Evolution Confusion

[Mega City 5]

No. Macro-evolution gives rise to speciation. They aren't one in the same.

Oh.

Well.

I feel silly now.

Yes, I grant that, necessarily, micro-evolution + time implies macro-evolution, if by macro-evolution you simply mean the accumulation of changes over time.

[Godular]

No. Macro-evolution gives rise to speciation. They aren't one in the same.

Oh.

Well.

I feel silly now.

Yes, I grant that, necessarily, micro-evolution + time implies macro-evolution, if by macro-evolution you simply mean the accumulation of changes over time.

That's bloody well what we've been saying the entire time.

[Mega City 5]

Actually, it occurs to me: couldn't you have appealed to the diversity of human ethnicities/phenotypes, etc. as an example of macro-evolution?

[Grave_n_idle]

The evidence supports microevolution and macroevolution being the same process over a different time scale.

If microevolution is the case, then macroevolution is the case because it's microevolution multiplied by time.

But that's a question of 'evidence', not 'proof'. What you are doing isn't science - it's theology.

How do you understand the words "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution"?

I guess what's really getting me is Marvopen's claim that the one necessarily implies the other. As youv'e indicated, it's not scientific. Natural science doesn't deal in "necessarily"s.

Even if it's true in fact that micro-evolution ultimately is the cause of macro-evolution (I actually grant this), it still doesn't follow that the one necessarily is the cause of the author, which is Marvopen's claim, i.e., that one logically entails the other.

Actually, it does logically follow - you're just using the wrong logical devices, and you're applying them in an unscientific way.

The second is forgiveable - you're perhaps trying to get science to fit into an encompassing world view, although you have to understand that science is both more and less rigourous than common expression.

Every journey starts with a single step. In the case of macroevolution, the first step seems to be microevolution. All the evidence suggests that every other step is also microevolution - so it is logical to assume that the smallest divisible unit of macroevolution IS microevolution. The one DOES necessitate the other. Logically.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, it occurs to me: couldn't you have appealed to the diversity of human ethnicities/phenotypes, etc. as an example of macro-evolution?

No. We ALREADY gave you an appropriate example: Darwin's Finches.

[Mega City 5]

No. We ALREADY gave you an appropriate example: Darwin's Finches.

Why aren't different human ethnicities/phenotypes an example of macro-evolution?

[Grave_n_idle]

Research rassenkreis, or 'ring species'. They provide compelling evidence of the 'transition' you're looking for - creatures of a common ancestor that function both as members of a common species, or as separate species.

Again, you are confusing two claims:

A leads to B in fact.
Necessarily, A leads to B.

I took Mavorpen as making the latter claim. I already grant the former claim.

I don't think I'm confusing the claims, at all. If the evidence shows B is contingent on A and derives from A... then necessarily, A leads to B.

[Mavorpen]

No. We ALREADY gave you an appropriate example: Darwin's Finches.

Why aren't different human ethnicities/phenotypes an example of macro-evolution?

The scale isn't significant at all and variation is primarily within the populations rather than between them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, it occurs to me: couldn't you have appealed to the diversity of human ethnicities/phenotypes, etc. as an example of macro-evolution?

Ring species are a better example, because there are end-point populations, where one part of the common species can't interbreed with another part of the common species.

While humans might have collectively macroevolved from their origins, if you want evidence of transition, you want to see different populations - and humans have never yet been geographically isolated long enough to have produced truly divergent populations within the common species.

[Harkback Union]

You said:



And I said:



That's the whole point of using math and logic, being able to prove and disprove using your models of the world.

Erm, no. You don't use maths to prove a model. Models are formed from their explanatory and predictive power. The only thing you can prove is that the maths is reliable because of mathematical proofs.

I say, if I put together chemical X and Y, its gonna explode. The scientist then turns to me and tells me that according to the endlessly tested and perfected models of the physical world, I am... oh, wait, I think I know why you didn't understand me. There is the kind of proof you get from observation and there are the kinds of proof you get from logic:

No, I understand you just fine.

When the scientist proves that I am right about the explosion, he uses logical proof.

This is circular reasoning. You're presupposing he actually proved you're right. You're assuming he used logical proof while not explaining how you gathered this. Scientists don't directly apply logical proofs. The scientific method implicitly applies deductive and inductive reasoning simply because of structure.

No, you don't understand me at all. I never said that you prove the models themselves with logical proof from within. You prove within them to get new hypothesis for testing! Models are glued together from axioms and theories based on tons of well - tested hypothesis, and from the models you get logical proof for new hypothesis, but all of this happens within the confines of the model. If the hypothesis is testable, it gets tested, if it isn't, we can move on to new hypothesis based on that one until we get to something testable... That's what I wanted to explain at the start. If you do not accept hypothesis to be proven within the confines of its model, then how are you going to do this?

Science:
1. Hypothesize
2. Test
3. Build a framework of logic based on not-falsified hypothesis in which to explain the world (This 3 steps is what the scientist did earlier)
4. Based on the framework (or just randomly) derive new Hypothesis (This is what I said about the chemicals X and Y)
5. Test if hypothesis that works in the model works IRL (The chemist made the calculations and said according to his model, my idea will pass the test, I would then do the experiment to see if he and I was right)
6. If something doesn't add up, change the framework and try again.
Again, you can have one of your first hypothesis falsified Centuries after, then you may have to rethink the entire model.

Scientists do apply logical proof to get stuff done. A great deal of the experimental data (especially in physics) with which to confirm or refute hypothesis are gathered through measurements which are at least in part gained through logical proof. When you want to tell how far apart another galaxy is, you use the models you made of the universe and combine it with sensor data to calculate it because sensor data alone won't tell you shit. When you triangulate positions, you use logical proof to get coordinates, when you amount for mass and volume of particles... list goes on. In fact, if we look really close, All experiments involve at least a little bit of logical proof, as we always take some things for granted based on our models of the world.

Getting new hypotheses is also in large part thanks to logical proof as explained in the scientific method so there is that.

[Mavorpen]

No, you don't understand me at all. I never said that You never prove the models themselves. You prove within them!
Science:
1. Hypothesize
2. Test
3. Build a framework of logic based on not-falsified hypothesis in which to explain the world (This 3 steps is what the scientist did earlier)

What? Where does 3 come from? You don't build a framework of "logic." You repeat your experimentation, and as you gather new data, you form new hypotheses. Eventually, you can formulate a theory that encompasses these hypotheses and explains the data resulting from testing them. This isn't necessarily a "framework of logic." It's simply a coherent organization of the hypotheses and explanations.

4. Based on the framework (or just randomly) derive new Hypothesis (This is what I said about the chemicals X and Y)

Erm, no. You reach conclusions and then based on these conclusions, you consider new avenues of research. It isn't based on any "framework of logic."

5. Test if hypothesis that works in the model works IRL (The chemist made the calculations and said according to his model, my idea will pass the test, I would then do the experiment to see if he and I was right)
6. If something doesn't add up, change the framework and try again.
Again, you can have one of your first hypothesis falsified Centuries after, then you may have to rethink the entire model.

Scientists do apply logical proof to get stuff done.

You haven't given a specific enough example for me to accept that they do. You're just telling me that they do at this point, when everything you're saying works entirely fine without the injection of "logical proof."

A great deal of the experimental data (especially in physics) with which to confirm or refute hypothesis are gathered through measurements which are at least in part gained through logical proof.

Now you're straw manning. I'm not saying that the data isn't obtained with at least applying some sort of "logical proof." Maths fulfills that role. I'm only stating that we don't use logical proof to actually directly "prove" the theory or model, merely that we APPLY something that's ALREADY proved as a simple tool. In a similar way, you can use a pencil to write down ideas, but it's just a tool that's convenient. You could also alternatively type them. Maths is just a tool.

When you want to tell how far apart another galaxy is, you use the models you made of the universe and combine it with sensor data to calculate it because sensor data alone won't tell you shit. When you triangulate positions, you use logical proof to get coordinates, when you amount for mass and volume of particles... list goes on. In fact, if we look really close, All experiments involve at least a little bit of logical proof, as we always take some things for granted based on our models of the world.

Again, at this point you're just talking past me. Never have I denied that we USE a logical proof (maths). My point is that we don't use the logical proof to PROVE the theory. That's the part you've failed to substantiate.

Getting new hypotheses is also in large part thanks to logical proof as explained in the scientific method so there is that.

Again, this isn't contradicting my main point.

[Daburuetchi]

Comrades OP is going to wear his/her tinfoil hat regarding evolution no matter what. Your not going to convert anybody.

[Lost heros]

Actually, it occurs to me: couldn't you have appealed to the diversity of human ethnicities/phenotypes, etc. as an example of macro-evolution?

For macro-evolution add more time in isolation. The scale for human's ethnicity isn't big enough, while it is a start.

[Geilinor]

Actually, it occurs to me: couldn't you have appealed to the diversity of human ethnicities/phenotypes, etc. as an example of macro-evolution?

For macro-evolution add more time in isolation. The scale for human's ethnicity isn't big enough, while it is a start.

This^. Ethnicities have interbred much more than people realize.

[Gim]

Comrades OP is going to wear his/her tinfoil hat regarding evolution no matter what. Your not going to convert anybody.

It lies in our conscience to do our best in educating the ignorant. As the saying goes, slam the wall until it collapses.

[Harkback Union]

@Mavorpen

Yes, There is a model. What do you think Industries use to make us medicine or power companies electricity?

These are models. A Theory is a piece of the model, or might even be a model of its own. I want you to look into these:

http://www.learner.org/courses/essentia ... oser1.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
https://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/ ... /Text.html

Categories of Models

Abstract

predictions, theories, hypotheses, many mathematical and computer models

Newton's laws in physics, plans, recipes, statements such as "taking anabolic steroids increases one's strength," or "smoking causes lung cancer."

Physical

organisms and their properties, replicas, structures, demonstrations

a globe is a physical model of the earth, each of us is a model for other humans, and the physical structures used in chemistry class are models of molecules

Sampling

random choice, personal preference

the sampling model refers to the way that subjects are chosen for a study and divided up among the different groups; sampling models are the subject of our section on Data.

Because I don't hink we mean the same world by model. I know its a broad concept, but the one I use is are the likes of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

Mathematic is the framework of logic, the axioms we set based on the hypothesis we tested are the framework of logic, the rules of equations, the units of measurements, the language of science is the framework of logic. Without these, we can't use logic to make and test models, we cant even conceive complex ideas.

Build a framework of logic based on not-falsified hypothesis in which to explain the world (This 3 steps is what the scientist did earlier)

That's a key element. If you don't invent numbers, how will you count sheep?

For a millionth time, you still miss my point.

I'm only stating that we don't use logical proof to actually directly "prove" the theory or model, merely that we APPLY something that's ALREADY proved as a simple tool.

AND WHEN DID I SAY THAT? ( I mean physically proving with logical proofs )
NEVER!

I said... that if you have a hypothesis... that cannot be tested, that you imply its true and derive more hypothesis based on it until you get one you can test, AND THEN YOU TEST IT! This strategy moved science forward for quiet a while and wouldn't work if we signed up for the disbelief until proven thinking.
I also said that when you come up with new hypothesis, you may want to base it off existing models that seem to work instead of conjuring up something that completely contradicts them, that way you improve your chances of finding a hypothesis that stands the test of time.


Wait, so you understood what I meant by model?
The hell am I been wasting my time with!

[Lost heros]

No. Macro-evolution gives rise to speciation. They aren't one in the same.

Oh.

Well.

I feel silly now.

Yes, I grant that, necessarily, micro-evolution + time implies macro-evolution, if by macro-evolution you simply mean the accumulation of changes over time.

And large changes over time in isolated populations would give rise to?

[Mavorpen]

Mathematic is the framework of logic,

This I accept. However, within the context of your argument it makes no sense. We don't "form" mathematics to prove anything, we just use it.

the axioms we set based on the hypothesis we tested are the framework of logic, the rules of equations, the units of measurements, the language of science is the framework of logic. Without these, we can't use logic to make and test models, we cant even conceive complex ideas.

Okay, again, you're just making claim after claim with no discernible use of actual evidence. Give me specific examples.

Build a framework of logic based on not-falsified hypothesis in which to explain the world (This 3 steps is what the scientist did earlier)

That's a key element. If you don't invent numbers, how will you count sheep?

I... what? Again, this has nothing to do with my point. My point is not that we don't use maths. That's NEVER been my claim.

For a millionth time, you still miss my point.

Actually, it's the opposite. I understand your points just fine. You're just straw manning me and insisting I argue something I'm not.

AND WHEN DID I SAY THAT? ( I mean physically proving with logical proofs )
NEVER!

Then you're not arguing with me and never have been from the beginning. Again, this is your problem, not mine, because you initiated this debate based on a specific claim I made. Also, I didn't say "physically proving with logical proofs." I said directly proving.

This was my claim:

Because, I'll stress again. Science isn't interested in proving things. You don't prove a negative claim nor do you prove a positive one. You either reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject it.

You recognized this as my claim. So what the hell have you been arguing against this entire time?

I said... that if you have a hypothesis... that cannot be tested, that you imply its true and derive more hypothesis based on it until you get one you can test, AND THEN YOU TEST IT! This strategy moved science forward for quiet a while and wouldn't work if we signed up for the disbelief until proven thinking.
I also said that when you come up with new hypothesis, you may want to base it off existing models that seem to work instead of conjuring up something that completely contradicts them, that way you improve your chances of finding a hypothesis that stands the test of time.

Again, none of this contradicts what I've claimed.

Wait, so you understood what I meant by model?
The hell am I been wasting my time with!

Again, that's your problem, not mine.

[Harkback Union]

@ You know who

Knowledge is Belief

but perhaps, not vice versa.

In any case, I think I know whats going on here.
don't get what your problem is. You are blindfolded and ask 3 apples which of them think

1 Says, "I am red". Another says, "I am not red". The 3rd doesn't know the answer because unlike the others, he realizes that he is blindfolded and sees no way to tell if he is red or not. He doesn't give you an answer, or if you promise not to chop him up for it, he says:
"I don't know".

Sure, I understand, You inquire whether people believe that x is true. Do you believe that there are gods? Based on atheist thought, until there is evidence, you say no. At the same time, there could be another question asked as to whether x is false. Do you believe that there are no gods? Based on atheist thought, the answer is yes, because disbelief is the default.

But wait, what if you ask the question this way. Do you know if there are gods?

=> Agnostics.

[Mavorpen]

Sure, I understand, You inquire whether people believe that x is true. Do you believe that there are gods? Based on atheist thought, until there is evidence, you say no. At the same time, there could be another question asked as to whether x is false. Do you believe that there are no gods? Based on atheist thought, the answer is yes, because disbelief is the default.

Disbelief in this case simply means lack of belief or faith. So, no, disbelief=/="I believe there are no gods." That's possible, but not necessarily the case.

But wait, what if you ask the question this way. Do you know if there are gods?

=> Agnostics.

This is actually a question by which agnosticism is applicable.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

@ You know who

Knowledge is Belief

but perhaps, not vice versa.

In any case, I think I know whats going on here.
don't get what your problem is. You are blindfolded and ask 3 apples which of them think

1 Says, "I am red". Another says, "I am not red". The 3rd doesn't know the answer because unlike the others, he realizes that he is blindfolded and sees no way to tell if he is red or not. He doesn't give you an answer, or if you promise not to chop him up for it, he says:
"I don't know".

Sure, I understand, You inquire whether people believe that x is true. Do you believe that there are gods? Based on atheist thought, until there is evidence, you say no. At the same time, there could be another question asked as to whether x is false. Do you believe that there are no gods? Based on atheist thought, the answer is yes, because disbelief is the default.

But wait, what if you ask the question this way. Do you know if there are gods?

=> Agnostics.

Wrong. There is no such thing as an agnostic. Agnosticism deals with claims of knowledge. You must be agnostic with respect to something. "I am agnostic" is as nonsensical as " I am quickly".

You'd be an agnostic atheist.

[Harkback Union]

Sure, I understand, You inquire whether people believe that x is true. Do you believe that there are gods? Based on atheist thought, until there is evidence, you say no. At the same time, there could be another question asked as to whether x is false. Do you believe that there are no gods? Based on atheist thought, the answer is yes, because disbelief is the default.

Disbelief in this case simply means lack of belief or faith. So, no, disbelief=/="I believe there are no gods." That's possible, but not necessarily the case.

But wait, what if you ask the question this way. Do you know if there are gods?

=> Agnostics.

This is actually a question by which agnosticism is applicable.

And the question that lets you eliminate the chunk of people to whom the question whether god exist isn't applicable.

[Mavorpen]

And the question that lets you eliminate the chunk of people to whom the question whether god exist isn't applicable.

I'm fine with eliminating people who do not exist.

[Gim]

Oh.

Well.

I feel silly now.

Yes, I grant that, necessarily, micro-evolution + time implies macro-evolution, if by macro-evolution you simply mean the accumulation of changes over time.

And large changes over time in isolated populations would give rise to?

Speciation. Polyploidy also gives rise to speciation.

[Lost heros]

And large changes over time in isolated populations would give rise to?

Speciation. Polyploidy also gives rise to speciation.

Now Gim, we all know you know the answer, but we want to let some of your classmates try.