It seems to me that no one can prove - and will never be able to prove - that the history of life on earth is the result of any natural process, let alone prove that the process is described by the neo-Darwinian model.
1 Like
Im going to jump to the defense of the currently accepted model here…its concluions from testing of the best physical evidence we have available.
I agree that we cant prove the neo darwinian model, however we cant reslly prove God either…its the weight of evidence in conjunction with beliefs i think.
The answer for me is largely, the binary God or no God" + “scientific conclusions” = world view.
Science doesn’t try to “prove” anything. Science tries to explain the things we can observe in nature and corrects itself when it gets something wrong. No special world view required.
4 Likes
Not only can’t the neo-Darwinian model be proven, it seems to me that no model at all can be proven … no one can prove that any (alleged) evolutionary transition in the fossil record is the result of a natural process.
God has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
… which means no one can prove that any (alleged) evolutionary transition in the fossil record is the result of a natural process.
1 Like
No one can prove stuff always falls down, so that is nothing special.
2 Likes
My claim is that no one can prove that any evolutionary transition in the fossil record is the result of a natural process. Which part of my claim “falls down”?
It’s rare to see a question that provides so much.
1 Like
In your quote of my post, I clearly ask why the evidence under question does not prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard we use in our judicial system here in the US.
To keep with this analogy, no forensic scientist can absolutely prove 100% that the fingerprints and DNA found at a crime scene came from natural processes. They could have been put there by mischievous leprechauns, we can’t prove 100% otherwise. So does this mean we can’t use forensic evidence in courts? Obviously not.
Secondly, if we are talking about fossils, why wouldn’t we think the organism that gave rise to the fossil was not the product of natural processes just like all other life we see today is the product of natural processes. Were you supernaturally created, or did you come about through biological reproduction? We are making the same assumption that forensic scientists are using when they find fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes. We assume those organisms had ancestors just like any other organisms we see in the world around us.
Thirdly, if we are talking about fossils and how they are evidence then we are not assuming anything about their ancestry. We are solely looking at their physical features. The theory of evolution makes very specific predictions about what mixture of features past life would have if evolution is true. This is called a scientific hypothesis, a prediction of what we should and should not observe if a theory is true. As one example, the theory predicts there were species in the past who had a mixture of human and ape features. This is exactly what we see in Australopithecines. Those fossils are a fulfilled prediction made by the theory. We also see fossils with a mixture of tetrapod and fish features, mixtures of bird and dinosaur features, etc. Throughout the fossil record we see time and time again the mixture of features the theory predicts we should see. The theory also predicts which mixtures of features we should not see, such as a mixture of bird and mammal features. We don’t see the mixtures of features the theory says we should not find.
So how are fossils not overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution given how well the observations match the predictions made by the theory?
7 Likes
Again with the “prove”. The theory of evolution can be used to predict what we should see in the fossil record. When those observations are made they are found to be correct. This upholds the theory but doesn’t “prove” anything. If any data is produced that doesn’t fit the theory then the theory is corrected.
3 Likes
The word “prove” can have a different meanings in different settings. Colloquially, I would contend that when someone in the general populace says something is proven they mean proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I would also contend that the theory of evolution has met this level of proof.
3 Likes
Our understanding of natural processes involve generalizations and consilience. Generalization rests on the idea that the universe is orderly and coherent, so that natural laws as demonstrated by measurements in the laboratory apply elsewhere in time and space. Consilience also assumes an orderly world, so that various separate lines of evidence converge together to yield a coherent overall picture. For instance, generalization and consilience can allow us to better understand observations of stellar processes from particle physics experiments here on Earth.
Taken together, by any consistent definition of proof, the evidence in favor of evolution as a general explanation of life on Earth is as solid as any scientific theory we have. The corollary of beyond a reasonable doubt is unreasonable skepticism. I cannot prove there is nowhere on Earth that stuff does not fall up, but that would be ridiculous. Similarly, someone can reject the enormous evidence for evolution, but that person would have to be uniformed and/or simply unwilling to allow the idea.
1 Like
Because they are static. They prove an existence. They do not prove what came before or after. All that is just supposition.
Why do you not see that all the mountains of evidence that you claim are supportive not definitive?
That should be obvious to anyone except, apparently, scientists, who know better.
Good luck with this discussion, it could get heated.
Richard
1 Like
I fully accept they are supportive. In science, we tentatively accept theories that are supported by mountains of evidence.
So you agree that the fossil record supports the theory of evolution?
2 Likes
Really?
No, they are the data that you have (or some of it)
As such they neither support or deny the conclusions or theories science has made.
Richard
How so? The theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of features we should see in fossils, so why can’t we use those fossils to test the predictions made by the theory?
2 Likes
Don’t give up your day job
Richard
Do you reject the scientific method?
The hypothesis is the set of predictions the theory of evolution makes about the mixture of features that should and should not be seen in the fossil record. We test that hypothesis by looking at the mixture of features in fossils. It’s how science works.
2 Likes
Non sequator.
And you should know my answer.
Let’s leave this conversation for now and concentrate on the other one In YEC ID etc.
Richard
Very little in life can be proven. Logical deduction requires accepting premises. This works well in mathematics because the many premises are implicated in the questions themselves. But life provides little or no premises. So all use of deductions for conclusions about life in general are easily rejected simply by rejecting the premises used.
Science works because it is not based on proof but on what is reasonable to believe given the evidence observed. The sun rises day after day so it is only reasonable to believe it will rise tomorrow. It is not proof, but that is how we live our life – upon the reasonable evidence of what we see over and over again. Then there is another kind of reasonable – what is useful and meaningful for the living of our lives. It cannot be proven that the world did not begin this morning with all our memories as they are. But supposing otherwise only subtracts from the meaning and value of our lives. This kind of reasonable applies to the one basic premise of science that there are no malicious entities altering or fixing the evidence to deceive us. It is not something we can prove. But it is reasonable to accept this premise because otherwise, just like that supposition that the world began this morning, it only subtracts from the meaning and value of our lives.
So the wild goose chase of certainty and proof set aside, do we have objective evidence that life on earth is the result of natural processes? Yes, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. It is only reasonable to accept what the evidence shows us. It not reasonable to believe contrary to what the evidence shows us.
1 Like