Debate: Penguin vs Gyrene

[gyrene81]

Gyrene: the insects did not exactly "adapt". And yet they did.
A mutilation that probably occurred regularly, - i.e. a black butterfly, - suddenly became a vital factor in survival instead of being either a nuicance or a key to getting killed.
Speaking of those things, I happen to be involved with breeding of cattle and other lifestock. You would be surprised hof much you can also achieve with some 20 generations of breeding. And we do also work with "mutilations" and breed them onwards.
Therefore, I always chuckle at the thought of folks who do not belive in species altering with time. It is basically a total basis in agriculture, so obviously the very simple folks do not come from that part of the human gene pool 

I have to read through all the stuff Sonicblu and Bozon posted...then compile my responses but I wanted to hit you first. 

No offense sir but...LOL...the word is mutation...not mutilation. If you were mutilating the cattle, you would not be able to breed them very effectively due to the high risk of mortality, and those butterflies would cease to exist unless they could adapt to being mutilated.

Just wanted to point that out.

[FireDrgn]

Im not sure any one is against species changing with in species.........I going to guess here and say after 20 gererations you still have cattle?   Plus your using inteligent design  are you not? 

[FireDrgn]

He knows this because there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof in the mathematical sense. In math a proof can be traced back to the base definitions and axioms. If all logical statements from this basis are true, the the final one in the series will be true. There is no such absolute basis for science. It does not enjoy the privilege of math being a made-up world where you get to set all the ground rules. Someone else has set the rules and forgot to tell you what they are.

Science branched of from philosophy for a reason.

So your saying there is no proof  for evolution  just theory?    

How do you KNOW you have empirical science if "there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof"?

"Science branched of(f) from philosophy for a reason."   When did Science break off from reason?

Do you believe truth can be defined?

[Sonicblu]

A specie does not become another one, it branches off and eventually become a different specie from the other branch. The thing I don't know is when does the specie become incompatible his ancestor - likely a very large number of generations. I doubt you can find two species living at the same time where one could be identified as the ancestor of the other. There are plenty of examples for common ancestors (i.e. branched species).

How can you make this statement as it contradicts itself.

A specie does not become another one. But changes slowly over time and then it does..

So what your saying is:

IF I Kiss a frog and it turns into a prince. < that is a fairy tale

But IF I give the frog millions of years and it slowly becomes a prince than it is science.


If you don't know when this happened or happens how can you KNOW it did happen.

YOU cant find two species living at the same time because it violates so many laws to include the definition of species. And if you did have this kind of evidence you would present it.

[Sonicblu]

He knows this because there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof in the mathematical sense. In math a proof can be traced back to the base definitions and axioms. If all logical statements from this basis are true, the the final one in the series will be true. There is no such absolute basis for science. It does not enjoy the privilege of math being a made-up world where you get to set all the ground rules. Someone else has set the rules and forgot to tell you what they are.

Science branched of from philosophy for a reason.

Absolute truths are the basis for science. And that is why you must have philosophy with science. Because that is how you establish it.

If there is no absolute truth as a basis for science. You chose the hidden claim ( look at my other post ) " because we cant know it "

If we can't know truth in science then why even have a discussion on science.

This is where I have to use Philosophy because our thoughts and logic are the basis for science.  If there is no truth basis for science then all science is false. I think we call those fairytales.

IF logic follows from the premise it is sound. if the premis is wrong then the whole thing is invalid.

So if science does not have a true premise it  may be invalid.

Science is a search for causes we only have two kinds, intelligent causes and non intelligent causes.

Math and loigic can't be proven by science because science presupposes them. " Science is therfore a slave to philosophy.

[bozon]

So your saying there is no proof  for evolution  just theory?    
How do you KNOW you have empirical science if "there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof"?
"Science branched of(f) from philosophy for a reason."   When did Science break off from reason?
Do you believe truth can be defined?

Absolute truths are the basis for science. And that is why you must have philosophy with science. Because that is how you establish it.
If there is no absolute truth as a basis for science. You chose the hidden claim ( look at my other post ) " because we cant know it "
If we can't know truth in science then why even have a discussion on science.
This is where I have to use Philosophy because our thoughts and logic are the basis for science.  If there is no truth basis for science then all science is false. I think we call those fairytales.

You both are heading the philosophical way, so I can answer you both at once:
For the scientists, philosophy is like masturbation -  fun, but pointless.

Philosophers argue and work on the "philosophy of science" and it still is an active field for them (as far as I heard from rumors). In practice, not a single scientist I know read or studied their work seriously beyond coffee discussions. At least not from the past 200 years of it. Science does not pretend to be the absolute "truth". It is nothing more than a representation of the truth. A practical model that is an analogy of reality.

"Proof" for scientist is measured in probability, not in absolute: It is usually accepted as "5-sigma" certainty, which is close to 1 in a million probability of a wrong statement, but it might change a little from field to field. You can still be wrong by pure statistics and you can be wrong by doing wrong statistics. Wrong statistics may be just an error, but it may be because there was something else you did not know about and could not take into account. Running into something that breaks this statistics does not get "oh no! the theory is wrong..." response.  It will get a big "YAHOO!" cheers. Destroying someone else's theory or "proving" them wrong (statistically wrong) is what every scientist hope for. Doing an experiment and then reporting "We confirm the results of / theoretical prediction of..." is usually boring.

[FireDrgn]

  


If you stick your hand in a fire and hold it there for 5 minutes.  Your saying that you cant define  that your hand got burnt as absolute truth.   You would  honesty say hmmmm its probable that my hand is burnt?


Ya im not buying what your selling. Nice reframe tho.........


"Science does not pretend to be the absolute "truth" "  ----------------Your making a Truth claim. --------------------

P.S.. if you are having trouble accepting the fact that the fire is hot enough to absolutely burn your hand. I would be happy to get the fire going for you.

[Sonicblu]

AH you are just talking in circles.    You havent answered anything, just pontificating.


I already know I have taken a philosophical approach to start, that is the only thing we agree on so far,  (I never claimed to present science yet. ) otherwise the science will just go in circles.

We have to establish if truth can be known first otherwise the whole scientific debate will just go in circles. You finally tried to define it

Proof" for scientist is measured in probability, not in absolute: It is usually accepted as "5-sigma" certainty, which is close to 1 in a million probability of a wrong statement

But you want to keep the "you can't know for sure" wiggle room. Just a fancy way to say " we can't know truth for sure" which means you have to use faith to make up the difference. and you are still violating the law of non-contradiction by claiming to know truth, yet your own statement says I really can't know for sure but I want you to believe it anyway.

You went from science is not based on absolute proof to "Science does not pretend to be the absolute "truth". These are two very different statements and thoughts.

Our first discussion was on science is not "based" on proof, and that philosophy and science are seperate. You now have cleverly tried to change the frame of the debate to Science does not pretend to be absolute truth.

I know what forensic science is and what it is and isnt capable of. We are in violent agreement on this point. Science can't pretend to be absolute truth. Only once truth is defined, we can philosophicaly reason if the evidence points to a truthful conclusion or premise. Forensic science is just the gathering of the evidence we still have to use rules and logic to put the pieces togeather.

By the way your original statement on Proof was philisophical and not scientific.  Why can you use philosophy but for some reason I should be useing science without philosophy.

Example: The earth is round. How do I know this? because of the forensic evidence presented to me. I have never seen the earth as an empirical observation as a round sphere yet I believe it is round. I have seen pictures which are forensic evidence not empirical evidence. We have forensic evidence that if you walk/swim, or fly in a straight direction you will come back to the same point after about 25,000 miles. again evidence of a sphere. Do I know for 100% certain that the earth is round? NO because I havent seen it for myself.

The ball in front of me is round how do I know this. Because I can see it with my eyes and feel it with my hands. This is empirical science/evidence.

Sounds to simple we both know this. The problem is in a debate is how the evidence is applied to a claim. This is what I question.

This is why I take a phlisophical approach at first. Do the debaters even understand how to debate or is it going to just go in a circle.

[Sonicblu]

Gyrene: the insects did not exactly "adapt". And yet they did.
A mutilation that probably occurred regularly, - i.e. a black butterfly, - suddenly became a vital factor in survival instead of being either a nuicance or a key to getting killed.
Speaking of those things, I happen to be involved with breeding of cattle and other lifestock. You would be surprised hof much you can also achieve with some 20 generations of breeding. And we do also work with "mutilations" and breed them onwards.
Therefore, I always chuckle at the thought of folks who do not belive in species altering with time. It is basically a total basis in agriculture, so obviously the very simple folks do not come from that part of the human gene pool 

You are claiming empirical observation and evidence. 20 generation of breeding can achieve (what can it achieve ). Then you make a claim that because of this evidence you believe species can alter with time. The hidden claimes are. Your 20 generations of breeding prove it was done with intelligence and that you have to use human inteligence to get the results you want because natural selection has not done it.
I believe you can get adaptation with inteligent intervention but only within the species. Have you made a new species yet?

You have no forensice evidence or empirical evidence to show new species. So how can you make that claim?

Who doesn't believe that a species won't alter with time? Alter how is the quesiton. Adaptaion within a species is proven you proved it.

Evolution on a basis of natural selection is not proved nor has any evidence been supplied for the claim. Natural selection excludes intelligence is random and does not have a  goal.

Through a select breeding program you show all intelligent guided process, a goal with aim in view, not a blind process.

So with the statement "folks don't believe the species altering with time", do you mean. Inteligent guided adaptation? or Evolution by natural selection.

These are two different things, and together violate the law of non-contradiction. If it is inteligent guided you cant have natural selection. They exclude each other.

[RTHolmes]

ok sonic, now i'm starting to understand where your reams of text are coming from. this discussion is about evolution although it has widened out to discuss science in general. It is not about creationism or even evolution vs creationism, so please dont steer it that way. If you want to discuss creationism, please start a new topic (although I'm not sure how long that will last given the forum rules.)

[RTHolmes]

For the scientists, philosophy is like masturbation -  fun, but pointless.

Philosophers argue and work on the "philosophy of science" and it still is an active field for them (as far as I heard from rumors). In practice, not a single scientist I know read or studied their work seriously beyond coffee discussions. At least not from the past 200 years of it.

hardly, most of the really important work in the field has been done in the last 100yrs, as you might expect given the areas science has been investigating in this period. eg. Popper, Kuhn. Its important to understand the way science works wrt paradigms etc. and seems to be of interest especially to physicists - certainly in the UK many physicists will have spent some time in their social sciences dept doing a course in epistemology of science.

[Sonicblu]

ok sonic, now i'm starting to understand where your reams of text are coming from. this discussion is about evolution although it has widened out to discuss science in general. It is not about creationism or even evolution vs creationism, so please dont steer it that way. If you want to discuss creationism, please start a new topic (although I'm not sure how long that will last given the forum rules.)

Thanks RT,

I know this and have stayed away from the saying creationism. I thought it was the case but the logic is so poor i wasn't sure.

So what you are saying is that both penguin and gyrene are aurguing within evolution?   

So they are trying to argue thier view on how evolution happened, not if it happened?

Here is the problem with the logic being used to support evolution. If I say I believe in evolution if make certain obvious and hidden claims.

I am just trying to prove the logic is wrong. They ( all the debaters ) can't have two claims within evolution that claim opposits.

They are making false claims within evolution if that is what they are tying to do.

[Sonicblu]

Srryy guys I thought you guys knew how to debate and what you were talking about.

I will bow out of this as the discusion really can't go anywhere. Because you really can't talk about science.

It is either good science vs bad science or bad science vs bad science with very poor logic.

Just one last thought for bozon.

If you don't know what absolute truth is or absolute proof. How do you know your formula is right? one in a million from what?

[Penguin]

Come on Moray...you can't be serious...grammatical semantics? OK, to ease your mind, let's use the word continuous...the process of evolution is "continuous" in all life forms on the planet earth. You previously claimed evolution occurs when it must...you also claim it is not continuous...science is showing the only time a life form stops evolving is when it goes extinct...the process is continuously occurring at the microbiological level...think immune system.



You mean this?
According to some current theories, there was a single moment...somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years in the past (depending on who posted the theory)...of course there are a thousand different interpretations of the theory, and it is being revised as new discoveries are examined...but the one thing that hasn't changed is the beginning event, an explosion...Stephen Hawking is thinking that the answer lies within black holes (who incidentally is the first scientist I have ever heard of to admit one of his theories was wrong)...the theory posted on NASA's site claims an object just a few millimeters across held all the mass within the visible universe.

And the beat goes on...

Can't argue with that.

You must be talking about classical mechanics which is derived from Newton's laws...I understood it to be predictive physics theory...not sure about relativistic mechanics but quantum mechanics is a purely theoretical science that looks at things on the atomic level.

Maybe I don't have enough vocabulary for this, I am sorry.  I'm only going to argue against the first point for now:

Evolution only occurs when it must, therefore, if it doesn't need to, it will not.  It can start again, it can stop, it can go at varying paces as well.  Take pesticide resistance, that occurs very quickly due to the fact that the pressure is extreme and fast-acting.

-Penguin

P.S. On a more positive (and less serious) note, the average cup size in women has gone from a 34B to 36C over a few thousand years, just goes to show you, the more the merrier! 

[bozon]

I'll let this discussion go back to the evolution.
Two final clarifications:

hardly, most of the really important work in the field has been done in the last 100yrs, as you might expect given the areas science has been investigating in this period. eg. Popper, Kuhn. Its important to understand the way science works wrt paradigms etc. and seems to be of interest especially to physicists - certainly in the UK many physicists will have spent some time in their social sciences dept doing a course in epistemology of science.

Perhaps it is in the UK, but in most other places scientists (I sample mostly physicists) know very little about Popper or Kuhn and don really care beyond the coffee discussion level. Myself included.

Just one last thought for bozon.

If you don't know what absolute truth is or absolute proof. How do you know your formula is right? one in a million from what?

I don't know if the formula is right. I gamble on the highest probability.