Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Galt, Jr. · 07-01-2002, 02:44 PM

All,

I'll try to respond to those comments that I think will help clarify the few points that I want to make. But let me begin my re-entry by reposting something I said earlier-- some of you seem to be refuting points that you think I am making, but which I am not actually making or even supporting.

Earlier I said

Quote:

I am asking for the empirical data/evidence that confirms the evolutionary story over the alternative non-evolutionary story with respect to the actual history of the development of the various species on this planet.

Perhaps it will make things more manageable if the alternative hypothesis that is proposed is one that is a bit more obviously natural than the SP hypothesis that I first proposed. I am not a defender of creationism, as the notion is normally understood in its battle with science.

Let the alternative hypothesis (about our history) be that the various species that we have discovered have been placed here by non-human visitors over the course of the Earth's history.

I assume that the fossil record (to be understood as whatever actual 'pieces of the past' we have come across) does not, in itself, discriminate between the 'non-human' explanation and the 'evolution' explanation. Either one of these two hypotheses will explain how the various species actually came to be here.

(the added emphasis is mine) I assume that this last passage is clear enough to be uncontroversial.

If visitors had, in the course of our history, transplanted the species that we uncover in the fossil record, placing them at the points in our history that the fossil record reveals to us, the resulting fossil record would look just like ours looks. However, the actual history of the Earth would not include the speciation by natural selection and it would not included decent from common ancestry that some of you take to be so obvioius. My question is what is the empirical evidence that you have that points to one of these histories over the other.

John Galt, Jr.

John Galt, Jr. · 07-01-2002, 02:59 PM

caritas,

You have shown that I chose a somewhat inadequate analogy, but you, yourself, can no doubt alter it to make the point I wanted to make. Unless there are features in all of the various species we uncover in the fossil record that will tell us that they weren't 'planted' or unless we can identify 'absences' of features that justify the claim that they weren't planted, your point about the differences in the trees in my analogy doesn't show anything.

Suppose, for example, we are talking about a tree, A, that resulted 'naturally' from another tree , B,, but we know nothing about the origins of that other tree, B. Will there necessarily be something in the resulting tree, A, that will enable us to know if it is the natural result of a long line of trees that are themselves the natural result of a long line of trees, etc. , hereabouts, or if somewhere in that lineage one of the trees started things, as it were, as a result of being planted?

Clutch · 07-01-2002, 03:01 PM

Quote:

If visitors had, in the course of our history, transplanted the species that we uncover in the fossil record, placing them at the points in our history that the fossil record reveals to us, the resulting fossil record would look just like ours looks. However, the actual history of the Earth would not include the speciation by natural selection and it would not included decent from common ancestry that some of you take to be so obvioius. My question is what is the empirical evidence that you have that points to one of these histories over the other.

What if superpowerful beings systematically planted deceptive evidence that falsely indicates an ancestry of speciation?

That's it? Your challenge to evolutionary theory is Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis?

Great flaming dogdish! JG, Jr, the Evolution forum sees a lot of strange a prioristic arguments, but I think yours takes the mottled oyster, hands down.

Mageth · 07-01-2002, 03:08 PM

SO we have to distinguish between:

1) The fossil record is evidence of evolution (descent from a common ancestor); or

2) The fossil record is evidence of visitation by some unknown aliens that reordered the fossils to make it appear as if evolution happened.

I see your hypothesis and raise you one Occam's Razor.

John Galt, Jr. · 07-01-2002, 03:11 PM

Peez and RufusAtticus,

you two are going to give your fellow scientists a bad name. I said "evolution is a fact-- is a claim that no scientist with an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science would ever make." (the added emphasis is mine).

Each of you presents yourself as (i) a scientist (ii) who claims that evolution is a fact, and present this as counter-examples to my claim.
Anyone with a basic appreciation of the logic of counter-example production knows that this fails to satisfy the form of a proper counter-example to my claim.

John Galt, Jr.

Mageth · 07-01-2002, 03:21 PM

From the talkorigins page I posted earlier (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact", as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

I would also point to that page for examples of several other scientists you would have to lump in with Peez et al.: Gould, Futayama, Muller, Dobzhansky, Lewontin, Campbell, etc.

Not bad company to be lumped in with.

John Galt, Jr. · 07-01-2002, 03:23 PM

All,

Over the weekend I was talking about this issue with a friend who pointed me to the following essay by Alvin Plantinga. I had not known about it, or I would have started this thread with reference to this essay.

Part II, B, of the essay is addressing the same issue that I have tried to raise here. Perhaps, it will help this discussion.

The essay is entitled "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible."

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html" target="_blank">Dialogue</a>

Once again, the part that is directly relevant to this thread is II, B, 'The Likelihood of Evolution"

John Galt, Jr.

John Galt, Jr. · 07-01-2002, 03:38 PM

Clutch, Mageth,

Why don't you take some time to think about your responses before you fire them off. Or perhaps read the posts, or both.

I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses. That was the question that started the entire thread and it is the question that you and so many others seem to have difficulty focusing on.

Try it again.

You , and others, are making asses out of yourselves, attacking again and again positions that I have not presented here and do not hold.

John Galt, Jr.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

beausoleil · 07-01-2002, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
<strong>Peez and RufusAtticus,

you two are going to give your fellow scientists a bad name. I said "evolution is a fact-- is a claim that no scientist with an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science would ever make." (the added emphasis is mine).

Each of you presents yourself as (i) a scientist (ii) who claims that evolution is a fact, and present this as counter-examples to my claim.
Anyone with a basic appreciation of the logic of counter-example production knows that this fails to satisfy the form of a proper counter-example to my claim.

John Galt, Jr.</strong>

I am a scientist with many peer reviewed papers.

I have an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science.

Evolution is a fact.

Now what?

In 'fact', people who study the epistemology of science would be better off studying how scientists use the word 'fact', rather than telling them how they ought to use it.

Still waiting for an example of the competing mechanism you propose...

Mageth · 07-01-2002, 04:02 PM

John Galt:

Your condescending attitude is getting a bit tiring.

I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses. That was the question that started the entire thread and it is the question that you and so many others seem to have difficulty focusing on.

Occam's Razor is a useful tool for separating baloney from truth.

Occam's Razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

I use it to eliminate the "visitors" mucking about with the fossil record. I think that's a valid application of it.

You , and others, are making asses out of yourselves, attacking again and again positions that I have not presented here and do not hold.

So what position(s) do you hold? Let us know so we can attack the right one(s).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2002, 02:59 PM	#42
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	caritas, You have shown that I chose a somewhat inadequate analogy, but you, yourself, can no doubt alter it to make the point I wanted to make. Unless there are features in all of the various species we uncover in the fossil record that will tell us that they weren't 'planted' or unless we can identify 'absences' of features that justify the claim that they weren't planted, your point about the differences in the trees in my analogy doesn't show anything. Suppose, for example, we are talking about a tree, A, that resulted 'naturally' from another tree , B,, but we know nothing about the origins of that other tree, B. Will there necessarily be something in the resulting tree, A, that will enable us to know if it is the natural result of a long line of trees that are themselves the natural result of a long line of trees, etc. , hereabouts, or if somewhere in that lineage one of the trees started things, as it were, as a result of being planted?

07-01-2002, 03:08 PM	#44
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	SO we have to distinguish between: 1) The fossil record is evidence of evolution (descent from a common ancestor); or 2) The fossil record is evidence of visitation by some unknown aliens that reordered the fossils to make it appear as if evolution happened. I see your hypothesis and raise you one Occam's Razor.

07-01-2002, 03:11 PM	#45
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Peez and RufusAtticus, you two are going to give your fellow scientists a bad name. I said "evolution is a fact-- is a claim that no scientist with an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science would ever make." (the added emphasis is mine). Each of you presents yourself as (i) a scientist (ii) who claims that evolution is a fact, and present this as counter-examples to my claim. Anyone with a basic appreciation of the logic of counter-example production knows that this fails to satisfy the form of a proper counter-example to my claim. John Galt, Jr.

07-01-2002, 03:23 PM	#47
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	All, Over the weekend I was talking about this issue with a friend who pointed me to the following essay by Alvin Plantinga. I had not known about it, or I would have started this thread with reference to this essay. Part II, B, of the essay is addressing the same issue that I have tried to raise here. Perhaps, it will help this discussion. The essay is entitled "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible." <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html" target="_blank">Dialogue</a> Once again, the part that is directly relevant to this thread is II, B, 'The Likelihood of Evolution" John Galt, Jr.

07-01-2002, 03:38 PM	#48
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Clutch, Mageth, Why don't you take some time to think about your responses before you fire them off. Or perhaps read the posts, or both. I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses. That was the question that started the entire thread and it is the question that you and so many others seem to have difficulty focusing on. Try it again. You , and others, are making asses out of yourselves, attacking again and again positions that I have not presented here and do not hold. John Galt, Jr. [ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

07-01-2002, 04:02 PM	#50
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	John Galt: Your condescending attitude is getting a bit tiring. I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses. That was the question that started the entire thread and it is the question that you and so many others seem to have difficulty focusing on. Occam's Razor is a useful tool for separating baloney from truth. Occam's Razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" I use it to eliminate the "visitors" mucking about with the fossil record. I think that's a valid application of it. You , and others, are making asses out of yourselves, attacking again and again positions that I have not presented here and do not hold. So what position(s) do you hold? Let us know so we can attack the right one(s).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.