Dr Rick

CD has illustrated the utility of personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, and what happens when we ignore Occam's admonishment not to multiply entities needlessly:

Let's apply this kind of reasoning to another fact and see where it gets us:

What is the probability that this sinking of the Titanic could occur assuming reasonable numbers.

The problem is, we really don't know. Sure, we can assume reasonable numbers for the characteristics of the iceberg, but when it comes to the more difficult questions of the iceberg's shape, its actual size, the weather patterns involved in its formation, and the narrowness of the exact course it would have to take to get in the path of the Titanic, we really don't know the precise details. I would argue that even bounding the problem shows that we're nowhere close (ie, the probability would be very small). But since we don't have hard numbers, the story of the Titanic can appeal to ignorance. Ask some mathematicians to calculate the probability of a ship sinking on its maiden voyage, and they will tell you since we know the ship sank, there must be a solution to the problem.

Sorry. How about this: Extraterrestrial aliens sunk the Titanic.

I hope you do not expect me to come up with an explanation for the motives of ETs for imagined problems such as these. Sorry, but I don't have a hotline to other worlds. Or you could resort to the proverbial "Why then did Aliens want to sink the ship in first place?" No doubt, you will have more questions than I will have answers. What this all gets to is that you seem to need ETs that are fully discernable and subject to your inspection and approval."

How do you argue with someone who thinks that naturalistic explanations and human error led to the sinking of the ship? When I point out that mathematicians can't begin to calculate the probabilities involved, I fully expect to be told that "everyone makes mistakes," and that "a few misled sailors and meteorologists means nothing" etc. Instead, historians will come through with essentially the same response: "The evidence shows that the sinking did occur; there is no good evidence to suggest that it didn't while there exists overwhelming evidence that it did. You are questioning the probability of an event occuring that has and is occuring. The probability or an event having occured that has occured is one. The answer to your question is 'one.' " I use CD's reasoning merely has an example.


At that point I have to say "I give." How can I argue with contrived evidence and circular reasoning? If the sinking is a fact from the get go, such that even the collison of the Titanic with an iceberg is not an issue, then I'm not going to get very far, no matter what history says.

Or again, when maritime historians say there is zero evidence against their theory. They are utterly unable to articulate the copious problems with their own theory. The problem lies not with a minor misinterpretation here or there.

Let me explain. I would say the ETs sinking the Titanic is falsifiable (explained earlier in this thread). The way to do this would be to show that natural forces and laws can easily account for the accident. If you think of that as being "testable" then the answer is yes. But if you are seeking some sort of testable prediction (in a real sense, not in the sense that is used in ship engineering) such as aspect Q of the design of the recently built ship X is going to be Y, then you'll be disappointed.

NottyImp

Charles Darwin said:

And a little later:

I mean, you've got to admire the man's gall, haven't you?

:notworthy

NottyImp

CD said:

No, I'd like to scientifically put special creation to the test. You appear to be telling me that I can't.

DMB

You may so associate it. But I thought that the term referred to one species evolving into a related species. The value of ring species is that they show evolution actually happening, along with the intermediate stages. At a later date, the intermediate stages may no longer be present and then the descendants of the separate species may no longer have such direct evidence for their relatedness.

So how about chimps and humans? Aren't we similar enough for a common ancestor to have existed in the last 10 million years? After all, we're just two different but closely related species of apes.
Are you then saying that creationism/ID are definitely not scientific theories? I am still confused about what your position (aprt from incredulity about echolocation) is.

Duvenoy

Hmm. This thread has covered a lot of evolutionary ground, including some aspects that I don�t know a whole lot about. I think we need a change of pace. So toward that end, how �bout an example of evolution in action? Right here and now, today.

The grasshopper mouse, some three species covering the western U.S. and a bit of Canada, is a mouse that is trying to be something else altogether. Pound for pound, it is arguably one of the most ferocious, vertebrate predators on the continent.

Say what?! It�s just a mouse, fer chrissake! Feed it to the snake!

Yeah, buddy. It�s just a mouse, and a remarkable just-a-mouse, it is.

A dedicated carnivore, a �hopper mouse will attack and devour almost anything with protein that won�t attack and devour it first, if it�s small enough, oh, say, about it�s own size, give or take. A tad larger with lizards and snakes, perhaps. It�s dentition shows that while it still has rodent incisors, they have become better suited for stabbing than gnawing. It is highly territorial and will defend it�s little patch of turf savagely. It also pairs off with it�s mate, both caring for the young -- most unusual in rodents. It is quite vocal, often calling like a tiny, shrill coyote, and it hunts in family packs as soon as the latest litter of young are old enough to leave the nest.

Does much of this somehow sound familiar?

In those areas where scorpions are a large part of their diet, the mice have developed at least a partial resistance to their venom. This in it�s self is not unique. There are a couple, that I know of, ground squirrel / rattlesnake relationships that are much the same. The squirrel becomes resistant. But, in these cases, the rodent is the prey. The snake�s venom, over time, simply becomes �hotter� to compensate, which does not seem to be the case with the preyed-upon scorpions. In areas with a dearth of �scorps, the (captive) mouse being given one and stung by it during the attack, will show symptoms of an envenomation. One of the scorpions preyed upon by grasshopper mice is the rather dangerous bark scorpion: http://www.geo-outdoors.info/scorpions.htm

Thus concludes my brief, layman�s introduction. The links will tell the rest of the story of this unusual rodent.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Educatio...pper_mouse.asp


http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_muridae.html



http://www.venenonemia.org/doc017.html

So, a species in well-defined transition?

Or is it just another stupid mouse, and where�s that shiftless, damned cat?

doov

caravelair

not really. if we think that these fish evolved from ones that could see, then this is exactly the type of vestigial structure we would expect to find. just like ostrich wings. they have all the features of a bird, but they don't fly. since we think they evolved from flying birds, we would expect to see vestigial structures used in flight, even though they do not fly. it's not just any functionless structure, it's exactly the type we would expect to see if evolution were correct.

of course not. why would a structure having function falsify evolution?

as it has also been pointed out to you, scientists NEVER defined vestigial as functionless. creationists are the ones who assert that they must be functionless to be vestigial. it's another straw-man argument, the creationist's favorite type.

they are eyes. they don't work. what else is there to know? especially since biologists define "functionless" as not contributing to the chances for survival and reproduction, it is pretty clear that these eyes are functionless under that definition. besides, it doesn't matter if they are not completely functionless, as long as their function isn't to provide vision to the fish.

no it's not. it's pretty specific, actually. all you have to do is realize that vestigial means "reduced or rudimentary function compared to the same structure in other organisms" rather than "functionless organ".

Oolon Colluphid

I think we can safely say that the eyes in question are of no use, because not only can they physically not work -- since they lack things like retinas, lenses and effective optic nerves, and / or are covered over by skin -- but also, they are part of creatures who live lives where eyes are irrelevant, such as underground, or in total, complete darkness in the depths of cave chains.

The eyes cannot physically do very much or anything at all (depending on species). And where the creatures live, there is no light to see.

Hence, the eyes are of no use.

Simple, really, when you think about it.

TTFN, Oolon

caravelair

after reading this article, posted by data, it seems clear that the most of the evolution necessary would simply be emitting more useful sounds. that's not so complicated, is it?

i've gotta wonder how much skepticism you employ when considering special creation.

the evolution of echolocation is fundamental to evolution as a whole?

but the evidence is there to support the claim. you have been shown 29+ lines of evidence for evolution. i have yet to see you challenge most of those lines. and yes, it IS acceptable for us to not know all the details with absolute certainty. general relativity isn't going to tell you all the details about the orbits of every planet and star if you can't observe them well enough to get some data. it doesn't invalidate GR though.

Ken

Charles,

Thanks for sticking with this thread. It's fascinating to follow the exchange mostly as a sideliner. I've considered your approach more effective than that of many anti-evolutionists, though I have to say that my respect for your position has suffered greatly in learning that you do not consider blind cave fish to be descendants of seeing fish. When challenged with phenomena like blind fish and flightless birds, your approach seems to be simply, "And so?" Even "scientific creationists" admit the cave fish as a legitimate example of "devolution" or micro-evolution. It doesn't take any hand-waving to understand the reality that blind cave fish are descendants of seeing fish, any more than to accept that a human born blind has parents or ancestors that could see, without knowing anything of the person's actual ancestry. I can't give you a mathematical formula that proves this to be the case, but I would be dumbfounded if anyone demanded it. Frankly, I am dumbfounded that you cannot accept the reality that blind cave fish have seeing ancestors. Your "And so?" approach is exasperating. It demonstrates that you simply won't allow any evidence to convince you against your pre-established notions.

If I were to present evidence that Spanish and Portuguese share a common ancestry, pointing out the geographical and linguistic proximity of the two, and were met at every point with this sort of "And so?" response with which you've answered the arguments for common descent on this thread, I would begin suspecting some sort of unexpressed agenda for rejecting my thesis. Perhaps I'm talking with a proud Portuguese citizen who does not want to admit his common linguistic and/or ethnic heritage with the Spaniards. Perhaps I'm talking with a super-Genesis-literalist who takes the Tower of Babel as the true explanation for the origin of all languages (even modern ones!). But it doesn't really matter: Spanish and Portuguese do in fact share a common ancestry, just as blind cave fish and seeing fish do, whether or not we can get into a time machine and see the development happen before our eyes. A skeptic would not be convinced if I showed him manuscripts progressively showing the divergence of Spanish and Portuguese from proto-Iberian or Latin, for example. I could present some general historical linguistic rules of thumb that are followed quite nicely in the progression of the two languages, but he would no doubt be able to dig into the manuscripts to show me how this or that word violates the rules. Something similar could be attempted to show that American English does not share common ancestry with British English. The English say "buttuh," the Irish say "butter," and Americans say "budder." Suddenly the picture gets murky, and laypersons could no doubt be confounded were such conundrums to be multiplied. But we all know that American English and British English ultimately share a common heritage.

So why do you reject the obvious conclusion that blind fish are descendants of seeing fish, a conclusion that even many scientific creationists accept? Is it that you recognize this as the top of a slippery slope that leads to a greater acceptance of common descent? If cave fish have seeing ancestors, then perhaps beetles with sealed wings have flying ancestors; deep-sea eye-stalk-toting blind crabs that withstand enormous water pressure may have seeing ancestors that cannot withstand such pressure; swift ostriches with powerful leg muscles may have flying ancestors that aren't as fleet of foot; and supremely capable swimmers like the penguins may have flying ancestors that can't match their diving abilities.

Finally, I want to suggest that much of the discussion on this thread has been muddled by conflation of common descent and evolutionary theory. There are two distinct questions:

1) Do all living creatures share a common ancestry with each other, and

2) If so, what are the causal mechanisms that have led to (1)?

Michael Behe would provisionally say "yes" to question (1), but he rejects a thoroughly naturalistic explanation for (2). I respect Behe for taking seriously the arguments for (1). I see again and again in your posts an assumption that if you can cast in doubt a naturalistic explanation for (2), then (1) falls along with it. Not so! In fact, a theistic evolutionist (TE) could turn your arguments against common descent against you using this approach:

CD: A pseudogene shared by chimps and gorillas but not by humans casts doubt on the notion that the three species share a common ancestry.
TE: Who are you to say what an Intelligent Designer would or wouldn't do? Perhaps the Designer had good reasons for bringing this about. The evidence for common ancestry on other grounds is overwhelming.

My suggestion would be to focus first on the evidence for and against (1) before arguing about (2). The difficulty of explaining echolocation or the bacterial flagellum naturalistically is irrelevant to the discussion of common ancestry. If the evidence does not support common ancestry, then there is no need to go on to (2). But if (1) appears to be the best explanation of the facts, then we are free to discuss whether an Intelligent Designer had a hand in the process. In short, just as evolutionists sometimes bring theology into their science to support naturalistic evolution, anti-evolutionists bring probability into the discussion to argue against common descent. If you want theology to stay out of the debate about naturalistic evolution, then you must check probability at the door when discussing common descent. Probability has precisely zero to do with common descent, if we allow for the possibility of non-naturalistic elements. Fair enough?

Muad'Dib

Thank you, that is a useful clarification.

Do you therefore claim that one can refute common descent by casting doubt solely on the evidence presented in this thread?

Have you ever read Futuyma? (Incidentally, what titles have you read?) He does a pretty good job of (3), (4), and (5) IMO. As a non-biologist I'm not yet in a position to evaluate (1) or (2).

What is the reference for that, by the way? I think I asked you that once before.

It's empirical in the sense that it is a claim that something in the physical world happened.

Okay, is there anything about the past that we can't directly observe that you would be comfortable calling a fact? How about stuff in, say, astronomy?

Are you serious? Do you think the unresolved discrepancies in the standard model count for nothing? That's part of the whole reason we're looking for a Grand Unified Theory. What area of physics did you study, anyway?

Nontestable models are not scientific, but I do not say that only testable things are true. I don't think "My mother loves me" is a testable claim in the strictest sense.

So this is testable, or no? What predictions does it make? If we go out to gather more data about the fossil record, what will we find, according to this model?

Why would this be a falsification? Couldn't God create the world to look as though it had evolved?

This "disappointment" is precisely the reason I argue that the special-creation models I've seen are not scientific and should not be treated as such. Scientific theories and models must make predictions; there is no way around it.