the fossil and the methods worked.

This find is also important because it is based on a prediction made by evolutionary theory. Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land. So the scientists looked in a place that was 375 million years old.

Scientists used evolution to make a testable prediction that turned out to be true. And evolution came through with flying colors like any good scientific theory should."

Yes but the discovery of tiktaalik didn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution……………evolution could still be true even if that fossils would have not been found.

Just to prevent your strawman

1 no I don t deny the theory of evolution, nor that land animals evolved fro fish

2 no I don’t deny that tiktaalik vas a correct and valid prediction

3 what I am denying is that the discovery of ticktaalik *logically followed* from the theory

 

[leroy]

The predictions have to be testable, or else you are not doing science.

Yes granted, it is your atheist friends who are claiming otherwise.

 

[McBell]

Please answer me this--would you say a lot of information is packed into a zygote?

Yes.
Because there is a lot of information packed in an atom.
And since a zygote is made of a bunch of atoms...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes but the discovery of tiktaalik didn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution

Evolution predicted that such a creature would exist. Therefore, having found the fossil, we are not surprised.

……………evolution could still be true even if that fossils would have not been found.

That is correct. There are enough instances of other transitional forms being found, as well as supporting evidence from other fields such as genetics, to make evolution unquestionable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

logically follows means that there is no other possible alternative.

Yes. If a different outcome than that deduced predicts obtains, then your premises or reasoning were flawed.

if the hypothesis is that you have a dog………..I would predict that to see dog food in your shopping kart everyone in a while……….. But this prediction (even if valid) it doesn’t follow logically from the hypothesis

The prediction should be that you would eventually see dog food in my shopping cart if I had a dog, if I were providing its meals, if I fed it store-bought dogfood, if I did the shopping, and you went to the store I shopped at while I was shopping. And that prediction DOES follow logically from that series of constraints.

Don't make this harder than it actually is. You use this kind of reasoning every day and make accurate predictions doing it, although it is generally implicit. When you turn the wheel of your vehicle to the right and it turns right, you've made an accurate prediction based in a series of implicit assumptions such as that you are driving and not dreaming, that your car works such that turning the wheel right makes the vehicle go right, that its steering mechanism is intact, that a wheel isn't about to fall off and the like. If all of those things are correct, then your prediction will be as well.

And here is where you typically try to undermine a comment like that rather than accept the self-evident truth of it. It's in that sense that you've gone off the reservation long ago. That's what you use your reasoning faculty to do - to create doubt where there is none and to muddy clear water.

You're not alone. I call such people epistemic nihilists. There are several here on RF who are typically contrarian regarding knowledge. You know the type. We know nothing if we don't know everything. Subjectivity precludes knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes but the discovery of tiktaalik didn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution……………evolution could still be true even if that fossils would have not been found.

Yes, it did.

Just to prevent your strawman

1 no I don t deny the theory of evolution, nor that land animals evolved fro fish

2 no I don’t deny that tiktaalik vas a correct and valid prediction

3 what I am denying is that the discovery of ticktaalik *logically followed* from the theory

You're denying reality then. I just showed you how a prediction that arose from an understanding of how creatures evolved on earth led scientists directly to the location of the creature they were expecting to find! That's a prediction that logically followed from evolutionary theory.

Good grief.

 

[leroy]

Evolution predicted that such a creature would exist. Therefore, having found the fossil, we are not surprised.

That is correct. There are enough instances of other transitional forms being found, as well as supporting evidence from other fields such as genetics, to make evolution unquestionable.

Thankyou…………… you have no idea on the trouble that I am having in explaining that to other atheist in this thread

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll say that it is disingenuous to ignore the mistakes made by others……………just because they have the same philosophical view than you

More false claims. Oh well. Nothing new.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thankyou…………… you have no idea on the trouble that I am having in explaining that to other atheist in this thread

What "other atheist"? I have not seen anyone imply anything different. This appears to be discussion that only occurred in your mind.

 

[leroy]

Yes. If a different outcome than that deduced predicts obtains, then your premises or reasoning were flawed.

The prediction should be that you would eventually see dog food in my shopping cart if I had a dog, if I were providing its meals, if I fed it store-bought dogfood, if I did the shopping, and you went to the store I shopped at while I was shopping. And that prediction DOES follow logically from that series of constraints.

Don't make this harder than it actually is. You use this kind of reasoning every day and make accurate predictions doing it, although it is generally implicit. When you turn the wheel of your vehicle to the right and it turns right, you've made an accurate prediction based in a series of implicit assumptions such as that you are driving and not dreaming, that your car works such that turning the wheel right makes the vehicle go right, that its steering mechanism is intact, that a wheel isn't about to fall off and the like. If all of those things are correct, then your prediction will be as well.

And here is where you typically try to undermine a comment like that rather than accept the self-evident truth of it. It's in that sense that you've gone off the reservation long ago. That's what you use your reasoning faculty to do - to create doubt where there is none and to muddy clear water.

You're not alone. I call such people epistemic nihilists. There are several here on RF who are typically contrarian regarding knowledge. You know the type. We know nothing if we don't know everything. Subjectivity precludes knowledge.

(No disagreement, except for a minor and irrelevant point)

Ok all I saying (and you seem to agree) is that

1 Dog food in your kart every once in a while, doesn’t follow logically from the fact that you have a dog

2 dog food in your kart would be a valid prediction (at least in some context)

Therefore valid predictions don’t have to follow logically.

let me know if you disagree

This is not intended to be controversial, nor a mind blowing point…….. this was intended to be as an obvious truth

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

(No disagreement, except for a minor and irrelevant point)

Ok all I saying (and you seem to agree) is that

1 Dog food in your kart every once in a while, doesn’t follow logically from the fact that you have a dog

2 dog food in your kart would be a valid prediction (at least in some context)

Therefore valid predictions don’t have to follow logically.

let me know if you disagree

This is not intended to be controversial, nor a mind blowing point…….. this was intended to be as an obvious truth

The example is not the same as the one you dispute as cause and effect are different.

 

[leroy]

More false claims. Oh well. Nothing new.

You know and grant that valid predictions don’t have to follow logically…….. you are pretending to disagree to support your atheists friends

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but the discovery of tiktaalik didn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution……………evolution could still be true even if that fossils would have not been found.

Are you sure about that? The theory of evolution, along with geology and paleoclimate knowledge along with other sciences, was used to predict the most likely area to find such a fossil.

Just to prevent your strawman

1 no I don t deny the theory of evolution, nor that land animals evolved fro fish

2 no I don’t deny that tiktaalik vas a correct and valid prediction

3 what I am denying is that the discovery of ticktaalik *logically followed* from the theory

How would you define "logically followed" then? If one uses the theory to predict where one would have the best chances of finding such a fossils I would argue that it "logically follows". But you may have your own strange definitions.

 

[leroy]

What "other atheist"? I have not seen anyone imply anything different. This appears to be discussion that only occurred in your mind.

1 You (well your friends) are claiming that predictions follow logically from the hypothesis/theory/model..

2 this would mean that the prediction of finding tikaalik is “logically necessary” for evolution to be true

3 therefore you are saying that evolution would be wrong if tiktaalik would have not been found



Here is an other preduction

You will indirectly claim/imply that I am wrong, but you will not explicitly deny any of these 3 points…(because you know they are true)

 

[McBell]

1 You (well your friends) are claiming that predictions follow logically from the hypothesis/theory/model..

Yes.
this is true regardless of how anyone feels about it.

2 this would mean that the prediction of finding tikaalik is “logically necessary” for evolution to be true

How did you come to that conclusion?
Show your work.

3 therefore you are saying that evolution would be wrong if tiktaalik would have not been found

This would be true only if you can verify point 2 is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know and grant that valid predictions don’t have to follow logically…….. you are pretending to disagree to support your atheists friends

Part of your problem is that you word things so oddly that not even you understand your questions.

Let's go over the basics of science. To even have evidence in the sciences by definition one has to first have a testable hypothesis. Hypotheses have to be testable, if they cannot be tested they are not hypotheses they are only ad hoc explanations. Those are worthless in the sciences. If the hypothesis fails one of its test it is no longer a hypothesis. It is now just a refuted idea. And the tests cannot be known ahead of time. It is fair to compare one's ideas to other ideas in testing. But this test stops the sort of cheating that Kent Hovind did with his "hypothesis" the only "predictions" that it made were already known. Those do not count. No one even thought that had to be made clear until he tried to pull a fast one. If none of the predictions that one has made have been tested yet then all one has is an untested hypothesis. That also means that it has no evidence at that point.

So taking all of that into consideration, assuming that we have a valid hypothesis and it makes predictions. If the predictions are not valid you no longer have a hypothesis. Most hypotheses eventually fail. But we learn a lot in the process. And quite often from the failure a new and better hypothesis is formed. But you can see that it logically follows that a prediction of a hypothesis has to be valid or else you no longer have a hypothesis.

No one should have had to explain this to you. If you claim to understand the sciences this should have been obvious to you.