So, just to clarify … are you proposing that all life on earth descended from a variety of different common ancestors that date back to the Cambrian?
If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
3 Likes
???
With respect to life descending from a common ancestor or ancestors, I’m not proposing anything. I don’t know what happened … and neither does anyone else.
I am sorry but you seem to always talk in absolutes or assume that I am doing so. There is a place for statistics, of course, bt not as an argument the way you used it; Claimig something is a statistical impossibility is basically pointless. Especially if you are trying to assess something that has already happened.
Likewise you insistence on upholding scientific rules when discussing. I am not dismissing the use or necessity of rules in science, just the rigidity you try and impose on discussions.
No I am not. I am saying that statistics do not help in this case.
Perhaps you can try not to jump so fast when you see certain phrases or words that trigger a knee-jerk response?
The result is an immediate defensive posture to something I am not actually attacking.
You trot out you rules for arguing against a scientific theory as if no one has ever seen them or understood them.
Richard
Richard
Richard, the statistics that we are talking about are far, far smaller than one part in ten to the power of two hundred thousand.
If that doesn’t help in this case, then quite frankly I don’t know what does.
Well if you don’t want to be accused of attacking something then don’t attack the clear-cut cases. And as I said, if one part in 10^{200,000} is not a clear-cut case, then I don’t know what is.
Well I’m sorry, but the rules of science are rigid whether you like it or not.
If you complained about “the rigidity you try and impose on discussions” about science in the workplace, you would end up driving your employer out of business and in some cases quite possibly killing people in the process. If, that is, you hadn’t been fired for malpractice and sued out of your insurance first.
3 Likes
Fair enough.
We don’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything.
I’ll leave it to others to discuss the Cambrian Explosion. There are others here who are better qualified to address your points than I am.
1 Like
Are you referring to the Provine quotes I used … certain atheist professors considered them “unscientific”?
Some cynical types might argue that evolution science seems to have been granted a special exemption from the rigid rules of science.
Well in that case the cynical types need to state exactly which rules are being broken, how they are being broken, and what effect that has on the resulting conclusions.
5 Likes
In science, yes, but not in discussions.
You can talk about science and scientific theories outside scientific platforms. Whether you like it or not, the scientific method is not the only methodology in the world, and philosophy, for one, does not follow the same rules.
You are limiting things by being so rigid and tunnel visioned
What does it prove? How does it help?
The things happened. even a statistic of 1 in a million can still be achieved. Statistically the lottery should never be one at all. Or at least not as often as it does. Statistics have value, but you also have to appreciate their limitations and/or relevance.
And how is that supposed to help? It is not a fair analogy. You are claiming the right to dictate the rules of a discussion. I am claiming otherwise. It has nothing to do with which is right or wrong. This not a scientific forum, and you do not dictate the rules by which I argue.
Give some people a little more savvy and try and look from their perspective instead of just yours.
Richard
Yes in discussions. If you are discussing science, you need to stick to the rules of science, for the simple reason that the rules of science are simply the rules of honesty, factual accuracy and making sure your facts are straight.
Not sticking to the rules of science when discussing science is nothing more nor less than making things up and creating your own alternative reality. And saying that the rules do not apply to discussions is demanding the right to tell lies.
Besides, you haven’t even asked me what rules I’m talking about. That in itself adds weight to the view that you are rejecting wholescale the entire concept of science having rules despite your protestations to the contrary.
Well we can follow the rules of philosophy when we’re discussing philosophy. But when we’re discussing science we stick to the rules of science.
Do the maths, Richard. Do. The. Maths.
One part in ten to the power of two hundred thousand is not in the same league as one part in a million. One in a million is next Tuesday. One in ten to the power of two hundred thousand is, to all intents and purposes, never.
The gold standard for proof in most areas of science is six standard deviations. The probability of six standard deviations being a happy coincidence is one part in 10^{17}. If one part in 10^{17} is small enough to establish something as a fact, to claim that one part in 10^{200,000} is not is simply patent nonsense.
It is a perfectly fair analogy. And this is a scientific forum. From the forum FAQ:
The BioLogos Forum exists as a place to help foster gracious dialogue about the **harmony between science and the Christian faith**. By that, we mean:
- We welcome any conversation about mainstream science (ie. not pseudoscience) here on the BioLogos forum.
- We welcome conversations about the relationship between science and Christian beliefs, ethics, or practice.
- We welcome conversations about the relationship between science and Bible interpretation.
However, we do not want to host threads and topics that are simply theological in nature or generally related to the Bible or church. There are a number of reasons for this, but principally, theology is a broad subject and not all of it is relevant to the mission of BioLogos.
By refusing to stick to the rules of science when discussing science, you are demanding the right to make things up and invent your own alternative reality. If you want to do that then by all means go ahead, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
3 Likes
There are multiple plausible explanations for the Cambrian explosion, all consistent with known natural processes and with the rest of evolutionary biology. The fact that we lack sufficient evidence to determine which factor or factors actually contributed to rapid diversification early in the Cambrian is a problem for evolutionary biology in the sense that it’s frustrating for scientists not to be able to easily test the various hypotheses or formulate new ones. The idea that this lack of certainty somehow undermines the validity of evolution as a whole as an explanation for the diversity of life is a delusion embraced by those who fear and hate the reality of evolution.
Some even more cynical types might argue that the cynical types in question typically display little knowledge of or respect for science of any sort.
5 Likes
Are you claiming that you cannot have a discussion about the philosophy of a scientific theory?
or maybe that philosophy has no place in science?
Do you know the principles that govern evolutionary development? or at least the TOE imposed principles that are supposed to govern evolution? Maybe you cannot see that these things can be discussed outside Scientific rules?
IOW you are limiting the topics of discussion. by limiting the rules you will argue by.
And, you appear not to need to understand certain aspects of Evolution (because they are outside the scientific method/viewpoint)
Which is also why I would advise you to steer clear of analogies, because they do not conform to your rigid rules of arguments.
Richard
No I am not saying anything of the sort, Richard. That is a straw man and you know that as well as I do.
Of course you can have a discussion about the philosophy of a scientific theory! Of course philosophy has a place in science! But philosophy is not a licence to disregard the rules of science.
If you are discussing science, you stick to the rules of science. If you are discussing philosophy, you also stick to the rules of philosophy. If you are discussing both, you stick to the rules of both. You don’t start disregarding the rules of one just because the other is involved.
No I am fully aware that there are aspects of evolution that are outside the remit of science. Some people try to use evolution as the basis for their moral values, for example. Others try to use evolution as the basis for atheism. Those claims are outside the remit of science and we can discuss them on different terms. But there are other aspects of evolution that very much are within the remit of science. Such as genetic comparisons, mathematical analyses, measurement, handling and reporting of evidence, and the like. And those aspects must be discussed in accordance with the rules of science. Because otherwise, as I said, you’re just demanding the right to make things up, invent your own alternative reality, and tell lies.
3 Likes
It would appear not.
Evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory. In fact it breaks the rules of science.
And to prove all my points I am going to start talking analogies (which is not science)
The scientific method can be analogised as
You have a start but no destination. You explore and the more information you gain the better you understand what is around you. But, there are no conclusions only theories that are confirmed or denied by the next piece of data.
Evolution has a start and a finish. The conclusion is already made. We start with a single cell and finish with a human (et al) You cannot just use the data you have because it is not all there. You find the odd signpost and just join the dots. To take this analogy further
You start at London (single cell) you finish at the North Pole (Humanity) And you claim to drive from one to the other (the evolutionary method of change) But you have no idea what terrain this drive entails. You reach John o’ Groats and are confronted with an ocean. Your vehicle can drive underwater (But you do not know if the sea bed is flat) You reach the ice pack and your vehicle just rises to the surface and mounts it. And so on. You ignore the possibility of a huge cavern under the sea, or a split in the ice cap, or any number of variations that might impede your vehicle.
Furthermore, you refuse to define the specs of your vehicle (the method of change) or to accept the possibility that there are obstacles that it cannot traverse or get around. (anything is possible given enough time)
All your data is interpreted with the destination in mind. You claim not but… it is almost inevitable in the circumstances.
You cannot actually make that journey. And you cannot be certain that your means of doing it (The vehicle/means of change) can actually do what you claim. And there is not enough fossil evidence to give perfect transitions. Yet still you claim a conclusion. = Common Ancestry. Science does not make conclusions!
Now, before you claim my analogy fails I will throw your own principles back at you.
If you are going to defeat an analogy you must provide a better one. You cannot just dismiss it.
And that is how to argue against evolution without using science.
Richard
1 Like
“little … respect for science of any sort”? Yes, that is rather cynical.
Heresy! Banish the infidel to the outer darkness forever, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!
1 Like
Neither. We start with reproduction with variation, and natural selection, along with the modern synthesis. There is no finish in any teleological way.
3 Likes
And people accuse me of not unnderstanding Evolution?
Yes there was a certain amount of symplification in my analogy.
Yes the initial conclusion had to be “found”.
Yes the evidence points t the conclusions within the limits of what is known.
Yes there is a great deal of evidence and no other plausible theroy
But
Using my analogy. You do not even know what route evolution took. It was almost certainly not the direct route. It was probably via Vladivostok, Timbuktu and the South Pole. But that is both the point and not the point. You do not know enough to make the assertions 100%.
And evolution did not know the destination even if you think you do. There was no map or direction. There is only survival. It was even worse than the rolling English drunkard, at least he had a road and a destination.
It does not matter what connections you find between me and an amoeba. If the process to get to me is not there, it cannot have happened.
And that is still the elephant that TOE ignores
Richard
That’s pretty extreme. ← (a prosthetic joint on a mouse: a little irony ; - )
…is intellectual dishonesty.
…and those who make them conflate methodological science with metaphysics, theology and philosophy. Who would do that.
I should think I’ve made it perfectly clear in my posts what I mean by “the theory of evolution”, but for your sake I’ll repeat it (for about the tenth time):
The theory of evolution = All life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via known biological mechanisms (eg, natural selection and genetic mutations).
The theory of evolution is related to but distinct from the mechanisms of evolution. The mechanisms of evolution include natural (or artificial) selection, genetic drift and gene flow.
What’s any of that got to do with your claim that the theory of evolution (all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via known biological mechanisms) has
“practical applications in oil exploration, immunology, virology, conservation, cancer research, artificial intelligence and machine learning”?
No, I don’t have any experience working as a geologist for the oil industry, but my argument is based on very simple logic and common sense … it doesn’t require a geologist’s knowledge.
My argument is that fossils are useful to the oil industry because they are found in predictable sequences - the explanation for why those fossils are found in predictable sequences is not what makes the sequences useful.
You need to separate the useful fact from the useless and irrelevant theory - the fact that the fossil sequences exist and are useful is completely independent from any theory as to why they exist (such as the theory of evolution).
Whether a geologist accepts that the fossils sequences are the result of evolution or not makes no difference to the usefulness of the fossils.
Come on, it ain’t rocket science.
I didn’t say that the sequences were just a "happy accident ". I meant the use of so-called conserved sequences as a research tool could be just a “happy accident”.
Considering the fact that humans and chimps are morphologically and physiologically very similar, that is hardly surprising.
I agree that humans and chimps are related genetically, but as for being related by common descent, I don’t know - although common descent is certainly the best scientific explanation for our genetic similarities.