Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Zosimus]

You mis-stated the problem I posed.

All right. Let's stick strictly to what you said.

Someone comes to you and says, "This box contains either $1 million or nothing."

So the first determination you need to make is whether the man is lying. This occurs before trying to calculate the odds of the box having $1 million.

 

[Zosimus]

You don't quite have a handle on natural selection. It has never been claimed to be a perfect process. It in no way means that the fittest always survive. It is a general trend that leads to changes over very long periods of time. Not a perfect process in the least.

Your post contained no logical arguments.

 

[Revoltingest]

All right. Let's stick strictly to what you said.

Someone comes to you and says, "This box contains either $1 million or nothing."

So the first determination you need to make is whether the man is lying. This occurs before trying to calculate the odds of the box having $1 million.

You've just demonstrated that the automatic presumption of there being either
gods or no gods is not simply the inverse of the number of alternatives.

 

[Zosimus]

You've just demonstrated that the automatic presumption of there being either
gods or no gods is not simply the inverse of the number of alternatives.

Incorrect. I have proved nothing. I have simply stated that the principle of maximum ignorance suggests that starting with 50-50 is a reasonable starting assumption.

What do you think is a reasonable starting assumption?

 

[leibowde84]

Your post contained no logical arguments.

Just pointing out that you don't quite understand what evolution by natural selection means.

 

[Revoltingest]

Incorrect.

This is mere unsubstantiated pronouncement.

I have proved nothing.

Au contraire, bruderherz.
You disproved your earlier simplistic calculation regarding the probability of the existence or non-existence of gods.

I have simply stated that the principle of maximum ignorance suggests that starting with 50-50 is a reasonable starting assumption.

If it's "reasonable", then there must be some reasoning behind it.
Yet you offer none.

What do you think is a reasonable starting assumption?

It would be an unknown value ranging between zero & 100%.
Only an untutored bumbelweezer would average this out to 50%
When one doesn't know the probability of an alternative, to presume its probability is the reciprocal
of the quantity of alternatives Is what's called in probability theory a "wild arsched guess".

 

[Zosimus]

Just pointing out that you don't quite understand what evolution by natural selection means.

I understand exactly what evolution by natural selection means. You have the annoying habit of insisting that everyone who disagrees with you merely doesn't understand. Broad fiat is no substitute for well-reasoned arguments.

 

[Zosimus]

This is mere unsubstantiated pronouncement.

Au contraire, bruderherz.
You disproved your earlier simplistic calculation regarding the probability of the existence or non-existence of gods.

If it's "reasonable", then there must be some reasoning behind it.
Yet you offer none.

It would be an unknown value ranging between zero & 100%.
Only an untutored bumbelweezer would average this out to 50%
When one doesn't know the probability of an alternative, to presume its probability is the reciprocal
of the quantity of alternatives Is what's called in probability theory a "wild arsched guess".

I'm surprised that you are so ignorant about the Internet. Let me explain a few things about it to you.

There's this page called Google. It's at http://www.google.com/ -- now if you go there, and search for "principle maximum ignorance" the first page that it will lead you to is the Wikipedia page on the principle of maximum entropy. That can be found right here.

As you can easily read, it says: "The principle of maximum entropy states that...the probability distribution which best represents the current state of knowledge is the one with largest entropy."

It furthermore states that "The principle was first expounded by E. T. Jaynes in two papers in 1957" and right next to that are two blue numbers. Now, if you click either (or both) of those numbers, you will find yourself linked to the original papers written by Edwin, which can be found here and here.

Now if either of the papers is too thick for you, you can just go back to the Wikipedia article and get some background information about it. Or you can read Edwin's book, which is available online for free. Most of the answers you are looking for can be found on page 14.

QUOTE:

...before Bayesian methods can be used, a problem must be developed beyond the “exploratory phase” to the point where it has enough structure to determine all the needed apparatus (a model, sample space, hypothesis space, prior probabilities, sampling distribution). Almost all scientific problems pass through an initial exploratory phase in which we have need for inference, but the frequentist assumptions are invalid and the Bayesian apparatus is not yet available. Indeed, some of them never evolve out of the exploratory phase. Problems at this level call for more primitive means of assigning probabilities directly out of our incomplete information. For this purpose, the Principle of Maximum Entropy has at present the clearest theoretical justification and is the most highly developed computationally, with an analytical apparatus as powerful and versatile as the Bayesian one. To apply it we must define a sample space, but do not need any model or sampling distribution. In effect, entropy maximization creates a model for us out of our data, which proves to be optimal by so many different criteria [(1) The model created is the simplest one that captures all the information in the constraints (Chapter 11); (2) It is the unique model for which the constraints would have been sufficient statistics (Chapter 8); (3) If viewed as constructing a sampling distribution for subsequent Bayesian inference from new data D, the only property of the measurement errors in D that are used in that subsequent inference are the ones about which that sampling distribution contained some definite prior information (Chapter 7). Thus the formalism automatically takes into account all the information we have, but avoids assuming information that we do not have. This contrasts sharply with orthodox methods, where one does not think in terms of information at all, and in general violates both of these desiderata] that it is hard to imagine circumstances where one would not want to use it in a problem where we have a sample space but no model.

ENDQUOTE

Really, I'm surprised that anyone who claims to know about science hasn't at least HEARD of the principle. It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my derriere you know.

 

[Shad]

Sure, it's not perfect, but it directly falsifies most of the unrealistic laboratory-performed tests that claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

No it does since in their own words their experiment is not likely to occur outside the study. So this study does not apply to the topics from 20, or more, centuries ago.

It did not say that, in fact, it says exactly the opposite. The two misleading questions did not result in a change in the memory recall.

Actually it did, read your own source again.

Even if this is true, the corollary of your claim is that atheist-performed scientific research is also untrustworthy as atheists have an (anti-)religious bias that makes their memory untrustworthy and distorted.

Too bad Christian scholars themselves developed what I told you. It wasn't me, it wasn't atheists, it was Christians that didn't put their ideology before scholarship. you are a century behind in Biblical scholarship.

All of this information is irrelevant and none of it answers the question I posed. I'm not interested in the Bible story. I am simply interested in knowing why you think that resurrection is impossible in an epistemological context.

Never said impossible. I am judging it unlikely given the alternatives

No, what you have provided is an a priori philosophical bias in favor of metaphysical naturalism. You have not addressed any of the logical fallacies that lead you to believe that this belief can be logically justified. How do you know that resurrection is not a biological function?

Never made a judgement about all metaphysics, just the claim made in the Bible. People are too quick, and are taught to, accept metaphysical explanations due to religion rather than to question their beliefs.

Irrelevant. However, since you seem determined to turn an epistemological argument into a theological one, I'll bite.

The theology can not be separated from this position since the very claims make theological claims.

It is a fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived, was executed, and his tomb turned up empty.
The question, therefore, is how to explain the situation.
1. Maybe Jesus didn't really die. Maybe he just collapsed and revived sometime later.
2. Maybe Jesus' apostles stole the body and later claimed that he had miraculously come back.
3. Maybe Jesus really was dead, but came back to life.

What do you think happened? Why do you think so?

People made an assumption that an empty tomb means resurrection. People are making assumptions there was a tomb. People are making assumptions that the Gospels are a reliable biography.

Dubious. What methods do you use and how can you determine that these methods lead to more reliable conclusions than those used by Catholics?

The rapid development we have seen using the method I speak of compared to the lack of development due to revelation. The faulty basis that the OT is even reliable, its not from an archaeology point of view. The faulty interpretation of the OT they use to justify and validate the NT.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand exactly what evolution by natural selection means. You have the annoying habit of insisting that everyone who disagrees with you merely doesn't understand. Broad fiat is no substitute for well-reasoned arguments.

I provided my reasoning and you dismissed it without explaining why. So, I would have to accuse you of doing the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm surprised that you are so ignorant about the Internet.

Look at my profile.
I have "Ignorant" right there in my title.
I'm surprised you're so ignorant of my ignorance (which is legendary here).

Let me explain a few things about it to you.

There's this page called Google. It's at http://www.google.com/ -- now if you go there, and search for "principle maximum ignorance" the first page that it will lead you to is the Wikipedia page on the principle of maximum entropy. That can be found right here.

As you can easily read, it says: "The principle of maximum entropy states that...the probability distribution which best represents the current state of knowledge is the one with largest entropy."

It furthermore states that "The principle was first expounded by E. T. Jaynes in two papers in 1957" and right next to that are two blue numbers. Now, if you click either (or both) of those numbers, you will find yourself linked to the original papers written by Edwin, which can be found here and here.

Now if either of the papers is too thick for you, you can just go back to the Wikipedia article and get some background information about it. Or you can read Edwin's book, which is available online for free. Most of the answers you are looking for can be found on page 14.

QUOTE:

...before Bayesian methods can be used, a problem must be developed beyond the “exploratory phase” to the point where it has enough structure to determine all the needed apparatus (a model, sample space, hypothesis space, prior probabilities, sampling distribution). Almost all scientific problems pass through an initial exploratory phase in which we have need for inference, but the frequentist assumptions are invalid and the Bayesian apparatus is not yet available. Indeed, some of them never evolve out of the exploratory phase. Problems at this level call for more primitive means of assigning probabilities directly out of our incomplete information. For this purpose, the Principle of Maximum Entropy has at present the clearest theoretical justification and is the most highly developed computationally, with an analytical apparatus as powerful and versatile as the Bayesian one. To apply it we must define a sample space, but do not need any model or sampling distribution. In effect, entropy maximization creates a model for us out of our data, which proves to be optimal by so many different criteria [(1) The model created is the simplest one that captures all the information in the constraints (Chapter 11); (2) It is the unique model for which the constraints would have been sufficient statistics (Chapter 8); (3) If viewed as constructing a sampling distribution for subsequent Bayesian inference from new data D, the only property of the measurement errors in D that are used in that subsequent inference are the ones about which that sampling distribution contained some definite prior information (Chapter 7). Thus the formalism automatically takes into account all the information we have, but avoids assuming information that we do not have. This contrasts sharply with orthodox methods, where one does not think in terms of information at all, and in general violates both of these desiderata] that it is hard to imagine circumstances where one would not want to use it in a problem where we have a sample space but no model.

ENDQUOTE

Really, I'm surprised that anyone who claims to know about science hasn't at least HEARD of the principle. It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my derriere you know.

That's a whole lotta words & citations.
But they're all wrong as applied to your probabilistic argument about the existence of gods.

 

[Zosimus]

No it does since in their own words their experiment is not likely to occur outside the study. So this study does not apply to the topics from 20, or more, centuries ago.

You are looking at this the wrong way. It's not about how generalizable the affirmative claims are but about how wrong the standard view is. To the extent that the standard view failed to predict the results of this case study, the standard view is demonstrably wrong.

Actually it did, read your own source again.

It did not. The source says:

"What was also found is that the misleading questions had very little effect on their recall. Ten of the eyewitnesses said that there was no broken headlight and no yellow quarter panel at all on the thief’s car – which was correct to identify."

That's what it says. So you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Too bad Christian scholars themselves developed what I told you. It wasn't me, it wasn't atheists, it was Christians that didn't put their ideology before scholarship. you are a century behind in Biblical scholarship.

Never said impossible. I am judging it unlikely given the alternatives

Most of this is irrelevant and/or uninteresting, but I'm quoting it anyway.

Never made a judgement about all metaphysics, just the claim made in the Bible. People are too quick, and are taught to, accept metaphysical explanations due to religion rather than to question their beliefs.

I have no idea what you mean by this. When you say "...accept metaphysical explanations due to religion..." do you mean that they accept them because of religion or do you mean that the metaphysical statements are due to religion? Because I suspect you mean the first when you actually said the second.

The theology can not be separated from this position since the very claims make theological claims.

People made an assumption that an empty tomb means resurrection. People are making assumptions there was a tomb. People are making assumptions that the Gospels are a reliable biography.

No, people are not making these assumptions. There are a number of non-Christian writings that either exist or are quoted in other writings that exist. Writers such as Thallus, Tacitus, and Phlegon are just a few of the names that I'm aware of. They all agree that Jesus lived and was executed. Now I don't know how things work where you come from, but around here when people die they are placed in a tomb. So yes, the tomb existed and yes it was found empty. The sect of the Nazarenes insisted that Jesus had been resurrected whereas Jews insisted that the disciples had stolen the body. No one claimed that the tomb didn't exist or wasn't empty. So your claim has no traction of any kind.

The rapid development we have seen using the method I speak of compared to the lack of development due to revelation. The faulty basis that the OT is even reliable, its not from an archaeology point of view. The faulty interpretation of the OT they use to justify and validate the NT.

No increase in the speed of development has been observed from the time that science came into being. Most of the speed of innovation can be directly accounted for by the number of people on the globe. 7 billion people produce more innovations than do 3 billion.

 

[Zosimus]

I provided my reasoning and you dismissed it without explaining why. So, I would have to accuse you of doing the same.

You have provided no reasoning, but I'll give you a chance once again.

What test could be carried out that might demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is false? To what extent would that test rely on the tacking by disjunction paradox?

 

[Zosimus]

Look at my profile.
I have "Ignorant" right there in my title.
I'm surprised you're so ignorant of my ignorance (which is legendary here).

That's a whole lotta words & citations.
But they're all wrong as applied to your probabilistic argument about the existence of gods.

Once again, your shamelessness surprises me. As you can see in your post you said:

If it's "reasonable", then there must be some reasoning behind it.
Yet you offer none.

So then I offer the complete reasoning only to have you say:

"They're all wrong."

That's it? You can discount two published papers and a complete book written by a distinguished physicist with just three words?

 

[Revoltingest]

Once again, your shamelessness surprises me

Shame is for weaklings.

Published papers can be quite cromulent, but
that doesn't mean they support a poster's claim.

 

[atanu]

Revolting loses the battle.

 

[leibowde84]

You have provided no reasoning, but I'll give you a chance once again.

What test could be carried out that might demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is false? To what extent would that test rely on the tacking by disjunction paradox?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution
Disproving evolution first requires to look at what the theory predicts and see where it can be shown to make incorrect predictions. It is easy to be side-tracked by specifics of the theory, such as individual evolutionary pathways of certain features, and confuse these with what would falsify the overall theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, many creationists do this whenever a new discovery is made in biology that causes scientists to rethink some pieces of evolution. To avoid this problem, it is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[3] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort ofphenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

 

[atanu]

...
Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

Well. This can be tested , theoretically through a thought experiment at least. Take a dead body and replace all its DNA to match another living being. In my mind, it is not gelling.



May be I am horribly wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

You have provided no reasoning, but I'll give you a chance once again.

What test could be carried out that might demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is false? To what extent would that test rely on the tacking by disjunction paradox?

The following explains where your logic is flawed, in that, with the scientific method, we are dealing with the following:

For any statements H, E and b, E confirms H relative to b if H & b and E are contingent, E is a logical consequence of H & b but not of b alone, and E is verified.

... rather than:

For any statements H and E, E confirms H if H and E are contingent, E is a logical consequence of H, and E is verified.

1 Introduction: Hypothetico-deductivism and the tacking by disjunction paradox In this paper, I focus on the so-called tacking by disjunction paradox. I show that, though the hypothetico-deductivist attempts to resolve this paradox made by Gemes (1998) and Kuipers (2000) are questionable, the Bayesian who endorses the Total Evidence Condition can settle the paradox without any apparent difficulty. A crude formulation of Hypothetico-deductivism says that: (HD) For any statements H and E, E confirms H if H and E are contingent, E is a logical consequence of H, and E is verified. (Cf. Grimes 1990: 515). Some philosophers prefer to define Hypothetico-deductivism by appealing to the notion of confirmation relative to (or given) background knowledge. The adduced reason is, usually, that in 2 actual science background knowledge does play a role in deduction and confirmation. A simple formulation of relative Hypothetico-deductivism is the following: (RHD) For any statements H, E and b, E confirms H relative to b if H & b and E are contingent, E is a logical consequence of H & b but not of b alone, and E is verified. I will hereafter focus on (RHD) rather than on (HD), as the former principle appears to reflect scientific practice more accurately. A difficulty for Hypothetico-deductivism is the tacking by disjunction paradox. If Hypothetico-deductivism is defined by (RHD), the tacking by disjunction paradox hinges on the following counterintuitive confirmation rule: (TD) For any statements H, E and b, if H & b is contingent and entails E, for any arbitrary statement E*, if E ∨ E* is contingent and is not entailed by b alone, whenever E ∨ E* is verified, E ∨ E* confirms H relative to b. (TD) follows from (RHD) by introduction of the disjunction (if X entails Y, then, for whatever Z, X entails Y ∨ Z).1 Roughly, the trouble with (TD) is that E* may appear irrelevant to H’s confirmation given b (in the intuitive sense that if one verifies E*, this does not affect one’s confidence in H given b) or E* may even be inconsistent with H & b. One can thus feel reluctant to admit that the verification of E ∨ E* does confirm H given b. Let us call any statement E ∨ E* such that H & b entails E, E appears positively relevant to H given b (in the intuitive sense that one’s verification of E* increases one’s confidence in H given b), and E* appears irrelevant to H given b or is inconsistent with H & b, a tacked disjunction for H given b, or simply a tacked disjunction. Consider for example the case in which a hypothesis H has 3 the form of the generalization (x)(Fx), E is equivalent to Fa, and E* is equivalent to Ra or to ¬Fc. Notice that ¬Fc is logically inconsistent with (x)(Fx) & b, and Ra seems irrelevant to (x)(Fx) given b if b is tautologous. The first impression may be that the verification of the tacked disjunctions Fa ∨ Ra and Fa ∨ ¬Fc should not confirm the hypothesis (x)(Fx) given b. This impression can be strengthened by other considerations. For example, it can be argued that if one allows tacked disjunctions to confirm hypotheses, for any statement H however idiotic, as long as H is contingent and there is some other verified statement E* such that H ∨ E* is contingent, one has a confirmation of H. Thus the foolish claim ‘The moon is made of Green cheese’ is confirmed by the verification of ‘The moon is made of Green cheese or London is in the UK’, which is unacceptable. In Section 2, I show that the tacking by disjunction problem is much less univocal than one might expect: the verification of a tacked disjunction E ∨ E* appears in certain cases not to confirm H given b but, in other cases, to confirm it. Any adequate solution of the tacking by disjunction paradox should distinguish the cases in which E ∨ E* confirms H from those in which it does not. In Sections 3 and 4, I examine the two most recent hypothetico-deductivist attempts to resolve this paradox, given in Gemes (1998) and in Kuipers (2000). I argue that both solutions are inadequate because they do not distinguish the cases in which E ∨ E* confirms H from those in which it does not. In Section 5, I show that the Bayesian who accepts Total Evidence Condition as a constraint for the application of the rule of incremental confirmation can settle the paradox without falling afoul of similar difficulties. Finally, in the conclusion of the paper, I argue that the application of the Total Evidence Condition is hampered by serious difficulties when hypothetico-deductivist analysis of confirmation is presupposed. (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2289/1/Disjunction.pdf)

 

[leibowde84]

Well. This can be tested , theoretically through a thought experiment at least. Take a dead body and replace all its DNA to match another living being. In my mind, it is not gelling.



May be I am horribly wrong.

The dead body wouldn't be an organism with different DNA. It would merely be a dead organism where the DNA was artificially replaced. Artificially replacing DNA certainly takes the example outside the realm of what we are discussing here.