Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

[Kenny]

LOL....so why was it brought into the discussion?


But I don't believe that they do know that much about the Universe......they have limited knowledge at present, but compared to what there is still to know....they know very little IMO.


On the contrary, I think that scientists "believe" a lot.

Since I am only interested in evolution, I'll stay with it...you can do whatever you wish with the rest of science......it does not relate to the things I am wanting to discuss....

Here is an explanation on "Complexity" from Berkely Ed (for students)....

"Looking at complexity

Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?

Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.

Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?

There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:

• Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.

• Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions."

Looking at complexity

Count the number of suggestions here.....just on this brief explanation on complexity....

Do these phrases..."seem to be"...or..."likely to have"...or..."must have"...or "may evolve"....or...."might have"...or..."could have"... belong in a serious discussion on any scientific topic? Can you tell me where I might find these phrases used so liberally in other branches of science....?

These are examples of "belief".....scientists "believe" things to be true, even when they cannot be proven, more than most people realize.


So you base all your knowledge on things that cannot be proven?

If it can't be proven, its not a fact.....is science then a bunch of unprovable stuff that everyone must “believe” to actually accept it?



If I ever need a trajectory to Pluto I'll keep that in mind....

Astronomy has nothing whatever to do with evolution. What is your point...that because some science is right that all science must be right? Seriously?
Is that where you imagine that this thread will lead....?



I am only interested in evolution of the macro-kind....the rest of science is of no interest to me.

You named the thread...."
Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?"
Please stick to evolution or talk to yourself.... You cannot lead me to accept evolution unless the science is accurate...and we can all see that it is more suggestive than it is provable.



Are you kidding me? A few weeks? Why? What can you offer in a few weeks that you cannot offer right now.....

But I do understand taxonomy......here it is representing the red fox....

This is a man made suggestion of course, but we get the gist of the way science likes to group its biological classifications. I find it incredibly misleading TBH.

But calling a four-legged furry land dweller a "whale" because it had a similar earbone to living whales is hardly convincing to the observer. Who placed that little dog-like critter in the whale family? Someone who wanted to infer that whales "must have" evolved from Pakicetus......

You really have to use strong "suggestion" to reach that conclusion....its hardly convincing.


I don't want to be led anywhere....I am not three years old.....and I know a snow job when I see one.



I don't think I can hang around that long unless you have something more riveting to share....But evolution must satisfiy a need in you none the less....but it gives you no future and no solid answers to the very human questions about the purpose of life.....why are we here? Why do only humans need those kinds of answers? Is it not the same kind of curiosity that sparks interest in science in the first place?

Where do you see the human race in 100 years? I honestly don't think we can sustain life here under the present circumstances.....we poison everything we touch. The earth is screaming out for help but it never comes.....we just see more of the same abuse of the planet and each other. I am grateful that I have a hope for the future....what do you have?



I'm not sure I want to to go through what you have in mind....I have way more interesting topics to discuss and I doubt very much that you can provide anything I haven't heard a thousand times before.....

I must say, this was quite interesting.

 

[Deeje]

But calling a four-legged furry land dweller a "whale" because it had a similar earbone to living whales is hardly convincing to the observer.

So yes, you said that. Are you really going to claim you didn't say what I can quote you as saying?

Hmmmm....there must be an invisible fox in there somewhere.....

This took 2 minutes on Google:

Pakicetus - Wikipedia

Pakicetus was evidently a cetacean. Do you know what a cetacean is?

Yes I do....Cetaceans (/sɪˈteɪʃəns/) (from Latin: cetus, lit. 'whale'...LOL
I guess that's why they call pakicetus a "whale" eh?.....

Wrong. Any science teacher worth their salt teaches kids that science employs evidence, and scientifically-based conclusions can and do change based on new evidence. This is routine and basic. And something that, again, you don't seem to comprehend.

We all know that science teachers make evolution sound like proven fact....It was even when I was at high school. Nothing was ever presented as if it could be questioned. Even exam marks were dependent on the right answers to evolution questions, even if you didn't believe them.

Science is like a 'religion' to many people....it doesn't matter whether it can be proven or not....it is accepted on "faith". I don't think the average person realizes how much of it is speculation rather than fact.

No, it isn't. If you're interested in the truth, why must you resort to saying things that aren't true to defend your position?

What have I said that you can prove is false? I defend my position because I believe it is defensible. I don't believe yours is. Protesting doesn't really solve the dilemma....but its all I ever seem to get.

You are free to believe in a flat Earth or that white people are superior to other races if you wish, yes. What we teach in science classes, though, needs to be rooted in, you know, science. Which evolution is.

"We"? Who is "we"...? Please don't tell me that you are a science teacher....the more I converse with you, the more you demonstrate how little you know about the complete flaws in this theory. ......now I really fear that the science students will never hear the truth.

Yes, it is getting very old to continually point out to you the ways that you don't understand. Why don't you improve your understanding?

Or why I cannot accept your indoctrination....I understand perfectly well that if your first premise.....that single celled organisms came to exist (somehow) and arrived fully equipped to transform themselves over time into all the living creatures that have ever existed on this planet....is flawed, then everything you build on it will have the same flaws. Do you understand the implications of this?

There are lots of people who believe in both God and evolution.

Wow...that makes me feel better.....

....or it makes me sick that their faith has been overreached by an unprovable theory.

If you can give God up that easily, it means you never really had him in the first place.

Wrong. Again.

You mean you've never watched Dawkins or Coyne do their strutting and ridiculing on stage....such good entertainment for the deluded masses. Preaching to the converted.....

ho hum.

That's an emotional argument, Deeje, not one rooted in the evidence. The truth doesn't always make us feel good.

What was emotional about it? What I actually said was....
"Or maybe I need real evidence to trade one "belief" for another? Please tell me the upside of having no hope for the future except what men of science can provide.....?

Can you provide an upside to what future we can look forward to if we have to rely on science for creating a better world? When in mankind's history has it been more urgent? Science has no answers to all the important questions of life......how sad for the faithful.

Nowhere to go...nowhere to hide....

Again, it's painfully obvious that you don't understand what you're reading. All he's saying is that the truth of common descent can be established from the evidence, independent of understanding how that common descent happened. Now I think most science teachers, including this author, would agree that understanding the mechanisms is helpful, and you should strive to actually understand them.

If that is how you want to interpret what was written.....that is up to you. To them evolution is true no matter what the evidence suggests or doesn't suggest.

It's also odd that you commented on that passage, but any of the multiples lines of, you know, evidence is the article. That's what you've said you wanted all along.

How about this little nugget...
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.


I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Now if that is not a description of brainwashing I'll eat my hat.

I have a suspicion that @Heyo might have borrowed that perception however....

I quoted you. Please don't claim you didn't say what you demonstrably said.

Pakicetus, like modern whales, was a cetacean. That's the connection between them.

Now I'm really worried about how you interpret what is written.... I described pakicetus as "a four-legged furry land dweller".....what part of that description was inaccurate? It makes no difference what scientists call him.....he is what he is......and he is NOT a whale by any stretch of the imagination.

You can believe it if you wish......I'm not buying it.....

 

[Left Coast]

Yes I do....Cetaceans (/sɪˈteɪʃəns/) (from Latin: cetus, lit. 'whale'...LOL
I guess that's why they call pakicetus a "whale" eh?.....

Both whales and pakicetus are cetaceans. Why is this difficult for you to accept?

We all know that science teachers make evolution sound like proven fact....It was even when I was at high school.

That life has evolved is a fact. There are particular theories explaining the mechanisms of how that change has occurred.

Nothing was ever presented as if it could be questioned. Even exam marks were dependent on the right answers to evolution questions, even if you didn't believe them.

This is also true of science questions assuming the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Should we make allowances in curriculum for flat-earther children?

What have I said that you can prove is false?

For one, you claimed that evolutionary theory posits that single-celled organisms "popped up out of nowhere." This is false. No scientific theory posits this.

I defend my position because I believe it is defensible. I don't believe yours is. Protesting doesn't really solve the dilemma....but its all I ever seem to get.

You keep saying that, but don't reply to the actual evidence given to you. Odd.

"We"? Who is "we"...? Please don't tell me that you are a science teacher....the more I converse with you, the more you demonstrate how little you know about the complete flaws in this theory. ......now I really fear that the science students will never hear the truth.

LOL. Your projection is cute. No, I'm not a science teacher. By we, I meant society.

Or why I cannot accept your indoctrination....I understand perfectly well that if your first premise.....that single celled organisms came to exist (somehow) and arrived fully equipped to transform themselves over time into all the living creatures that have ever existed on this planet....is flawed, then everything you build on it will have the same flaws. Do you understand the implications of this?

First, this "premise" is sloppily and inaccurately worded. Single-celled organisms didnt "transform themselves" into anything. They evolved, meaning populations genetically changed over time. You, yet again, made up a straw man. Your claims to be the standard-bearer of "truth" in this discussion are transparently false.

Wow...that makes me feel better.....

....or it makes me sick that their faith has been overreached by an unprovable theory.

If you can give God up that easily, it means you never really had him in the first place.

Why would you think theistic evolutionists have "given up God?" How would you reply to a YEC who claimed your acceptance of the science of the age of the Earth meant you had "given up God"?

What was emotional about it? What I actually said was....
"Or maybe I need real evidence to trade one "belief" for another? Please tell me the upside of having no hope for the future except what men of science can provide.....?

Arguing that "x gives me no hope, therefore x isn't true" is an emotional argument. If that's not your argument, then whether or not evolution gives you hope is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

Can you provide an upside to what future we can look forward to if we have to rely on science for creating a better world?

Yes, the upside is the ability to make systematic, evidence-based decisions. It's the very sort of thinking that is making our conversation possible right at this moment. It's the thinking that had cured every single disease we've ever discovered a cure for. It's the thinking that has sent us to the moon, that has built cars, bridges, buildings, every piece of machinery or technology you've ever used to your advantage.

It always makes me chuckle when people take to the Internet to criticize science.

If that is how you want to interpret what was written.....that is up to you. To them evolution is true no matter what the evidence suggests or doesn't suggest.

You have yet to address any of the evidence given in the article. For someone who's all about the evidence, you seem to be studiously avoiding actually discussing it.

How about this little nugget...
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.


I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Now if that is not a description of brainwashing I'll eat my hat.

Another shiny distraction, no discussion of the evidence. Sigh.

Now I'm really worried about how you interpret what is written.... I described pakicetus as "a four-legged furry land dweller".....what part of that description was inaccurate? It makes no difference what scientists call him.....he is what he is......and he is NOT a whale by any stretch of the imagination.

As has already been explained to you, it's a cetacean. Whales are also cetaceans. I cited the portion of the Wiki article that explains the evidence paleontologists discovered to arrive at their conclusion.

Edit to add: you've made clear that your mind is made up and you think you thoroughly and accurately understand the topic (though you demonstrably don't). You are uninterested, evidently, in actually addressing the evidence given to you. So I'm going to let @Heyo take it from here, as I've already interrupted the conversation enough. I won't be replying further to you in this thread.

 

[Deeje]

Both whales and pakicetus are cetaceans. Why is this difficult for you to accept?

This....

The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

Read the wording carefully....."strongly resembles" means what? If I said 'there is a man in my neighborhood who strongly resembles my father".....would they necessarily have to be related? Can you look like someone without being related to them?

The other thing that you notice is the skulls pictured to the right of these creatures. Did you notice that they all appear around the same size? They aren't....

If you compared the skull of pakicetus with the skull of a whale how much bigger would you expect it to be?
By depicting them as of similar size, they try to suggest to the eye what the mind might judge quite differently.

That life has evolved is a fact. There are particular theories explaining the mechanisms of how that change has occurred.

That is actually not true. A fact is provable....evolution is not.
"Adaptation" is provable....macro-evolution is not.
The scientists here will be the first to tell you that there are no facts in science....where have you been? They have hypotheses and theories...no facts, nothing provable.....how can you not know this? It is all served up on a plate that says..."eat me".

This is also true of science questions assuming the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Should we make allowances in curriculum for flat-earther children?

Since the Bible doesn't teach any of that, I have no idea how it gets into the conversation. Another thing that gets adopted by inference perhaps?

There is room in a child's mind and heart for something a bit more heart warming than cold science. Giving them the impression that they are nothing but animals gives them permission to behave like them.....nice.

For one, you claimed that evolutionary theory posits that single-celled organisms "popped up out of nowhere." This is false. No scientific theory posits this.

Well forgive me for assuming that....let's see what the probability of life arising by chance, actually is.....?

"Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small."

So "popping" into existence out of nowhere is not so far from what the abiogenesists are trying to prove....that it was a spontaneous event, undirected by any intelligence, that just happened by chance, that was witnessed by no one, and as yet undetermined how statistically, it could ever have taken place.
What do you think it is reasonable to believe given the stats above?

You keep saying that, but don't reply to the actual evidence given to you. Odd.

I have replied...you just didn't like what I said.

LOL. Your projection is cute. No, I'm not a science teacher. By we, I meant society.

Oh thank goodness! I was worried....
We can rely on society to guide us into all truth then....

Are you hearing yourself?

First, this "premise" is sloppily and inaccurately worded. Single-celled organisms didnt "transform themselves" into anything. They evolved, meaning populations genetically changed over time. You, yet again, made up a straw man. Your claims to be the standard-bearer of "truth" in this discussion are transparently false.

Oh how remiss of me.....what does "evolved" mean then? ...they "changed"....so these single celled organisms "changed" which means 'different to what it was before'.....so these cells transformed themselves into something that they weren't before? Hang on...isn't that what I said?

Why would you think theistic evolutionists have "given up God?" How would you reply to a YEC who claimed your acceptance of the science of the age of the Earth meant you had "given up God"?

What they do and believe is between them and God.....they don't have to answer to me.
But I'd have the same conversation with them that I am having with you. I'd just present the truth as I understand it. What people do with it is up to them. I don't demand that people believe me....I am just presenting the other side of this argument.

Arguing that "x gives me no hope, therefore x isn't true" is an emotional argument. If that's not your argument, then whether or not evolution gives you hope is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

If you say so....I can only speak for myself. If I was to adopt evolution, I'd have to give up all ideas about the brilliance of creation because it would still be an undirected process started by a God who lost interest or couldn't care less how it ended up. I would see no hope for the future.

I do not believe that this is the world God intended us to live in....it is the world that humans selfishly created with no thought of the future. We are sliding headlong into our own extinction....mostly thanks to science. It makes the bullets and greedy commercialism fires them. Its your religion, not mine.....you can be proud of it if you like.

Yes, the upside is the ability to make systematic, evidence-based decisions. It's the very sort of thinking that is making our conversation possible right at this moment. It's the thinking that had cured every single disease we've ever discovered a cure for. It's the thinking that has sent us to the moon, that has built cars, bridges, buildings, every piece of machinery or technology you've ever used to your advantage.

It always makes me chuckle when people take to the Internet to criticize science.

See, you're not listening...this argument is as old as the other one. We are not anti-science or anti-technology.....we have issues with only one branch of pseudo-science......do you understand?
We are anti-evolutionists......we see no reason to believe what you believe, just as you see no reason to believe what we believe. We've made our choices....good job...that is all that is necessary.

Edit to add: you've made clear that your mind is made up and you think you thoroughly and accurately understand the topic (though you demonstrably don't). You are uninterested, evidently, in actually addressing the evidence given to you. So I'm going to let @Heyo take it from here, as I've already interrupted the conversation enough. I won't be replying further to you in this thread.

Well thank you, I believe that is a wise move.

 

[exchemist]

No where in the quoted material was a fox referred to as a whale. So that wasn't a quote, it was something you made up. Why did you do so, Deeje?



I didnt see a struggle at all, I saw an effort to go out of their way to be accurate and specific. All scientific disciplines make probabilistic conclusions. All scientific disciplines speak in the language of what's likely the case, what possible explanations are, etc.

I realize you want a black and white, absolute, this-is-the-final-infallible-answer sort of reply, because that's what your religion claims to give you. But that's not how any science works. And that's why Heyo tried to take you back to the beginning to get you to understand basic scientific principles, because it's clear that you don't understand them. You can roll your eyes and claim you already know it all and just want to talk evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated very basic misunderstanding of even how to reason scientifically.



So do I.



Again, you don't understand how scientific evidence works, or you wouldn't ask such a thing. All scientific evidence is probabilistic. Proof is for math and logic, not science.



No one claims they popped out of nowhere. Again, why do you say things that are so flagrantly inaccurate, if you understand all this stuff Deeje? Or maybe, just maybe, is it possible that...you don't?



As has been posted many times on RF already:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I'm sure @Heyo has more to say on the question, but again, you did not answer me. Do you think you so thoroughly and accurately understand evolution that you couldn't possibly be wrong about it? If you think so, there's no point to this conversation, it seems to me.



LOL. Now you know how I feel about creationist debunkings of silly straw men like foxes being whales.

Foxes certainly seem pretty irrelevant, given that the closest living relative of the whale is the hippopotamus!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I do understand taxonomy......here it is representing the red fox....

This is a man made suggestion of course

If you think this is a "man made suggestion", rather then a conclusion based on carefull analysis of the evidence, then you really don't understand taxonomy like you think you do.

Being able to grab a picture from google and pasting it here, is not a demonstration that you understand taxonomy and cladistics.

However, saying that taxonomy is merely "suggestions by man", DOES demonstrate that you actually do NOT understand taxonomy.

, but we get the gist of the way science likes to group its biological classifications. I find it incredibly misleading TBH.

Because you don't (want to) understand it...................

But calling a four-legged furry land dweller a "whale" because it had a similar earbone to living whales is hardly convincing to the observer. Who placed that little dog-like critter in the whale family?

Not "who". Rather "what". And the answer is "the data / evidence".

Whales being descendents of 4-legged land dwelling mammals is not some brainfart by some scientist who liked the idea. It's a conclusion from actually studying whales and 4-legged land dwelling mammals. A conclusion that is verifiable and testable.

If you'ld understand how taxonomy is actually done, you'ld realise this.
But you're not interested in learning about it, aren't you?

Someone who wanted to infer that whales "must have" evolved from Pakicetus......

You really have to use strong "suggestion" to reach that conclusion....its hardly convincing.

Again you show that you have no idea what you are talking about. This also is a verifiable and testable conclusion based on data, not on anyone's "wants".


The only one here with "wants", is you. You do not want that whales have land dwelling ancestors, because it undermines your a priori religious beliefs of which you have already acknowledged that you are too emotionally invested in to allow ANYTHING to overturn it. Remember what you said? "there's no way" - your exact words as I have brought to your attention in this post as well.

I don't want to be led anywhere...

Exactly. You are too comfortable and too invested in your dogmatic position of willfull ignorance, as shown in the post I linked above.

I don't think I can hang around that long unless you have something more riveting to share...

Off course. God forbid you might actually learn something.....................

 

[Deeje]

If you think this is a "man made suggestion", rather then a conclusion based on carefull analysis of the evidence, then you really don't understand taxonomy like you think you do.

Being able to grab a picture from google and pasting it here, is not a demonstration that you understand taxonomy and cladistics.

However, saying that taxonomy is merely "suggestions by man", DOES demonstrate that you actually do NOT understand taxonomy.

I'll let Berkeley explain cladistics for the benefit of the readers....OK?

"Reconstructing trees: Cladistics

Cladistics is a method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms — in other words, a method of reconstructing evolutionary trees. The basis of a cladistic analysis is data on the characters, or traits, of the organisms in which we are interested. These characters could be anatomical and physiological characteristics, behaviors, or genetic sequences.

The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related.

Assumptions
There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

1. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
The assumption that characteristics of organisms change over time is the most important one in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. We call the "original" state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the "changed" state apomorphic.

2. Any group of organisms is related by descent from a common ancestor.
This assumption is supported by many lines of evidence and essentially means that all life on Earth today is related and shares a common ancestor. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and hypothesize a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information.

3. There is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.
This assumption suggests that when a lineage splits, it divides into exactly two groups. There are some situations that violate this assumption. For example, many biologists accept the idea that multiple new lineages have arisen from a single originating population at the same time, or near enough in time to be indistinguishable from such an event (as in the case of the cichlid fish described previously). The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups, which occurs at least occasionally in some groups (like plants). While such exceptions may exist, for many groups they are relatively rare and so this assumption often holds true."

Reconstructing trees: Cladistics

So here you have it....not only would I bring it to your attention that cladistics is also based on "assumptions", (three of them no less) but here you have the educators admitting it themselves.
Like evolution this method of grouping classifications is based on hypothesis, not facts. Its what fits into the evolutionary "box".

Just to be clear, a hypothesis is..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Its a starting point, not a finish line.

Its the inference that annoys me.....we hear about these so called "common ancestors" but they are never identified.....its a case of they "must have" existed because our theory depends on it. ....not because they can be named or placed in the queue.

The other annoying thing about the biological classifications is the fact that order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain suggest that all mammals must be related....or that all carnivores must be related...or that all vertebrates must be related....which is why little furry, four legged critters can be called "whales"....its plain ridiculous.

Similarity never guaranteed relatedness. All living things are made out of the same biological materials...not because they evolved, but because they had the same Creator. That is what makes sense to me. I do not believe that small changes over time transformed amoebas into dinosaurs.....or pakicetus into a whale....but you can believe that if you like....

I am just telling my side of this lop-sided tale.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'll let Berkeley explain cladistics for the benefit of the readers....OK?

"Reconstructing trees: Cladistics

Cladistics is a method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms — in other words, a method of reconstructing evolutionary trees. The basis of a cladistic analysis is data on the characters, or traits, of the organisms in which we are interested. These characters could be anatomical and physiological characteristics, behaviors, or genetic sequences.

The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related.

Assumptions
There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

1. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
The assumption that characteristics of organisms change over time is the most important one in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. We call the "original" state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the "changed" state apomorphic.

2. Any group of organisms is related by descent from a common ancestor.
This assumption is supported by many lines of evidence and essentially means that all life on Earth today is related and shares a common ancestor. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and hypothesize a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information.

3. There is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.
This assumption suggests that when a lineage splits, it divides into exactly two groups. There are some situations that violate this assumption. For example, many biologists accept the idea that multiple new lineages have arisen from a single originating population at the same time, or near enough in time to be indistinguishable from such an event (as in the case of the cichlid fish described previously). The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups, which occurs at least occasionally in some groups (like plants). While such exceptions may exist, for many groups they are relatively rare and so this assumption often holds true."

Reconstructing trees: Cladistics

So here you have it....not only would I bring it to your attention that cladistics is also based on "assumptions", (three of them no less) but here you have the educators admitting it themselves.
Like evolution this method of grouping classifications is based on hypothesis, not facts. Its what fits into the evolutionary "box".

Just to be clear, a hypothesis is..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Its a starting point, not a finish line.

Its the inference that annoys me.....we hear about these so called "common ancestors" but they are never identified.....its a case of they "must have" existed because our theory depends on it. ....not because they can be named or placed in the queue.

The other annoying thing about the biological classifications is the fact that order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain suggest that all mammals must be related....or that all carnivores must be related...or that all vertebrates must be related....which is why little furry, four legged critters can be called "whales"....its plain ridiculous.

Similarity never guaranteed relatedness. All living things are made out of the same biological materials...not because they evolved, but because they had the same Creator. That is what makes sense to me. I do not believe that small changes over time transformed amoebas into dinosaurs.....or pakicetus into a whale....but you can believe that if you like....

I am just telling my side of this lop-sided tale.

Both "assumptions" and "hypothesising" is supported by massive amounts of evidence in science.
They aren't wild guesses, like in every-day language.

And if you would read the Berkeley post with a spec of attention, you'ld know this. From your own copy paste:

The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related.


In other words, the conclusion of these studies are based on DATA. Not on preferences or wants or likes by the one carrying out the study.


Your semantic argument based on ignorance of how science works, fails miserably.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am just telling my side of this lop-sided tale.

"Your side" of the story was made clear in post 18 of that other thread, where you literally have acknowledge that you will clinge to your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs, no matter what.

It's all one needs to know when engaging you on this topic.

 

[Yerda]

It is inspired by multiple exchanges with @Deeje. I will focus on her understanding but I didn't want to make this a one-on-one debate.

Having read through the thread it seems the one-on-one debate might have been a better idea.

 

[Kenny]

What medical "science" are you invoking when you make the claim of "Spirit" involvement?

Merely jumping up and down screaming "spiritual involvement" does not indicate spiritual involvement.
And thus far you have not presented anything beyond your desire for spiritual involvement to indicate spiritual involvement.

I did notice you did not answer my straight forward question:

Would you accept your claim is null and void if I present an article where prayer did absolutely nothing to help?​

As I said... "present your articles and I will shoot it full of holes"

And, if your position is "there is no such thing as a spiritual side" - then you have left scientific thinking of considering ALL possibilities and you have drifted into the camp of flat earth thinking.

 

[Kenny]

We all know that science teachers make evolution sound like proven fact....It was even when I was at high school. Nothing was ever presented as if it could be questioned. Even exam marks were dependent on the right answers to evolution questions, even if you didn't believe them.

Although for me evolution (believing or denying its existence) isn't a pre-requisite for believing in Jesus Christ I remember that many years ago on a blog I went to talkorigins.org and started at the very beginning.

As you have noted, it started of with "we believe, it is supposed, the possibility is, maybe, it is possible that et al". Then, further down, they began talking about how all of these "we suppose and maybe" we an actual fact.

In other words, they started with unverified positions and then proceeded from there. Not very scientific.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Having read through the thread it seems the one-on-one debate might have been a better idea.

One on one debates with @Deeje about this subject, is an exercise in futility though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said... "present your articles and I will shoot it full of holes"

And, if your position is "there is no such thing as a spiritual side" - then you have left scientific thinking of considering ALL possibilities and you have drifted into the camp of flat earth thinking.

Science doesn't consider ALL "possibilities" in the sense of "anything you can dream up".
It only considers those possibilities for which you can offer a spec of supporting evidence.

So a "spiritual side" is not among them, as it is literally indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Although for me evolution (believing or denying its existence) isn't a pre-requisite for believing in Jesus Christ I remember that many years ago on a blog I went to talkorigins.org and started at the very beginning.

As you have noted, it started of with "we believe, it is supposed, the possibility is, maybe, it is possible that et al". Then, further down, they began talking about how all of these "we suppose and maybe" we an actual fact.

In other words, they started with unverified positions and then proceeded from there. Not very scientific.

You'll find the same use of jargon and terminology on ANY scientific subject.
But I bet you don't reject ALL of science for those silly reasons.

Instead, you only reject those parts that conflict with your religious beliefs.

You should ask yourself why.

 

[Kenny]

Science doesn't consider ALL "possibilities" in the sense of "anything you can dream up".
It only considers those possibilities for which you can offer a spec of supporting evidence.

So a "spiritual side" is not among them, as it is literally indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

"dreaming up" is already a non-scientific statement. There are medical specs of supportive evidence - so that "dreaming up" is more along the lines of "dreaming up an excuse to not look at it".

 

[Kenny]

You'll find the same use of jargon and terminology on ANY scientific subject.
But I bet you don't reject ALL of science for those silly reasons.

Instead, you only reject those parts that conflict with your religious beliefs.

You should ask yourself why.

Really? Can you give me a more specific example? And how they went from a "maybe, perhaps, possibility" to "this is a fact"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"dreaming up" is already a non-scientific statement.

Good job at missing the point.
That point being: it only considers those things for which there is at least a spec of rational evidence.

Things that are being "dreamed up" are things that come only from imagination and for which there thus is no rational supporting evidence.

There are medical specs of supportive evidence - so that "dreaming up" is more along the lines of "dreaming up an excuse to not look at it".

It's called the placebo effect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? Can you give me a more specific example?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...-may-have-caused-brightest-supernova-yet-seen

The title alone already has the words "may have" in it.
In the article you'll find plenty of "could have's" and "may's" and alike.

Every science paper on any subject that isn't just listing observations, but is offering explanations, will by default use such language

EDIT: and just to make clear, I didn't went on a specific search. Instead, i just google "science paper super nova" and clicked the first link. Because I know that every science paper that offers an explanation for a set of observations will always use such language. I didn't even give it a proper read.

And how they went from a "maybe, perhaps, possibility" to "this is a fact"?

That never happens. Theories / hypothesis don't ever become facts. Insterad, they explain facts.

That life evolved is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory offers an explanation of the mechanism that underpins that fact.

Theories explain facts and laws. Laws describe facts. Theories never become facts or laws.

learn2science

 

[Kenny]

Good job at missing the point.
That point being: it only considers those things for which there is at least a spec of rational evidence.

Things that are being "dreamed up" are things that come only from imagination and for which there thus is no rational supporting evidence.




It's called the placebo effect.

With Medical specs, it is worth considering.

To call it placebo effect (without evidence or what percentage is placebo effect) - is flat earth thinking. Establishing a position before considering evidence. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper - you might fall off the earth shortly