Jack the Bodiless

I'd also like to know what "scientific facts" in physics are supposedly more certain than either evolution or common descent?

There's far more evidence for both of those than for the existence of the electron, for example. Yet most physicists consider electrons to exist. Is the existence of electrons solid enough to be considered a "scientific fact"? This is far from clear.

What clearer "facts" are there in physics? Basic Newtonian laws of motion? We now know that they break down at relativistic velocities (and other similarly extreme conditions, such as time dilation due to intense gravitation), so they're not as universally "true" as either evolution or common descent, even though the evidence for them appears to be more "visible" to the layman.

It's debatable whether the roundness of the Earth is more certain. This requires trusting the expert testimony of others: I have personally witnessed more evidence for common descent and natural selection (but not mutation) than for the round-Earth theory, but I choose to believe astronauts and navigators who claim to have more evidence at their disposal. If we apply the same "trust the experts" attitude in biology, we must conclude that both evolution and common descent are true.

So, unless very obvious claims such as "the Sun emits light" are cosidered, it's rather hard to see what is more certain in physics than evolution or common descent in biology or paleontology.

markfiend

Evolutionists accept that heirarchies can be made of designed objects, true. But I went on to explain (again) that these heirarchies are arbitrary, whereas heirarchies of living organisms are not. That is why I asked if you were being deliberately obtuse; one gets tired of explaining (and being ignored) why it is that heirarchies of designed systems are different to heirarchies of living systems.
I plead guilty. I claim exasperation as my defense.
Irrelevant? I was trying to explain (again) how it is that when we create heirarchies of designed systems, they are arbitrary, many and interchangable, compared to the one heirarchy we observe in nature.
Are you sure?

MrDarwin

I'm afraid I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. Everything we can observe about the world around us demonstrates that things happen for naturalistic reasons. We do not observe supernatural events happening in the present, nor do we have any evidence of them happening in the past; thus to propose a supernatural origin of anything is not only unnecessary, it is completely at odds with what we know about the universe and how it operates.

Muad'Dib

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your response. As I've said before, I'm not interested in what other people define as "scientific fact"; I'm interested in what you, in particular, not anyone else, view as scientific facts.

I claim that since you have a doctorate in physics (what is your area of study, by the way?), you must have an opinion on what properly constitutes a scientific fact, and also on which claims are and are not properly called scientific facts. As such, permit me to rephrase my question; the initial statement is different, and any changes to the options are in brackets.

Question. Which of the following is closest to your definition of scientific fact, where "scientific fact" is defined according to your preference (which surely exists), rather than the definitions of others?

(a) There is no claim made about the world or the universe made by any branch of science that is supported enough to be called a scientific fact.

(b) There are claims made about the world or the universe that concern the present time that are supported enough to be called scientific facts (perhaps in, say, physics), but no statement about the past can possibly [or does at this time] fulfill this criterion.

(c) There are claims made about the world or the universe that are supported enough to be scientific facts, and some of these concern the past (perhaps in, say, astronomy). However, common descent is not one of these.

(d) There are claims made about the world or the universe that are supported enough to be scientific facts, and if you squint common descent is another one, but the religious and social ramifications of common descent are such that we should be careful not to teach it even if it turns out to be correct.

<end of question>

As you can imagine, I still would like either an example of some claim about the world or universe made by some branch of science whose supporting evidence is such that you have no qualms about calling it a "scientific fact", or confirmation that there is no such claim made by any science. If it hasn't been clear, that is my motivation for asking this question.

Looking forward to your reply,
Muad'Dib

DMB

People on this thread keep on telling you that there is no reason to suppose it "just arose". In view of the development of other complex features such as eyes, even if the development of echolocation has not yet been fully researched, it probably followed a similar course of very small improvements over a long time. The last thing that is claimed about evolution is that any feature "just arose". That is the creationist position: God said "Let there be echolocation", and there was echolocation -- poof!

Muad'Dib

Hi Charles,

Now that I think about it, I would accept any or all of the following in lieu of an example of a scientific fact:

• An example of a statement about the world or the universe made by a branch of contemporary science whose evidence is significantly more convincing to you than that of common descent (whether or not you personally would call that statement a "scientific fact").
  
• An example of a statement about the world or the universe made by a branch of contemporary science that you do not think requires a religious commitment, and whose evidence is persuasive to you (whether or not you personally would call it a "scientific fact").
  
• An example of a statement about the world or the universe made by a branch of contemporary science that has supporting evidence strong enough that you have no objections to it being taught in classrooms (whether or not you personally would call it a "scientific fact").

Since this conversation is purely about scientific matters, I anticipate no difficulty in generating such examples.

I hope this is useful,
Muad'Dib

Charles Darwin

You may be unaware that historians consider their work to be a sort of science. They don't just conjure up their ideas and results according to their whims. They have methods and practices, etc. And because evolution is making claims about history (natural history in this case), I find it convenient to compare it to other examples of the theories of history.

Evolution claims to be a fact. There is no question, to me, that historians can rightly speak of "facts" where a philosopher might cringe. Such as "The Norman invasion occurred." Note that this is not just trivial, as actually there is quite a bit not well known of the Norman invasion. This is not at all like saying "WWII happened." Nonetheless, despite gaps in our knowledge, I think it is fair to say the Norman invasion is a fact.

Evolution is nowhere close to this level of certainty. If you really want me to stick to the more traditional sciences, then I could fall back on one of the evolutionist's favorites; namely, that the earth is round. To me that is not such a good example, because the roundness of the earth is so obvious. Now evolution is really really nowhere close to this level of certainty. Yet, nonetheless, evolutionists do use this example, saying just as it is a fact that the earth is round, so too evolution is a fact.

RufusAtticus

And I imagine that you came this conclusion after decades of studying the scientific literature of population biology, molecular biology, paleontology, and other related fields. Oh wait. . . .

Evolution happened. It not only has been observed during human lifetimes, but it can also be seen in the morphological, paleontological, and molecular evidence representing the diversity of life.

In fact, populations of biological organisms are guarenteed to evolve because of the nature of their replication. Replication is not 100% accurate. That is a fact. Reproduction does not sample the existing genetic variation completely. That is too a fact. With just drift and mutation, we can guarentee that no gene pool will be the same from generation to generation. I don't know how one can be more certain. If you need the mathematical proofs just ask for them.

Darwin's Beagle

You are still sitting on the pot, Charles. It is way past time to take a shit. What is your alternative theory to descent with modification? You have several times implied it is Special Creation, but whenever anyone tries to contrast descent with modification with it, you start calling it religion.

Here is a simple question for you (with an answer at the end if you can't figure it out):

What do you call a scientific theory that has no reasonable alternatives?

Answer: A scientific fact.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

Charles Darwin

I'd like to make a longer reply, but this will unfortunately have to be brief.

1) Chromosomal fusion

You say: Chromosomal fusion is NOT the ALTERNATIVE explanation to that of evolutionary theory. It is THE EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION for it.

But Chromosomal fusion does not entail evolution.

You say: The reason that Human Chromosome 2 has the same G-banding patterns as do Chimp Chromosomes 12 and 13, and has telomeres and an extra centromeric segment in the middle is because the Human Chromosome 2 fused from chromosomes derived from a common ancestor as that of the Chimp.

Confusion here. You are conflating two concepts. When you say "is because the Human Chromosome 2 fused from chromosomes," OK, fine. But then you append: "derived from a common ancestor as that of the Chimp."

The existence of a fused chromosome does not call for evolution as an explanation. It calls for a fusion event. Your claim that prior to the fusion event the two chromosomes were derived from the chimp, is irrelevant to the fusion event and the subsequent fused chromosome.

You say: The thing that needs an alternative explanation to is the similarities between the chimps and humans in their chromosomal structure.

But this would be true even if no fusion event occurred.



2) HERVs

You say: Your assertions that there is an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) that occurs in chimps and gorillas but not in humans is wrong.

No, you are wrong. See:

A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans. M. Barbulescu. Current Biology, Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages 779 � 783.

I do appreciate your discussion of HERV-K(C4) which I had forgotten about. It is, as you say, found in humans, the African Green Monkey (an old world monkey), and orangutans (an ape), but not chimps and gorillas. The evolutionary explanation is, as you say, not thrilling. The same can be said for the ERV that occurs in chimps and gorillas but not in humans.

But evolutionists have no alternative. As you say, you tentatively accept it "Because I cannot come up with a better explanation." You say this is not religious reasoning, but in fact you have plainly used extensive religious reasoning. You say I won't accept evolution "because he is religiously (note I do not have to use the quotation marks here) wedded to Special Creation." Sorry, but that's not the case.

3) Religious beliefs

You say: IF as you have implied in previous posts (but disingenuously avoided saying directly) that you would like for scientists to consider Special Creation as an alternative then you MUST come up with an alternate explanation.

Sorry, I meant no such implication. I was not being disingenuous. I never said, nor intended to suggest that scientists ought to consider Special Creation as an alternative.

You say:
No, your argument is completely irrelevant even IF I do hold out Special Creation as the alternative to descent with modification. I am a Christian, and I find the science behind evolution to be wanting. So yes, it is perfectly fair for you to assume that I would line up behind Special Creation before anything else. But you are not talking about Special Creation, at least not a Christian version.

You are very good at discerning non scientific qualities in biology (cruelty, bad design, etc.). But you see no purpose. Yet in an earlier post you said

Sounds like a purpose was achieved. You say: "I have no personal religion." You have repeatedly argued about how God wouldn't do these things, and so you reject Special Creation and accept evolution. You say it is just MY belief you are addressing. Sorry, that won't fly. Your sugar-Daddy theology didn't come from my corner. Whether you want to say that you don't believe in that theology is irrelevant. Whether you want to say that you just heard it from some creationist is irrelevant. You are, in fact, using it as your foil. You believe that it is THE religious alternative. It is THE theory of Special Creation. You may not believe it is true, but you do believe that IF God created things, then it WOULD be true. Well, you won't find that in any science book. That is a religious belief, and your position hinges on it. You have placed yourself in the position of judge and jury of God. You know just what God would and would not do, and you are forcing your beliefs on me. The scientific evidence may not help, but you have your religion.