Who likes evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

That is the scientific method, to have a theory and search for evidence that supports or rejects it. Cling to your ridiculous creationist beliefs, they have absolutely no scientific credibility. Nothing creationists have thrown at evolution by way of disproving evidence has been shown to have any substance, instead this anti evolutionary evidence has been shown to be false by evolutionary theory

Yes, that is the scientific method. However, since you wish to be technicalistic here in order to promote the size of your brain over mine, "fact" is the wrong term. The scientific method does not have a "fact" level. It has hypotheses, which are basically an explanation for observations (data, which are the items which may be called "facts") and such an explanation has corollaries which are testable/falsifiable/observable. If it fits that data, then it may move to the theory level, and if it continues to fit the data, then it may be called a "law". However, if there is conflicting data along its ascension of nomenclature, then it needs to be altered or discarded. Evolution is invariably altered when this occurs and probably will never be discarded.

That is true. The name will likely never change. The facts could end up completely different and still use the same label.

Its funny because today I was thinking of that very situation.

You are of course aware of the efforts and intent of certain fundamentalist Christian groups to recast and redact the bible to contain only literal terminology?

They will have changed the facts and you can be sure that they will retain the label(Christianity).

It also seems likely that they will overlook various points(we are all human) and a further revision could take place, either soon, or in some number of years.

It could be argued that this has already happened with organizations starting with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Christianity is invariably altered when this occurs and(the label) probably will never be discarded. Regardless of the amount of bifurcation that occurs.

It's partly a joke and partly a serious view, First, I don't much understand the purpose of the question and what actually means. On one hand, Evolution, ID or Creationism, one of them would be more according to reality regardless which of them we like better, on the other hand, there is the issue about personal preference for chosing one over the other, regardless reality.

No, I don't like to think before I reply.

However, yes, I would say "we'd have to replace it with some other naturalistic cause". Why? Well, a major issue is in limiting supernatural hypotheses, as once we start positing them, how do we reduce away the flabby ones? How do we test supernatural hypotheses? It seems to me that science has to necessarily move from the known, which is natural, to explain the unknown. This seems to preclude all variants of supernatural hypotheses, which themselves are hard to make known.

Additionally, if one part of evolution is correct and another one isn't then we have to continually update the theory. Theories aren't final, but rather they are guesses. Some of them are really good guesses. But we have to inform our guess and then reform our guess. In any case, at the present moment, I cannot see what would cause me to change to an intelligent designer hypothesis, other than finding an intelligent designer, simply because of the logical possibility of order from simple rules that exists, and the fact that I do not see how one could make a great inference to a designer.

Designs that seem somewhat bad(or not anthropocentric) are one of the facts to be explained and evolutionary path dependency is an explanation. Now, I wish that the designs weren't bad, which means that I would wish that evolution was incorrect and rather desire good, anthropocentric designs which would seemingly be more likely with an intelligent designer. However, given the fact that designs are problematic, I do say that evolution is likely true. (I say anthropocentric, sort of to reflect the fact that some of the issues are the counter-intuitive nature of human neuro-psychology)

No not really, I am just bemused by people who follow religious dogma to such lengths.

The basic Idea behind evolution has never been disproven and has not been altered. Of course they are always finding new data but only the details such as some of the ideas about the evolutionary pathways of certain species are altered. But the basic idea that species emerged via mutation and natural selection has not changed since Charles Darwin proposed it.

I think that is called dysteleology? I am not really that familiar with it. But this would seem to be partially related to one of my responses to Gromit about the presence of immune systems, parasitic organisms and attack-defense structures. Though it is not exactly what you are saying, would it be to mean that if a mechanism can cause harm that it is not designed or less likely to be designed? Or do you mean that because a mechanism is defective that it is not designed or that it is less likely to be designed? Really though, if considering the former, then weapons would be a rather obvious counterexample. If considering the latter, then public transit systems and other city planning projects... oh wait, those are so crappy I don't want them associated with anything designed. Things that are currently defective may have been functional once before. Complex machines have a higher chance of breaking down than simple machines do, because for each additional part there is an additional way for a machine to malfunction. But anyhow, I think even a "poorly designed" object shows enough design elements to be called "designed".

Whether evolution can have a better way of explaining objects that are "bad" or "poor" or not centered solely for human benefit is more of a theological consideration in some parts though. It would be more scientific to ask, "can natural selection acting upon mutation explain how the designs came to be?", and such is something addressed by proponents of the Intelligent Design, though it's just rejected as creationism because creationism is wrong by definition. However, to ask whether a highly complex though defective mechanism is more likely to be made by descent with modification or whether it is more likely to have been initially designed, can be more of a issue concerning who the designer is and the characteristics and such.

Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

If anyone found fossils of bunnies in the Cambrian period then this would suggest that life hasn't changed much since then and evolution would be practically falsified. This hasn't happened yet.

Assume fossils of bunnies are sometime found in rock that was once labeled as demonstrating the Cambrian period, would evolution be rejected or would the classification of the rock change?

Fossils can be dated with radiometric dating methods. You would not be able to use carbon dating for a fossil from the Cambrian era but you could use other methods like potassium/argon dating. At any rate, you can prove how old a fossil is. So if for example the dating reveals that the bunny only lived 10000 years ago then the rock will be re-classified. But if it reveals that it lived in the Cambrian period then it falsify evolution.

Suppose I gave the perfect example of this, a fully formed modern species properly radiometrically dated to being 4 billion years old. How would you argue against your own argument?

Some species are already pretty well adapted to their environment that they haven't really changed up to today, to name a few, the Horseshoe crab and the Nautilus.

(link to living fossil article in Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil )

Do you have such an example?

I might have given him a clue... <.<