How We Know Some Stuff

[Splattle101]

Please explain.

I can not go & observe evolution.
I can see horses, that were born to horse, and if they breed--will breed more horses.

I see birds that do the same, and every other organism on the planet today basically doing the same thing in one way or another.

Well, since this thread is actually meant to be about explanations, I will take this post at its literal face value rather than it rhetorical value and begin an explanation of evolutionary science.

I will return with some basic premises and we will, if you are willing and able, discuss and explore them one by one. I will not entertain magical explanations or other supernatural interventions because I am discussing science. But if you are willing to explore the matter in good faith I will postpone the next installment on the age of the universe and start in on Darwin.

 

[zontar]

As I rather laboriously explained, I don't claim to know everything, and gleefully claim and own my ignorance. I celebrate it as the next identified area of inquiry. I most emphatically do NOT just take a story and stick it into that space and take it on faith.


Actaully, there is. It's astonishing the degree to which the basic and well established science is either not known or not understood in the U.S., but the facts are as I have stated them to be. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
No, that's not so. As I explained in this post here in another thread, to claim that some major aspect of evolutionary science is wrong requires that you either ignore or offer a coherent alternative explanation for huge tranches of established fact. I have not seen any such alternative explanation that does not invoke magic. As I explained in an earlier post, to answer 'God' in response to a scientific question is to not answer at all.

These are not matters of differing interpretation.

Yes they are matters of differing interpretations.

I have read various writings by those who hold to evolution, and they will differ in their interpretation of the facts. So if those who hold to evolution differ--based on how they interpret the facts, then how is interpretation not involved?

Yes there are a lot of facts that are used to support evolution--but every single one of those facts can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

You will disagree with the vast majority of them, I am sure--but that doesn't change things. They can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Finally, on your post above--to the degree that you "emphatically do NOT just take a story and stick it into that space and take it on faith" I commend you--but it doesn't mean that others do not do that--I provided two examples--there are others--but those are the two that stick out in my mind.

Genius level IQ holder and DNA expert Francis Crick disagreed with some of your interpretations (and mine as well.) He was not a believer in God to my knowledge.

 

[zontar]

Evolution can occur rather more quickly than that. Take for example the Peppered Moths of Manchester. Because of the pollution caused by the industrial revolution many of the lichens that these light colored moths rested and camouflaged themselves on, died out. The trees turned black with sut. So did some moths start to become darker colored. The lighter colored moths succumbed to predation while the melanic, darker colored moths thrived. This is a fact.

I in no way dispute that fact, but at the end of the day--they are still moths.

You are referring to variation within a kind. And proving my point about interpretations.



The Bible even refers to this sort of thing.

 

[Splattle101]

...Yes there are a lot of facts that are used to support evolution--but every single one of those facts can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

If we start from the proposition that our senses tell us something useful about the universe, then no, a fact cannot be 'interpreted' in an infinite number of ways. There are only those ways that conform to observable reality. Other 'interpretations', to misuse the word, become works of fiction.

 

[zontar]

Well, since this thread is actually meant to be about explanations, I will take this post at its literal face value rather than it rhetorical value and begin an explanation of evolutionary science.

I will return with some basic premises and we will, if you are willing and able, discuss and explore them one by one. I will not entertain magical explanations or other supernatural interventions because I am discussing science. But if you are willing to explore the matter in good faith I will postpone the next installment on the age of the universe and start in on Darwin.

Certainly, if you wish


I am not a scientist, so I may speak less precisely than one, but I will read your posts and may comment on them.

The age of the universe is connected to evolution, for if the universe is not very old it doesn't leave time for evolution to happen.
The age of the universe doesn't affect creation though--whether very young, very old or anywhere in between.

 

[Blackie]

Yes there are a lot of facts that are used to support evolution--but every single one of those facts can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

Hold on now, this is completely illogical and a not true. I guess the truth can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways is what you might say next and that would be false. Then I guess you will say what is false can be interpreted in and infinate number of ways etc.

I'm sorry but I am tired and going to sleep, and that is a fact with only one interpretation.

 

[zontar]

There are only those ways that conform to observable reality..

Yet we can not observe evolution happening.
You are stacking the deck.

You can only look at the past, then the present and try to fill the gap of how we got from point A to point B.

So who gets to determine what "observable reality" is when there's something we can not observe?

 

[zontar]

I'm sorry but I am tired and going to sleep, and that is a fact with only one interpretation.

Well, I could observe that from your typing.

At least that's my interpretation.

 

[Agave_Blue]

Name one.

Viruses mutate. One strain that was harmful may mutate to be harmless and vise-versa.

Fruit flies have been observed to mutate in a relatively short period of time (a few generations). The mutations are still fruit flies, but with different characterisics than their "ancestors".

Plants evolve, in nature, with no interference by man, to produce toxins in response to particular pests.

Neanderthals.


This:

Started as this:

Life mutates. Mutations evolve new varities and eventually new species.


(edit, the "modern, edible" bananna is a man-made "mutation". Show for the purpose of example of the effect of multiple mutations).

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Please explain.

I can not go & observe evolution.
I can see horses, that were born to horse, and if they breed--will breed more horses.

I see birds that do the same, and every other organism on the planet today basically doing the same thing in one way or another.

We can observe evolution in the same way we can observe the earth's movement through space, indirectly. You can observe evolution by reading the published works of scientists of multiple disciplines who have used the scientific method to test their theories. Testing theories is done by factual observations, building on previous work, refining theories. You can interpret results, not facts. 1+1 will equal 2 no matter what leaps of faith you take.

 

[PINKBITS]

We can observe evolution in the same way we can observe the earth's movement through space, indirectly. You can observe evolution by reading the published works of scientists of multiple disciplines who have used the scientific method to test their theories. Testing theories is done by factual observations, building on previous work, refining theories. You can interpret results, not facts. 1+1 will equal 2 no matter what leaps of faith you take.

Interpretation, 1+1=11


Sorry. I have nothing intelligent to add to this thread which is of no surprise to many

Very interesting reading though gentlemen

 

[zontar]

We can observe evolution in the same way we can observe the earth's movement through space, indirectly. You can observe evolution by reading the published works of scientists of multiple disciplines who have used the scientific method to test their theories. Testing theories is done by factual observations, building on previous work, refining theories. You can interpret results, not facts. 1+1 will equal 2 no matter what leaps of faith you take.

1+1=2, yes that is a fact--but what does it mean in any given situation?
In binary 1+1=10.

It means the same thing, but looks different.

Even given what you have said--we can not observe evolution.
Your post won't reveal one thing turning into something it is not.

Viruses mutate. One strain that was harmful may mutate to be harmless and vise-versa.

Fruit flies have been observed to mutate in a relatively short period of time (a few generations). The mutations are still fruit flies, but with different characterisics than their "ancestors".

Plants evolve, in nature, with no interference by man, to produce toxins in response to particular pests.

Neanderthals.


This:

Started as this:

Life mutates. Mutations evolve new varities and eventually new species.


(edit, the "modern, edible" bananna is a man-made "mutation". Show for the purpose of example of the effect of multiple mutations).

But even in your examples there is no change of kind.

The virus may mutate, but it is still a virus--it is not something else.
Mutations are changes--and in fact, mutations lose information.

For evolution to work should information be gained?

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Interpretation, 1+1=11


Sorry. I have nothing intelligent to add to this thread which is of no surprise to many

Very interesting reading though gentlemen

I wish I could use your kind of math on my account balances Pink!

 

[PINKBITS]

I wish I could use your kind of math on my account balances Pink!

You and me both mate

 

[zontar]

I wish I could use your kind of math on my account balances Pink!

Well for income yes--but not for bills.

And with that--
Good night!

 

[MineGoesTo11]

When I was younger I read Asimov's The Collapsing Universe: The Story of the Black Holes.

It's not definitive and some things may be dated, but I found it was a very approachable introduction to the nature of the universe for the layman. Don't be discouraged if you don't consider yourself someone who can readily understand these things, much of it isn't really that difficult.

I don't know of any more recent titles that are good 'grounders', it's been a long while since I've read extensively on the subject.

 

[Agave_Blue]

Yet we can not observe evolution happening.
You are stacking the deck.

You can only look at the past, then the present and try to fill the gap of how we got from point A to point B.

So who gets to determine what "observable reality" is when there's something we can not observe?

If you're doing it scientifically, you look at possible explainations that support what you observe. Evolution is a theory. So is Gravity. And as far as explaining "how things work" there are no better theories that explain the observations. All other alternate theories either have significant gaps and/or cannot be tested.

If an idea cannot be tested it is NOT a theory, it's just an idea that can never be shown to be correct nor incorrect.

The role of the scientist is to prove (by testing and demonstration) whether an idea is correct or not.

It is the responsibility of the scientist to identify possible flaws in the testing of an idea, to identify the limits of tests he's performed, to propose possible alternative ideas that might be tested and (most importantly) to honestly report the results of his tests whether they support his idea or not.

No theory is ever, irrevocably, proven. However, when no other theory comes along that explains the observations better AND no test of the theory proves it wrong AND the theory correctly predicts outcomes, for practical purposes it is considered correct.

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Beer is proof that God loves us and want us to be happy.

I'm willing to take part in testing this theory.

 

[Splattle101]

Let’s make a start on Darwinian evolution.

Firstly, let’s take the proposition that offspring tend to resemble their parents. This contains two points, the first and most obvious of which is that children do tend to look like their parents. I have my father’s eye shape (and male pattern baldness ) and skin type, and my mother’s nose shape, eye colour and facial bone structure. I resemble them both.

Which brings me to the second point, which is that the similarity is a resemblance only. I resemble both my parents, but I am identical to neither. I’m also not identical to any of my brothers. So the second point is that there is variation from generation to generation.

So to summarize so far, we have two observations that I want to treat as general and true, and they are:
1. children resemble their parents; and
2. there is some variation from generation to generation, and within generations.

Any objections so far?

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Go on.