The Appendix

[Lestat]

Somehow the discussion of organ/kidney donation came up at the poker table. I mentioned you can get by fine on one kidney. Then someone asked, "Then why do you think God give us two kidneys?". I responded that I didn't believe "God" gave us two kidneys and pointed out that we also have an appendix which to my understanding, is a completely worthless organ to us.

If I understand things correctly, our appendixes used to help in digesting bones and other hard to digest materials. But as we evolved, we didn't need them anymore. If I am wrong about this, I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this for me. But either way, my question to creationists is:

How do you account for the appendix? This seems a glaring case for evolution. Why would God create an organ in us that we don't need? In fact, the only thing this organ does do for humans now is cause problems or even death when it ruptures. So do you think this organ is present only for punishment? Or some other reason?

[theweatherman]

Arguing this point with a theist seems like foolish thing to do. they have the advantage of stating that GOd works in mysterious ways. His plan cannot be understood by mere humans. The human body is designed perfectly in order to follow His plan.

God obviously has it planned forsome people to get sick and die with apendisitis(sp?) in order to test our faith/end people's lives/any number of things a "benevolent" God could want to do to people.

There really isnt anythign that proves evolution that cant be explained by God wanting it that way. Science and logic cannot debunk illogical conclusions. Saying 2+2=4 over and over agin will not convince someone who believes out of faith that 2+2=5

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing this point with a theist seems like foolish thing to do. they have the advantage of stating that GOd works in mysterious ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways, There's nothing so mysterios about it. He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of Fod you people talk about - a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless concieted, uncouth haysee. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay is His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of HIs when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowl movements? Why in the world did He ever create Pain?"
"Pain is a usefull symptom. Pain is a warning to us of bodily dangers."
"And who created the dangers? Oh, He was really being charitable to us when He gave us pain! Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue and re neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead. Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't He?"
"People would certainly look silly walking around with red neon tubes in the middle of their foreheads."
"They certainly look beutiful now writhing in agony or stypefied with morphine, don't they?"
Catch-22

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing this point with a theist seems like foolish thing to do. they have the advantage of stating that GOd works in mysterious ways. His plan cannot be understood by mere humans. The human body is designed perfectly in order to follow His plan.

God obviously has it planned forsome people to get sick and die with apendisitis(sp?) in order to test our faith/end people's lives/any number of things a "benevolent" God could want to do to people.

There really isnt anythign that proves evolution that cant be explained by God wanting it that way. Science and logic cannot debunk illogical conclusions. Saying 2+2=4 over and over agin will not convince someone who believes out of faith that 2+2=5

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[Lestat]

A little harsher than I'd have put it, but these are all questions that should nonetheless be asked and answered by theists.

And that's the thing... Any theist who has asked himself these questions, and found ways to reconcile the answers with his beliefs, fine. I might not agree with it, but fine. It is those who do not even bother questioning these things that I cannot respect much.

[Metric]

Mocking someone else's reverence with this sort of strident position isn't going to convince anyone. You might as well wad up the Vitruvian Man and use it for a three-point jumpshot to the office garbage can, exclaiming "Take that, tooth decay!"

[Sharkey]

No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for the appendix. That leaves you with a wide latitude for fantasy without contradiction.

[Rduke55]

The most common idea is that the appendix is the remnant of the larger digestive tract of herbivores. A large cecum was needed to digest cellulose found in the cell wall of plants.

From time to time different folks have proposed other functions of the appendix but they've been disputed.

And that guy's logic is pretty bad. You can get by with one hand.
"Then why did God give us two?"

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> And that guy's logic is pretty bad. You can get by with one hand.
"Then why did God give us two?" </font>

This is perhaps true, but you can't get by "as well" with one hand, while I believe you can get by just "as well" with one kidney or no appendix.

[Rduke55]

I doubt you can get by just as well with one kidney but I could be wrong.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Mocking someone else's reverence with this sort of strident position isn't going to convince anyone. You might as well wad up the Vitruvian Man and use it for a three-point jumpshot to the office garbage can, exclaiming "Take that, tooth decay!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually nothing will convince a person who has a deep emotional investment in religion. Hell its hard enough to convince a battered woman to leave their husband despite extremely painfull and humiliating circumstances. I just put that quote in there because
1. Catch 22 is an excellent book and
2. i happen to be rereading it and was like 5 pages past that (relevant) quote when i read this post.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for the appendix. That leaves you with a wide latitude for fantasy without contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but doesn't it make less sense to you that the appendix was the work of God? Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

So while you might be able to fantasize other scenarios without contradiction; God having put it there DOES seem contradictory. At least to me...

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless to whom?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite.

Useless to everyone who was born with one. The appendix has no functionary purpose for human beings. Yet God, if he exists, gave us all one! Why?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite.

Useless to everyone who was born with one. The appendix has no functionary purpose for human beings. Yet God, if he exists, gave us all one! Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an assumption you haven’t proven: that the appendix is useless for its intended function, or it doesn’t have one.

Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite.

Useless to everyone who was born with one. The appendix has no functionary purpose for human beings. Yet God, if he exists, gave us all one! Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an assumption you haven’t proven: that the appendix is useless for its intended function, or it doesn’t have one.

Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you take it out then nothing happens. Thats a pretty strong example of how it doesnt do anything.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite.

Useless to everyone who was born with one. The appendix has no functionary purpose for human beings. Yet God, if he exists, gave us all one! Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an assumption you haven’t proven: that the appendix is useless for its intended function, or it doesn’t have one.

Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you take it out then nothing happens. Thats a pretty strong example of how it doesnt do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt do anything that science has been able to identify. That doesnt mean it really is useless. In fact it could be the key to St Peters gate, and if you dont have one you will be identified as a Sit n Go bot and banned from heaven for eternity.

God works in ridiculous ways.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]'

But is not an Occam's compliant hypothesis.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]'

But is not an Occam's compliant hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not for you, no. I have another fact about the world I need to explain though - and atheism doesnt account for that fact (I couldnt make it, anyhow).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that 'fitting the facts' or merely "not contradicted by the facts" ? I usually expect some 'indicated by the facts' element in a 'fits the facts' claim, but I'm not sure that's a common understanding.

thanks, luckyme

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]'

But is not an Occam's compliant hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not for you, no. I have another fact about the world I need to explain though - and atheism doesnt account for that fact (I couldnt make it, anyhow).

[/ QUOTE ]

And what fact is that?

On a different matter, you arent BunnyFCP apparently?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would an all-seeing, all-knowing God give us something so utterly useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite.

Useless to everyone who was born with one. The appendix has no functionary purpose for human beings. Yet God, if he exists, gave us all one! Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an assumption you haven’t proven: that the appendix is useless for its intended function, or it doesn’t have one.

Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, you're right, Sharkey. The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

But you know better, Sharkey. Fight the power.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence, please.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence of what?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The claim you made (that I quoted), obviously.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The claim you made (that I quoted), obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

What claim did I make?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The claim you made (that I quoted), obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

What claim did I make?

[/ QUOTE ]

“The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.”

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The claim you made (that I quoted), obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

What claim did I make?

[/ QUOTE ]

“The same scientists who are trying to foist the theory of evolution on us are also trying to get us to buy into the myth of the useless appendix.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to understand your way of thinking. You seemed to be indicating that science is misleading us when it tells us that the appendix is useless. Just as it is misleading us about the theory of evolution.

[Sharkey]

So you weren’t being serious?

I get it. You’re just a troll.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: IF data showed that people with their appendix removed are in no way different (life expectany, behaviour, etc...) from people with their appendix, is this evidence that it has no function in your opinion?

[MidGe]

CallMeIshmael,


[ QUOTE ]
...IF data showed that people with their appendix removed are in no way different (life expectany, behaviour, etc...) from people with their appendix, is this evidence that it has no function in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worse, what if that data showed that people with their appendix were more probne to suffering and early death from peritonitis? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: IF data showed that people with their appendix removed are in no way different (life expectany, behaviour, etc...) from people with their appendix, is this evidence that it has no function in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I firmly believe that the appendix is not needed in any way, they are going to have to do alot to get me to let em take it out. My organs are mine.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you can get by just as well with one kidney but I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you only had one half of one kidney you would get by just as well.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]

There is an assumption you haven’t proven: that the appendix is useless for its intended function, or it doesn’t have one.

Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, if there aren't clinically important outcomes then it dosen't matter whether the appendix sucks at doing something or just does nothing.
I assume that there was once a function, and that now it either is incapable of performing this unneccesary function or it is not required to because of other body systems taking care of it.

this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp) Christian website totally sucked too. It suggests the same thing as me in saying that the appendix has an immune role, but it can be removed because it plays such a small and insignificant role.
And I agree, the fact that we don't need it to provide this role puts it in the same category as kidneys and the gall bladder.
But they stop there, basically saying "see, it has a function", and then making a statement about how science can never know anything for sure.

I don't even care if it has a function - if it can be proved that it can be removed without harm, then the question remains.

why did God give us two kidneys, and if that's easy to answer by saying 'in case you get a javelin through one', then why did God give us an appendix, which is unlikely to ever be able to take on an important backup role.

I'm actually curious if there is a religious answer beyond "t does too have a function". Is the answer that "we will eventually find the clinically relevant purpose of it in a select patient population" or what?

[Sharkey]

I would only trust the finality of a verdict of “no function” from someone who so thoroughly understood the workings of the human body that he could make one from scratch. Otherwise, the usual problems of proving a negative apply.

As to why God did this or that, the sense you can to make of the appendix or other organ is not considered a design constraint by its Creator.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I would only trust the finality of a verdict of “no function” from someone who so thoroughly understood the workings of the human body that he could make one from scratch. Otherwise, the usual problems of proving a negative apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you set the necessary evidence for a viewpoint that differs from you so highly that it is impossible to obtain.


Also... can you please explain to me why the situation I described is not sufficient evidence showing that the appendix has no function.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Can you prove the intended function of the appendix? Or, if you claim it doesn’t have one, can you prove that? </font>

That's the thing. We can't find an intended purpose! We can only speculate on what purpose it USED to have.

As for proving a lack of function, just how much evidence do you need before conceding a position Sharkey? You can take the friggin thing completely out without ANY negavitive effects!

Why do you feel the onus is on me to prove these things anyway? It is clear that humans do not need this organ! Are you actually disputing that?

No... The onus should be on YOU (the IDist), to explain to me why God inserted an organ which we do not NEED. Need... It is clear we do not NEED an appendix.

[Sharkey]

The standard of evidence I described is necessary whether I agree with it or not.

In saying something has no function, that is where YOU are setting the bar too high. A result is only as final as the scientific completeness of the experiment. Making a blanket negative statement where the consequences include unknown areas is bad science.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The standard of evidence I described is necessary whether I agree with it or not.

In saying something has no function, that is where YOU are setting the bar too high. A result is only as final as the scientific completeness of the experiment. Making a blanket negative statement where the consequences include unknown areas is bad science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also... can you please explain to me why the situation I described is not sufficient evidence showing that the appendix has no function.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the thing. We can't find an intended purpose!

[/ QUOTE ]

Which doesn’t mean a purpose won’t be found in 10 years.

[ QUOTE ]
You can take the friggin thing completely out without ANY negavitive effects!

[/ QUOTE ]

Any KNOWN negative effects. Unless you COMPLETELY understand the human body, that is all you can say.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel the onus is on me to prove these things anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you are making the blanket negative statement.

[ QUOTE ]
... The onus should be on YOU (the IDist) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t have the blueprints, so I don’t make such claims. Apparently, ignorance is no barrier to you however.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also... can you please explain to me why the situation I described is not sufficient evidence showing that the appendix has no function.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this discussion hung up on the difference between purpose and function and the different level they operate on? ?

One of many possibilities-
What purpose does it serve... god wants it there.
What function does it perform.. nothing good bodily.
Evolution doesn't work by 'purpose'.

luckyme

[Hopey]

For Sharkey to admit that the appendix has no function, he has to concede that humans evolved at some point, which resulted in the appendix no longer being needed. You can pile as much evidence as you want in front of him, but he'll continue to deny it, as accepting any such evidence is denying his faith.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So you weren’t being serious?

I get it. You’re just a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

My statements are no more ludicrous than what you've been spouting on here for months.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
For Sharkey to admit that the appendix has no function, he has to concede that humans evolved at some point, which resulted in the appendix no longer being needed. You can pile as much evidence as you want in front of him, but he'll continue to deny it, as accepting any such evidence is denying his faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey,

if this is true, can you explain why its against your faith??

I mean, i just dont see how a functionless organ goes against the idea of God. You can just say "God put it there" and you cant argue with that.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For Sharkey to admit that the appendix has no function, he has to concede that humans evolved at some point, which resulted in the appendix no longer being needed. You can pile as much evidence as you want in front of him, but he'll continue to deny it, as accepting any such evidence is denying his faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey,

if this is true, can you explain why its against your faith??

I mean, i just dont see how a functionless organ goes against the idea of God. You can just say "God put it there" and you cant argue with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question of the functionality of the appendix is not a faith issue for me.

I have stopped trying to make sense of what he’s talking about.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For Sharkey to admit that the appendix has no function, he has to concede that humans evolved at some point, which resulted in the appendix no longer being needed. You can pile as much evidence as you want in front of him, but he'll continue to deny it, as accepting any such evidence is denying his faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey,

if this is true, can you explain why its against your faith??

I mean, i just dont see how a functionless organ goes against the idea of God. You can just say "God put it there" and you cant argue with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question of the functionality of the appendix is not a faith issue for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, then answer this: Do you believe that it's possible that the appendix served a purpose for our ancestors that is no longer needed today? Or do you believe that the structure and purpose of the appendix has remained unchanged throughout human history?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For Sharkey to admit that the appendix has no function, he has to concede that humans evolved at some point, which resulted in the appendix no longer being needed. You can pile as much evidence as you want in front of him, but he'll continue to deny it, as accepting any such evidence is denying his faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey,

if this is true, can you explain why its against your faith??

I mean, i just dont see how a functionless organ goes against the idea of God. You can just say "God put it there" and you cant argue with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should think you'd want to logically answer WHY God put it there.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
That's the thing. We can't find an intended purpose!



Which doesn’t mean a purpose won’t be found in 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what a way to go through life... You are unwilling to form a conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence, because a different answer might arise in 10 years? Or in 100 years?



[ QUOTE ]
Any KNOWN negative effects. Unless you COMPLETELY understand the human body, that is all you can say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What else do you need? There have been no KNOWN negative effects in millions of cases. This is not enough for you? Seriously, I can't imagine what it's like to live in your world. Do you refuse to take pennicillin, because there are no KNOWN reasons why it might kill you in 30 years? How about airplanes? Do you refuse to ride on one because there are no KNOWN reasons why it's not safe? What a ridiculous way to think and live.

[Lestat]

You're right. I suppose I'm speaking more to creationists or at the very least, IDists.

Still, I would have a LOT of problems with evolution if I were any kind of Christian theist. I could never get past the bible, that's for sure.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that it's possible that the appendix served a purpose for our ancestors that is no longer needed today?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not a question of “belief” with me. I don’t rule out the possibility.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the thing. We can't find an intended purpose!

[/ QUOTE ]

Which doesn’t mean a purpose won’t be found in 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what a way to go through life... You are unwilling to form a conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence, because a different answer might arise in 10 years? Or in 100 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn’t “overwhelming evidence” in this matter. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any KNOWN negative effects. Unless you COMPLETELY understand the human body, that is all you can say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What else do you need? There have been no KNOWN negative effects in millions of cases. This is not enough for you? Seriously, I can't imagine what it's like to live in your world. Do you refuse to take pennicillin, because there are no KNOWN reasons why it might kill you in 30 years? How about airplanes? Do you refuse to ride on one because there are no KNOWN reasons why it's not safe? What a ridiculous way to think and live.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just it: no KNOWN negative effects, which is good enough to fly a plane or take antibiotics but not good enough to make blanket statements like “no function”, unless you are lacking a proper grasp of logic.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> There isn’t “overwhelming evidence” in this matter. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. </font>

Why can't absence of evidence BE evidence? At the very least, why can't it be enough to base a reasonable conclusion from?

I think this pinpoints the basic difference between a theistic and atheistic mind. I do not saddle myself with carrying around an umbrella all day when I see sunny skies and all weather reports call for clear skies. A complete absence of evidence for rain, means I am not going to worry about rain.

The absence of any evidence that the appendix has a function means it is reasonable to conclude it has no function. But you're right... A function may be discovered down the road. But I say, so what? There's no reason to think so now.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not saddle myself with carrying around an umbrella all day when I see sunny skies and all weather reports call for clear skies. A complete absence of evidence for rain, means I am not going to worry about rain.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your way of reaching conclusions, clear skies today means it won’t rain ever again.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> There isn’t “overwhelming evidence” in this matter. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. </font>

Why can't absence of evidence BE evidence? At the very least, why can't it be enough to base a reasonable conclusion from?

I think this pinpoints the basic difference between a theistic and atheistic mind. I do not saddle myself with carrying around an umbrella all day when I see sunny skies and all weather reports call for clear skies. A complete absence of evidence for rain, means I am not going to worry about rain.

The absence of any evidence that the appendix has a function means it is reasonable to conclude it has no function. But you're right... A function may be discovered down the road. But I say, so what? There's no reason to think so now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know if this even fits into the discussion, but:

You're coming off fairly unscientific here Lestat, and I'm being kind. You can't "base a conclusion" on the fact that there isn't evidence to the contrary.
The difference between someone concluding that there will be no rain and someone concluding that is unlikely to rain is the difference between an unscientific and scientific mind, not a theistic and atheistic one.

The positive evidence that removal of the appendix causes no ill effects does suggest that it has no neccesary function. This is different from what you said.

Nobody is suggesting that you carry an umbrella around, it isn't worth the trouble when the chance of rain is so miniscule, but we would request that you apply scientific rigor.

For example, in my research, other researchers have suggested that cells in a particular part of the body are connected with pores called gap junctions. These gap junctions cannot be found with microscopes; but these people say that they are simply too small to be found. These gap junctions can't be found by staining for then; these people say that they are too few in number to find. Now we're applying drugs that block these gap junctions, and showing that nothing will happen; these people are going to say that the drugs didn't get where they were supposed to.
And, while it annoys me, there is nothing wrong with that - it forces everyone to maintain the highest standards of evidence before "concluding" something

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> There isn’t “overwhelming evidence” in this matter. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. </font>

Why can't absence of evidence BE evidence? At the very least, why can't it be enough to base a reasonable conclusion from?

I think this pinpoints the basic difference between a theistic and atheistic mind. I do not saddle myself with carrying around an umbrella all day when I see sunny skies and all weather reports call for clear skies. A complete absence of evidence for rain, means I am not going to worry about rain.

The absence of any evidence that the appendix has a function means it is reasonable to conclude it has no function. But you're right... A function may be discovered down the road. But I say, so what? There's no reason to think so now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you back on page 1 that the twit would have no defense other than his usual hiding behind big words and unreachable standards of proof:

Well if you take it out then nothing happens. Thats a pretty strong example of how it doesnt do anything.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It doesnt do anything that science has been able to identify. That doesnt mean it really is useless. In fact it could be the key to St Peters gate, and if you dont have one you will be identified as a Sit n Go bot and banned from heaven for eternity.

God works in ridiculous ways.

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey,

If a big snake gives birth to a little snake, what will that little snake grow up to become?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> You're coming off fairly unscientific here Lestat, and I'm being kind. </font>

I'm the first to admit that I'm not a scientist and have much to learn and am very willing to do so.

<font color="blue"> You can't "base a conclusion" on the fact that there isn't evidence to the contrary. </font>

Why not and what do you mean by "conclusion"? I thought hard conclusions were never present in science, only predictions. Why can't absence of evidence be used to form a prediction? An absence of evidence that a volcano is likely to erupt, means it is reasonably predictable that there will be no eruption today and scientists can get right up to the dome and take measurements.

Same goes for rain, gods, gnomes, and pixies. Absence of evidence means you don't base your life around these things without any evidence for them being present.

<font color="blue">The positive evidence that removal of the appendix causes no ill effects does suggest that it has no neccesary function. </font>

What am I saying? Maybe I'm not being careful enough with my words, but this is exactly what I mean. It can be predicted that the appendix has no necessary function. The fact that we might be missing some known possible functions for the appendix (as Sharkey pointed out), is irrelevant. We do know it is not necessary and that is my point. The absence of evidence for any necessary function of the appendix means we can predict it is not necessary. How is this wrong?

[Sparkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

If a big snake gives birth to a little snake, what will that little snake grow up to become?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for what will hapeen to every little snake born to a big snake.

[Carl_William]

Having two kidneys is a gift. It might also give our bodies some balance. But kidneys are critical and having two is evolution's forsight that sometimes redundancy is a good thing. Design engineers often add a redundant element for critical parts in airplanes. For instance the probability that the plane's hydraulic system might fail might be estimated to be one in 10,000 trips, but the proability that both parts would fail at the same time is only once in 100 million chances.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And, while it annoys me, there is nothing wrong with that - it forces everyone to maintain the highest standards of evidence before "concluding" something

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't there be some application of burden of proof" falling to the side making the positive claim? Isn't Burden of Proof one basis for the scientific method? Scientists don't need to run around proving the negative of every wacko claim.

The appendix has a function. is the positive claim.
It's fine to allow for the posibility it does, but until somebody does the eureka routine there is no reason to think it is the one instance where "you can't prove me wrong, therefore I am right" is allowed precedence.

Isn't the pride of science, 'peer review', based on the burden of proof concept?

luckyme

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

If a big snake gives birth to a little snake, what will that little snake grow up to become?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for what will hapeen to every little snake born to a big snake.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...you're a gimmick account for a gimmick account!

[Sharkey]

Neither function nor non-function has been proven in the case of the appendix.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

If a big snake gives birth to a little snake, what will that little snake grow up to become?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for what will hapeen to every little snake born to a big snake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please verify if you're being serious or not. It's telling that I can't tell. If you ARE serious, then with that I can basically put you on ignore. I've been duped into thinking you were seriously debating when all you've been doing is making a mockery of debate.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

If a big snake gives birth to a little snake, what will that little snake grow up to become?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for what will hapeen to every little snake born to a big snake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please verify if you're being serious or not. It's telling that I can't tell. If you ARE serious, then with that I can basically put you on ignore. I've been duped into thinking you were seriously debating when all you've been doing is making a mockery of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s yet another troll chiming in without a cogent argument.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

If a big snake gives birth to a little snake, what will that little snake grow up to become?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has publicly proposed a theory that is both Sufficient and Falsifiable to account for what will hapeen to every little snake born to a big snake.

[/ QUOTE ]

For [censored] sakes the answer was 'big snake'

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither function nor non-function has been proven in the case of the appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey ! my 1st ignoree. takes a lot.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither function nor non-function has been proven in the case of the appendix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey ! my 1st ignoree. takes a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain please.

[MidGe]

I am amazed that sharkey has not come up with the reason for the appendix.

Removal of appendix is not a routine operation done for no reason. It is usually done either when pain is too great or there is a danger of peritonitis and death to the patient if it wasn't removed. When removed it in no way affect the patient negatively. Thus it has no function that is needed. It is however a vestigial organ supporting evolution.

It sems obvious to me that the reason for the appendix is to inflict suffering to humans, or it is a sign of somewhat incompetent design if that is not the motive.

[Lestat]

Are you serious?

Cuz me too!

[Sharkey]

You presume the purpose of the design is comprehensible to you.

That is not a given.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious?

Cuz me too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I've done it. His posts come up as "you are ignoring this user". Strange for me ( having a solipsist for a best friend), but it wasn't his position that did it.

I was starting to think I was responding to a computer generation of 6 stock comments, and the comments rarely corresponded to the posts they were 'replying' to.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amazed that sharkey has not come up with the reason for the appendix.

Removal of appendix is not a routine operation done for no reason. It is usually done either when pain is too great or there is a danger of peritonitis and death to the patient if it wasn't removed. When removed it in no way affect the patient negatively. Thus it has no function that is needed. It is however a vestigial organ supporting evolution.

It sems obvious to me that the reason for the appendix is to inflict suffering to humans, or it is a sign of somewhat incompetent design if that is not the motive.

[/ QUOTE ]
God obviously directs evolution to some final design. The appendix has a function, just not yet.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious?

Cuz me too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I've done it. His posts come up as "you are ignoring this user". Strange for me ( having a solipsist for a best friend), but it wasn't his position that did it.

I was starting to think I was responding to a computer generation of 6 stock comments, and the comments rarely corresponded to the posts they were 'replying' to.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

That you would think like that only reveals the tight little circle you are unable to escape. If you had understood the first six lessons, you would have been ready to proceed, but alas there is no teaching you anything.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> You can't "base a conclusion" on the fact that there isn't evidence to the contrary. </font>

Why not and what do you mean by "conclusion"? I thought hard conclusions were never present in science, only predictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see that you understand this clearly, maybe the only issue here is misunderstanding the wording

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't absence of evidence be used to form a prediction? An absence of evidence that a volcano is likely to erupt, means it is reasonably predictable that there will be no eruption today and scientists can get right up to the dome and take measurements.

Same goes for rain, gods, gnomes, and pixies. Absence of evidence means you don't base your life around these things without any evidence for them being present.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I found the point that I'm trying to make in a response to a 2004 editorial in the British Medical Journal.:
...Not finding me at home is evidence of my absence... But the point of the statement is that someone should have taken the trouble to look.

For you to say that a volcano is probably not going to erupt, you really do need to look for all the classical signs of eruption and find them to be absent. This is why I said you need to take out the appendix and see what happens - you agreed with that whole heartedly, so again I must say that I'm sorry, I think you do understand what I'm talking about, but the wording has been the problem.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s yet another troll chiming in without a cogent argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it is quite telling that people couldn't tell the difference between the two of you!

[Sharkey]

That was intentional, to trick the careless.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
That was intentional, to trick the careless.

[/ QUOTE ]


Whatever the intent was, the result was that a ludicrous statement was easily attributable to you. If postings were anonymous yours would still bear the unmistakeable stench of Sharkey. Kinda like overripe Liederkranz.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
And it is quite telling that people couldn't tell the difference between the two of you!

[/ QUOTE ]

It was more than a full day after reading (and responding to) the post that I realized that it wasnt actually sharkey

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the intent was, the result was that a ludicrous statement was easily attributable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, FASLELY attributable to me.

Hilarious! You are too easy. Go back to the shallow end.

[pilliwinks]

For what it's worth, I seriously doubt we have a redundant kidney. When you are healthy and hydrated, sure, you could unplug one, but if you get sick or dry... You'd need to ask a kidney donor, but I have no plan to be one!

As for appendices, come on guys. We all know Sharkey wants to have holy writ before he accepts 'substantive proof', so there's no point bothering him with the pointless findings of modern science. If this is an unfair characterisation of his viewpoint, perhaps he could provide us with a scientific fact for which he considers that there is adequate evidence. This would be unwise of him, as it would invite comparison with the many theories he disputes, so I can't see him biting!

He should, of course, have used the classic anti-evolution argument that the appendix is a stumbling block for evolution. If you agree that the appendix has no benefits and sometimes kills you, then by the supposed laws of evolution, it should be lost. But here it is...

Of course, there is the classic counter-counter argument that says there is an advantage - you can't simply not make an appendix without seriously messing with the developmental program that makes your gut. And that leads to bad, bad consequences. Of course you are accepting on faith that there is no easy way to not make an appendix, but them's the breaks if you believe in evolution...

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I seriously doubt we have a redundant kidney. When you are healthy and hydrated, sure, you could unplug one, but if you get sick or dry... You'd need to ask a kidney donor, but I have no plan to be one!

As for appendices, come on guys. We all know Sharkey wants to have holy writ before he accepts 'substantive proof', so there's no point bothering him with the pointless findings of modern science. If this is an unfair characterisation of his viewpoint, perhaps he could provide us with a scientific fact for which he considers that there is adequate evidence. This would be unwise of him, as it would invite comparison with the many theories he disputes, so I can't see him biting!

He should, of course, have used the classic anti-evolution argument that the appendix is a stumbling block for evolution. If you agree that the appendix has no benefits and sometimes kills you, then by the supposed laws of evolution, it should be lost. But here it is...

Of course, there is the classic counter-counter argument that says there is an advantage - you can't simply not make an appendix without seriously messing with the developmental program that makes your gut. And that leads to bad, bad consequences. Of course you are accepting on faith that there is no easy way to not make an appendix, but them's the breaks if you believe in evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

Having my share of kidney problems over the last 12 years I can tell you that only 1 is needed to function normally.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
We all know Sharkey wants to have holy writ before he accepts 'substantive proof', so there's no point bothering him with the pointless findings of modern science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that supposed to be a reality-based statement?

If so, provide a link to a post where I used holy writ in support of my position. Show me where an argument I made was not based on the established methods of science.

[ QUOTE ]
He should, of course, have used the classic anti-evolution argument that the appendix is a stumbling block for evolution. If you agree that the appendix has no benefits and sometimes kills you, then by the supposed laws of evolution, it should be lost. But here it is...

Of course, there is the classic counter-counter argument that says there is an advantage - you can't simply not make an appendix without seriously messing with the developmental program that makes your gut. And that leads to bad, bad consequences. Of course you are accepting on faith that there is no easy way to not make an appendix, but them's the breaks if you believe in evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an “angels dancing on the head of a pin” type of discussion until you produce a theory that is falsifiably sufficient in explanation of the evolution you imagine took place. Only then can a verdict be reached in accord with science.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I seriously doubt we have a redundant kidney. When you are healthy and hydrated, sure, you could unplug one...


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this defines a redundant kidney.

But if you'd like to discuss something that seems to break down less, how about having two testicles?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, provide a link to a post where I used holy writ in support of my position. Show me where an argument I made was not based on the established methods of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=0&amp;Forum=All_Forums&amp;Name=57443&amp;Sea rchpage=0&amp;Limit=250&amp;&amp;fromsearch=1&amp;fromprof=1)

[Sharkey]

Non-responsive.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so, provide a link to a post where I used holy writ in support of my position. Show me where an argument I made was not based on the established methods of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=0&amp;Forum=All_Forums&amp;Name=57443&amp;Sea rchpage=0&amp;Limit=250&amp;&amp;fromsearch=1&amp;fromprof=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

^5

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Non-responsive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like a self-referential statement. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We all know Sharkey wants to have holy writ before he accepts 'substantive proof', so there's no point bothering him with the pointless findings of modern science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that supposed to be a reality-based statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's supposed to be amusing hyperbole.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, provide a link to a post where I used holy writ in support of my position. Show me where an argument I made was not based on the established methods of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Relax, I never said you cited holy writ. I said that's all you'd accept. I would genuinely like to know a theorem that you think there IS acceptable scientific evidence for. If you can't think of any, I think my statement stands.

So far I have only seen you declare evidence that others have put forward unacceptable. This may be quite right, too. But rather than us wasting your time with speculative and unfounded hypotheses, why don't you show us what real science looks like? Name a scientific theorem that is acceptable to you, and explain why.

Or perhaps you really think that science is futile. You would not be alone. I feel that way myself sometimes, when six months' work ends up in the trash. I usually get over it, though.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Relax, I never said you cited holy writ. I said that's all you'd accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a fantasy of yours, or can you quote me making such a requirement?

[ QUOTE ]
So far I have only seen you declare evidence that others have put forward unacceptable. This may be quite right, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good.

[ QUOTE ]
Name a scientific theorem that is acceptable to you, and explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any theorem so designated under general scientific usage is acceptable, or at least I have not encountered a contrary example. The usual reasons for the designation are also acceptable.

Do you know what you are talking about? It doesn’t look like it. What do you imagine to be an example of the formulation of the observable sufficient causes of the origin of the species in theorem form?

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps you really think that science is futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, quite the opposite. I think it’s worth doing right.

[Trantor]

The appendix is a substantial piece of tissue and could be expected to have a purpose according to evolutionary expectations. If no use why not discarded?

One "use" that seems to havve been demonstrated:

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Name a scientific theorem that is acceptable to you, and explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any theorem so designated under general scientific usage is acceptable, or at least I have not encountered a contrary example. The usual reasons for the designation are also acceptable.[ QUOTE ]


That sounds generous. I don't want to be mistaken here, though, so could you please give a concrete example? Just one, along with an outline of the evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what you are talking about? It doesn’t look like it. What do you imagine to be an example of the formulation of the observable sufficient causes of the origin of the species in theorem form?[ QUOTE ]


Very possibly not. Not in the sense you mean. I doubt that you can put forward any scientific theorem that fits these requirements. I very much doubt that you can put forward a biological theorem in this form, and I am virtually certain that you can't put forward a historical biological theorem that you would find acceptable.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what you are talking about? It doesn’t look like it. What do you imagine to be an example of the formulation of the observable sufficient causes of the origin of the species in theorem form?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very possibly not. Not in the sense you mean. I doubt that you can put forward any scientific theorem that fits these requirements. I very much doubt that you can put forward a biological theorem in this form, and I am virtually certain that you can't put forward a historical biological theorem that you would find acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The well-known historical biological Marginal Value Theorem is of a scientifically acceptable form, as it describes proposed outcomes in terms of observable sufficient causes.

[pilliwinks]

Great! Before I get carried away, though, could you just clarify whether you regard the MVT as just 'of an acceptable form', with no actual real life application, or whether you think it is our best description of a real behaviour, or something in between?

[Sharkey]

You asked for an acceptable form, so I gave you one. Beyond that, I don’t have an opinion on the merits of the theorem.

[pilliwinks]

OK, so we'll put aside for the moment whether the theorem under consideration has merit or not, and start with an assessment of what constitutes an acceptable form.

In the case of the MVT, I am assuming that you regard the population densities, feed densities, feeding rates and 'give up' times as observable. And I hope we can agree that the proposed outcome is that animals will leave a depleted area when it becomes more profitable to move to a new area than to continue where they are.

The crunch seems to come when you say the theory proposes sufficient causes for the outcome.

Could you please explain how this works?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of the MVT, I am assuming that you regard the population densities, feed densities, feeding rates and 'give up' times as observable. And I hope we can agree that the proposed outcome is that animals will leave a depleted area when it becomes more profitable to move to a new area than to continue where they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good.

[ QUOTE ]
The crunch seems to come when you say the theory proposes sufficient causes for the outcome.

Could you please explain how this works?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given a defined set of observable preconditions, a certain outcome will follow.

Is this not clear somehow? Let me know, and I’ll clarify further if necessary.

[pilliwinks]

Ok, so I think we're on the same page. You start with preconditions, apply the theory, get an outcome, assess whether or not the outcome corresponds to the theoretical expectation, right?

And if you can formulate a theory in these terms, you would say it is an acceptable scientific theory (whether or not it turns out to be true).

In the case of MVT, the expected outcome is that the animals will maximise their energy input/output by moving on at the optimal time.

Now this is an acceptable scientific hypothesis whether or not anyone has made the observations, and whether or not they happen to fit the model, right?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so I think we're on the same page. You start with preconditions, apply the theory, get an outcome, assess whether or not the outcome corresponds to the theoretical expectation, right?

And if you can formulate a theory in these terms, you would say it is an acceptable scientific theory (whether or not it turns out to be true).

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct so far, though let’s be careful about drifting off into fairytales. Not that you would, but it happens.

The phrase “replicable sufficient cause” is key to the method in question. It implies that what you suppose to be the preconditions have to actually be the preconditions. This is established through controls that isolate the input variables in terms of measurable quantities.

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of MVT, the expected outcome is that the animals will maximise their energy input/output by moving on at the optimal time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The expected outcome is that animals move on at the optimal time in terms of the best use of available resources.

[ QUOTE ]
Now this is an acceptable scientific hypothesis whether or not anyone has made the observations, and whether or not they happen to fit the model, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Close enough.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
The phrase “replicable sufficient cause” is key to the method in question. It implies that what you suppose to be the preconditions have to actually be the preconditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it is essential that your measurements of initial conditions are correct and complete (for all the parameters used by the theory)? And that such measurements could be repeated to redo the experiment?

[ QUOTE ]
This is established through controls that isolate the input variables in terms of measurable quantities

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too sure about this either. Could you please explain in terms of the MVT? Do you mean there have to be ways to assess feeding rate where there is unlimited food, and ways of assessing food density with no animals present etc?

These all seem perfectly reasonable to me, I just want to be sure we're not talking at cross purposes about what is and what is not acceptable. I promise I'll get back to appendices.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that it is essential that your measurements of initial conditions are correct and complete (for all the parameters used by the theory)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we’re only concerned with correct form in this case, measurability would be enough.

[ QUOTE ]
And that such measurements could be repeated to redo the experiment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, though perhaps repeatable in principle will do for the sake of a thought experiment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is established through controls that isolate the input variables in terms of measurable quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please explain in terms of the MVT? Do you mean there have to be ways to assess feeding rate where there is unlimited food, and ways of assessing food density with no animals present etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply mean the experimenter must exclude all causal contributions to the outcome except the ones being measured. Are you getting at some sort of exhaustive ad infinitum accounting of the entire spectrum of possible starting values? I’m not sure what you mean here.

[ QUOTE ]
These all seem perfectly reasonable to me, I just want to be sure we're not talking at cross purposes about what is and what is not acceptable. I promise I'll get back to appendices.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re a tough customer. That’s a good thing.

[pilliwinks]

OK, so we have an acceptable form for a scientific theorem: it has starting conditions that are in principle measurable and replicable, parameters that are able to be varied in isolation (ie all other things being equal), a theorem that predicts outcomes, and measurable outcomes. So far so good. I agree that the MVT conforms to all these requirements.

Before we go on to consider theories relevant to appendices, I would just like to ask whether you would consider amending any of these requirements.

For example, a requirement for replicable controlled experiments necessarily removes the entire field of 'how did it come to be so?' questions. Several sciences are deeply interested in such questions: astronomy, archaeology, forensics, geology, meteorology and so on.

There is no doubt that it is exciting and productive to examine questions of 'what happens if I go X' and move from there to generalizable theories. However I suspect that most atmospheric physicists would be irritated if you scorned their theories on the basis that they simply cannot do replicable controlled experiments. Likewise Kepler, Brahe and the rest would exclaim that the fact that they cannot do any controls does not mean we should ignore their models for planetary orbits.

Can we modify the requirements to include that kind of science?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Several sciences are deeply interested in such questions: astronomy, archaeology, forensics, geology, meteorology and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot astrology, numerology, etc... I am sure they would be a concern for sharkey. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a requirement for replicable controlled experiments necessarily removes the entire field of 'how did it come to be so?' questions. Several sciences are deeply interested in such questions: astronomy, archaeology, forensics, geology, meteorology and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the interest of staying on the same page, please give me an example of a theorem from any of those fields that is in principle impossible to confirm through a replicable controlled experiment.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so we have an acceptable form for a scientific theorem: it has starting conditions that are in principle measurable and replicable, parameters that are able to be varied in isolation (ie all other things being equal), a theorem that predicts outcomes, and measurable outcomes. So far so good. I agree that the MVT conforms to all these requirements.

Before we go on to consider theories relevant to appendices, I would just like to ask whether you would consider amending any of these requirements.

For example, a requirement for replicable controlled experiments necessarily removes the entire field of 'how did it come to be so?' questions. Several sciences are deeply interested in such questions: astronomy, archaeology, forensics, geology, meteorology and so on.

There is no doubt that it is exciting and productive to examine questions of 'what happens if I go X' and move from there to generalizable theories. However I suspect that most atmospheric physicists would be irritated if you scorned their theories on the basis that they simply cannot do replicable controlled experiments. Likewise Kepler, Brahe and the rest would exclaim that the fact that they cannot do any controls does not mean we should ignore their models for planetary orbits.

Can we modify the requirements to include that kind of science?

[/ QUOTE ]

Replicable does not necessarily mean "repeatable" under the scientific method. There are several ways to satisfy replicability (from a University course on the scientific method):

1. Of course, developing a practical application or technology dependent on the theory is replication.
2. It's rare that anyone directly repeats a scientific experiment simply to verify results, except perhaps as a lab exercise in a course. More often the replication consists of building on the prior result. If everything works, we can assume the previous result was correct. If something fails, we go back and look for the weak link.
3. One-time events like the 2004 tsunami are replicable in that all the observations are consistent among themselves and with other tsunamis. We can do physical and computer models to try to match the observations, then see if future tsunamis bear those out.
4. Prediction is a corollary of replication. It amounts to making inferences about phenomena, then seeing if previously unknown data bear out the inferences. For example, when a bright supernova appeared in 1987, essentially every observation astronomers expected to see happened as predicted and right on schedule. Recently there was a discovery of early amphibians in northern Canada that came from a deliberate search of an area where the rocks were of the right age and environment of formation to have fossils of very early amphibians. This was a prediction based on the ideas of how amphibians evolved. Darwin's suggestion that birds had evolved from reptiles was spectacularly confirmed a couple of years later with the discovery of Archaeopteryx, which has feathers but a reptilian skeleton.
5. The conditions of early life are absolutely replicable. We can use physical and theoretical evidence about conditions on the early earth and try to replicate the chemistry. It will be a long process, but it is in principle replicable.

Any requirement more stringent than these is an attempt to discredit a theory a priori , and is not needed to be "good science".

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, a requirement for replicable controlled experiments necessarily removes the entire field of 'how did it come to be so?' questions. Several sciences are deeply interested in such questions: astronomy, archaeology, forensics, geology, meteorology and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the interest of staying on the same page, please give me an example of a theorem from any of those fields that is in principle impossible to confirm through a replicable controlled experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. How about Kepler's theorem that planetary orbits sweep out equal areas in equal time. You can replicate the observations as often as you like (if you're not too picky about exact conditions), but the point is you can't control any of the variables. You can't exclude that there may be a great huge lump of mass that swings in and out erratically messing with your velocities (like Uranus). You can't set up, or even find in nature a single planet experiment where you can alter things to test their effects.
In these cases all you can do, is take what nature gives you, and test to what extent your model fits the data.

Other sciences deal with one-offs, like supernovae, volcanic eruptions, murders etc. In these cases there is no option for good replicability let alone controls - you have to make do with similar situations, and again look for fit to the available data.

If that counts as acceptable to you, great. If not, we should sort out where the boundary lies.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, a requirement for replicable controlled experiments necessarily removes the entire field of 'how did it come to be so?' questions. Several sciences are deeply interested in such questions: astronomy, archaeology, forensics, geology, meteorology and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the interest of staying on the same page, please give me an example of a theorem from any of those fields that is in principle impossible to confirm through a replicable controlled experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. How about Kepler's theorem that planetary orbits sweep out equal areas in equal time. You can replicate the observations as often as you like (if you're not too picky about exact conditions), but the point is you can't control any of the variables. You can't exclude that there may be a great huge lump of mass that swings in and out erratically messing with your velocities (like Uranus). You can't set up, or even find in nature a single planet experiment where you can alter things to test their effects.
In these cases all you can do, is take what nature gives you, and test to what extent your model fits the data.

Other sciences deal with one-offs, like supernovae, volcanic eruptions, murders etc. In these cases there is no option for good replicability let alone controls - you have to make do with similar situations, and again look for fit to the available data.

If that counts as acceptable to you, great. If not, we should sort out where the boundary lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I asked for an example of a theorem that is in principle impossible to confirm through a replicable controlled experiment.

The component “in principle” is essential. The replication of the conditions of Kepler’s laws is not in principle impossible, so the theorem is formally correct from the standpoint that it deals with defined and measurable phenomena. As has already been made clear and apparently agreed by you several times, what we are discussing is correct scientific form. Again, proper science requires a description of observable sufficient cause.

Once this issue has been settled, I will know how to answer the other questions you have mentioned.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The component “in principle” is essential. The replication of the conditions of Kepler’s laws is not in principle impossible, so the theorem is formally correct from the standpoint that it deals with defined and measurable phenomena. As has already been made clear and apparently agreed by you several times, what we are discussing is correct scientific form. Again, proper science requires a description of observable sufficient cause.

Once this issue has been settled, I will know how to answer the other questions you have mentioned

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess, like evolution is "in principle" reproducible except from your limited viewpoint, sharkey.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about Kepler's theorem that planetary orbits sweep out equal areas in equal time. You can replicate the observations as often as you like (if you're not too picky about exact conditions), but the point is you can't control any of the variables. You can't exclude that there may be a great huge lump of mass that swings in and out erratically messing with your velocities (like Uranus). You can't set up, or even find in nature a single planet experiment where you can alter things to test their effects.
In these cases all you can do, is take what nature gives you, and test to what extent your model fits the data.

Other sciences deal with one-offs, like supernovae, volcanic eruptions, murders etc. In these cases there is no option for good replicability let alone controls - you have to make do with similar situations, and again look for fit to the available data.

If that counts as acceptable to you, great. If not, we should sort out where the boundary lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I asked for an example of a theorem that is in principle impossible to confirm through a replicable controlled experiment.

The component “in principle” is essential. The replication of the conditions of Kepler’s laws is not in principle impossible, so the theorem is formally correct from the standpoint that it deals with defined and measurable phenomena. As has already been made clear and apparently agreed by you several times, what we are discussing is correct scientific form. Again, proper science requires a description of observable sufficient cause.

Once this issue has been settled, I will know how to answer the other questions you have mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight - you are happy with experiments that can never be done, but are possible in principle. Kepler's laws cannot be subject to controlled experiment (though as I mentioned before I have no problem with their replicability). But I agree that one can imagine a controlled experiment for the theorem, and if that's enough, OK.

I hope you agree that such a form is necessary but not sufficient for a theorem to also be reputable science, but we're concerned just with form for the moment.

As far as I can see, the criteria you have laid out do not preclude any of the 'reputable' sciences, nor indeed the less reputable ones - after all one can imagine homeopathic theorems in such a form.

Now, is it your opinion that it is not possible to formulate a 'conventional' evolutionary biology theorem to explain appendices (or anything else), or are you simply pointing out that people here are not using such a form?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I can see, the criteria you have laid out do not preclude any of the 'reputable' sciences, nor indeed the less reputable ones - after all one can imagine homeopathic theorems in such a form.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s right. A proper formulation of cause and effect does not, in itself, prove anything. However, without such a basis for scientific investigation, you’re probably in Fairyland.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, is it your opinion that it is not possible to formulate a 'conventional' evolutionary biology theorem to explain appendices (or anything else), or are you simply pointing out that people here are not using such a form?

[/ QUOTE ]

My claim is that no published theorem has proposed sufficient causality to account for an evolutionary origin of the species exclusively in terms of measurable phenomena.

[AceofSpades]

Sharkey, are you saying that:

The evolution we can see/measure, is not enough to have produced the amount of species/diversity that exists?

[Sharkey]

The mutations we observe have not been show to be incremental steps in a larger process capable of producing significant novelty of morphological function. Saying “we observe change, evolution is a type of change, therefore we observe evolution” is not logical. Evolution of the sort required to produce the present diversity of species has not been observed.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The mutations we observe have not been show to be incremental steps in a larger process capable of producing significant novelty of morphological function. Saying “we observe change, evolution is a type of change, therefore we observe evolution” is not logical. Evolution of the sort required to produce the present diversity of species has not been observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it has...we are here.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it has...we are here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and to which we may add the tens of thousands of confirmations by subsequent discoveries and by the use of other sciences/techniques. Sharkey is simply putting his head in the sand like an ostrich.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it has...we are here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations. That’s a textbook example of the fallacy of Begging the Question.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, is it your opinion that it is not possible to formulate a 'conventional' evolutionary biology theorem to explain appendices (or anything else), or are you simply pointing out that people here are not using such a form?

[/ QUOTE ]

My claim is that no published theorem has proposed sufficient causality to account for an evolutionary origin of the species exclusively in terms of measurable phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big ask - sounds like you want the equivalent of a theorem that can account for the current position of all stars in our galaxy in terms of measurable phenomena. To me that seems a bit unwieldy - why not look at a smaller chunk of nature and see if we can generalise?

Here's a brief attempt to outline for you, using the form that we agreed was scientific, a smaller piece of the big picture. If we can agree on this, then we can discuss how well or badly it scales:

Initial conditions: A founder population of identical animals (say birds) on each of two well separated islands.

Parameters: Mutation rate, population size, generation time, selection pressures (type and severity).

Hypothesis: If differential selection is applied to the two islands and the populations survive, the two populations will diverge to the extent that:
1. they become separate species (ie breeding fails or the progeny are infertile), and
2. they acquire characteristics that are both adaptive and not found in the original population.
We further hypothesise that the time required for this to occur will vary in inverse proportion with the mutation rate and strength of selection, for those that survive.

Measurable outcomes: While running multiple setups of this test for (say) 500 million years, the breeding efficiency between the populations is occasionally tested. The adaptivity or otherwise of any change that arises in each population is tested by comparing a population carrying the change to an original population in terms of breeding success for (say) 20 generations under no mutation, but the same selective pressure.

Conclusions: If the populations do not at some point speciate under these conditions, and if previously absent adaptive changes do not arise that are specifically of benefit under the selection applied, then I would regard the theory as flawed.

Can we agree that this is a scientific form of the theory of evolution as applied to a single event?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My claim is that no published theorem has proposed sufficient causality to account for an evolutionary origin of the species exclusively in terms of measurable phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Initial conditions: A founder population of identical animals (say birds) on each of two well separated islands.

Parameters: Mutation rate, population size, generation time, selection pressures (type and severity).

Hypothesis: If differential selection is applied to the two islands and the populations survive, the two populations will diverge to the extent that:
1. they become separate species (ie breeding fails or the progeny are infertile), and
2. they acquire characteristics that are both adaptive and not found in the original population.
We further hypothesise that the time required for this to occur will vary in inverse proportion with the mutation rate and strength of selection, for those that survive.

Measurable outcomes: While running multiple setups of this test for (say) 500 million years, the breeding efficiency between the populations is occasionally tested. The adaptivity or otherwise of any change that arises in each population is tested by comparing a population carrying the change to an original population in terms of breeding success for (say) 20 generations under no mutation, but the same selective pressure.

Conclusions: If the populations do not at some point speciate under these conditions, and if previously absent adaptive changes do not arise that are specifically of benefit under the selection applied, then I would regard the theory as flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that “breeding fails or the progeny are infertile” is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of the necessary speciation. The same effect can be produced through processes of chromosomal manipulation (e.g. doubling) that do not in themselves lead to significantly distinct species.

Similarly, “characteristics that are both adaptive and not found in the original population” describes the divergence found within the single species Canis familiaris and is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of speciation. The described effect does not, in itself, lead to significantly distinct species.

What you have presented is not a description of sufficient causality to account for an evolutionary origin of the species.

[CharlesDarwin]

Sharkey,

You might be the single most convincing piece of evidence to date that man evolved from a lesser species.

[Sharkey]

That’s a weak argument, Charles.

[madnak]

Didn't you get the memo, Charles? Sharkey is God! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=554105 0&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=1)

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]

Notice that “breeding fails or the progeny are infertile” is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of the necessary speciation. The same effect can be produced through processes of chromosomal manipulation (e.g. doubling) that do not in themselves lead to significantly distinct species.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that infertility is only one criterion of speciation. A useful one IMHO, but only one. It would perhaps be best if you outline what you consider to be a more satisfactory criterion for speciation, and we can see where that leaves us.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, “characteristics that are both adaptive and not found in the original population” describes the divergence found within the single species Canis familiaris and is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quite agree. Of course the variation in dogs arose in mere hundreds of generations, but the point is valid - adaptive variation does not necessarily correllate with speciation. When we agree on what speciation is, we can see whether adaptive variations relate to it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
The described effect does not, in itself, lead to significantly distinct species.

[/ QUOTE ]

That smells a bit like dogma (excuse the pun). The experiment that I have outlined is able to test whether adaptation does in fact lead to significantly distinct species, or whether it operates independantly of speciation or indeed, has no effect. But we need to agree on what speciation is first.

[Sharkey]

Unfortunately, speciation is one of those terms that isn’t well defined. I don’t have a particular usage in mind. In addition to mutual infertility, the main criterion is that whatever you call speciation be extrapolatable to produce an arbitrarily wide (within reason) range of morphologies after being carried forward enough steps.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, speciation is one of those terms that isn’t well defined. I don’t have a particular usage in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep asking about trying to prove it then, sharkey?

Nevermind that this proof would only be one of the possible proof of evolution. Only one is needed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, speciation is one of those terms that isn’t well defined. I don’t have a particular usage in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep asking about trying to prove it then, sharkey?

[/ QUOTE ]

There can be no evolution without speciation of some sort. The particular definition adopted varies by what’s being discussed. As long as it’s agreed beforehand, there isn’t a problem. In fact, I require a very few minimum criteria, and after that almost any standard usage will do.

[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind that this proof would only be one of the possible proof of evolution. Only one is needed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Which makes it interesting that none has been presented.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, speciation is one of those terms that isn’t well defined. I don’t have a particular usage in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep asking about trying to prove it then, sharkey?

[/ QUOTE ]

There can be no evolution without speciation of some sort. The particular definition adopted varies by what’s being discussed. As long as it’s agreed beforehand, there isn’t a problem. In fact, I require a very few minimum criteria, and after that almost any standard usage will do.

[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind that this proof would only be one of the possible proof of evolution. Only one is needed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Which makes it interesting that none has been presented.

[/ QUOTE ]
proof that evolutionary processes could account for species diversity is fairly easy but you didn't want to go there.

You wanted to stick with science which has nothing to do with proof.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
proof that evolutionary processes could account for species diversity is fairly easy but you didn't want to go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, let’s go there!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
proof that evolutionary processes could account for species diversity is fairly easy but you didn't want to go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, let’s go there!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok lets go back to the beginning. Find that post of yours on first member where I introduced a very simple model of an evolving system and respond to it.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
proof that evolutionary processes could account for species diversity is fairly easy but you didn't want to go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, let’s go there!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok lets go back to the beginning. Find that post of yours on first member where I introduced a very simple model of an evolving system and respond to it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a while ago. A link would be helpful.

And in case you haven’t participated, the discussion has evolved (couldn’t resist) since the early days of the first member argument.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
proof that evolutionary processes could account for species diversity is fairly easy but you didn't want to go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means, let’s go there!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok lets go back to the beginning. Find that post of yours on first member where I introduced a very simple model of an evolving system and respond to it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a while ago. A link would be helpful.

And in case you haven’t participated, the discussion has evolved (couldn’t resist) since the early days of the first member argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah a link would be helpful but as you abandoned it perhaps you could find it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The argument has evolved very little - it certainly hasn't speciated yet.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument has evolved very little - it certainly hasn't speciated yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Tarzan.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, speciation is one of those terms that isn’t well defined. I don’t have a particular usage in mind. In addition to mutual infertility, the main criterion is that whatever you call speciation be extrapolatable to produce an arbitrarily wide (within reason) range of morphologies after being carried forward enough steps.

[/ QUOTE ]

No-one will dispute the reproductive isolation part, so we'll take that as read.

If the definition of speciation is: a process that can give rise to arbitrarily diverged organisms, at what point do you decide that you have gone far enough to have made some distinct species? This is obviously crucial if we are to have a scientific formulation: we need a measurable outcome.

Could you make an acceptable end-point that we can agree shows speciation at work? This is important to estimate the amount of time required. It would be convenient if you would accept the divergence between what we currently regard as well separated species (how about tigers and lions?). Note that this is to demonstrate the process of making separate species by evolution, and later we can look at whether that scales to the whole of nature (ie the origin of genera, families and kingdoms).

[Sharkey]

It’s obvious there is a certain ambiguity here, so, in the interest of moving forward, I will allow your side of the debate the benefit of the doubt and require only the minimum performance necessary to satisfy the criteria of scientific form we agreed earlier. Accordingly:

[ QUOTE ]
If the definition of speciation is: a process that can give rise to arbitrarily diverged organisms, at what point do you decide that you have gone far enough to have made some distinct species?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point at which you have observable causal sufficiency to extrapolate arbitrarily forward, wherever that is and however you are able to establish it.

[pilliwinks]

I'm not sure if that helps. This seems to defines species in terms of what they can become rather than what they are. I can't see how you could decide whether (say) trout and salmon were separate species. They're different, but are they different enough to extrapolate to tuna and basking sharks?

I think whatever definition of species we come up with has to be able to discriminate what we currently describe as clearly different species, otherwise we are defining something other than species!

Could you try to adjust the definition, or explain it further, so that we can see how it clearly identifies apples and pears as different species?

[Sharkey]

Those are my minimum requirements, in accord with proper scientific form.

On that basis, any definition within reason should be acceptable. Your choice.

[pilliwinks]

OK, how about we go with the difference between the lion, tiger, leopard and jaguar (the four species in the Genus Panthera). I think everyone would agree that these are distinct species. In this case some hybrids can be made artificially, though they don't occur in the wild and most are infertile. From molecular data they are estimated to be diverged for more than 6My (ie they are about as different at the DNA level as man and chimp).

If we're happy that these represent distinct species, and can be used as a comparison to establish whether or not speciation has occurred in an experimental setting then we can move forward.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone would agree that these are distinct species.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if hybrids can be made, they are not mutually infertile, but since I neglected to repeat that requirement, I’ll have to let you have your definition.

Let’s move this thing forward.

[pilliwinks]

Don't worry, the plan is to use this in addition to reproductive isolation, which we agreed should be a criterion.

So now we have a slightly modified formulation of the theory of evolution as it relates to the formation of distinct species:

Initial conditions: A founder population of identical animals (say birds) on each of two well separated islands.

Parameters: Mutation rate, population size, generation time, selection pressures (type and severity).

Hypothesis: If differential selection is applied to the two islands and the populations survive, the two populations will diverge to the extent that:
1. they become separate species (ie breeding fails or the progeny are infertile), and
2. they acquire characteristics that are both adaptive and not found in the original population, and
3. the populations will become at least as different from each other as the species found in a typical existing genus such as Panthera.
We further hypothesise that the time required for this to occur will vary in inverse proportion with the mutation rate and strength of selection, for those that survive.

Measurable outcomes:
1. While running multiple setups of this test for (say) 500 million years, the breeding efficiency between the populations is occasionally tested.
2. The adaptivity or otherwise of any change that arises in each population is tested by comparing a population carrying the change to an original population in terms of breeding success for (say) 20 generations under no mutation, but the same selective pressure.
3. The differences between the two populations are assessed by at least 4 methods: food source, life cycle, external morphology and DNA sequence. In each case, the range of each characteristic within each population is compared to the range found in the other population, and this measure of divergence is compared with the divergence seen between recognised species in a typical genus such as Panthera.

Conclusions: If the populations do not at some point reach the level of divergence seen in present day genera as measured by body plan, lifestyle and genome, as well as being reproductively isolated and acquiring adaptive characters, then I would regard the theory as flawed.

Can we agree that this is a scientific form of the theory of evolution as applied to a single event?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry, the plan is to use this in addition to reproductive isolation, which we agreed should be a criterion.

So now we have a slightly modified formulation of the theory of evolution as it relates to the formation of distinct species:

Initial conditions: A founder population of identical animals (say birds) on each of two well separated islands.

Parameters: Mutation rate, population size, generation time, selection pressures (type and severity).

Hypothesis: If differential selection is applied to the two islands and the populations survive, the two populations will diverge to the extent that:
1. they become separate species (ie breeding fails or the progeny are infertile), and
2. they acquire characteristics that are both adaptive and not found in the original population, and
3. the populations will become at least as different from each other as the species found in a typical existing genus such as Panthera.
We further hypothesise that the time required for this to occur will vary in inverse proportion with the mutation rate and strength of selection, for those that survive.

Measurable outcomes:
1. While running multiple setups of this test for (say) 500 million years, the breeding efficiency between the populations is occasionally tested.
2. The adaptivity or otherwise of any change that arises in each population is tested by comparing a population carrying the change to an original population in terms of breeding success for (say) 20 generations under no mutation, but the same selective pressure.
3. The differences between the two populations are assessed by at least 4 methods: food source, life cycle, external morphology and DNA sequence. In each case, the range of each characteristic within each population is compared to the range found in the other population, and this measure of divergence is compared with the divergence seen between recognised species in a typical genus such as Panthera.

Conclusions: If the populations do not at some point reach the level of divergence seen in present day genera as measured by body plan, lifestyle and genome, as well as being reproductively isolated and acquiring adaptive characters, then I would regard the theory as flawed.

Can we agree that this is a scientific form of the theory of evolution as applied to a single event?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the conclusion would be justified based on a single experiment, which is what seems to be proposed here. Since the genetic mutations that drive evolution are random, their non-existence in this experiment is possible, but does not disprove evolution.

You also mention the "type and severity" of selection pressure. Is that even measurable? Eg. I believe there is very little selection pressure on [censored] sapiens at this point, and even reproductive isolation is unlikely to yield such distinct selection pressures. However, I dont know how you would go about measuring the pressures in two different environments.

[Sharkey]

The use of the form “if A then B” is merely a necessary condition. Similar narratives were given in the creation accounts of times past. For a storyline to be considered science, you have to produce either an observation of the process you claim exists, which in the case of evolution would be two species where one necessarily developed from the other as described, or the sufficient causes of the same process in terms of phenomena that are themselves observed. What you have outlined is more an experiment in aid of observing the consequences of a supposed causal relationship, rather than a theorem of observable causality in terms of measurable phenomena. The hypothetical process of evolution is an effect, not a cause.

Since there are no observations of two species where one necessarily developed from the other in a manner extrapolatable to evolution, where is your formulation of replicable sufficient cause, to get us from conditions to outcomes, in terms of phenomena that actually have been observed?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The use of the form “if A then B” is merely a necessary condition. Similar narratives were given in the creation accounts of times past. For a storyline to be considered science, you have to produce either an observation of the process you claim exists, which in the case of evolution would be two species where one necessarily developed from the other as described, or the sufficient causes of the same process in terms of phenomena that are themselves observed. What you have outlined is more an experiment in aid of observing the consequences of a supposed causal relationship, rather than a theorem of observable causality in terms of measurable phenomena. The hypothetical process of evolution is an effect, not a cause.

Since there are no observations of two species where one necessarily developed from the other in a manner extrapolatable to evolution, where is your formulation of replicable sufficient cause, to get us from conditions to outcomes, in terms of phenomena that actually have been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]


And this gets you back to the same dead end, because "replicable sufficient cause" is a Sharkeyism for "my standards for the scientific method", not standards that are generally applied in science.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
And this gets you back to the same dead end, because "replicable sufficient cause" is a Sharkeyism for "my standards for the scientific method", not standards that are generally applied in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that’s what you believe, then show me an example of a generally applied scientific theorem that is not expressed in terms of replicable sufficient cause.

[MrX]

Surgeons remove the cecum and appendix and create new urinary bladders for adults and children with dysfunctional bladders. The appendix is used as a stoma to connect the "neo-bladder" to the skin.

Perhaps God had this "use" in mind.

X

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps God had this "use" in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be darn sure “evolution” didn’t.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this gets you back to the same dead end, because "replicable sufficient cause" is a Sharkeyism for "my standards for the scientific method", not standards that are generally applied in science. [/quot

If that’s what you believe, then show me an example of a generally applied scientific theorem that is not expressed in terms of replicable sufficient cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me an reputable scientific journal/text that defines "replicable sufficient cause" and requires it as part of the SM

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If that&amp;#8217;s what you believe, then show me an example of a generally applied scientific theorem that is not expressed in terms of replicable sufficient cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first place, theorems aren't scientific. And "replicable sufficient cause" doesn't even exist. In fact, you made up both those terms. Take a look:

scientific theorem (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;safe=off&amp;c2coff=1&amp;client=opera&amp;rl s=en&amp;q="scientific+theorem"&amp;btnG=Search=Search)
replicable sufficient cause (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;safe=off&amp;c2coff=1&amp;client=opera&amp;rl s=en&amp;q="replicable+sufficient+cause"&amp;btnG=Search)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say theory instead of theorem, in spite of the repeated use. But "replicable sufficient cause" is gibberish.

Edited because UBB wanted to change my links.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If that&amp;#8217;s what you believe, then show me an example of a generally applied scientific theorem that is not expressed in terms of replicable sufficient cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say theory instead of theorem, in spite of the repeated use. But "replicable sufficient cause" is gibberish.

[/ QUOTE ]
At least its now crystal clear then when Sharkey says 'its not science' he isn't talking about what rest of us are talking about.

chez

[Sharkey]

Show me an example of a generally applied scientific theorem that is not expressed in terms of sufficient causes where each of which can be replicated (if that phraseology makes you happier).

You can start your search here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Physics_theorems

[madnak]

Oh well, looks like I can't edit my post any more. Just google "scientific theorem" or "replicable sufficient cause" to see that Sharkey invented the terms.

As for those theorems, Sharkey, none of them are scientific. Every one of them is mathematical. And of course, not one of them fits your criterion. Far from being expressed in terms of "sufficient causes" where "each of which is replicable," they are expressed mathematically, as you can see by following your own links.

[Sharkey]

All of those theorems are mathematical AND scientific AND expressed in terms of sufficient cause.

[madnak]

No. They aren't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem).

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
No. They aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one of them that is not, and explain why.

[madnak]

None of them are. See the definition of theorem. It's a proposition that follows from explicit logical rules based on well-defined assumptions. Sufficient cause is completely irrelevant. There is no empirical element to a theorem.

[Rduke55]

I love seeing Sharkey get pwned. Nice job Madnak.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
At least its now crystal clear then when Sharkey says 'its not science' he isn't talking about what rest of us are talking about.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I love seeing Sharkey get pwned. Nice job Madnak.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sharkey]

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
None of them are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the Maximum Power Theorem a theorem?

[ QUOTE ]
Sufficient cause is completely irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why does every standard scientific theorem express its propositions in terms of sufficient cause?

[ QUOTE ]
There is no empirical element to a theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the Maximum Power Theorem contain any component related to empirical observation?

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Physics_theorems

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Maximum Power Theorem a theorem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
Then why does every standard scientific theorem express its propositions in terms of sufficient cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't. You're going to have to justify that assertion before this goes any further.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the Maximum Power Theorem contain any component related to empirical observation?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the sense that it's based on premises which are empirically established perhaps. And maybe even in the sense that it's often applied in the empirical disciplines. But there is no empirical element in the construction of the maximum power theorem.

[Copernicus]

My guess is he is being obstinate about the difference between theorems and theories to delay being pwned on "replicable sufficient cause".

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then why does every standard scientific theorem express its propositions in terms of sufficient cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't. You're going to have to justify that assertion before this goes any further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, it’s impossible to go through every standard scientific theorem here to prove my point, but that’s okay.

All you have to do is post one example of an exception to my statement that every standard scientific theorem expresses its propositions in terms of sufficient cause. That should be easy, unless you have no idea what you’re doing.

Now put up or shut up.

[madnak]

I've already discussed at least one, the mazimum power theorem. The onus is on you to define sufficient cause and show how sufficient cause is present in the description of the maximum power theorem.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
The use of the form “if A then B” is merely a necessary condition. Similar narratives were given in the creation accounts of times past. For a storyline to be considered science, you have to produce either an observation of the process you claim exists, which in the case of evolution would be two species where one necessarily developed from the other as described, or the sufficient causes of the same process in terms of phenomena that are themselves observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that I have provided no reason to believe that this particular theorem is correct - that would require data.

[ QUOTE ]
What you have outlined is more an experiment in aid of observing the consequences of a supposed causal relationship, rather than a theorem of observable causality in terms of measurable phenomena. The hypothetical process of evolution is an effect, not a cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I have done is follow every requirement you have given for something to be a legitimate scientific theorem. Please indicate if there are any reqirements for the formulation of an acceptable scientific theorem like the MVT or Kepler's laws that I have not followed. Note that the process described by the MVT is also an effect, not a cause. So is gravity. We do not have to have decribed the graviton to have acceptable theories about how gravity works.

[ QUOTE ]
Since there are no observations of two species where one necessarily developed from the other in a manner extrapolatable to evolution, where is your formulation of replicable sufficient cause, to get us from conditions to outcomes, in terms of phenomena that actually have been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not claimed that such data exist. All I'm aiming for at this stage is to find a theorem that we can all agree is scientific. Then we can see what kind of evidence there is in support of it.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the conclusion would be justified based on a single experiment, which is what seems to be proposed here. Since the genetic mutations that drive evolution are random, their non-existence in this experiment is possible, but does not disprove evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggested running multiple setups to partly get at this question of reproducibility. In fact, the amount of time I'm allowing is at least 10-fold longer than I would expect to be required, so if you weren't seeing anything in a few such replicates, you would have serious cause for concern.

[ QUOTE ]
You also mention the "type and severity" of selection pressure. Is that even measurable? Eg. I believe there is very little selection pressure on [censored] sapiens at this point, and even reproductive isolation is unlikely to yield such distinct selection pressures. However, I dont know how you would go about measuring the pressures in two different environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fair point - I haven't elaborated on how divergent selection would be applied. The usual experimental method is to choose a varying characteristic in the original population and to select for the ends of that variation (ie for temp sensitivity, put one group on a hot island, and the other on a cold one). The strength of selection is usually measured in terms of the fraction of the population that do not breed because of that constraint (ie compared to an population without the temp change). As adaptation occurs you should see the strength of selection decrease.

In this kind of experiment, of course you would want to try a bunch of different selective pressures and strengths to see whether any were better than others at driving evolution.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I've already discussed at least one, the mazimum power theorem. The onus is on you to define sufficient cause and show how sufficient cause is present in the description of the maximum power theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the presence of x guarantees y, x is a sufficient cause of y.

In the case of the maximum power theorem, x is when the fixed internal resistance of the source is equal to that of the load, and y is maximum power being transferred to the load.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If the presence of x guarantees y, x is a sufficient cause of y.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this supposed to be your definition of sufficient cause? If so, it's not very clear. Are you saying that "sufficient cause" means a situation in which a conclusion is implied based on a given set of premises? So a syllogism qualifies as an example of sufficient cause?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the presence of x guarantees y, x is a sufficient cause of y.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this supposed to be your definition of sufficient cause? If so, it's not very clear. Are you saying that "sufficient cause" means a situation in which a conclusion is implied based on a given set of premises? So a syllogism qualifies as an example of sufficient cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhhhhh, getting a bit too close pinning Sparkey down, I think.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Please indicate if there are any reqirements for the formulation of an acceptable scientific theorem like the MVT or Kepler's laws that I have not followed.

[/ QUOTE ]

To consider a causality both replicable and sufficient, it is necessary that inputs are transformable to outputs by a known function of observable factors operating on measured variables.

1) MVT: forager location A =&gt; forager location B.

2) Kepler: planet location A =&gt; planet location B.

3) Evolution: species A =&gt; species B.

In the case of (1) and (2), each transformation is accomplished on the relevant variables through a defined function such that the values of the variables at the input are associated with corresponding output values through the operation of sufficient and observable causal factors. In the case of (3), the situation is different for several reasons, one of which is that an empirically sufficient description of difference in species is not known, so defining a function to associate with causal factors is impossible.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please indicate if there are any reqirements for the formulation of an acceptable scientific theorem like the MVT or Kepler's laws that I have not followed.

[/ QUOTE ]

To consider a causality both replicable and sufficient, it is necessary that inputs are transformable to outputs by a known function of observable factors operating on measured variables.

1) MVT: forager location A =&gt; forager location B.

2) Kepler: planet location A =&gt; planet location B.

3) Evolution: species A =&gt; species B.

In the case of (1) and (2), each transformation is accomplished on the relevant variables through a defined function such that the values of the variables at the input are associated with corresponding output values through the operation of sufficient and observable causal factors. In the case of (3), the situation is different for several reasons, one of which is that an empirically sufficient description of difference in species is not known, so defining a function to associate with causal factors is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it seems the main problem is in defining and discriminating species. That makes sense - if you can't define what you are looking for, then there's no way to detect whether you have it or not.

To make an 'empirically sufficient description of difference', you need a way to detect that forager location B is not A, that planet location B is not A, or that species B is not A. I don't think this is an impossible problem.

What we describe as 'species A' is a collection of individuals in the same way as Andromeda is a collection of stars. We do not have to define every star in Andromeda to look at how galaxies behave, and we can have criteria that allow us to decide whether we have two galaxies or one. They are not black/white criteria, but effective nonetheless.

Consequently, I think it is just a matter of coming up with a description of the difference between species that you can accept as legitimate. If you think there currently are more than one species, such a distinction must be possible, and you must be using it!

I am not advocating using doubtful criteria of species difference (such as 'just mitochondrial DNA differences'). I want to use whatever it is you use to say 'these are two species, not one'. That is why I was proposing looking at the differences that we see in current species, and saying 'to accept that they are different species they have to be at least this different'.

This seems a reasonable way to me to show that species B is not A.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
So it seems the main problem is in defining and discriminating species. That makes sense - if you can't define what you are looking for, then there's no way to detect whether you have it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Identifying a new species is only the beginning. You also need an empirically sufficient description of the difference between species A and species B.

[ QUOTE ]
What we describe as 'species A' is a collection of individuals in the same way as Andromeda is a collection of stars. We do not have to define every star in Andromeda to look at how galaxies behave, and we can have criteria that allow us to decide whether we have two galaxies or one. They are not black/white criteria, but effective nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criterion of mutual infertility is a useful objective difference, but that only solves part of the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, I think it is just a matter of coming up with a description of the difference between species that you can accept as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your examples from Panthera will do. Perhaps you’d like to add something.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think there currently are more than one species, such a distinction must be possible, and you must be using it!

[/ QUOTE ]

True, though all the distinctions available in the textbooks are post hoc, which means none of them is enough to serve as a basis for transforming (at least on paper) one species into another.

[vhawk01]

Lets just agree that there are no such things as species. Truly, any definition of 'species' will be flawed. You arent TRULY a different species than a chimpanzee. Its a more or less artificial distinction. Species exist along a continuum. At no point does Species A become Species B. It would be more precise to say that species AAAAAAAA becomes species AAAAAAAB, and then species AAAAAAAB becomes AAAAAABB, but even this is simply pushing the problem to degrees of precision, not accuracy.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You arent TRULY a different species than a chimpanzee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself, please.

It’s curious that the term species is as undefined as it is. My own preference is to define groups in terms of mutual fertility, which is an objective measure. As you point out, drawing lines between morphologies can be arbitrary.

[vhawk01]

I did NOT point out that drawing lines between morphologies can be arbitrary. I certainly agree that it is, but that was not my point. I am saying that drawing lines between species is arbitrary, and is only done as a 'convenient fiction,' to steal a phrase.

[vhawk01]

Here is what I mean: At no point did a [censored] erectus become a [censored] sapiens. It never happened. And, using that same logic, there was never a point where any member of the Australopithecines or whatever ancestral group you choose became a [censored]. Because there arent only 2 groups. There is a continuum of groups. I am terrible at expressing my views on internet forums, I must admit, so to prevent further misunderstandings, can I recommend a reading? I know this is the internet, and simply regurgitating other people's written opinions is laziness, but in this case I see no other option. If you have any inclination, check out The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, specifically the chapter The Salamander's Tale. Its only about 4-5 pages long, but it will shed some light on the difficulties of a definition of distinct species.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
My own preference is to define groups in terms of mutual fertility, which is an objective measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if two groups are physically capable of mating but cannot because of behavioural reasons?

Assume that these behaviour differences result in the two groups NEVER mating.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What if two groups are physically capable of mating but cannot because of behavioural reasons?

Assume that these behaviour differences result in the two groups NEVER mating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mutual fertility would be based on compatibility of genotype, nothing to do with actual specimens getting together.

[vhawk01]

Not in any definition of speciation I've ever heard of.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Not in any definition of speciation I've ever heard of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey only concerns himself with his own definitions.

[Sharkey]

To clarify, I have withdrawn all my objections to any general usage of the term species.

[pilliwinks]

OK, so can we agree that species are reproductively isolated populations that are morphologically, behaviourally and genetically distinct? That should cover it.

And if we can call such distinct populations species, then I would say we can determine whether or not an extended period of isolation, mutation and differential selection can generate two species from what was one.

Naturally we need to demonstrate sufficient cause, so we test with no mutation, and predict zero speciation. We also test no isolation, and predict much rarer/slower speciation. We also test purifying versus disruptive selection, and predict much rarer/slower speciation when the selection does not encourage differences.

Since we can design such tests, I think it is fair to conclude that the theory is actually a scientific one, whether or not it has any data to support it.

Can we get this far? All I ask is that we can agree not to discard the theory a priori, but rather move on to the question of whether it is a good scientific theory or a flawed one, or a completely discredited one.

[Sharkey]

That will do as far as a definition of species goes, but I think you’re only postponing the inevitable by using “reproductively isolated” rather than “mutually infertile” as a condition of speciation, yet that detail isn’t important at this point.

You asked me earlier for my criteria of proper scientific form, which I supplied. If they seem unreasonable, please let me know. Of course, no supporting data is required at this point.

Note that predictability of outcomes from conditions does not in itself establish observable sufficient cause. It is only one step in that direction. An obvious case in point is the difference between predicting a sunrise by merely projecting from past behaviour, versus describing the mechanics of planetary orbits. The latter gives resultants from starting values by means of measurable causes.

[pilliwinks]

Actually I say reproductively isolated rather than mutually infertile because plenty of well separated species are not mutually infertile, but are completely reproductively isolated. Like lions and jaguars. If you think jagulons mean that those two are not separate species, you can do so, but you'll find few zoologists to agree. But as you say, the detail is not important.

You gave your criteria for proper scientific form. I followed it, and concluded that evolution is a theory that can be stated in that form.

I am interested by the distinction you make between predicting sunrise and describing orbits. Those orbits were discovered in exactly the same way as sunrises: repeated observation. And a theory was made on the basis of those observations. They absolutely did 'merely project from past behaviour'. They had no clue why the planets should behave as they did. Are you suggesting that Kepler did not establish observable sufficient cause?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I am interested by the distinction you make between predicting sunrise and describing orbits. Those orbits were discovered in exactly the same way as sunrises: repeated observation. And a theory was made on the basis of those observations. They absolutely did 'merely project from past behaviour'. They had no clue why the planets should behave as they did. Are you suggesting that Kepler did not establish observable sufficient cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a significant distinction. Kepler is expressible in terms of replicable phenomena, i.e. the inverse square law of gravitation, etc.

Predicting another sunrise based merely on previous occurrences does not meet that standard. If the sun were to fail to rise, no replicable phenomena would be contradicted using such a method.

[pilliwinks]

I disagree. Kepler's laws are now a subset of the inverse square law of gravitation, but they certainly weren't when he came up with them. It was more than 50 years before anyone came up with a reason why it might be so.

Are you saying that for those 50 years his laws were not expressible in terms of replicable phenomena?

If the sun failed to rise it would absolutely contradict the well-established phenomenon of sunrise, in exactly the same way as Keplers laws would be contradicted if a planet's orbit turned out to be circular. I see no distinction.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Kepler's laws are now a subset of the inverse square law of gravitation, but they certainly weren't when he came up with them. It was more than 50 years before anyone came up with a reason why it might be so.

Are you saying that for those 50 years his laws were not expressible in terms of replicable phenomena?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, before Newton.

[ QUOTE ]
If the sun failed to rise it would absolutely contradict the well-established phenomenon of sunrise, in exactly the same way as Keplers laws would be contradicted if a planet's orbit turned out to be circular. I see no distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

The distinction is that the proposed causality for the sunrise is entirely circular, as it were. That is, the sun rises because the sun rises.

Such is not the case for the orbits of Kepler. That planets would follow those paths is required by universal phenomena that can be reproduced independently of what they are used to explain.

[pilliwinks]

Well I'm sure Mr Kepler would be most unimpressed by your assessment of his theories. He, and just about everyone else at the time (and since), felt that they were the cutting edge of science, making a profound and lasting contribution to our understanding of the solar system. It is almost certain that Kepler's third law was instrumental in Newton devising his laws of gravitation. Surely nobody disputes that they were, and remain, extremely accurate, powerful and generalizable descriptions of reality. Before Newton.

You seem to be saying that unless there is a theory of which your theory is a special case, then you have no sufficient cause. How do you avoid the infinite regress? How do we know that there is a sufficient cause for Newton's gravitation? Is there a theory that explains why there should be gravity? And if you think that general relativity does, is there a theory that explains why general relativity should hold?

There are of course several ways out of this, but I would like to know which you regard as acceptable.

[Sharkey]

For a theory to comprise a sufficient causality does not imply science. Many myths, including modern ones, meet this criterion. However, for the theory to also be replicable, every phenomena used in proceeding from conditions to outcomes must be individually observable. There is no requirement of inclusion in another theory.

[Lestat]

Sharkey,

Are you saying that because evolution is not directly observable (i.e. it cannot be witnessed in real time), nor replicable, that it should be dismissed as a valid theory?

There is much about evolution I do not understand and I have many questions on it. I think even experts are extremely surprised by certain aspects of evolution and have unanswered questions.

None of this means however, that evolution is is not a valid theory that makes the most sense on how species arrived at their current condition. I just do not understand how after seeing very strong evidence and expamples for evolution you or anyone can continue to dismiss it so out of hand.

It seems obvious that you and others cling to arguments against evolution only because accepting evolution throws your other beliefs out of whack.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that because evolution is not directly observable (i.e. it cannot be witnessed in real time), nor replicable, that it should be dismissed as a valid theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I am saying the theory of evolution does not propose an explanation that is both sufficient and replicable.

[ QUOTE ]
I just do not understand how after seeing very strong evidence and expamples for evolution you or anyone can continue to dismiss it so out of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution should not be dismissed out of hand. It should be investigated.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems obvious that you and others cling to arguments against evolution only because accepting evolution throws your other beliefs out of whack.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may seem obvious, but it is also incorrect.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution should not be dismissed out of hand. It should be investigated.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *is* being investigated, despite the best efforts of people such as yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems obvious that you and others cling to arguments against evolution only because accepting evolution throws your other beliefs out of whack.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It may seem obvious, but it is also incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

BS

[Sharkey]

Where’s my can of Troll-B-Gone?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Are you saying that because evolution is not directly observable (i.e. it cannot be witnessed in real time), nor replicable, that it should be dismissed as a valid theory?

There is much about evolution I do not understand and I have many questions on it. I think even experts are extremely surprised by certain aspects of evolution and have unanswered questions.

None of this means however, that evolution is is not a valid theory that makes the most sense on how species arrived at their current condition. I just do not understand how after seeing very strong evidence and expamples for evolution you or anyone can continue to dismiss it so out of hand.

It seems obvious that you and others cling to arguments against evolution only because accepting evolution throws your other beliefs out of whack.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of the scientific method, evolution is "replicable". Replication is not the same as repetition or even observing the entire process. Analysis of prior "experiments" (including nature itself) and making predictions meets the SM standard of being "Replicable" for example.

This is where Sharkey's arguments begin to diverge from the definitions accepted in the scientific community.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
In the context of the scientific method, evolution is "replicable". Replication is not the same as repetition or even observing the entire process. Analysis of prior "experiments" (including nature itself) and making predictions meets the SM standard of being "Replicable" for example.

This is where Sharkey's arguments begin to diverge from the definitions accepted in the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming there is a scientifically accepted definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence?

If so, please provide that definition and a source.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
For a theory to comprise a sufficient causality does not imply science. Many myths, including modern ones, meet this criterion. However, for the theory to also be replicable, every phenomena used in proceeding from conditions to outcomes must be individually observable. There is no requirement of inclusion in another theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so we'll set aside the 'sufficient cause' clause for a bit, and move on with what you call replicability. I think Copperknickers is right to point out that what you are calling replicability bears only a tenuous relationship to the standard definition, but so what. Either your criterion is a valid requirement or not, call it what you like.

The current demand seems to be for observation of intermediate states and separate observation of each process that leads to the outcome.

I'm not sure why these should be required, but I certainly agree that they are desirable in a theory. I also think they are fairly straightforwardly available for evolution.

I can show you mutation. I can show you selection. I can show you gene flow in real populations. I can show you reproductive isolation in isolated populations. I can show you single random mutations that result in dramatic body plan or behaviour changes. I can show you changes that build on other changes to give synergistic effects. What am I missing here?

I don't think there is any problem seeing the individual phenomena that are proposed to lead to speciation. Whether they work or not is another question.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Copperknickers is right to point out that what you are calling replicability bears only a tenuous relationship to the standard definition, but so what. Either your criterion is a valid requirement or not, call it what you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is a scientifically accepted definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence?

[ QUOTE ]
I can show you mutation. I can show you selection. I can show you gene flow in real populations. I can show you reproductive isolation in isolated populations. I can show you single random mutations that result in dramatic body plan or behaviour changes. I can show you changes that build on other changes to give synergistic effects. What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing either a) an observation of the claimed results, which in this case would be two significantly distinct species where one necessarily developed from the other as described, or b) evidence that the processes you list are enough to produce arbitrarily divergent species.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying there is a scientifically accepted definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence?

[/ QUOTE ]
Um. Yes. I've never seen an electron or a quark, but we assume they cause those replicable phenomena without us being able to observe them. But I suspect the problem we have here is not really about replicability so much as evidence. Data. Cold hard facts that admit of only one explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can show you mutation. I can show you selection. I can show you gene flow in real populations. I can show you reproductive isolation in isolated populations. I can show you single random mutations that result in dramatic body plan or behaviour changes. I can show you changes that build on other changes to give synergistic effects. What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing either a) an observation of the claimed results, which in this case would be two significantly distinct species where one necessarily developed from the other as described, or b) evidence that the processes you list are enough to produce arbitrarily divergent species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we get down to it. As we discussed before, there are good reasons not to rely on a). Unless we want to throw out not just evolution but also much of geology, astronomy, forensics etc etc. To deal with questions about how the world came to be as it is, we have to accept the fact that we can't rewind, and move on. So that leaves us with b).

How do you decide that you have enough evidence to accept a theory?

I'm pretty sure no-one has ever observed an entire orbit of any planet. What we do, is make a series of observations and join the dots. If we observed two dots, you would be unwise to accept a theory of an elliptical orbit. With 4 dots, it becomes plausible. With 400 dots it would seem very likely that it is elliptical, and you might be able to measure deviations. With 4000 points on an elliptical path, if you refused to believe that there was sufficient evidence to accept that the orbit was basically elliptical, everyone would laugh at you. Except the flat earthers, who might hug you.

Most hypotheses are between the 4 and 400 points - they are plausible explanations, with plenty of data that fit, but not enough to be totally accurate or rule out any deviation.

If you are wise, of course, you never accept a theory. You just accept that, like democracy, it sucks, but it is still better than the alternatives.

Consequently, I would happily say that there is insufficient evidence to be certain that the processes of isolation, mutation and selection can drive speciation. Just as there is insufficient evidence to be certain of anything that is not true a priori (pace Kant). But let's assume you are not after certainty. That is, after all, the realm of logic and faith, not science.

So how much evidence do you want? The standard scientific response is to compare the 'fit' to the available data with competing theories, to at least allow you to decide which is the lesser of two evil approximations to the truth.

I'm happy to do that, if you would like to provide an alternative theory. Just for argument's sake of course, not because you necessarily believe it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying there is a scientifically accepted definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence?

[/ QUOTE ]
Um. Yes. I've never seen an electron or a quark, but we assume they cause those replicable phenomena without us being able to observe them. But I suspect the problem we have here is not really about replicability so much as evidence. Data. Cold hard facts that admit of only one explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already knew, there is no such definition, so I’m not surprised you couldn’t produce one. As you should know, “seen” and “observe” are not interchangeable terms as used by science. The problem is, in fact, one of both replicability as well as evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure no-one has ever observed an entire orbit of any planet. What we do, is make a series of observations and join the dots. If we observed two dots, you would be unwise to accept a theory of an elliptical orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elliptical orbits must be so due to the inverse square law of gravitation, which is observable at will and in arbitrary settings. It is not a circumstantial argument, but a replicable one.

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, I would happily say that there is insufficient evidence to be certain that the processes of isolation, mutation and selection can drive speciation. Just as there is insufficient evidence to be certain of anything that is not true a priori (pace Kant).

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory has problems that go much deeper than mere lack of certainty, a situation more the rule than the exception in science. Evolution fails to pass from fantasy to reality because the processes used to account for the proposed phenomenon simply do not constitute incremental steps eventually leading to significantly divergent species. To say “we observe change, evolution is a type of change, therefore we observe evolution” is illogical and, moreover, bad science.

[ QUOTE ]
The standard scientific response is to compare the 'fit' to the available data with competing theories, to at least allow you to decide which is the lesser of two evil approximations to the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientist should stick to what can be observed and leave the fiction writing to the experts.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
A scientist should stick to what can be observed and leave the fiction writing to the experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. So in your world, a "scientific theory" should be limited only to observable phenomena.

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey,

Do you believe that the banana is evidence for the existence of God, but that the pear could only be spawned from the hand of satan.

And, if not, why not?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the context of the scientific method, evolution is "replicable". Replication is not the same as repetition or even observing the entire process. Analysis of prior "experiments" (including nature itself) and making predictions meets the SM standard of being "Replicable" for example.

This is where Sharkey's arguments begin to diverge from the definitions accepted in the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming there is a scientifically accepted definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence?

If so, please provide that definition and a source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replication is not limited solely to experimentation. There are many other ways to replicate results.
1. Of course, developing a practical application or technology is replication.
2. It's rare that anyone directly repeats a scientific experiment simply to verify results, except perhaps as a lab exercise in a course. More often the replication consists of building on the prior result. If everything works, we can assume the previous result was correct. If something fails, we go back and look for the weak link.
3. One-time events like the 2004 tsunami are replicable in that all the observations are consistent among themselves and with other tsunamis. We can do physical and computer models to try to match the observations, then see if future tsunamis bear those out.
4. Prediction is a corollary of replication. It amounts to making inferences about phenomena, then seeing if previously unknown data bear out the inferences. For example, when a bright supernova appeared in 1987, essentially every observation astronomers expected to see happened as predicted and right on schedule. Recently there was a discovery of early amphibians in northern Canada that came from a deliberate search of an area where the rocks were of the right age and environment of formation to have fossils of very early amphibians. This was a prediction based on the ideas of how amphibians evolved. Darwin's suggestion that birds had evolved from reptiles was spectacularly confirmed a couple of years later with the discovery of Archaeopteryx, which has feathers but a reptilian skeleton.
5. The conditions of early life are absolutely replicable. We can use physical and theoretical evidence about conditions on the early earth and try to replicate the chemistry. It will be a long process, but it is in principle replicable.

The reasoning of these folks is: we can't figure out how life evolved naturally, therefore it couldn't have happened naturally, there must have been supernatural intervention. But they have far worse replication problems.
1. Miracles by definition violate the laws of physics
2. No miracle has ever been replicated
3. Certain kinds of miracles never seem to happen. There are no claims of severed limbs regenerating, even though that's biologically possible even among vertebrates. Why not?
4. We do not have a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible. More importantly:
5. We do not have a single historical record of how any book of the Bible came to be accepted as part of the Bible. How did the Book of Daniel, say, get reviewed and accepted as a legitimate part of the Bible? Who decided? Where? When? How?

Steven I. Dutch
Professor, Natural and Applied Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

[Sharkey]

The guy is entitled to his point of view, but if you’re going to contradict my use of terminology, you need to show something out of a generally accepted reference work, not an opinion piece.

Later, he tries a little fallacy shuffle:

[ QUOTE ]
“The reasoning of these folks is: we can't figure out how life evolved naturally, therefore it couldn't have happened naturally, there must have been supernatural intervention.”

[/ QUOTE ]

As if bad science on one side of an argument makes it okay for the other side, too.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy is entitled to his point of view, but if you&amp;#8217;re going to contradict my use of terminology, you need to show something out of a generally accepted reference work, not an opinion piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try this. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517123207/sr=8-1/qid=1146777425/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0377697-5637613?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Try this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly where is the contradictory terminology?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

Do you believe that the banana is evidence for the existence of God, but that the pear could only be spawned from the hand of satan.

And, if not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]


Sharkey,

do you not answer my questions because you dont know, or because you are afraid of what you might know?

[Sharkey]

Or could it be because you’re an off-topic troll with weak material?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Or could it be because you’re an off-topic troll with weak material?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a troll?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy is entitled to his point of view, but if you’re going to contradict my use of terminology, you need to show something out of a generally accepted reference work, not an opinion piece.

Later, he tries a little fallacy shuffle:

[ QUOTE ]
“The reasoning of these folks is: we can't figure out how life evolved naturally, therefore it couldn't have happened naturally, there must have been supernatural intervention.”

[/ QUOTE ]

As if bad science on one side of an argument makes it okay for the other side, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if I expected you to do anything but punt. Youre too predicatable sharkey, if you play poker the same way you must be a big loser.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
As if bad science on one side of an argument makes it okay for the other side, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting that you say that, considering that YOU are the "other side".

Of course, you've never bothered to expound upon what *you* believe in. You just seem to get some kind of perverse pleasure on crapping on what the rest of us believe in.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
As if I expected you to do anything but punt. Youre too predicatable sharkey, if you play poker the same way you must be a big loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who’s really punting here?

All you have to do is find a definition of the term “replicable” in a science glossary using Google.

[CallMeIshmael]

Sharkey,

While on the topic of you playing poker... Do you play poker?

Have you ever posted a hand on 2p2?

[pilliwinks]

Sorry, this is going to be long!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying there is a scientifically accepted definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence?

[/ QUOTE ]
Um. Yes. I've never seen an electron or a quark, but we assume they cause those replicable phenomena without us being able to observe them. But I suspect the problem we have here is not really about replicability so much as evidence. Data. Cold hard facts that admit of only one explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already knew, there is no such definition, so I’m not surprised you couldn’t produce one. As you should know, “seen” and “observe” are not interchangeable terms as used by science. The problem is, in fact, one of both replicability as well as evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
We covered this a few pages back. The requirement is for 'replicable in theory', and evolution has no problems there. I agree that 'see' is not the same as 'observe', but there are plenty of phenomena that we cannot directly observe, only their effects. Some hairsplitters would say we can't directly observe anything, but even with a generous definition we can't observe quarks or pi-mesons. We see wierd effects, we infer the existance of particles.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure no-one has ever observed an entire orbit of any planet. What we do, is make a series of observations and join the dots. If we observed two dots, you would be unwise to accept a theory of an elliptical orbit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elliptical orbits must be so due to the inverse square law of gravitation, which is observable at will and in arbitrary settings. It is not a circumstantial argument, but a replicable one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very significant point, which I'm glad you brought up. There are two kinds of people, those who think that there are natural laws, which we discover, and those who think that there are observations, which our diseased minds sometimes link together in some kind of ordered fashion.

To say that orbits must be elliptical, due to the law of gravity suggests you are firmly in the former camp. I come from the opposite school. To me, the 'law' of gravity is plausible because we observe elliptical orbits, not the other way around. My point was that when you have not yet discovered the law of gravity, you can still discover Kepler's laws, and that is great science. And highly circumstantial, only applying to the limited data available. Not replicable in your sense, but based on highly replicable observations.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution fails to pass from fantasy to reality because the processes used to account for the proposed phenomenon simply do not constitute incremental steps eventually leading to significantly divergent species.

[/ QUOTE ]
The processes proposed clearly do lead to incremental divergence. Let's agree on that at least. The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
To say “we observe change, evolution is a type of change, therefore we observe evolution” is illogical and, moreover, bad science.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be a silly argument. How about 'We observe change in artificial selection. We speculate that nature might operate similarly. We look for evidence that natural selection has occurred and is occurring. We find it (usually indirect evidence). We conclude that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis'.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The standard scientific response is to compare the 'fit' to the available data with competing theories, to at least allow you to decide which is the lesser of two evil approximations to the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientist should stick to what can be observed and leave the fiction writing to the experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, could you expand on this please, I simply don't understand what your're getting at. Usually, the process of assessing fit to a theory is just comparing observations with predictions. Where does the fiction writing come in?

You may be right that evolution theory is bad science. It is almost certainly not accurate or complete as yet. But even if it is bad, it may still be the best there is. Do you dispute this?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

While on the topic of you playing poker... Do you play poker?

Have you ever posted a hand on 2p2?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he ever decides to post in any of the poker-related forums, he'll get banned quite quickly. They don't tolerate self-proclaimed know-it-alls who argue for the sake of arguing.

Sometimes I wonder if he did used to post in the forums as the uber-trolls The Matador and CinnamonWind. His writing style is very similar.

As an aside, eventually The Matador admitted that he was trolling because it pleased him to do so because it got him attention and it riled people up. I wonder if Sharkey will ever make the same admission?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the 'law' of gravity is plausible because we observe elliptical orbits, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law of gravitation is observed everywhere and constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits. That orbiting bodies would follow elliptical paths is not, in itself, enough to assume the law of gravitation.

[ QUOTE ]
The processes proposed clearly do lead to incremental divergence. Let's agree on that at least. The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species.

[ QUOTE ]
How about 'We observe change in artificial selection. We speculate that nature might operate similarly. We look for evidence that natural selection has occurred and is occurring. We find it (usually indirect evidence). We conclude that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but you are still merely supposing that the changes you observe are steps in the process you are looking for.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A scientist should stick to what can be observed and leave the fiction writing to the experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, could you expand on this please, I simply don't understand what your're getting at. Usually, the process of assessing fit to a theory is just comparing observations with predictions. Where does the fiction writing come in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind, really.

[ QUOTE ]
You may be right that evolution theory is bad science. It is almost certainly not accurate or complete as yet. But even if it is bad, it may still be the best there is. Do you dispute this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can bad science also be best science? Possibly. The theory has produced much worthwhile investigation. This has happened before in the history of science, where incorrect premises have lead down paths which later bore fruit.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As if I expected you to do anything but punt. Youre too predicatable sharkey, if you play poker the same way you must be a big loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who’s really punting here?

All you have to do is find a definition of the term “replicable” in a science glossary using Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do that you will be awash in definitions from lay people. Professor Dutch is a tenured science professor in a well respected science program at a well respected college of science. This is part of his syllabus, and was articulated for specifically this question, not the generalities you will find on the internet.

It is also consistent with what I learned as a science major at one fo the top undergraduate science and engineering schools in the country.

Punt returned for a touchdown. Since you cant punt on the next play, my 2 point conversion will be good, because all you can fall back on is denial and the opinion of 1 person, yourself.

[Sharkey]

Wake up from your fantasy and think.

If you’re going to contradict my use of a term, it’s going to have to be from a generally accepted source like a desk reference, etc. Otherwise, there will only be a pointless contest of opinions.

Try again.

[Fabian]

pilliwinks,

I just want to express my admiration for everything you've written in this thread. It doesn't seem you'll get much further, but it's very well done nontheless.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Wake up from your fantasy and think.

If you’re going to contradict my use of a term, it’s going to have to be from a generally accepted source like a desk reference, etc. Otherwise, there will only be a pointless contest of opinions.

Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey,

As my friends at OOT would say, YSSCKY. And no, I won't explain to you what that means.

[Sharkey]

I second the opinion that the contributions of Pilliwinks have been very well done.

[NapoleonInRags]

i can't decide if i love or hate the appendix.in 2001 i had a rare case of carcinoid cancer of appendix...was i going to get this cancer anyway ?in which case i love the appendix and its disposable nature...or did the existence of the appendix and those pesky endocrine cells gone bad mentioned before almost kill me for no reason?....i honestly don't know but the mere word appendix still sends shivers down my spine...considering they removed my gallbladder at the same time one thing i am sure of is i am running out of disposable parts

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wake up from your fantasy and think.

If you’re going to contradict my use of a term, it’s going to have to be from a generally accepted source like a desk reference, etc. Otherwise, there will only be a pointless contest of opinions.

Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youve reduced yourself to troll status, if that isnt what youve been all along.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Youve reduced yourself to troll status, if that isnt what youve been all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let’s have a look.

No, that also isn’t a generally referenced scientific definition of “replicable” that allows phenomena to be assumed to cause an outcome without observation of their existence.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or could it be because you’re an off-topic troll with weak material?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey is a prime example of one.

Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to incite as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate share of the collective attention span.

(An example of the above behaviour is)...intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

What motivates a troll?
Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over statements from total strangers is entertaining. This could be categorized as a form of schadenfreude - trolls with amusement motives deriving pleasure from the actual frustration/anger/pain (or what they may perceive in their own minds as such) from their targets. This type of trolling is common on Internet forums.
Anger: Some people use trolling to express their hostility to a group or point of view.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like a self-referential statement. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

SEND

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What's a troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

OUT

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
And this gets you back to the same dead end, because "replicable sufficient cause" is a Sharkeyism for "my standards for the scientific method", not standards that are generally applied in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

THE

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

As my friends at OOT would say, YSSCKY. And no, I won't explain to you what that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

CLOWNS

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[MidGe]

Easy way out, sharkey. But I guess it really is the only way out for you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
The law of gravitation is observed everywhere and constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits. That orbiting bodies would follow elliptical paths is not, in itself, enough to assume the law of gravitation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sort of agree, and I agree. I only sort of agree that the law of gravity constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits, because that kind of language tends in my experience to lead to the view that there is such a thing as the law of gravity, and that it is binding. That is the end of science, and the beginning of dogma. Every time folk accept that what we 'know' is true, progress stalls, and Newton is one of the best examples - a set of theories that so closely simulate reality that no-one seriously questioned them for centuries. But of course they were wrong, including the 'law' of gravity.

I totally agree that observations of orbits are insufficient to assume the law of gravity, and would go further to say that I am uncomfortable with assuming any laws on any observations. There are regularities in nature, thank God, and we benefit hugely from finding and exploiting them (hence the science budget), but it is a common and unfortunate mistake to start believing we know anything for certain, for ever. It is almost axiomatic of science that the closer you are to the coalface, the less confidence you place in generalizations - you see the bumps.

From this position, the best approach seems to tentatively hold generalizations, and to test them as rigorously as possible. The ones that stand the pressure are worth keeping for now.

Perhaps a useful concept is that of theory half-life: the average time taken for half the theories in a particular field to be superceded. In nutrition, about five years I hear! But in astronomy, many decades. Theory half-life may give some idea of how close the field is to simulating reality with their theories, much as the rate of change in athletics world records may give some idea of how closely we approach human limits. You can draw your own conclusions about the relative accuracy of evolutionary biology.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. As I say, there is plenty of evidence bearing on whether this is plausible or far-fetched.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about 'We observe change in artificial selection. We speculate that nature might operate similarly. We look for evidence that natural selection has occurred and is occurring. We find it (usually indirect evidence). We conclude that there is some evidence supporting the hypothesis'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but you are still merely supposing that the changes you observe are steps in the process you are looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, though I would say 'hypothesising' rather than 'merely supposing'. In the same way one might merely suppose that animals moving at the time predicted by the MVT are doing so because it is optimal rather than for some other reason.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may be right that evolution theory is bad science. It is almost certainly not accurate or complete as yet. But even if it is bad, it may still be the best there is. Do you dispute this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can bad science also be best science? Possibly. The theory has produced much worthwhile investigation. This has happened before in the history of science, where incorrect premises have lead down paths which later bore fruit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not far from my position, though I suspect I'd rate the premises as 'uncertain' rather than 'incorrect'. I also suspect that, while our current theory is sure to be mistaken in several regards, we are not so far from the truth.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
pilliwinks,

I just want to express my admiration for everything you've written in this thread. It doesn't seem you'll get much further, but it's very well done nontheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My pleasure. Literally /images/graemlins/grin.gif

For me it's not about making converts, it's about exploring what I really think, and how reliable it is.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,



CLOWNS

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Troll mommy must be very proud that you learned your troll lessons well.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I only sort of agree that the law of gravity constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits, because that kind of language tends in my experience to lead to the view that there is such a thing as the law of gravity, and that it is binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, the phenomena described by the “law” of gravitation. Surely there’s no way out of that one.

[ QUOTE ]
That is the end of science, and the beginning of dogma. Every time folk accept that what we 'know' is true, progress stalls, and Newton is one of the best examples - a set of theories that so closely simulate reality that no-one seriously questioned them for centuries. But of course they were wrong, including the 'law' of gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point, but dangerous territory.

[ QUOTE ]
I totally agree that observations of orbits are insufficient to assume the law of gravity, and would go further to say that I am uncomfortable with assuming any laws on any observations. There are regularities in nature, thank God, and we benefit hugely from finding and exploiting them (hence the science budget), but it is a common and unfortunate mistake to start believing we know anything for certain, for ever. It is almost axiomatic of science that the closer you are to the coalface, the less confidence you place in generalizations - you see the bumps.

[/ QUOTE ]

After exhaustive trial and error, the universality of a phenomenon becomes apparent, but, as you suggest, that’s no guarantee. Sometimes what’s being observed can be misconstrued, yet after a while certain things begin to look much more like objects of “reality” than artifacts of observation.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a useful concept is that of theory half-life: the average time taken for half the theories in a particular field to be superceded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certain foundational concepts are stable, no?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question then is, is the process radical enough to produce wide divergence? There is plenty of evidence relating to this question, which I think is a good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. As I say, there is plenty of evidence bearing on whether this is plausible or far-fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of evolution, a formalization of such extendibility hasn’t even been published.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of evolution, a formalization of such extendibility hasn’t even been published.

[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451529065/sr=8-1/qid=1146943073/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0606738-9331302?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

As my friends at OOT would say, YSSCKY. And no, I won't explain to you what that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

CLOWNS

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...I'll try my best not to cry too hard about this lunatic ignoring me.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only sort of agree that the law of gravity constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits, because that kind of language tends in my experience to lead to the view that there is such a thing as the law of gravity, and that it is binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, the phenomena described by the “law” of gravitation. Surely there’s no way out of that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the actual, generalized, found-everywhere phenomena themselves aren't, and can't be observed. We just have a bunch of astronomers counting dots, whose maths currently agrees with Mr Einstein's (and not Mr Newton's). On the basis of that agreement, we are wise to point our spaceships in the direction that they predict. We are not so wise, in my opinion, if we claim that we know the invariant laws of the universe that dictate where the planets must be. Followers of Newton did that, and they were wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
After exhaustive trial and error, the universality of a phenomenon becomes apparent, but, as you suggest, that’s no guarantee. Sometimes what’s being observed can be misconstrued, yet after a while certain things begin to look much more like objects of “reality” than artifacts of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I quite agree. Hence my confidence in the theory of evolution. The sociological argument is my least favorite, but it still has some merit: if there were a better explanation of how species arose, do you not think that 150 years of scientists clawing and scratching to try to get recognition of their talent would have turned up the mistakes? It is a common misconception that scientists have some investment in the status quo. On the contrary, academia dictates that you must have a unique contribution, or outlook, or technique or something. Consequently, if anyone on the forum here comes up with a better alternative to evolution, I want to know about it, so I can publish it and get the Nobel prize before anyone else thinks of it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a useful concept is that of theory half-life: the average time taken for half the theories in a particular field to be superceded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certain foundational concepts are stable, no?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is my prejudice that reality is pretty stable. And I think our descriptions of it do seem to move asymptotically - after a while the changes are usually minor. But then I am not a fan of Kuhn.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. As I say, there is plenty of evidence bearing on whether this is plausible or far-fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of evolution, a formalization of such extendibility hasn’t even been published.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with Ishmael here. Mr Darwin's theory was clearly flawed in several respects, but the certral issue of whether or not there is evidence of relatedness by descent among a broad range of species, is addressed quite well.
Much of his evidence has not been discredited despite 150 years of biologists trying to show they're smarter than Darwin...

[Copernicus]

"I quite agree. Hence my confidence in the theory of evolution. The sociological argument is my least favorite, but it still has some merit: if there were a better explanation of how species arose, do you not think that 150 years of scientists clawing and scratching to try to get recognition of their talent would have turned up the mistakes? It is a common misconception that scientists have some investment in the status quo. On the contrary, academia dictates that you must have a unique contribution, or outlook, or technique or something. Consequently, if anyone on the forum here comes up with a better alternative to evolution, I want to know about it, so I can publish it and get the Nobel prize before anyone else thinks of it."

In fact you are being quite conservative here. There is tremendous upside to disproving the status quo, both financially and academic recognition.

It is theism that is heavily invested in maintaining the status quo, because any fissure in dogma has the potential to tear down the foundations.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the actual, generalized, found-everywhere phenomena themselves aren't, and can't be observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a causality works every time it’s tried, at will and under arbitrary circumstances, then, since it’s taken for granted there’s nothing perverse at work, the principle of economy takes over and justifies a status of generality.

[ QUOTE ]
We just have a bunch of astronomers counting dots, whose maths currently agrees with Mr Einstein's (and not Mr Newton's). On the basis of that agreement, we are wise to point our spaceships in the direction that they predict. We are not so wise, in my opinion, if we claim that we know the invariant laws of the universe that dictate where the planets must be. Followers of Newton did that, and they were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of invariant law is an idealism that is justified by its utility. Just like accuracy of measurement, where again the concept of contextual sufficiency has its place.

Newton’s gravity is good enough for space probes.

[ QUOTE ]
The sociological argument is my least favorite, but it still has some merit: if there were a better explanation of how species arose, do you not think that 150 years of scientists clawing and scratching to try to get recognition of their talent would have turned up the mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. It could happen a year from now using a new approach.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a common misconception that scientists have some investment in the status quo. On the contrary, academia dictates that you must have a unique contribution, or outlook, or technique or something. Consequently, if anyone on the forum here comes up with a better alternative to evolution, I want to know about it, so I can publish it and get the Nobel prize before anyone else thinks of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The status quo does not make the scientist. Likewise, an absence of alternate explanations does not make the science.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Darwin's theory was clearly flawed in several respects, but the certral issue of whether or not there is evidence of relatedness by descent among a broad range of species, is addressed quite well. Much of his evidence has not been discredited despite 150 years of biologists trying to show they're smarter than Darwin...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for Darwin, but you can’t just set your own criteria, and when they are met, declare your theory quite reasonable and live happily ever after. Of course, we’ve already been over how correctly formed propositions of science meet certain objective standards of cause and effect. That’s why I say evolution has not been formalized. It’s not a matter of pointing to a chromosome and a ring species and sounding scientific, even if it’s the best understanding (or misunderstanding) around.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with a “plausible narrative” that “seems reasonable” based on available evidence. Everyone likes a good yarn on occasion. It’s just that the stamp of science requires more.

[Gugel]

http://www.myrcomputers.com/images/humor/1144945609367.jpg