Evolution Confusion

[Mavorpen]

He was after 1800, so he's irrelevant. *nods*

The point is either trivially true or trivially false.

"'I cannot prove that there is no such teapot, and therefore there is such a teapot' is false or is not the case." This point is trivially true.

"'I cannot prove one way or the other whether or not there is such a teapot, and therefore I am entitled in assuming that there is not one until someone else proves otherwise' is true or is the case." This point is trivially false.

Basically, the objection that the other guy was making makes a false dichotomy: "Either we should assent or we should deny." False. In the absense of evidence, the appropriate thing to do is suspend judgment.

If he can't prove that all cognition is purely natural/material, then he should suspend judgment and make no claims about it one way or the other.

None of this has to do with Russell's teapot. The point made is that you can't shift the burden of proof if you're the one making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

Jesus, for someone claiming to be in the works of receiving a doctorate in philosophy, you failed to understand a VERY simple philosophical analogy.

[Sun Wukong]

Saying "false analogy" doesn't make it true. You may not be able to walk from New York to San Francisco in a day, but there's a very clear reason why you are thusly limited.

You have yet to demonstrate any such constraint on evolution. What stops small changes from adding up?

The fact that those small changes eventually result in non-functioning genes. You can make maybe a few small changes that result in things working, but you can't have an unbroken chain of changes that continue to result in the optimum organisms for an environment. Eventually you get a change that is worse than the previous organism, and natural selection steps in to prevent macroevolution from occuring.

You do understand that evolution effects populations, not individuals, right?

[Mega City 5]

None of this has to do with Russell's teapot. The point made is that you can't shift the burden of proof if you're the one making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

I didn't make a claim either way. He did. He claimed that all forms of cognition are purely natural (and, I suppose, by extension, corporeal).

Can he prove that?

[Excidium Planetis]

The fact that those small changes eventually result in non-functioning genes. You can make maybe a few small changes that result in things working, but you can't have an unbroken chain of changes that continue to result in the optimum organisms for an environment. Eventually you get a change that is worse than the previous organism, and natural selection steps in to prevent macroevolution from occuring.

We've already observed macro-evolution (Darwin's finches), so no, this is blatant bullshit.

Finches > Finches.
That's microevolution, not macroevolution.

Also, stop ignoring my posts. I love that you ask for evidence and then blatantly ignore the posts containing it.

Excuse me for not having the ability to read every post in a thread in which I am now the only one arguing one side.

Changing one protein is the not the same as a whole new organ. I hate to bring up the common argument, but how do you get a functional eye through a sequence of single nucleotide changings? Anything before a fully functioning eye would be useless, or wprse than useless.

Otters, shrews, and polar bears are excellent swimmers, but aren't transitions to whales. They still have perfectly functioning hind legs, whereas whales have a tail. Please show an example of a transition between a tail and hind legs that is remotely viable.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

[/quote]

Let's start with the Limpet eye, already fully formed. It has two noticible components, light sensitive cells and nerve fibers. Which evolved first? Without one, the other is useless. Surely the whole thing didn't form in one spectacular mutation, a whole new type of cell and the nerves appearing in one change?

Those pictures of mammals are very beautiful. I should like to see the bones they based those on.

[Terminus Alpha]

Blowholes work just fine. No need to try and "re-evolve" gills.

Of course they do. They were designed to work just fine. No need to evolve.

Uh, no. Blowholes are just nostrils that migrated to the top of the head as whales became more aquatic.

[Mavorpen]

None of this has to do with Russell's teapot. The point made is that you can't shift the burden of proof if you're the one making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

I didn't make a claim either way. He did. He claimed that all forms of cognition are purely natural (and, I suppose, by extension, corporeal).

Can he prove that?

Who are you talking about? Russell?

[Immoren]

[
Finches > Finches.

Finches beget Finches.
Just like wolves begets dogs, cetaceans beget dolphins and Apes have given birth to man

[Sun Wukong]

None of this has to do with Russell's teapot. The point made is that you can't shift the burden of proof if you're the one making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

I didn't make a claim either way. He did. He claimed that all forms of cognition are purely natural (and, I suppose, by extension, corporeal).

Can he prove that?

Once again, a neurologist with a dearth of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition with trivial ease.

If there is any supernatural element to the human mind, it does not appear to do anything.

[Terminus Alpha]

We've already observed macro-evolution (Darwin's finches), so no, this is blatant bullshit.

Finches > Finches.
That's microevolution, not macroevolution.

Also, stop ignoring my posts. I love that you ask for evidence and then blatantly ignore the posts containing it.

Excuse me for not having the ability to read every post in a thread in which I am now the only one arguing one side.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

Let's start with the Limpet eye, already fully formed. It has two noticible components, light sensitive cells and nerve fibers. Which evolved first? Without one, the other is useless. Surely the whole thing didn't form in one spectacular mutation, a whole new type of cell and the nerves appearing in one change?

Those pictures of mammals are very beautiful. I should like to see the bones they based those on.[/quote]

You should go the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. if you wanna see all the bones in person. They have a full exhibit on human evolution, no less.

[Mega City 5]

Actually, it is. It just isn't formal proof.

It isn't. In fact, arguing that absense of evidence is evidence of absense is an informal fallacy: "Argumentum ad ignorantiam."

It isn't though, unless you actually test it.

False. In order for the evidence not to be consistent with my claim, you have to show me a piece of evidence which contradicts my claim. No such evidence exists.

Note, of course, that this is not evidence for my claim, nor do I claim it to be. I'm only noting that it's also not evidence in favor of the evolution of the human species.

Which is, again, not mutually exclusive with accepting B (that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation). You're free to accept that A is possible, but that doesn't mean you're actually rejecting B. And if you ARE rejecting B, you need to actually provide a scientific alternative.

Why do I have to provide a scientific alternative? What if the reality is unscientific?

You're ruling out the supernatural a priori. You aren't entitled to do so.

Do you have data from empirical testing to support this? No? Well then, that's simply false.

You've misunderstood me. Let us suppose that you and I are having an argument. I claim that a dragon passed through the forest. You claim that an elephant passed through the forest. If you point to a gigantic piece of fecal matter and claim that this is evidence for an elephant, I'll ask: "What? Would a dragon not leave giant pieces of feces?"

I was actually joking with that to contrast with your incorrect claim that it's the "highest." It being the lowest isn't really my point. It's just lower than science.

What's your reason for thinking this?

[Mavorpen]

Finches > Finches.
That's microevolution, not macroevolution.

No, it's macro-evolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Excuse me for not having the ability to read every post in a thread in which I am now the only one arguing one side.

I posted it several times and you only HAPPENED to skip only my posts? Yeah, sure, totally.

Let's start with the Limpet eye, already fully formed. It has two noticible components, light sensitive cells and nerve fibers. Which evolved first?

Light sensitive cells most likely.

Without one, the other is useless.

Nope.

Surely the whole thing didn't form in one spectacular mutation, a whole new type of cell and the nerves appearing in one change?

No. Evolution isn't Pokemon.

Those pictures of mammals are very beautiful. I should like to see the bones they based those on.

Use Google. Is it really that difficult?

[Mega City 5]

Once again, a neurologist with a dearth of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition with trivial ease.

If there is any supernatural element to the human mind, it does not appear to do anything.

A neurologist with a death of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition that are tied down to the body. If the question is whether all forms of cognition are tied down to the body, how would you go about proving that there is not such a form of cognition? Because the subject isn't displaying it sensibly?

[Sun Wukong]

Let's start with the Limpet eye, already fully formed. It has two noticible components, light sensitive cells and nerve fibers. Which evolved first? Without one, the other is useless. Surely the whole thing didn't form in one spectacular mutation, a whole new type of cell and the nerves appearing in one change?

Most skin cells already have nerve fibers going to them. And most skin cells are somewhat light sensitive (you've probably noticed this if you've ever been exposed to direct sunlight.)

You're attempting to argue irreducible complexity, but what you're actually arguing is abject stupidity.

[Geilinor]

Once again, a neurologist with a dearth of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition with trivial ease.

If there is any supernatural element to the human mind, it does not appear to do anything.

A neurologist with a death of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition that are tied down to the body. If the question is whether all forms of cognition are tied down to the body, how would you go about proving that there is not such a form of cognition? Because the subject isn't displaying it sensibly?

There is no cognition without the body - the dead don't think.

[Mega City 5]

There is no cognition without the body - the dead don't think.

How would you go about proving that scientifically? What's your evidence?

[Excidium Planetis]

The fact that those small changes eventually result in non-functioning genes. You can make maybe a few small changes that result in things working, but you can't have an unbroken chain of changes that continue to result in the optimum organisms for an environment. Eventually you get a change that is worse than the previous organism, and natural selection steps in to prevent macroevolution from occuring.

You do understand that evolution effects populations, not individuals, right?

Individuals, not populations, pass on traits to offspring. You don't inherit your good health from your neighbor. Mutations also change an individual's DNA, not a populations (Geez, can you imagine getting cancer because the mayor did?). Individuals have traits they pass down to their offspring. Slight changes in each generation will eventually reach a point where any further change "forward" results in lower survival. Take Darwin's finches: they can evolve smaller beaks, but eventually they will reach a point where a smaller beak is not beneficial. Likewise in the opposite direction. There are limits to microevolution.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Actually, it is. It just isn't formal proof.

It isn't. In fact, arguing that absense of evidence is evidence of absense is an informal fallacy: "Argumentum ad ignorantiam."

It isn't though, unless you actually test it.

False. In order for the evidence not to be consistent with my claim, you have to show me a piece of evidence which contradicts my claim. No such evidence exists.

Note, of course, that this is not evidence for my claim, nor do I claim it to be. I'm only noting that it's also not evidence in favor of the evolution of the human species.

Which is, again, not mutually exclusive with accepting B (that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation). You're free to accept that A is possible, but that doesn't mean you're actually rejecting B. And if you ARE rejecting B, you need to actually provide a scientific alternative.

Why do I have to provide a scientific alternative? What if the reality is unscientific?

You're ruling out the supernatural a priori. You aren't entitled to do so.

Do you have data from empirical testing to support this? No? Well then, that's simply false.

You've misunderstood me. Let us suppose that you and I are having an argument. I claim that a dragon passed through the forest. You claim that an elephant passed through the forest. If you point to a gigantic piece of fecal matter and claim that this is evidence for an elephant, I'll ask: "What? Would a dragon not leave giant pieces of feces?"

I was actually joking with that to contrast with your incorrect claim that it's the "highest." It being the lowest isn't really my point. It's just lower than science.

What's your reason for thinking this?

Thank you! This post lets me cross off so many squares of my creationist bingo... I have nearly won the fridge.

Anyway, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Not conclusive, but it is evidence. Also, a well-established scientific fact, and not Ad Ignorantiam. That would be if we said 'we don't now yet, so it must have some cause outside of our understanding'. While evidence of absence is more like "We can't find any blood on this person who is charged with murdering a person with a teaspoon. I question the validity of this charge".

Ad Ignorantiam would say "I can't find any blood on this person, so the teaspoon must have murdered the man by himself. Or bigfoot!"

[Sun Wukong]

Once again, a neurologist with a dearth of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition with trivial ease.

If there is any supernatural element to the human mind, it does not appear to do anything.

A neurologist with a death of ethics could remove any and all forms of cognition that are tied down to the body. If the question is whether all forms of cognition are tied down to the body, how would you go about proving that there is not such a form of cognition? Because the subject isn't displaying it sensibly?

"Dearth."

And yeah, that's usually how you detect things. Moreover, the subjects themselves are often aware of the fact they've lost this form of cognition. Which is why many stroke victims are sad, sad people. Unfortunately.

[Gim]

There is no cognition without the body - the dead don't think.

How would you go about proving that scientifically? What's your evidence?

Autopsy?

[Geilinor]

You do understand that evolution effects populations, not individuals, right?

Individuals, not populations, pass on traits to offspring. You don't inherit your good health from your neighbor. Mutations also change an individual's DNA, not a populations (Geez, can you imagine getting cancer because the mayor did?). Individuals have traits they pass down to their offspring. Slight changes in each generation will eventually reach a point where any further change "forward" results in lower survival. Take Darwin's finches: they can evolve smaller beaks, but eventually they will reach a point where a smaller beak is not beneficial. Likewise in the opposite direction. There are limits to microevolution.

Only mutations in the reproductive cells are passed down to the next generation.

[Mega City 5]

Anyway, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

No, it isn't. Again, it's an informal fallacy.

While evidence of absence is more like "We can't find any blood on this person who is charged with murdering a person with a teaspoon. I question the validity of this charge".

The simple absense of blood doesn't function evidentially on its own. The entire syllogism looks like this:

If he just murdered this guy with a rusty spoon, there is a strong likelihood of there being blood on him.
There is no blood on him.
It is less likely (though not impossible) that he committed the murder.

[Mavorpen]

It isn't. In fact, arguing that absense of evidence is evidence of absense is an informal fallacy: "Argumentum ad ignorantiam."

Erm, no it isn't. I'm not presenting a false dichotomy and suggesting that you'd have enough evidence to draw a conclusion, only that you could present an argument using that as evidence. Whether it's valid evidence or not can be debated.

False. In order for the evidence not to be consistent with my claim, you have to show me a piece of evidence which contradicts my claim.

That's not my job considering you have the burden of proof seeing as you're presenting the alternative.

No such evidence exists.

That's because you're not actually presenting anything of weight.

Note, of course, that this is not evidence for my claim, nor do I claim it to be. I'm only noting that it's also not evidence in favor of the evolution of the human species.

Actually, it is. Unless you want to present a scientific hypothesis with empirical evidence that demonstrates that it provides superior explanatory power.

Why do I have to provide a scientific alternative?

Because this is a scientific topic. I realize you don't actually think so, but I'd hope that you would actually accept that.

What if the reality is unscientific?

Then the reality is unscientific. That's an obvious answer, is it not?

You're ruling out the supernatural a priori. You aren't entitled to do so.

Of course I am because it's the null hypothesis.

You've misunderstood me. Let us suppose that you and I are having an argument. I claim that a dragon passed through the forest. You claim that an elephant passed through the forest. If you point to a gigantic piece of fecal matter and claim that this is evidence for an elephant, I'll ask: "What? Would a dragon not leave giant pieces of feces?"

To which the answer is no, it wouldn't, unless you had evidence otherwise.

What's your reason for thinking this?

Go read my previous posts. You could find it fairly easily if you actually read.

[Sociobiology]

because they think there is a difference, there isn't, its like accepting micro-continental drift, and not macro-continental drift.
its the same exact process, the only difference is how long it runs for.

False analogy.

how?

the difference between Ronald Reagan and a brine shrimp is just a a different sequence of ATGC molecules.

ah no those are the formation of new genes, do you not know what genes are ? Bacteria can produce completely new genes with ease, its not hard several common mutation can produce duplicates or even completely new genes. Remember all you genes are just a sequence of 4 nucleotides bases, even changing one of these can completely alter the gene. Look up codons and transcription, a singe change can completely change the finished protein.

Changing one protein is the not the same as a whole new organ.

no, but now you are moving the goalpost, organs don't appear in a single generation, they originate from existing tissue and organs.
organs are not controlled by single genes but thousands of genes.

I hate to bring up the common argument, but how do you get a functional eye through a sequence of single nucleotide changings? Anything before a fully functioning eye would be useless, or wprse than useless.

you do realize there is a whole slew of primitive eye like things in nature right?
from light sensitive patches of cells, (which is better than nothing because it lets you detect sunlight (which is harmful))
cup eyes and eyespots in marine worms, which let you detect movement.
to pinhole eyes in Nautilus that form gross images.
closed lens-less eyes in hagfish, which are tougher
immobile lens eyes in lamprey, which works even in low light unlike pinhole eyes.
to immobile fish eyes which move the lens back and forth instead of changing its shape like ours.

penguins, its actually easier to make a flipper from a wing than a limb.

Your inability to distinguish between flippers and fins is alarming.

if you want to know why wings would evolve in to fins, yout going to have to show me some supposed case of this happening, otherwise its just a strawman, I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were making a real argument, I won't do so in the future.

Please explain how whales evolved from land mammals, in a way in which the transitional forms would have any decent chance of survival.

Otters, swimming shrews, polar bears, and seals.
not actually otters or seals whale ancestors are extinct but they are living organisms living the exact lifestyle you believe is impossible.

Otters, shrews, and polar bears are excellent swimmers, but aren't transitions to whales.
I never said they were, I said they are examples of the lifestyle you claim couldn't exist.

They still have perfectly functioning hind legs,

you think seals and walrus, have perfectly terrestrially functional hind legs?

whereas whales have a tail.

as do most mammals

Please show an example of a transition between a tail and hind legs that is remotely viable.

why would I, no one thinks whale tails evolved from legs, they evolved from tails.

if you want an example from non-whales however I suggest you look at harp seals vs elephant seals.

actually it does, if so called microevolution proceeds for long enough it has to produce greater changes, AKA "macro-evolution"

That's like saying if Toyota keeps making improvements on their models every year, they will eventually be building nuclear bombs.

why would it?
a Toyota and a nuclear bomb are not made of the same materials, although in a way that is what happened, improvements in technological "recipes" allowed the production of nuclear bombs from methods that could not produce them before. But really your going to want to stay away form technological comparisons if you don't want to get confused.

Changes in a species does not mean those changes will eventually result in a new species.

sure they do, species is not a real thing is just an artificial category, they blur together all over the place, populations, ring species, hybrids, behavioral species, viral transfer, then you get into the problem of defining species in non sexual organisms.
again the difference between you and a tree is just a different order of the same molecules. adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine

its the same as walking across the room or across the country, the mechanism is the same, all that changes is how long it occurs for.

False analogy. Microevolution is the idea that genes change.

no that would be called mutation

Macroevolution is the idea that those changes can eventually result in a dofference of species.

the only difference between species is those gene changes, really go buy a high school bio textbook and turn to the cell biology section, becasue you don't seem to know what genes are.

I argue that irreducable complexity limits the ability of microevolution, in that microevolution cannot create certain new traits.

mutations already create new traits, we have fungus in Chernobyl that metabolize radiation, and nylon eating bacteria.

To use your false analogy, I can change the distance I walk every day, but I will never be able to walk from New York to San Francisco in a day.

but you can in a few weeks.
no one is suggesting it happens in a day, greater differences require longer periods of time, this is again a place in which evolution predictions match the real world, the fossils occurrences mirror the predictions of genetic differences.

the common ancestor between chimps us and rats is older than the common ancestor between us and chimps, and it is found in correspondingly older rocks.

[Mega City 5]

Autopsy?

My claim is that the intellectual soul is incorporeal, and you are going to cut open the guy and look for corporeal signs of an incorporeal faculty and activity?

Brilliant.

[Mavorpen]

Individuals, not populations, pass on traits to offspring. You don't inherit your good health from your neighbor. Mutations also change an individual's DNA, not a populations (Geez, can you imagine getting cancer because the mayor did?). Individuals have traits they pass down to their offspring. Slight changes in each generation will eventually reach a point where any further change "forward" results in lower survival. Take Darwin's finches: they can evolve smaller beaks, but eventually they will reach a point where a smaller beak is not beneficial. Likewise in the opposite direction. There are limits to microevolution.

The definition of evolution is not "passing on traits." It's, in a general sense, "change over time." That does not apply to individuals, it applies to populations.