Recently, I have been awestruck by the statement of one of the “reputable” regulars at TSZ that evolutionary theory doesn’t need to be subjected to any experimental testing or experimental verification…
How do you like that?
He erroneously used the famous experiment that verified Einstein’s prediction of gravity’s ability to bend light. Here are the details:
See? Experiments don’t need to be run in the lab, and they can still be valid experiments.
While this kind of statement is nothing new to me that Darwinists deny or ignore the need for the experimental verification of their evolutionary claims, on the other hand, they demand ID to be subjected to the scientific method processes for their claims to be verified…Hypocrisy at its best…
So, why can’t evolution be tested?
For those who are not well familiarized with the scientific method, it is probably a good idea to review some of the requirements of the scientific theory, or hypothesis, just to realize what an impossible task Darwinists would face even if they would like to verify their evolutionary speculations by experiments… While the definitions of the scientific method vary slightly depending on where you look, most scientific methods of a theory or a hypothesis need to meet the 3 main criteria:
- It needs to be observable (one kind of animal evolving into another: organs in transition, the third hand evolving to hold the cellphone while I’m driving)
- It needs to make accurate predictions (If we tweak this gene this is going to begin to evolve, such as a change the body plans from 5 pound land walking animal to 50 ton whale)
- It needs to be replicated by experiments (bacteria without a flagellum put under selective pressure to evolve something resembling a flagellum or a propeller…
Anyone who has been following TSZ and my OPs knows that my calling on the supporters of evolution to help their belief system to meet the criteria of a scientific theory or scientific hypothesis is not new… The public admission by some that evolution doesn’t need to be subjected to experimental testing reached the new, unacceptable levels of ignorance by Darwinists, especially in the view of their arrogant insistence that ID would be subjected to experimental testing to be proven as a scientific theory or hypothesis…
Darwinists either don’t know, or choose not to know, but if they subjected evolution to experimental testing they could prove their theory or hypothesis right and, at the same time, ID wrong…
So, why not do it?
I guess the only explanation for the phenomenon is that Darwinists have not much faith in their own beliefs… It is just used as a facade to make their s”intelligence” look less ludicrous…
Is the system guided by intent?
… in reference to your comment 3 minutes prior, what is evolution?
You may be thinking of your sins?
Rumraket,
It appears that their is only limited determinism.
That depends on what you mean by “intentional design”. I would be hesitant to describe it that way. However, evolution results from the pragmatic behavior of organisms, and I think it reasonable to ascribe some sort of intentionality to all organisms (even bacteria).
It depends on what you mean by “intent”. If that means the kind of conscious intention that we see with humans, then no. But I do see evolution as guided by pragmatic considerations. And if pragmatism is involved, then we are seeing the behavioral biases of the organisms at work. Perhaps we should take those biases as a kind of intent.
You got me man. My comment was for J-Mac. I don’t know just exactly what it is that he thinks is at odds with ID. From some of his posts I would think it’s common descent that he opposes. But I don’t see why common descent has to be at odds with ID.
🙂
Nothing original about those. lol.
Mung,
Can’t allow a secular foot in the door, perhaps. 😀
What does consciousness have anything to with my comment, Charlie ?
Consciousness is a separate issue Darwinism can’t even begin to try to explain…
You’d have to be specific what you mean by evolution
The laws governing the universe…
Human “errors” = no designer. Therefore evolution…
Or, it is not known why the design is not perfect and dies, therefore no designer…
How are the answers to these questions related to whether the universe was intelligently designed?
We’ve been over this, haven’t we?
You have to be specific what you mean by common descent…
I don’t have the evidence for the common descent Behe believes in and you seem to have fallen in love with…
As far as I know, neither does Behe but the evidence against common descent is too weak for Behe to bother to attack it…
29+ experimental verifications of evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
1 Million years of evolution and becteria are still bacteria???
Please tell me that after 1 million years of evolution bacteria upgraded the motor or the propeller… No? How about the genetic code? No?
What are the evolutionary predictions regarding bacteria showing some the real evolutionary changes other than breaking genes and downgrading function?
I have a prediction. It’s obvious…😂
Evolution of a new beta-galactosidase in E. coli:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12868605
Why? To prove himself a liar and the liars honest?
Lol just as predicted…
The new Ferrari motor is the next step…🤣
Excuse me?! I didn’t find any experimental evidence how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes… Can you provide the link? Or is it the 30 evidence, just hidden?
While you are at it, can you also provide the link to the scientific evidence as to where the genes not found in prokaryotes and found in eukaryotes come from?
Unfortunately, genespermia is not accepted…😂
Sure, because if it’s about natural processes that we can actually verify, test, and understand, no sir, it has to be solved, at the most intricate detail, from the first self-replicating molecules to each and every species in the planet. Yet, even then it won’t be acceptable. We will always be able to find an excuse to reject the evidence. But for The Magical Being in The Sky? Nah. Who needs verification? Who needs evidence? Who need proper philosophical grounds? Nah.
Oh, and don’t tell me that more and more is discovered about evolution, or that more and more evidence comes along! The Magical Being in The Sky, No Standards Allowed, is The One and Only Answer.
Entropy,
Evidence? What would constitute evidence? Your side is constantly asking for that, just like Rummy, but unfortunately every time you are given evidence you say that’s not evidence. So then you are asked what would be evidence then, and the answer is…. You can’t say.. Nothing.
The question would be: do you even understand why people would not know what would constitute evidence for gods?
You keep coming back to the stars forming some message from some god, like “I am real, I am God” or something to that effect. For me that would not be nearly enough. It would be much better if it confirmed, for example, that the Bible is a messy business, because it evidently is, and that it cannot be trusted, because it evidently cannot be. In other words, it would have to be clear about the unsolvable problems with the gods so far claimed by humanity that believers refuse to even contemplate with honesty. If on top, the message helped us prevent some horrendous problem in the future, not just the ones we already know about, like climate change, but something we might not have noticed yet. Shit, very convincing. I’d call that that a god. I might doubt the all-powerful all-knowing parts. the creator of everything that exists too. After all, there’s no way we could know if those characteristics and claims are true. We’re too limited to be able to verify things that far, right? But immensely, and respectably, powerful? For sure.
Could I suspect that I’ve been deceived? Sure. Would I reject the evidence altogether on that basis. Nope. I’d accept it at least for the time being, with the appropriate caveats and limitations.
I doubt this answer satisfies you. But I’m sorry. I have to be honest about human limitations, and about the unverifiability of the all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of everything that exists, claims.
However, that’s not the kind of evidence that you can provide, right? All you really have is your extreme skepticism about natural processes, and your absolute lack of standards when it comes to “God.” Well. Sorry. Nature is what we have, what we can talk about. What we can test. What we can experiment with, etc. Even more, we know that there’s a lot to explore and understand about Nature. We might have barely touched the surface, but it still looks very promising. Thus, it’s only natural to expect to find more interesting answers in Nature. Gods, on the other hand, look awfully imaginary. Too often absurdly so. Thus, I cannot even contemplate them as a possible answers to anything in Nature. I’m stuck for no fault of my own.
huh????
I think this is the first time on TSZ I EVER didn’t get what someone was saying??!!
how am i supporting evolutionists by what i say?
Unless its agreeing marine mammals did change bodyplans from land creatures to sea ones.
Well they did, its welcome, its rare in biology(literally unique in actual anatomical evidence) and is not welcome to evolutiondom iF they thought about it.
if you thought about it! Lets think harder together.
So if evidence just means, whatever you wish it would be, then for sure there is ZERO evidence for evolution. Worse than zero. Its negative evidence.
Because, well, evidence is just whatever one feels.
You don’t seem to be able to tell us. You give examples of things you think is evidence, instead of principles that would allow us to asses whether yet-to-be-discovered entities, objects, and processes, are also evidence.
I suspect you couldn’t actually describe the principle of evidence. What it would mean to have evidence for a hypothesis, not have evidence for a hypothesis, and to have evidence against a hypothesis.
The principles of it. Not examples of things you think are evidence. A distinction you have also showed zero evidence of having grasped.
It’s like the old question of what make something good. You give an example: feeding the poor. But that doesn’t explain what makes something good. Why is it good to feed the poor? To know what goodness is we’re going to need a principle we can apply in different situations, so we can understand whether new situations, deeds, actions, or thoughts, are examples of something good.
It’s the same way with evidence. You need to understand what evidence is. And to understand what evidence is for a particular category, we’re going to need defining attributes of that category. You’ve done none of this work, and it looks like you’re afraid of even beginning.
No what we actually do is try to get you to explain HOW it is evidence for your claims. You know, like how you think atoms are evidence for the supernatural.
Maybe they are, but before we can reach that conclusion, we’re going to need to understand what you think the defining attributes of the supernatural are, and then how you would observationally distinguish between natural and supernatural objects. Like those atoms again. If atoms were natural, how would you expect them to behave? What are the defining attributes of the natural? What are the defining attributes of the supernatural that sets it apart from the natural, and how do we test observationally for these differences?
YOU are the one desperate to avoid going down this path because you’re deeply insecure about where this might lead you, so you try to avoid peering deeper into your own reasoning all the time.
You just want to skip right ahead to just declaring that X is evidence of the supernatural. All this stuff about understanding evidence, categories, and principles, who gives a shit? You just have this deep need to declare that it’s God.
Rumraket,
You can’t say, “Oh, that is not evidence” and then also claim you don’t have the burden of explaining what is the standard for evidence.
If the standard for evidence is anyone’s opinion, as Entropy has just stated, then certainly anyone can rule out evidence for evolution.
But frankly, I think whenever you continually play your definition volleyball, I think its just pure bullshit, as a way of getting out of being caught being wrong.
You do it with the word supernatural, you do it with the word evidence, you do it with the word evolution, you do it with the word new, you do it with the word function, you do it with the word novel..its just nonsense. If there are no widely accepted understandings for all these words, then every science paper ever written is meaningless.
T. Aquaticus just referenced a paper about e.coli which starts with
, but according to you that is meaningless, because the author doesn’t state what his definition of novel is. Nor does he give his definition of function. Or evolution. or system…
I am afraid you have tried your definitions trick a few too many times Rummy. You need some new material. Do you know what new means?
I didn’t. I asked for definitions of concepts and categories.
So now what do you have? The entire rest of your post now collapses as the pathetic attempt at misdirection that it is.
Define your terms. What is the supernatural in your understanding, and in what way is atoms evidence for the supernatural?
No you obviously don’t. Hahahaaa
You don’t even believe this yourself, and by now it’s hilariously obvious that you are afraid of getting caught with your pants down, but pride prevents you from admitting it. You want to keep making this about your examples, but you are scared shitless of putting your understanding of the principles of evidence, or the natural-supernatural distinction, to any sort of rational analysis.
You say you have evidence for it and that atoms are examples of evidence for the supernatural. Why are atoms evidence for the supernatural? Explain it.
A word I have defined on this very forum several times before.
The ironic thing is I have actually defined all these words. Evolution, novelty, and new are words I have in fact given definitions of, but which you have deliberately refrained.
You are so obviously afraid of what would happen if you tried.
The definitions don’t have to be wideley accepted. As long as they are defined somewhere, the claims can be made sense of. Contrast that with you, who don’t define your words ANYWHERE. Never mind how many people accept the definitions, GIVE SOME. I have no problem working with a definition you supply to see where it takes us, you just need to give one.
But in any case, what you wrote is essentially a tu quoque fallacy. Nobody else’s purported failures serves as an excuse for yours. Other people failing to define their terms does not mean it’s okay for you to do it too. “It’s okay if you do it too”. No, it isn’t. I could be a hypocrite, and that would still not make it okay for you to be it.
There is just no way out of this. You have to define the supernatural, and then explain how to observationally distinguish it from the natural. So when you have got your nerves under control, I’ll be here and we can proceed.
All of that could be true, and that would mean the authors of that paper have written a meaningless paper if their terms are nowhere defined. I agree.
That still wouldn’t excuse you.
So now that we agree people should define their terms for us to rationally understand them, you can proceed to do that, define your terms. Right?
Please define:
So..
Now..
That..
We..
Agree..
People…
Should..
Define..
Terms..
Rationally..
Understand..
…or else we could just agree to use English.
phoodoo,
How about you offer some definitions of your own?
Or continue to play the role of Lord of Misrule.
That’s rich. To you evidence is whatever you feel phoodoo. As for me, you missed the point, but I doubt that repeating myself would help.
What’s your definition of definition?
I sort of thought English was your first language, so maybe that’s a good foundation.
What’s a foundation?
Ok, what about the stuff which is governed ?
A definition, such as found in a dictionary, is an explanation of the meaning of a word. It’s useful in verbal communication where a word might be unfamiliar or being used in an unfamiliar way.
That’s odd. I’ve been wondering if maybe English is not your first language.
Still no definition of supernatural that shows that atoms must qualify.
I accept the tacit concession by phoodoo that his “caveman” example about atoms makes zero logical sense and that he can’t defend it. I mean how hard is it to just define the supernatural and the natural, and then show that atoms meet one of these definitions?
Boy! That was easy! You just confirmed what I had written in this OP…😁
I knew you would do it…
Natural processes this …natural processes that… dodging difficult questions… and shifting the burden of proof on the other side…as you should, when “science” is just a mire, empty word….
Moving goalposts? Again? Give me one reason why I should answer you …
How does one determine which one is his first language if he only knows one?
I know a few…and still don’t know which language is my first, my second, my third….and so on…
Those are 30 experimental verifications of common ancestry and macroevolution. It is exactly what you asked for.
Just as expected, denial of the very evidence you asked for.
Your first language is the one you first learned to speak. Do you not know which one you learned when you were first capable of speech? Of course some kids are raised in bilingual or multilingual environments and are able to pass as a native speaker in more than one language. Some of us, on the other hand…
J-Mac,
Your OP is a lie J-Mac. Maybe you should read that comment of mine that you linked, just in case you made a mistake. Nowhere do I say that there’s no need for experimental verification. Nowhere do I talk about Probe B either (I was talking about an experiment back in the early 1900s, but Probe B also makes my point, just like the experiment to detect gravitational waves).
It is not a competition, I accept your answer, just wondering if your view is once the laws are established everything else follows or if the design process requires interventions. And what might those be.
I have no idea what your reasons to do anything are.
Fair enough! Sorry…
Short answer: I don’t know…
But, in QM there are clear indications that our freewill could be restricted to a small degree…So, to illustrate this, we, the universe, are like a sailboat that sets sail to a particular destination and it will get there even if the winds and waves push it off course…It is as if the universe and mankind as a whole had a certain degree of predestination set in the future but individuals have a choice whether they want to be on that “boat” or not…
It’s weird but possibly quite real…
Could this apply to the design?
Sounds a bit like theistic evolution design
The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time
By placing wild mice in large outdoor enclosures, an ambitious team of scientists has illustrated the full process of natural selection in a single study