|
Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (5/17/2008 11:32:11 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
No, bones are not empirical evidence for bones; footprints are not empirical evidence for footprints; DNA differences are not empirical evidence for DNA differences. These ARE empirical evidence PERIOD. They are directly observable to the senses. That is why they are called "empirical" evidence.
It's not my fault you don't understand the difference between empirical and circumstantial evidence.
quote:
Yes, empirical evidence is empirical evidence and when it is supportive of UCD it is empirical evidence for UCD. No such evidence falsifies UCD; therefore it is supportive of UCD.
You have not provided any empirical evidence for UCD.
quote:
What it is not, (and what science never provides) is hard and fast proof of UCD. However, the weight of the evidence makes UCD the most probable explanation of the evidence.
I think that the evidence makes UCD a very improbable explanation.
quote:
Note that I refer here to one of the key characteristics of a theory: a theory explains why we observe what we do. And it explains all relevant observations.
UCD fails to do either.
quote:
The basic problem with creationism is that it either provides no explanation, or only covers some evidence or even covers different lines of evidence with different and contradictory explanations.
You mean how Darwin covers gradualistic change with gradualism and how Gould covers abrupt emergences with punctuated equilibrium?
quote:
I and many others have provided plenty of empirical evidence. You just want to limit empirical evidence to one form: direct observation of process over a long term. Well, we already have direct observation of process over decades. We certainly will have, eventually, direct observation of process over centuries. Direct observation of process over millennia is not likely and over hundreds of millions of years, highly improbable.
You have not provided any empirical evidence. The observable processes do not produce IC systems like the flagella.
quote:
If that is the one and only form of empirical evidence you recognize, I agree, it has not been provided and probably never will be. But it is incorrect to limit the meaning of "empirical" to this one form of observation.
This is the meaning of empirical evidence, it is not incorrect to do so.
quote:
Bones, footprints, differences in DNA, etc. are empirical evidence too. Sure they need to be analyzed and interpreted. But that doesn't mean they are not empirical.
At best, they are only circumstantial evidence for UCD (and poorly interpreted circumstantial evidence).
quote:
quote:
Not all circumstantial evidence is empirical.
Example?
quote:
If a witness testifies that the defendant was seen entering a house, then screaming was heard, then the defendant was seen leaving, carrying a bloody knife, that is circumstantial evidence; if a witness testifies that the defendant was seen actually stabbing the victim, that is direct evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
This is how I learned it in school, this is how Unclemonkey understands it, this is how wikipedia explains it, everyone but you seems to understand the difference between empirical (direct) evidence and circumstantial (indirect) evidence. It's not my fault you don't understand the difference.
quote:
Gradualism is not a prediction of universal common descent.
It was Darwins prediction based on UCD assumptions.
quote:
First, he insisted that complex features had to be built up by small incremental changes. This has never been falsified
The burden is on him to demonstrate a positive, not for me to demonstrate a negative.
quote:
Second, he assumed that all evolutionary change occurred steadily and slowly. This has been partially falsified. Much evolutionary change is indeed slow and steady, just as he visualized, but not all. Sometimes, evolutionary change occurs rapidly and in spurts (Punctuated equilibrium).
Which means that what he said was falsified. Basically, it's not PE and it's not gradualism meaning that UCD predicts nothing.
quote:
It is important to know that although PE shows differences in the rate at which evolution occurs, it does not violate the first sense of "gradual".
It violates how Darwin defined it.
quote:
Even when occurring rapidly, evolutionary change still occurs as an accumulation of small, incremental changes.
This has never been observed to create any new limbs, body plans, appendages, organs, organ systems, etc... or the DNA that codes for them, and it's all speculation.
quote:
None of this refers to universal common descent. Ordinary common descent, yes, but not universal common descent. Your failure to differentiate between common descent and universal common descent means you assume that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter. Not so.
Again, Darwin believed in UCD and his predictions were based on that principle.
quote:
Whether they are more useful than he thought is irrelevant.
It is relevant, Darwin was wrong.
quote:
They are still vestigial in comparison to their homologues in related species.
You mean species that are assumed to be related.
quote:
And again, while this implies descent from a common ancestor, it does not imply universal common descent.
There is no reason for it to imply descent for a common ancestor and, once again, Darwin based his predictions on the assumption that UCD is true.
quote:
Again, the latter is irrelevant ( and speculative), but while natural selection implies some degree of common descent, it does not imply universal common descent.
Darwin used Natural selection and RM as attempted mechanisms to explain UCD.
quote:
IOW, all of your examples refer to Darwin's main interest: to show that not every species was separately created, but that some species were modifications of earlier species. This, of course, demands that there be some degree of common descent. And that common descent to this degree exists is now agreed to even by most creationists. The whole notion of "kinds" as original ancestors of many related species depends on common descent. But it repudiates universal common descent.
IOW, Darwin believed in UCD and his predictions and explanations were based on the assumption that all organisms share a common ancestor.
quote:
Did Darwin speculate that we could press common descent back to a single common ancestor? Yes, indeed he did. I have never denied that. But for lack of evidence he did not insist on it. He dares to speculate that all animal species could have been derived from as few as six original creations. And he concludes with a vision of the creator breathing life into "a few forms or into one". This is the only place he suggests a single common ancestor in Origin of Species. And he does so in the most speculative and tentative of terms. Most of his work is directed toward the more modest goal of establishing that common descent (not universal common descent) is a reality.
I think that I already demonstrated that Darwin proposed UCD. At the very least, his views were not contradicting to that, but it seems to be the case that he believed UCD is true.
quote:
Of course, we now do affirm both common descent and universal common descent, because the latter is no longer speculative. It is a concept well-supported by a plethora of evidence. And it is falsifiable.
Claims like this are easy enough to make. Please substantiate.
quote:
bvz is right. Before you can speak to the issue, "It is very important that you understand what a nested hierarchy IS". Clearly, you don't.
Yes I do.
...
First you say
quote:
A potential falsification has to arise from a logical consequence of the theory.
Then you say
quote:
You are right. Evolution does not logically require any such thing.
Then you say
quote:
However, common descent from one ancestor does require that the genetic information molecule and the specific code used by that ancestor be the one used by its descendants.
Then you say
quote:
So, you are right, it is not falsification of evolution. It is a possible falsification of common descent.
Now you say
quote:
You have it backwards about. It is not that these things are necessarily a consequence of UCD. It is UCD that is the consequence. The evidence only makes sense in the case where UCD exists.
I disagree. I think the evidence resists UCD as strongly as possible.
quote:
Start thinking of UCD as the logical consequence and you may start getting a better perspective on the significance of the evidence. How do you explain the evidence without common descent?
The evidence was designed to resist naturalistic explanation. I think it does an excellent job. The problem is that you insist on a naturalistic explanation but the evidence resists naturalistic explanation.
quote:
Yes, it means to be born with a certain condition---often applied to disorder of some kind. Although, of course, we are all born with certain conditions. good and bad. The disorder is not necessarily genetic. Children are born with HIV because they acquired it in the womb. Same applies to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. These are congenital disorders.
...
In fact, in the case of a mutation, we expect that the ancestor does NOT possess it. That is what a mutation is, a changed form of the DNA not found in either parent.
Obviously, this does not change the fact that by far the most part of DNA is inherited from one or the other parent. (One in the case of cloning/a-sexual reproduction). Note that the grandchildren of the ancestor, descended from the offspring with the mutation, will inherit it from their parent. For them, it is not a new mutation, but part of their heritage.
So then you acknowledge that evolution claims that we can acquire and lose traits that some of our ancestors did not have? In other words, evolution does not make the alleged predictions you claim.
quote:
Whether or not it does is beside the point. One creator does not necessarily mean only one kind of life.
One kind of life very strongly suggests either, one creator or multiple creators working dependently of each other (ie: who are working together or who are familiar with each others work). Unless that one kind of life somehow posses an advantage that all other kinds did not posses.
quote:
UCD does necessarily mean one kind of life.
Again, there is no reason for this to be the case.
quote:
Therefore, a creator is consistent with both one kind of life and many kinds of life.
See above.
quote:
But UCD is consistent with only one kind of life.
Again, there is no reason for this.
quote:
That is why a different kind of life would be a falsification of UCD.
There is no reason it would falsify UCD.
quote:
True, but you have to show that there are multiple kinds of life to begin with.
Why would I have to show that? If UCD is true, it could have been the case that there was one kind of life to begin with and it changed over time. Evolution allows for change.
quote:
To use the language of baramins, you have to show that there is no relation of one baramin to another and that each is a separate creation.
I don't see how two kinds of life would show this.
quote:
If all life known to us is of one kind, and relationships can be established among all forms of life, then there is only one kind of life for natural selection to maintain.
The relationships are speculative. Again, there is no reason why natural selection would only maintain one kind of life if multiple kinds of life could exist.
quote:
That is what we observe.
What we observe resists UCD.
quote:
The number of designers is irrelevant so long as a single designer can produce a multiplicity of designs. A designer, of course, could choose to produce only one design and modify it in many ways. And there is no way of distinguishing the work of such a designer from UCD.
UCD does not predict what we see.
quote:
However, while a single basic life design is a necessary consequence of UCD,
No, it's not. One can argue the design can "change" or "evolve" and natural selection does not care to maintain one "basic life design" unless that design provides an advantage.
quote:
it is not a necessary consequence of a single designer. It is a free choice that could be otherwise. That is why the existence of a wholly different design would not falsify design, but would falsify UCD.
See above.
quote:
Why? Is inheritance not a probable reason for descendants of ATP-using organisms also using ATP? If not, why not?
It's not a necessary consequence. Lack of observable mechanism isn't a problem in cases of the formation of the flagellum and other IC parts, so it shouldn't be a problem here either. Natural selection wouldn't care to preserve only ATP if there are other energy currencies that could work just as well.
quote:
And what makes it likely that a single designer would never vary from using ATP in separate creations? This is again, the crucial difference between design and descent. One can only inherit what already exists in one's ancestors.
A single designer could choose only to use ATP, but could also choose not to. One cannot choose what one inherits. A designer or designers who choose a single design and stick to it cannot be distinguished from inheritance. A designer or designers who choose to vary their designs prove that something other than inheritance is involved.
Because one cannot choose what one inherits, common descent explains common design. A single designer does not explain common design, because it does not follow that a single designer will always use common design. And should the designer choose to vary design, that would falsify UCD, because it would show a pattern that cannot be explained by inheritance.
Again, evolution implies that what exists can change. Natural selection does not care to maintain only ATP (unless it provides an advantage). However, there is no reason why multiple independent designers would choose only ATP (unless it provides an advantage).
quote:
There is every reason why only one would be inherited if all life forms have a common ancestor.
No, there is no reason.
quote:
You would have to have separate ancestors to get separate energy processing molecules. To be sure, if they work equally well, natural selection would maintain them both. But you have to have both generated separately to begin with. One can only inherit what exists in the ancestor. And if all inherit ATP, it is probably because all inherit it from the same ancestor.
Again, evolution implies that traits could change. UCD could allow that the molecule could change over generations and it would not care to maintain the same molecule.
quote:
How would it not? How could a life-form inherit what its ancestor did not possess?
We have eyes and our alleged microbe ancestors did not.
quote:
No, it could be a designer choice. However, the latter is not explanatory and leads to no useful predictions.
It leads to a nice explanation.
quote:
UCD is explanatory and does lead to testable and fruitful predictions. So it is a better scientific model.
No, UCD is not explanatory, it's unfalsifiable.
quote:
Please tell me which of these codons is not used by bacteria or not used by humans.
I did not say, "codons" I said "code." Do you know the difference? Our genetic makeup is not identical to the genetic makeup of bacteria. That's what I meant. Please don't take my words out of context.
quote:
By the differences in the eyes, of course. Different structure (compound vs camera), different nerve, muscle and blood vessel arrangements. Different ligatures to the bone (or lack of bone altogether).
There are many differences between us and bacteria. Human eyes and Chimp eyes are different. Again, evolution implies that changes occur.
quote:
How would such differences come from the same ancestor?
Two brothers have similar eyes but their eyes still have slight differences. You're still missing the point. Even if our eyes were very different, it would not falsify UCD and even if the eyes of humans and chimps were very different, it would not falsify UCD. Evolution itself implies change.
quote:
Indeed, the point is that the brothers' eyes differ slightly. That is all that can be expected in siblings. You do not get mammalian eyes in one brother and octopus eyes in the other, because the parents do not have octopus eye characteristics to bequeath to either son.
The point here is that there is no reason why differences would falsify UCD. If another organism uses something other than ATP, there is no reason for this to falsify UCD since evolution itself implies change.
quote:
Are you sure you understand inheritance?
Yes.
|
|
|
|