Questions about nested Hierarchy

Faith & Science Conversation
124

I concur with your rejection of deism, @RichardG.

Certainly. This is a feature, not a bug, as we software people say. The scientific method is not capable of detecting God’s intervention–never has been, never will be.

You seem not to have read what I wrote very carefully. Here’s what I stated:

I am not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain? As you are explaining, please bear in mind that scientists use suitable dating methods on geological formations. The dates of the strata in turn get used to assign ages to fossils found in them.

@RichardG - Are you willing to accept feedback that would show you the specific ways in which you misunderstood the work that scientists do?

So far, your statements have not indicated that you are in fact open to correction. I have previously indicated how this portrayal of how scientists do their work is inaccurate, yet in the above sentence you have repeated your earlier mistake in describing the work of scientists.

I am hoping that by pointing this out, you will slow down and be open to correction. Ultimately, you may still decide to disagree with what scientists say, which is your right. Or maybe you’ll decide that you need to back off of some strong statements, and explore the questions more deeply. Who knows?

I spent decades as an anti-evolution zealot before I slowed down enough to really listen to my scientist friends, BTW.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

125

I wonder if you realise that this absolutely contradicts your view of God and Evolution.

Evolution has always been considered chance so that any notion of a specific time or order being necessary will negate that.

Richard

126

an Austrolopithecines is still mammalian, only part ape and part homo. I was, and am, attmepting to ask you to look further back. What you are looking at is still modersn history in the scope of Evolution…

There is a fairly specific requiremen for a rock fossil. Now i admit that there are other types of fossils and one that do notivolve bones can be from a much wider era. Bt the najority of Fossils are from the Jurassic and surrounds It is the age of vertebrate emergence.

Incidentally, the claimed proof that the placement of fossils within geological strata proves Evolution becasue it shows that cetain devlopments only occur after certain perisods of time… might also prove that they were only “created” in that period of time. It does not actually prove that one came from the other! (rigid thinking again)

I know the scientific method. I was taught the scientific method. Any notions of malpractice or other insults are just shadows in the wind. But, there are limits built into following a specific method. It promotes rigid thinking and blinkered vision. It is self validating and refuses to accept validation (or criticisms) from any other methodology or viewpoint. Scientists cannot be challenged because they must be challenged in their own stadium using their own rules. That is not an insult it is a fact.

I may bounce around the equivalent of conspiratory theories but I do not claim that science,(scientists) or even evolution is an actual conspiracy.

All I am trying to prove is that the certainty and immutability of Evolution is not based on fact, but the fact that there is no other viable scientific answer (And maybe Science does not have the sole rights to determine anything, let alone my origins) Evolution is taught as guaranteed. IMO it should not. There must be a caveat somewhere to admit the possibility of being wrong, at least in part. But Evolution is taught as a complete and certified fact, rather than a combination of theories some of whiich have better verification than others. And the complete one (Bug to Human) cannot be verified by the verification of some of its parts. Therefore it cannot be proclaimed as a fact without argument.

Richard

127

Sounds like an argument that numbers cannot go as high as a billion because nobody has ever counted that high.

Ever heard of proof by mathematical induction?

You don’t have to prove something for every number. You just have to show how you get from one number to the next.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong. Evolution is based on fact. Every bit of evidence needed or expected is there.

2 Likes
128

Evolution is based on facts. Whether they are connected or not is a product of the theory not the verification of it.

Your numeracy analogy fails.

For Evolution to be correct it must prove the early connections .Rather than claim them by inference or a similiarity. The dynamics of change from microbe to fish are not the same as ape to human. One has a 2% difference, the other is like comparing a mole hill to a mountain. The mole could not physically move that much weight and earth, even in a billion years. But by your reasoning a mole could make a mountain, its just a matter of scale.

Richard

129

Sorry if this has already been said but I am just now working through this outstanding thread. Much has been said about your science background (including by you) but I’m sure your science education is at least as good as mine. But I’m finding so much clarity in the answers provided that it feels like an education. Regarding the assertion that TOE advocates have no right to claim certainty, I have to say they have as much right as gravitationists. Gravity is understood only in so far as we can model its effects and thereby make useful predictions. We probably have a clearer understanding of what is going on ‘under the hood’ for evolution than we do for gravity. On the other hand as embodied creatures with functional inner ears we know without abstraction a lot about gravity that we don’t about evolution. Heck, you wouldn’t have to go back too far to get to a time when even the mechanics of making a baby were not understood by the majority of people, let alone genetic inheritance or evolution of species.

2 Likes
130

I know, right? Isn’t it enlightening how much light is shed by one side, while the other side has perpetually clung-to doubts to offer up? And yet those voiced doubts provide the inviting canvas for all the resulting paint and illumination.

Reading all the way through some of these threads ought to be worth a piece of college credit or something.

1 Like
131

My guess is that as someone who has been preaching much of his life it must feel as though he isn’t free to switch horses midstream when he has helped lead a flock in that old direction. The prospects for changing minds is probably no easier from the pulpit than from in the pews. I guess everyone who makes this change risks leaving some behind.

1 Like
132

Nope. Proof by mathematical induction also works in reverse.

Everything HAS been verified. Every test of the theory comes up positive. You don’t have to actually count to a billion on your fingers in order for the number to exist.

133

I am sorry but we are talking at cross-purposes (again). The points you are making, though valid, do not actually counter the ones I made.

Mathematics can’t verify history in the way you claim. It is a conceptual fallacy. Whether it happened or not is a case of historical fact, not mathematical proof. They are neither synonymous nor interchangeable.

Richard

134

Evolution, like many other things, has both random and non-random components. Natural selection is strongly non-random - it tests each organism against natural laws, competition, predation, disease, etc. and determines if the organism is able to survive and reproduce. But each organism has a humanly unpredictable exact combination of inherited genes and mutations.

Even random change can be directional. If you start in one corner of a room, and flip a coin twice to decide which way to go (e.g. HH=forward, HT=left, TH=right, TT=backwards), you will very likely end up moving out of the corner, because you can’t go any further in two of the directions from your starting point. Likewise, random change could promote increases in size - organisms can’t go below having one cell. Random variation plus a limit will lead to changes in the average, if the starting point is not in the middle.

Clearly specifying where you see a problem, rather than claiming “Evolution is all wrong”, will provide a more meaningful discussion. Check your information. For example, “the majority of Fossils are from the Jurassic and surrounds It is the age of vertebrate emergence.” is seriously wrong. GSA Geologic Time Scale is one handy place to see the overall geologic timescale. The Jurassic is about 200 to 145 million years ago. The majority of fossils are actually rather younger than Jurassic because erosion, metamorphosis, and plate tectonics gradually destroy older rocks. In particular, the seafloors are covered by younger fossils, which thus are the largest number of fossils globally. Vertebrate emergence, on the other hand, is early to mid-Paleozoic (540-360 million), depending on where you draw the line between non-vertebrate and vertebrate and depending on how much you count as a part of the emergence (are you talking about the first fish or all the way up to the first amphibians or what?)

Evolution makes specific predictions that can be tested - it’s not just a matter of each model can fit the data. A very similar situation is detecting plagarism. Two students turn in papers that have some similarity. Well, they’re on the same topic; there should be some similarity. But if the exact wording is practically identical, there’s a problem - there are several different ways that a paper could be worded, so such matches that are not necessary to the topic do point to copying. Likewise, some genetic similarities have a functional aspect. Organisms that live in hot places tend to have more G and C relative to A and T in their DNA, because G and C hold together more strongly despite heat. But others don’t. All living things on earth use ribosomes to build proteins. Yet the ribosomes of organisms thought to be closer to each other evolutionarily are more similar to each other. Those similarities are not necessary for function (in fact, you’ve got two very different types of ribosomes in you, one for mitochondria and one for the rest of the cell). The similarities are specifically predicted by evolution and not by non-evolutionary models.

3 Likes
135

I think you might find my analogy between Concorde and the Russian Tuplov more insightful and helpful.

Philosophical critique of Evolution - Open Forum - The BioLogos Forum

Richard

136

Selection is the opposite of random.

2 Likes
137

You still refuse to accept the fundamental concept of hypothesis testing. You reject the scientific method, not the theory of evolution.

All theories in science are tested through inference. Once again, your issue seems to be with the scientific method, not evolution.

5 Likes
138

The question is the same for the test papers, the airplanes, and evolution: what level of similarity is merely due to similar constraints and what is due to copying from a common source? Note that both types of similarity occur in evolution; distinguishing the two is a major goal of evolutionary studies. Obviously, the Russian plane is going to have wings, a streamlined shape, and other essentials for fast flight. But if the configuration of the wiring inside the plane is a match, that would be a clear sign of plagarism, because there are many different ways the wiring could be arranged which have nothing to do with the essential functions of the plane. Likewise, in evolution, we see many examples of similarities which are not necessary for the function. A designer not using evolutionary processes would not be expected to produce results that are so consistently matching those expected by evolution. To take another example, the patterns of biogeography fit evolutionary expectations. Why put marsupials in Australia, xenarthrans in South America, and afrotherians in Africa? Why are different types of freshwater mussels on different continents?

2 Likes
139

Is very logical, but it is not confirmed by the facts. The planes were independently designed. The Tupolev was actually more advanced than Concorde. It would be far more logical in terms of the result for the plagiarism to be the other way round. The Tupolev was built and tested first and it outstripped Concorde on virtually everything except one, and that was reliability. The breakdowns were due to concept as much as design. The materials were not up to the specs that the design demanded. However, they were advanced enough to be studied by Nasa. (Concorde wasn’t!)

All this proves that sometimes evidence and logic (and desired theories) do not match reality (which was the point of the exercise) And that identical does not always mean copying.

Richard

140

In the case of evolution, though, the wiring does match.

1 Like
141

In biology, we observe the birth of new organisms that are the result of copying, with a few copying errors thrown in.

1 Like
142

I am sorry but you are making the same point as I have been.

Science seems to be working by its own rules and criteria, that do not match up to other disciplines

And you do not seem to try and verify from any other perspective. Nor do you seem to verify it against the practical applications. You see your connections, and you see your process, but you haven’t actually proved that one will marry the other in practice (only in theory, but for you, that is enough)

Richard

143

Sorry, but that is a very narrow viewpoint.

Everything is based on amino acids, cells, and other building blocks, so you will see identical DNA for those things in everything. It does not prove that one is an ancestor to the other, it proves that they are made up from the same building blocks. The DNA will match, of course it will match. It is the basis of life.

Richard