Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Moderation is ON

None of Hugo's comments will be allowed here in the future.

Hugo is stuck in the raw Darwinism rut, claiming that his views represent all of biological science. He refuses to address logic failures in evolution, and in his own comments.

He never addresses the need for objective knowledge in order to believe a thing (the logical underpinning of empirical science).

He has been forcefully equivocating several basic terms in order to support raw Darwinian micro-evolution as the engine of speciation (a concept rejected by the evolution industry roughly 70 years ago).

He claims truth for that which cannot rise even to contingent factoids due to the non-falsifiability of all - ALL - claims of historical evolution.

He maintains that my demands for falsifiability amounts to false claims on my part that evolution is not an empirical science, as is Modern Biology, and therefore evolution does deserve all of the respect that modern biology garners. This claim is absolutely demonstrably NOT the case by merely asking for empirical proof for evolutionary claims regarding historical events.

Hugo claims that demanding that he address the need for objective knowledge and the observation that he never responds to that demand, is an insult. He never has responded to that.

His final complaint is that the logical analysis of evolutionary claims, from raw Darwinism to the Modern Synthesis and the newer Extended Synthesis is "spreading misinformation". It would seem that any evolutionary analysis at all is "spreading misinformation", unless the only a priori axiom which is accepted is that "evolution is True" and anything which shows otherwise is therefore false. That includes all analyses based on empirical processes which fail to conform to raw Darwinism, all analyses which use Aristotelian processes which fail to validate evolution, all examples and instances of industry claims and equations which show logic failures, all these are of no consequence, because evolution is axiomatically True.

The concept that a non-empirical, non-falsifiable, untestable hypothesis is axiomatically True, is irrational. Evolution is not a First Principle of Universal Thought. And it also is not an empirical science, and it does not deserve the reverence which is reserved for voluntarily materialist, falsifiable, empirical sciences - such as is Modern Biology (upon which evolution is an ideological parasite).

This sort of persistent irrationality comes to an end, now.

54 comments:

Steven Satak said...

"Evolution is not a First Principle of Universal Thought".

It is, however, a basic tenet of Hugo's faith. So it is to be expected that he will equivocate, dodge, duck and weave in the service of keeping it inviolate.

After all, Stan, all he has to do is gainsay every thing you write. He doesn't have to do research, or even think very hard. Same thing with that "Joe" fellow. They don't want discussion, they want lulz. They've already got their religion - now it's time to go out on the internet and attack others.

CJ said...

I understand the need to resort to moderation. Just wondering, however, if there's some sort of "Your message is awaiting moderation" notification that can be enabled. I tried at least a half dozen times to post something last night, before discovering you'd turned moderation on.

Phoenix said...

I've debated Atheists where they always insist on having the last say no matter how inane or out of context their arguments are, but seeing their words being posted last gives them some feeling of victory.

Stan said...

That would be a good addition. Google controls all of that, and even though they have a complaint box somewhere, they don't respond to it, as far as I can tell.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"He never addresses the need for objective knowledge in order to believe a thing"
My only objective knowledge, in the sense of absolute knowledge, is based on my self awareness. Other knowledge is subject to counter speculation at the very least, and more importantly, counter evidence.

" due to the non-falsifiability of all - ALL - claims of historical evolution. "
The classic proposed falsification of biological evolution is rabbit bones in the Cambrian. Innumerable similar falsifications can be proposed, yet none occur, thus evolution remains convincingly unfalsified in the face of great opportunities for falsification.


When I say I believe X that means I estimate a very high probability that X is true and thus have reached the personal conclusion X is true, but this does not require objective knowledge for me.

" the only a priori axiom which is accepted is that "evolution is True" and anything which shows otherwise is therefore false"
I am not aware of any recognized and responsible scientist in the field who makes that claim. Evolution is an evidence based conclusion, a falsifiable theory, an evidenced scientific fact, and thus a rational conclusion, not an axiomatic assertion.

"The concept that a non-empirical, non-falsifiable, untestable hypothesis is axiomatically True, is irrational."
True. I am not aware of any evolutionary scientist who takes such an irrational position.

" Evolution is not a First Principle of Universal Thought."
True, it is an evidence based rational conclusion.

"And it also is not an empirical science,"
False. It is evidence based and subject to experimentation and falsification, similar to the astronomical sciences.

" it does not deserve the reverence which is reserved for voluntarily materialist, falsifiable, empirical sciences "
Reverence is a matter of personal taste, but it is materialist, falsifiable, and empirical.



Stan said...

"He never addresses the need for objective knowledge in order to believe a thing"
My only objective knowledge, in the sense of absolute knowledge, is based on my self awareness. Other knowledge is subject to counter speculation at the very least, and more importantly, counter evidence.


Actually, objective knowledge is obtained two ways. First, it is empirically determined and replicated, non-falsified, and demonstrated to successfully validate the originating hypothesis, thereby providing objective, contingent knowledge regarding a claim about material reality. Second, it is a deduced conclusion regarding a state within the universe which does not contradict the First Principles and which passes the logic test of Reduction Ad Absurdum.

What you describe is subjective knowledge regarding yourself, knowledge which cannot be shared with anyone else in an objective fashion.

" due to the non-falsifiability of all - ALL - claims of historical evolution. "
The classic proposed falsification of biological evolution is rabbit bones in the Cambrian. Innumerable similar falsifications can be proposed, yet none occur, thus evolution remains convincingly unfalsified in the face of great opportunities for falsification.


The process of evolving is purely an extrapolation between two fossils which are found in different layers of geological history. There is no – NO – knowledge of either organic development between the two fossils, nor is there molecular evidence of specific mutations between the DNA in one fossil and the DNA in the other fossil. All evolutionary claims, therefore, are without the necessary facts to prove the stories which evolutionists tell.

If a rabbit were found in pre-Cambrian levels, all new evolutionary stories would be told to accommodate it. Darwin even proposed falsifiers which have been found, and yet ignored by evolutionist story tellers.

When I say I believe X that means I estimate a very high probability that X is true and thus have reached the personal conclusion X is true, but this does not require objective knowledge for me.

If you cannot justify your “very high probability” estimates, then your personal opinion of that calculation reduces to mere subjective opinion.

Stan said...

" the only a priori axiom which is accepted is that "evolution is True" and anything which shows otherwise is therefore false"
I am not aware of any recognized and responsible scientist in the field who makes that claim.


Then you are not aware of Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, Massimo Pigliucci, and thousands of other actual scientist/gate keepers of evolution.

” Evolution is an evidence based conclusion, a falsifiable theory, an evidenced scientific fact, and thus a rational conclusion, not an axiomatic assertion. ”

There is absolutely no empirical evidence which supports evolution. The challenge remains: provide one (1) empirical, falsifiable (replicable and replicated) study which proves evolution. It is not a “scientific fact”, because there is no observation possible of the historical occurrences, no molecular evidence which directly relates mutations from one historical creature into another historical creature, and cladistics charts still are void of common ancestors. This is especially true for both the evolution of First Life (which evolutionists cowardly claim no responsibility to explain, even with their Just So Stories), as well as for the Cambrian Explosion (which required the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium – the lack of evidence is the evidence).

So when Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True”, asserts the truth of evolution, it asserts evolution as an axiom, based on his story telling and unsupported extrapolations.

"The concept that a non-empirical, non-falsifiable, untestable hypothesis is axiomatically True, is irrational."
True. I am not aware of any evolutionary scientist who takes such an irrational position.


Again: Then you are not aware of Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, Massimo Pigliucci, and thousands of other actual scientist/gate keepers of evolution.

" Evolution is not a First Principle of Universal Thought."
True, it is an evidence based rational conclusion.


Then produce the empirical, objective evidence (no stories or extrapolations). Just one piece of objective evidence. Not a blitz of websites with unproven claims, or Just So Stories a la Stephen Jay Gould.

"And it also is not an empirical science,"
False. It is evidence based and subject to experimentation and falsification, similar to the astronomical sciences.


Then produce one. Just one. Yes: experimentation and falsification – produce just one.

" it does not deserve the reverence which is reserved for voluntarily materialist, falsifiable, empirical sciences "
Reverence is a matter of personal taste, but it is materialist, falsifiable, and empirical.


Again, support your claim by producing just one empirical, hypothetico-deductive experimental contingent validation, replication and non-falsification which proves evolutionary theory (The Modern Synthesis, for example) is at least contingently valid.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"objective, contingent knowledge regarding a claim about material reality."
Ok, so you do not mean objective in the sense of absolute, rather objective contingent upon a set of axioms which are not themselves absolutely proven. That's fine, I just wanted to get our terms clarified at the outset.

"Second, it is a deduced conclusion regarding a state within the universe which does not contradict the First Principles and which passes the logic test of Reduction Ad Absurdum."
Well, I would have to see a list of what you consider to be "the" First Principles. Also, I am not sure why you select just one method of logical argumentation as your fundamental, but ok, you are essentially saying that we start with axiomatic first principles and then use observation and logic to achieve objective knowledge within that closed system.

"What you describe is subjective knowledge regarding yourself, knowledge which cannot be shared with anyone else in an objective fashion."
No, my point is that the only things I know absolutely to be true, the things that do not rest upon any axioms or postulates whatsoever, are based upon my self awareness. So, I think we are talking about somewhat different things here, but that's ok.

"
The process of evolving is purely an extrapolation between two fossils which are found in different layers of geological history. There is no – NO – knowledge of either organic development between the two fossils,"
By this reasoning nothing can ever be deduced from evidence, since there is no continuous record of the past event. You can think that way if you wish, but most of us choose to not be paralyzed in that manner.

The theory of evolution as applied to our knowledge base of fossils, geology, DNA analysis, astronomy, and modern biology all taken as a connected set of studies asserts that species X arose at time T and could not possibly be found in a layer dated T - 400,000,000y. If species X were actually found in a layer dated T - 400,000,000 that would falsify the theory of evolution.

The fact you assert no proved connection between fossils is irrelevant to the falsification of the theory. The theory does assert such connection, therefor if we can find evidence that demonstrates that asserted connection to be grossly out of time order the theory would be falsified.

Thus, the theory of evolution, as presently formulated and applied throughout our biosphere, is easily falsifiable, yet it remains unfalsified.

"If a rabbit were found in pre-Cambrian levels, all new evolutionary stories would be told to accommodate"
Speculation of future irrational accommodation. The fact is such falsifications simply do not occur, so your speculations as to what accommodations might be made if they did occur are irrelevant.

" Darwin even proposed falsifiers which have been found, and yet ignored by evolutionist story tellers."
Inspecific statement. But even if true, Darwin only produced a seminal work at the time of the American Civil War at time before much was known about geology, radioactivity, DNA, biology, and the whole of modern science. It should come as no surprise that he may have gotten some details wrong. Darwin is not a god of evolution, merely a man who did a great work on the subject.

"If you cannot justify your “very high probability” estimates, then your personal opinion of that calculation reduces to mere subjective opinion."
Indeed, all our knowledge beyond cogito ergo sum reduces to subjective opinion. But, I am willing to provisionally accept the basic reliability of the human senses and the axioms of logic in order to live and communicate objectively within that closed space, much as you outlined at the top of your post.




Stardusty Psyche said...

"you are not aware of Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, Massimo Pigliucci,and thousands of other actual scientist/"
Could you possibly provide some links where all these folks say precisely " the only a priori axiom which is accepted is that "evolution is True"?

"It is not a “scientific fact”, because there is no observation possible of the historical occurrences"
Science is by its very nature provisional. To say a thing is a scientific fact is to say it is a provisional fact based on the principles of science.

It is a mistake to think all science must be replicable in a controlled experiment. Lab science is just one sort of scientific investigation.

Certain aspects of geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biological evolution can be replicated in the lab. If you wish to exclude geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biological evolution from the sciences because we are incapable of replicating those studied processes in their entirety then you simply do not understand what science is or how it is done.

"objective evidence (no stories or extrapolations)"
By your reasoning we could never convict a criminal based on physical evidence. You can take that position if you wish, but the rest of us choose to not be paralyzed in that manner.

"Yes: experimentation and falsification – produce just one."
Proposed falsifications abound, yet none turn out to be the case. If the universe were only 6,000 years old, or the Earth, then there would not have been enough time. If fossils were found out of date order, that would falsify evolution, but they are not. If there were no biochemical means of storing information that would falsify the ToE, but there is.

In terms of experimentation Darwin used domestication to illustrate the effects of selection.

Here is a very interesting experiment showing evolution in action in real time.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46993/title/Giant-Petri-Dish-Displays-Evolution-in-Space-and-Time/






Stardusty Psyche said...

"So when Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True”, asserts the truth of evolution, it asserts evolution as an axiom, based on his story telling and unsupported extrapolations."

"Yes: experimentation and falsification – produce just one."
At time 34:33 of the video "Why Evolution Is True (Jerry Coyne) "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqxCoibTtaI
Jerry Coyne lists about 10 ways in which the theory of evolution is falsifiable. The number 1 means is the one I detailed above.

Evolution simply is a falsifiable scientific theory.

Watching the Jerry Coyne video I was unable to verify your assertion that he says " the only a priori axiom which is accepted is that "evolution is True".

Quite the contrary, he started from the position of having to demonstrate evolution is true using scientific methods, which he then did. Jerry Coyne treated the truth of evolution as a conclusion, not an axiom.

Can you give me the time in the video where he asserts evolution as an axiom, not a conclusion?


Robert Coble said...

@Stardusky Psyche:

"Well, I would have to see a list of what you consider to be "the" First Principles."

Somehow you have managed to overlook the entire right-side panel on this blog under the heading "Compendium of Rational Principles." Please investigate those definitions and topics before continuing.

Stan said...



Eugenie Scott:
”Dr Scott’s message is that there is no contrary evidence to evolution and global warming. The science is settled and we simply need to respond to it.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/ncses_eugenie_scott_reassures051171.html

”There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution. This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards.1 "
http://www.icr.org/article/no-weaknesses-theory-evolution/

Jerry Coyne:
”Why Evolution is True”
https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=coyne+why+evolution+is+true’

blog: ”Why Evolution is True”
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

Massimo Pigliucci:
”The varieties of denialism”
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/the-varieties-of-denialism/

”Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science”
https://www.amazon.com/Denying-Evolution-Creationism-Scientism-Science/dp/0878936599

”Deniers are not Skeptics”
http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics
Note the long list of subscribers to the use of “denier” as an Ad Hominem Abusive pejorative.

There is no room for any criticism of the “science” of evolution: it is True; saying otherwise is “denialism” (anti-science), without consideration of the logical truth value presented by evolutionists.

It is interesting to note that Coyne and Pigliucci vehemently attack each other’s concepts, yet are together on the Truth of Evolution.

Stan said...

”"It is not a “scientific fact”, because there is no observation possible of the historical occurrences"
Science is by its very nature provisional. To say a thing is a scientific fact is to say it is a provisional fact based on the principles of science.

It is a mistake to think all science must be replicable in a controlled experiment. Lab science is just one sort of scientific investigation.”


Which science produces Objective Knowledge by using non-falsifiable claims?

And how is “contingency” parsed in non-falsifiable claims?

Why should non-falsifiable claims be believed?

”Certain aspects of geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biological evolution can be replicated in the lab. If you wish to exclude geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biological evolution from the sciences because we are incapable of replicating those studied processes in their entirety then you simply do not understand what science is or how it is done.”

Really?? Then explain what the purpose of science is, if it is not to generate knowledge which is believable. And explain why non-falsifiablity is now believable. That is a purely Post Modern concept, and is far afield from empiricism.

"objective evidence (no stories or extrapolations)"
By your reasoning we could never convict a criminal based on physical evidence. You can take that position if you wish, but the rest of us choose to not be paralyzed in that manner.”


So your position, preponderance of evidence, is that if 51% of data supports X, and 49% does not, then it is acceptable as “The Theory of X”? Preponderance of Evidence is an issue surrounding human justice, not Objective Knowledge of Physical Reality. Evolution claims to be Truth regarding the latter. So that’s a False Analogy.

”"Yes: experimentation and falsification – produce just one."
Proposed falsifications abound, yet none turn out to be the case. If the universe were only 6,000 years old, or the Earth, then there would not have been enough time. If fossils were found out of date order, that would falsify evolution, but they are not. If there were no biochemical means of storing information that would falsify the ToE, but there is.”


How about the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur finds? How about the claim that out of order fossils is caused by undetected landslides? How about the rational impossibility of First Life? Of all left-handed protein molecules? Of the necessity for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (no evidence = evidence) to support the Cambrian Explosion? How about the emptiness of the ToE in terms of specific genetic mutations at the molecular level, which must be accumulated en masse for speciation, despite the overwhelming prevalence of deleterious mutations which cause death and non-procreation? What about the inability to demonstrate how alpha particles change Adenosine into one of the other base molecules, thereby creating new, useful code, without even losing the original code? What code changed to get from mitosis to meiosis? What code changed from splitting cells into identical daughter cells to double sexes requiring meiosis via sexual attraction and conjugation followed by complementary gametes doubling the metabolic capacity in order to sustain the generation of pluripotent cells? What about the double change of egg into caterpillar, caterpillar into butterfly? What about the empty ancestry of many species, such as the platypus, the bombardier beetle, etc.?

And why are “let’s pretend” stories a science??

Stan said...

”In terms of experimentation Darwin used domestication to illustrate the effects of selection.”

Exactly! Microevolution, as observed in existing complexity of sexual reproduction. Does not, and cannot apply to macroevolution. Selection cannot choose something that is outside the existing genome. The genome must change – mutate – for that to happen. Darwin didn’t foresee that. Darwinian claims cannot produce speciation.

”Here is a very interesting experiment showing evolution in action in real time.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46993/title/Giant-Petri-Dish-Displays-Evolution-in-Space-and-Time/”


This article is unsatisfactory in its information content, and the actual study cannot be accessed for a full year at Science, unless one are member of an association which has aligned with Science. The article mentions mutation, but in the past, resistance mutations involve pre-existing genetic switches which get flipped from one state to another. That in no manner reflects new information, nor does it lead one to suspect that novel structures are being built by the e coli cell. Generally speaking, resistant bacteria are considered not to be indicative of evolution, except as a very restricted form of micro-evolution, if even that. It certainly does not rise to the level of invention of novelty for purposes of speciation, which is the condition of necessity and sufficiency for proof of historical evolutionary speciation.

Stan said...

"Watching the Jerry Coyne video I was unable to verify your assertion that he says " the only a priori axiom which is accepted is that "evolution is True".

Quite the contrary, he started from the position of having to demonstrate evolution is true using scientific methods, which he then did. Jerry Coyne treated the truth of evolution as a conclusion, not an axiom."


I have read the book, not watched the video. He uses story telling exclusively in the book, and there is no scientific methodology involved. In the book he admits that although it is True, evolution cannot be proven or falsified. That makes it an axiom.

Can you give me the time in the video where he asserts evolution as an axiom, not a conclusion?

Stan said...

There is another reason that evolution cannot be falsified: every falsifying finding means that the "theory" must be expanded to accommodate it. The theory at this time encompasses every conceivable eventuality, and nothing, all simultaneously. So the theory does not discriminate against anything, and thus is not an actual theory at all.

But it does have failures, such as the failure to predict like a decent theory would do. It cannot predict, because it actually predicts only that anything that happens, happens because of evolution. But it cannot be specific, because the theory doesn't address how evolution happens at any useful, meaningful level. The theory exists at a narrative-only level, in the form of science fiction stories.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hi Robert,
No, I did not pay a great deal of attention to the many links on both sides of the page, but there could be some interesting reading there, although I have my doubts, still, it could turn out well.

For example, this was listed under "1. The Intuitive Principles"
e. Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact).
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2008/07/first-principles-bedrock-of-logic-and.html

I think this belongs under the class of known absolute truths, not an intuitive principle. The rest of logic is asserted axiomatically, but cogito ergo sum expresses an absolute truth.

But, no worries, I provisionally accept the basic reliability of the human senses and the axioms, or you might say principles, of logic.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hmmm...
I did a little more reading before I went on, found this item
"3. The Presuppositional Principles.
These principles are declared either as empirical constraints, or as part of a worldview.

a. No form of reality exists that cannot be either observed and measured directly or by the use of instrumentation.

No, sorry, I can't go along with that one. Why would we presuppose that all reality is observable? That seems rather egocentric.

If a tree falls in the woods when nobody is around does it make a sound? If by sound we mean a characteristic pattern of traveling density waves then yes. Reality is not contingent upon our observation of it, either as an individual event or as a class of observations.

We exist at some mid level between the very large and the very small. There is not a priori reason to presuppose we ought to be able to observe the very most distant, or the very largest, or the very smallest.

In particular, our mid sized sensing appartus might have fundamental resolution limits that prevent us, even in principle, from observing the very smallest reality.

So, I will get to some of the links over time but I have some significant differences with them already.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"”Dr Scott’s message is that there is no contrary evidence to evolution and global warming. The science is settled and we simply need to respond to it.”"
Right, this is not accepting evolution axiomatically, it is stating that over 150 years of research has conclusively supported the scientific fact and theory of evolution so the reasonable thing to do is treat it as settled science.

"”There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."
In its fundamental facts, that is true.

There are no weaknesses in the theory that nuclear fusion accounts for solar radiation, even though we cannot build a star in the lab.

That's not to say every detail of the structure of every star is known in exact detail, but the scientific fact nuclear fusion in stars is settled science, not axiomatically, rather, by long research on the subject, like biological evolution.


I see you posted a number of links. I could find nothing in them to support your claim that evolution is an a priori axiom.

"It is interesting to note that Coyne and Pigliucci vehemently attack each other’s concepts, yet are together on the Truth of Evolution."
Interesting indeed. That is how science works. Some fundamental principles are settled science, certain details are hotly debated.

Robert Coble said...

"The theory at this time encompasses every conceivable eventuality, and nothing, all simultaneously."

Hmmm. . . that's most succinct summary of the cosmological multi-verse "theory" that I've ever seen. Thanks!

Stardusty Psyche said...

"And explain why non-falsifiablity is now believable."
Biological evolution is falsifiable by the methods I touched on, and have been linked to you.

"51% of data supports X, and 49% does not, then it is acceptable as “The Theory of X”? Preponderance of Evidence "
There is no 49% scientifically against evolution. There is only infinitesimal speculation against evolution.

"How about the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur finds?"
How about it? Is there some absolute principle of physics that requires all fossilization environments to always lead to the total degradation of soft tissue?

"How about the claim that out of order fossils is caused by undetected landslides?"
What out of order fossils? And yes, animal burrowing, erosion, and other events can move fossils.

"How about the rational impossibility of First Life?"
There is no such rational impossibility.

"Of all left-handed protein molecules?"
How does chirality disprove evolution?

"Of the necessity for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (no evidence = evidence) to support the Cambrian Explosion?"
There was not "explosion", unless you consider millions of years to somehow be and "explosion".

"he overwhelming prevalence of deleterious mutations which cause death and non-procreation?"
Those individual die. Nobody said evolution is kind or efficient by our sensibilities.

"And why are “let’s pretend” stories a science??"
In science unanswered questions are subjects for further research.





Stardusty Psyche said...

"That in no manner reflects new information,"
How do you know that? How do you know where the antibiotic resistance came from?

" the condition of necessity and sufficiency for proof of historical evolutionary speciation."
If you do not understand that speciation has occurred over hundreds of millions of years you have not familiarized yourself with the scientific evidence.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"In the book he admits that although it is True, evolution cannot be proven or falsified"
I find that to be an incredible statement.

Can you cite the passage in the book where Coyne supposedly states evolution cannot be falsified?

Stardusty Psyche said...

"There is another reason that evolution cannot be falsified: every falsifying finding means that the "theory" must be expanded to accommodate it."
In that case the theory as formulated was in fact falsified, and a new formulation, a different theory, must be generated. That is how science works.

" It cannot predict,"
It predicts there will be no rabbit bones in the Cambrian layer. That prediction, and many similar predictions, have held, hence the falsifiable scientific fact and theory of evolution remains unfalsified.

Stan said...

”Well, I would have to see a list of what you consider to be "the" First Principles. Also, I am not sure why you select just one method of logical argumentation as your fundamental, but ok, you are essentially saying that we start with axiomatic first principles and then use observation and logic to achieve objective knowledge within that closed system.”

The three fundamental First Principles of Thought are those deduced by Aristotle and contained in every Logic 101 text. They were subsequently derived mathematically by Boole, and established as mathematical necessities also. In the right hand column of this blog there is an extensive review of the First Principles, including Boole’s derivation. There is also a brief course on Aristotelian logic (Logic 101), and the differentiation between the contingent knowledge of (black swan) Induction, vs. the certain knowledge of grounded, valid, tested deduction (assuming both are properly performed, of course).

Science, including empirical, falsifiable, experimental science, is purely inductive. That includes the deduction of physical “laws” which is based on Inductive evidence. Even falsification can be reversed and so is contingent, only. To pretend to arrive at a universal truth of incorrigible, immutable quality is false. However, empirical findings which are adequately replicated and not falsified lend themselves to objective, contingent knowledge of a finding about the material universe.

Stan said...

”The process of evolving is purely an extrapolation between two fossils which are found in different layers of geological history. There is no – NO – knowledge of either organic development between the two fossils,"
By this reasoning nothing can ever be deduced from evidence, since there is no continuous record of the past event. You can think that way if you wish, but most of us choose to not be paralyzed in that manner.”


It certainly may be deduced; it cannot be imbued with Truth. It cannot be said to even approach the necessary qualities required for objective knowledge. And to derive an ideology based on it is irrational. Evolution does not even approach the quality of evidence that was contained in the white swan/black swan failure of observational validity which led to the recognition of the Inductive Fallacy. Yet this type of failed reasoning is the basis for calling evolution a “science”. That is an insult to the REAL science of modern empirical biology. Yet the hegemony of the ideology surrounding evolution demands that modern biology be subservient to evolution, since “nothing makes sense” otherwise.

”The theory of evolution as applied to our knowledge base of fossils, geology, DNA analysis, astronomy, and modern biology all taken as a connected set of studies asserts that species X arose at time T and could not possibly be found in a layer dated T - 400,000,000y. If species X were actually found in a layer dated T - 400,000,000 that would falsify the theory of evolution.”

That actually happens, and the theory is adjusted accordingly, by changing the tree of life (which became a bush of life, a grid of life, a lawn of life, as needed for individual out of order findings).

Stan said...

”The fact you assert no proved connection between fossils is irrelevant to the falsification of the theory. The theory does assert such connection, therefor if we can find evidence that demonstrates that asserted connection to be grossly out of time order the theory would be falsified.

Thus, the theory of evolution, as presently formulated and applied throughout our biosphere, is easily falsifiable, yet it remains unfalsified.”


The reality is that the “tree of life” is adjusted to accommodate all claims. Out of order events are adjusted downward on the tree to connect to prior “unknown” common ancestors. The tree(s) of life are filled with blank connections where species are said to have derived from unknown ancestors. This is the case with primates, with humans connected to chimps and earlier to gorillas, all via unknown ancestors. The tree of life is full of this empty connection problem. Further, the connection is based on morphology and similarity of amino acid use in the genome. There is a great leap from that to “ancestry”. And that leap is based on fantasy and the desire that evolution be “True”. And of course a proposition which is infinitely plastic and without any need for predictive capability based on its randomness at the narrative level, and its impossibility of validation at the historical level, which incorporates any and all eventualities including no evolutionary change at all, and which ignores all instances of “no history” for actual existing biological entities, if taken with credulity, cannot be other than True. The deciding factor, of course, is credulity.

You insist that the demand for empirical level objective knowledge unfairly punishes the claims of the evolution proposition. That is Post-Modernist in its relaxation of the requirements instituted at the Modernist Enlightenment which was instituted by Atheists to prevent religious claims from being considered knowledge. This was done by essentially codifying the intellectual necessities of the quality of evidence required in order for a proposition to be believed: Empiricism. With the advent of Darwin, the Atheists changed from the Enlightenment concept in order to accept the religious-like claims of evolution stories. Darwin’s assault on Enlightenment empiricism has resulted in Post-Modern acceptance of faulty premises purely because they support an ideology. Atheists became that which they hated: anti-modern, blind-believers of ideology based in faux scientific creation stories.

Stan said...

”"If a rabbit were found in pre-Cambrian levels, all new evolutionary stories would be told to accommodate"
Speculation of future irrational accommodation. The fact is such falsifications simply do not occur, so your speculations as to what accommodations might be made if they did occur are irrelevant.”


Actually they have occurred frequently, and have been referred to as the “self-adjustment of science to new information”. The most blatant accommodation of “new information” is the Cambrian Explosion, which required the retreat from “gradualism” in the form of Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium” postulate which says that “the evidence is: no evidence exists”. So you must find another trope rather than “irrational accommodation”, because that irrational accommodation exists, and is fully documented.

”" Darwin even proposed falsifiers which have been found, and yet ignored by evolutionist story tellers."
Inspecific statement. But even if true, Darwin only produced a seminal work at the time of the American Civil War at time before much was known about geology, radioactivity, DNA, biology, and the whole of modern science. It should come as no surprise that he may have gotten some details wrong. Darwin is not a god of evolution, merely a man who did a great work on the subject.”


Darwin stole the basis for evolution from Wallace. He was a thief, and a plagiarist. This is documented in Tom Wolfe’s book, “The Kingdom of Speech”, where he quotes the letters of Darwin, Lyell, Hooker, and Wallace.

Regardless, you apparently are not aware of Darwin’s concern that the blind, random evolution of the human mind cannot account for any rational creativity outside of survival, and therefore the effluent of the mind cannot be trusted under Darwinian evolution theory. This is not subject to your “geology, radioactivity, DNA, biology, and the whole of modern science” assertion; Darwin’s is still a valid complaint against evolution. He also had other falsifiers which are not subject to your solutions, such as why would evolution produce a cat that thrashes its tail when stalking prey? That is obviously not a beneficial feature selected for the fitness of the cat to its role in the environment. And there are more, too.

” "If you cannot justify your “very high probability” estimates, then your personal opinion of that calculation reduces to mere subjective opinion."
Indeed, all our knowledge beyond cogito ergo sum reduces to subjective opinion. But, I am willing to provisionally accept the basic reliability of the human senses and the axioms of logic in order to live and communicate objectively within that closed space, much as you outlined at the top of your post.”


You are also apparently unaware that the cogito has been rejected, because the valid conclusion is that “because I think, thinking exists”. And the cogito was successfully attacked during the time immediately after it was asserted. So for true Radical Skepticism one must go to solipsism, or Pyrrhonianism, or the brain in the vat. But that is not what is being asserted here. Enlightenment Modernist empiricism (valid science) is the grounding used here.

Steven Satak said...

"It predicts there will be no rabbit bones in the Cambrian layer. That prediction, and many similar predictions, have held, hence the falsifiable scientific fact and theory of evolution remains unfalsified."

Hmm. No one is suggesting we WOULD find rabbit bones in the Cambrian layer, since rabbits are relatively new critters, ecologically speaking.

Are you holding up evolution to have predictive powers based on the observation that the remains of a creature found in modern times is not found in the rock data of the distant past as well?

Really? And you don't think anything is odd about that series of assumptions that declares that because then is not now, evolution is predictive?

Huh. I don't know what to think of you, other than that if you're not Hugo, you're his twin.

Steven Satak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Satak said...

Wait, you ARE Hugo! Your very first comment responded to the last statement Stan make earlier, when claiming you were banned.

Stan, it's pretty easy these days to mask your IP. And this guy is still leading you on the merry chase Hugo was charting.

Get along, Stardusty. You're wasting people's time.

Stan said...

That prediction is paleontology, not evolutionary. The fact that evolutionists claim it as a prediction of evolution is an indication of intellectual malfeasance withing the coterie.

It has no bearing on the details of the act of speciation, which is the entire reason that Darwinian evolution has survived, rather than gone the way of phrenology.

And of course, the theory survives other falsifications, such as the false claims of horse descent, leaving each member of the phony lineage adrift, with no lineages for any member. Yet Coyne uses the fraudulent horse descent in his video, even after George Gaylord Simpson demolished it in the book "Horses", over 50 years ago.

Stan said...

That is absolutely the case. The multiverse is the fantasy escape-valve for logically-challenged hypotheses which must be protected at all cost.

Stan said...

It's hard to tell. But I'm not certain. Mostly because he doesn't appear to be stuck in Hugo's rut.

Stan said...

On page 222, he says this:
"We've also seen that evolutionary biology makes testable predictions, though not of course in the sense of predicting how a particular species will evolve, for that depends upon a myriad of uncertain factors such as which mutations crop up and how environments change."

The very mechanism of evolution, speciation, is not testable and therefore not falisifiable.

On page 223, he defines "what we mean" when they say that "evolution is true". Read it for yourself, and compare it to the philosophical and common usage definition of truth.

Lawrence Krauss used similar definitional degeneration in his book, "A Universe From Nothing", where he defined "nothing" as being something: a quantum field. Hawking did a similar hatchet job definition by defining nothing as "pre-existing" and necessary rules such as gravity as the organizing principle for the creation of the universe. (Now he's into aliens).

Stardusty Psyche said...

"Wait, you ARE Hugo!"
Ok, this is good for a bit of a chuckle, not because it is impossible from your point of view, because you are correct that masking an IP is not difficult for somebody determined to get back in with a sock puppet.

Have you ever been mistaken for somebody else? It can evoke a mild chuckle.

I don't know who this Hugo guy is, who really knows for most of the folks who comment? If you get used to the stylistic approaches you can often tell just from writing style, vocabulary, and grammatical cues when two texts are written by two different people. That is an interesting field of research in Bible study to determine the original authorship versus the later edits. Of course, I do not expect you to care about or study my words that much.

" Your very first comment responded to the last statement Stan make earlier, "
You are correct to the extent that it seems too much like a connected event to be a mere coincidence. To some extent your instincts are good, it is not a mere coincidence.

The fact is I never heard of atheism-analyzed and then Hugo came over to another blog I am on from time to time and they were talking about Hugo getting banned here so I decided to check it out and found some interesting posts and just sort of jumped in with both feet. So now you know the rest of the story, good day.

I see a number of posts and responses above, thanks for taking the time to address my words, but I have to run right now, as Arnold said, I'll be back.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"The very mechanism of evolution, speciation, is not testable and therefore not falisifiable. "
Speciation is not a mechanism, it is an effect. Mutation is a mechanism. Natural selection is a mechanism.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable by these means as Coyne enumerates:
"· Fossils in the wrong place (e.g., mammals in the Devonian). If the fossil record were all out of order like this (a single anomalous fossil might not overturn everything, of course, since it could be in the wrong place for other reasons), we’d have to seriously question the occurrence of evolution.
· Adaptations in one species good only for a second species. There are plenty of adaptations in species that are good for other species, but also help members of the first species: these are the basis of mutualisms. (Cleaner fish, for example, remove parasites and dead tissue from other marine fish, but thereby gain a meal.) But we don’t expect to see—and don’t see—adaptations in one species that evolved solely for the benefit of another species.
· A general lack of genetic variation in species. Evolution depends on genetic variation. If most species had none, they couldn’t evolve. However, the universal efficacy of artificial selection (I’m aware of only three lab experiments that failed to show a response to such breeding experiments), shows that genetic variation is ubiquitous in nearly all species.
· Adaptations that could not have evolved by a step-by-step process of ever-increasing fitness. This is of course the contention of advocates of Intelligent Design like Michael Behe. But adaptations like the flagellum, which Behe and other IDers cite as features that couldn’t have arisen by a step-by-step process of increasing adaptation, have been shown to plausibly arise by just that process. We don’t need ... plausible.
· The observation that most adaptations of individuals are inimical for individuals or their genes but good for populations/species. Such adaptations aren’t expected to evolve often because they would require the inefficient process of group or species selection rather than genic, individual, or kin selection. And indeed, we see very few features of organisms that seem inimical to organisms or their genes but useful for the population or species.
· Evolved “true” altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals. What I mean by “true” altruistic behavior is the observation of an individual sacrificing its reproductive output for the benefit of individuals to which it is either unrelated or from whom it does not expect to receive return benefits. In this “true” altruism your genes give benefits to others and get nothing back, and this shouldn’t evolve under natural selection. And, indeed, we don’t see such altruism in nature. ...
· Complete discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA. While individual genes can show discordance by lateral transfer—rotifers, for example, have incorporated into their genome from DNA from very unrelated organisms, and this is also common for bacteria. But lateral transfer of genes, as opposed to their direct descent from parent to offspring, is relatively uncommon. So, for example, ... theory of evolution.
We don’t see any of these anomalies, and so the theory of evolution is on solid ground. As I say in my book, “Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That’s as close to a scientific truth as we can get.”
That’s my list, and I would be delighted if readers conversant with evolutionary theory and natural history would add others.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/

"

"Lawrence Krauss used similar definitional degeneration ...."
Lawrence Krauss is a woo monger. He has a long history of public service for reason against creationist nonsense. Then he drank the something from nothing kool-aid, or maybe he just decided to cash in on a piece of the Chopra woo for $$$ action.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"Huh. I don't know what to think of you, other than that if you're not Hugo, you're his twin."
Given the fact that the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution one would hardly need to be a twin of some particular individual to express that position.

Millions upon millions of people state these scientific facts of evolution without ever having heard of some guy called Hugo on atheism-analyzed. To think otherwise is profoundly egocentric.

The theory of evolution predicts that the appearance of life forms will occur in a time sequence and thus, if a violation of the time sequence were observed in the record such observation would falsify the theory of evolution as presently formulated.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"That prediction is paleontology, not evolutionary"
Date order of appearance of organisms is a prediction of evolution. If mammals were dated to appear prior to fish that would falsify the theory of evolution.

Coyne understands it, I understand it, thousands of scientists understand it. It seems there is something about the notion of falsification that you have not yet come to understand. The theory of evolution predicts that mammals cannot be found prior to fish, because there is a date order going from fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals.

The theory of evolution is most certainly falsifiable by this means and by a number of more technical means as described above by Coyne.

The theory of evolution makes no attempt to predict specific forms of the future, therefore a lack of future forms predictive powers has no bearing on the validity of the ToE.

The ToE makes predictions about what we will find in the past. If we find different things in the past then that would falsify the ToE.

Stan said...

"That prediction is paleontology, not evolutionary"
Date order of appearance of organisms is a prediction of evolution. If mammals were dated to appear prior to fish that would falsify the theory of evolution.”


The events of the past are inductive instances which should produce the theory. When the theory predicts its own evidence (see geologic column discussion below), which then becomes the theory, the circularity and self-reference is obvious, and the purely inductive nature of the process also is obvious. So the Inductive Fallacy must be ignored, along with all the obvious, self-serving fallacies, in order to preserve the “truth” of evolution.

The horse fraud is a perfect example, where horse shapes from around the world were lined up in order of their size, and evolution proclaimed by Othniel. But that was a fraud, which was exposed half a century ago by George Gaylord Simpson, leaving all of those creatures with no lineage whatsoever under the requirements of evolution. The Coleocanth is another case, where the ancient fossil is found to still be alive today, and hardly a marker for a geological age.

”Coyne understands it, I understand it, thousands of scientists understand it. It seems there is something about the notion of falsification that you have not yet come to understand. The theory of evolution predicts that mammals cannot be found prior to fish, because there is a date order going from fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals.”

That is not the case. The order was discovered in certain geologic columns which were declared to be valid despite not being universal; the order cannot be predicted from the great mass of other geologic columns which don’t comport with the desired ordering being predicted. Of all the geologic columns available, only a select few are congruent with Darwinian predictions; the rest are not. (see discussion below).

”The theory of evolution is most certainly falsifiable by this means and by a number of more technical means as described above by Coyne.”

Well, then, it is falsified.

I’ll get to that part of the video in due time. Probably over the next weekend.

Stan said...

”The theory of evolution makes no attempt to predict specific forms of the future, therefore a lack of future forms predictive powers has no bearing on the validity of the ToE.”

Of course it doesn’t predict anything which it doesn’t already know by definition; it has no valid hypothesis for the creation of increasing complexity, so there is no testing of the non-existing hypothesis, and no falsification of the most important part of the theory. It is declared “true” without the requirements placed on REAL sciences. And not having predictive powers does have bearing on the quality of the “knowledge” which evolutionists claim, although it doesn’t matter to them, because for them, belief is a decision, not a matter of necessity and sufficiency. The blatant circularity and self-referencing is ignored; why? Because “evolution is true”, and if you object you are a “moron”, etc.

”The ToE makes predictions about what we will find in the past. If we find different things in the past then that would falsify the ToE.”

No, it wouldn’t and it hasn’t, despite the evidence which demands it. All it does is change the tree of life to accommodate whatever is found, and that would include a pre-Cambrian rabbit. For example the issue of the competency of geologic layers is always glossed over, and the “true” geologic column is a fantasy which does not exist in real life, except in the rare 20 isolated locations found in a trivial percentage of the globe.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

The rest of the globe, >99%, has geologic layers – geologic columns – which do not support the supposed ordered version of the fossil record. But the selection of the “correct” geologic column is not based on geologic history, it is based on the rare occurrence of fossils in the “correct” order.

Therefore, the finding of the correct fossil order in the correct geologic column which is based on the correct fossil order, is ungrounded, self-referencing, circular and self-serving. It is without any intellectual merit whatsoever.

Stan said...

Since the geologic column is only one of many geologic columns, but is selected as the "correct" geologic column due to the order of the fossils being congruent with Darwinist progression toward complexity, the Fallacy of "Cherry Picking" is the full basis for the declaration of the existence of ordered sequence.

There is virtually no part of evolution which is NOT based on logical fallacy.

Xellos said...

Nah, probably not. Basic digging (googlesearches) reveals that this username has/had social media accounts and has been posting for months (elsewhere) more or less in a similar way, but with no association to "hugo" or "pelland" keywords - it's not made up in the aftermath of Hugo's ban, at least.
Ad IP switches: *I* have several IPs and switch them around. It's really not hard, there are whole systems dedicated to network hacking; some people prefer being behind 7 proxies or using Tor. IMO privacy tricks and habits to keep using them should be learnt as early as possible (too bad I didn't manage that).

Stardusty Psyche said...

"Since the geologic column is only one of many geologic columns"
Really? So the combined work of the world's geologists and paleontologists is all wrong then?

Could you possibly send me a link to the "correct" geologic column? You know, the one that shows mammals came before fish.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"The events of the past are inductive instances which should produce the theory. When the theory predicts its own evidence (see geologic column discussion below), which then becomes the theory, the circularity and self-reference is obvious,"
There is no circular reasoning. You apparently do not know what a scientific theory is.

Theories are formulated around evidence. To state that a theory matches the evidence is an argument in favor of that theory. That is how science works.

Do you have any background or education in science at all?

JBsptfn said...

Yeah. Stardusty Psyche posts on IMS's blog and the Shadow To Light blog.

Stan said...

Actually theories are developed when a predictive hypothesis is formed based on inductive evidence. That evidence is used to deduce an outcome based on the law which the inductive evidence suggests. The hypothesis tests the law by inducing the conditions which are said to produce outcome which the law predicts. That is Enlightenment hypothetico-deductive empiricism.

Predicting that X fossil will be found in Q layer, is not a law. If a search of Q layer does NOT reveal another X fossil, that does not falsify the proposition that the X fossils were, in fact, found in the Q layer.

What is stated in modern empirical biology is that the empirical evidence is congruent with evolution. Which is because evolution cannot be falsified, regardless of claims to the contrary.

I will produce my analysis of Coyne's video claims before long. And I will produce falsifiers which he claims cannot (do not ever) exist. And the fact that they do exist still does not affect the projection of the Truth Value of evolution, illustrates that rather than a science, evolution is a blind belief in the exact form of a religion.

As for your attempt at personal denigration due to my dissent from your position, that attempt at cheap Ad Hominem fails completely. I performed a great many empirically designed experiments in my 33 years as an engineer in a Fortune 20 corporation. It is a fact that engineering would never allow the casual approach to declaring a series of "truths" based on mere morphology, rather than actual incontrovertible proof as determined empirically - and admittedly contingently. Engineers are held to higher standards than are evolutionists. So are those biological scientists who practice Modern Biology, rather than the subjective, speculative, extrapolatory story telling about bones. Note well that the scientists of Modern Biology do not assert "Truth"; they assert contingent knowledge with the understanding that both the original observations and the experimental results - including falsification - are instances of further inductive uncertainties, and that only multiples of replications can increase the probability of a correct conclusion.

Finally, none of the five Darwinian principles are validated by "predicting" the find of a fossil in a certain layer. The principles are validated by assuming an unprovable set of "facts" about the fossil, the layer, and unprovable extrapolations to other fossils in other layers. The only facts are the existence of the fossils; everything else is subjective projection.

In fact, finding subsequent fossils frequently falsifies prior subjective projections, as happened in the "direct horse lineage" used by Coyne, and falsified by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951, some 60 years prior.

Stan said...

The current knowledge of the "perfect" geologic column is restricted to 26 singularity locations around the globe, with only 5 locations in the Americas. All other geologic columns show catastrophist characteristics which jumble up the layers due to geologic instabilities and constant weathering. This global catastrophist dislocationism is said not to apply to the "ideal" geologic column singularities, which are, rather, uniformitarian for unknown reasons and reasoning.

One might wish to conclude that the existence of the "perfect" geologic columns, even in their extreme rarity, proves that those are the precise record of exact linear history. That is without any hope of proof. Those locations are declared "perfect" because they are the only ones which match the theory, and therefore they are declared "correct" because the theory is "correct".

This constitutes the assumption that the theory proves the correctness of the evidence. In other words, it is a desperation inversion of the required process of evidence proving the correctness of the theory.

The locations of the "ideal" geologic columns are listed here:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

(Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)

This was taken from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

There is a global map showing the locations of these singularities.

Stan said...

Here is a source for an out of sequence find. There are many others, I should start collecting them.

https://ncse.com/cej/6/1/man-contemporary-dinosaurs

Stardusty Psyche said...

"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/"
Interesting link. Clearly the geologic column exists, despite creationist claims.

A billion years is a long time. Moutains form and erode away. Sedimentation does or does not occur. The Earth's crust is highly dynamic as can be seen in many places today.

But, there are some places on Earth where the record has been laid down fairly consistently over more than a billion years. It is reasonable to go to these places to document those layers.

What exactly is the problem with reading the record where the record is well preserved? What sense would it make to look at a record that got "damaged" by dynamic events?

"https://ncse.com/cej/6/1/man-contemporary-dinosaurs"
As always, this turns out to be some vague hint, some footprints that might have gotten laid down in some sequence by something.

Of course you have no good evidence for mammals arising before fish or anything of the sort.

Stardusty Psyche said...

"That evidence is used to deduce an outcome based on the law which the inductive evidence suggests."
A theory is not a "law". So called "laws" are actually descriptive, not somehow edicts.

"Predicting that X fossil will be found in Q layer, is not a law."
Right, hence the lack of references to a "law" of evolution.

" If a search of Q layer does NOT reveal another X fossil, that does not falsify the proposition that the X fossils were, in fact, found in the Q layer."
Your logic a shockingly poor in the way you miss the point of falsification.

Finding fossils out of order would falsify the ordered model, therefore that ordered model is falsifiable. This isn't complicated, I am surprised you are having so much difficulty with this very simple logic.

"I will produce my analysis of Coyne's video claims before long. And I will produce falsifiers which he claims cannot (do not ever) exist."
I will not be holding my breath, but ok, you are going falsify evolution.

Wait, you just said you are going to produce falsifiers, so by your own words evolution is falsifiable!

"33 years as an engineer"
So, have you taken university level science courses or were you self taught as a non-degreed engineer? This is not an issue of ad-hominem. You display such fundamental lack of knowledge of the basics of science I just want to get a sense of your background.

"The only facts are the existence of the fossils; everything else is subjective projection."
Your honor, the only facts are the body with 4 bullets, the marks on the shell casings found, and the marks on the shell casings found when test firing my pistol and the positive test results of gunpowder residue on my hands, everything else is subjective projection.

"In fact, finding subsequent fossils frequently falsifies prior subjective projections, as happened in the "direct horse lineage" used by Coyne, and falsified by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951, some 60 years prior."
So again, evolution is falsifiable by your own words!!!


Stan said...

"What exactly is the problem with reading the record where the record is well preserved? What sense would it make to look at a record that got "damaged" by dynamic events?"

You have no proof that the Darwinian geologic column is the correct representation, the only one which is completely undisturbed for the "billion years" you assert as your form of Deep Time. What proof, what objective evidence do you have that these exceedingly rare instances are, in fact, undisturbed columns as laid down by ideal, calm depositions, and undisturbed for a billion years, while the entire rest of the earth was crumpled by tectonic plate shifts, meteor hits, the probable hit of something which formed the moon, constant erosion, earthquake, landslides, local floods, etc.?

You do not know otherwise. Despite no knowing that, you call these statistically trivial sources "well preserved", because they comport with the theory.

Thus the theory proves the evidence which proves the theory (evidence > theory > evidence). Classical self-referencing, circular, ungrounded and non-empirical fantasy. Certainly irrational; certainly not science in any tortured conceptualization of what "science is".

The obvious reason for non-skepticism such as yours in evolutionary science is the Atheism ideology umbilically attached to it for the necessary Atheist Creation Story. There is the necessity for Atheist True Belief to be bolstered even if it takes fantasy declarations such as this belief in a few singularity geologic columns - out of billions of nonconforming geologic columns - as the Truth.

This is in line with the belief (without proof) that living cells evolved from minerals (philosophical Materialism); that the lack of any common ancestors has no bearing on the concept of the necessity of Philosophical Common Ancestry; that all the phyla came into existence in virtual geologic simultaneity and without any sight of common ancestry, thereby dumping both Darwinian gradualism and Darwinian common ancestry in the Cambrian Explosion.

The idea that mutations accumulate sufficiently to suddenly create ALL the phyla is mathematically and organically absurd, yet is the religious necessity of evolutionary True Belief.

The use of a statistically insignificant group of isolated data points while ignoring the bulk of the data in the main body of evidence, is absurd, except in the sense of blind True Belief, religious in its nature.

The fact that you apparently do not know these things, including all the discarded theories of evolution, and the admission of having no predictive and falsifying capacity which would be accepted by the evolution clerisy, brings about skepticism of your own grounding in the philosophy of empirical science.

Your final observation regarding mammals arising before fish is interesting, given that what you base your conclusion on is statistically trivial. That means that the standard "evidence" is without rational or intellectual merit, and there is no real objective knowledge to be had. Rather than admit to such, you claim to have knowledge which you cannot actually have, regarding the order of descent, which is that fish came first. Whether that is the case or not, you cannot actually know. I admit to not knowing, due to the corrupt quality of evidence.

Again, there is only one reason to believe that the singularity columns are valid, undisturbed historical evidence is that the theory demands it be true. That is not objective empirical science; it is blind faith.



Why do you support the non-probable, and trivial claims as being the truth?

How do you falsify the atavistic claim which you, yourself, attempted to trivialize, when in fact you have no idea about the truth of the matter? Will you falsify it? Or will you just denigrate it?

Stan said...

"That evidence is used to deduce an outcome based on the law which the inductive evidence suggests."
A theory is not a "law". So called "laws" are actually descriptive, not somehow edicts.


You wish to quibble on terminology rather than even address the concept involved? That is your answer? Is gravitation a law, or not? You are in full-on avoidance mode by asserting the Equivocation Fallacy used as a Red Herring. You are revealing yourself to be a mere troll.

"Predicting that X fossil will be found in Q layer, is not a law."
Right, hence the lack of references to a "law" of evolution.”


So when George Gaylord Simpson refers to the evolutionary “Copes Law”, “Dollo’s Law”, “the Biogenetic Law”, he has violated your principles, making him not an evolutionary expert as are you. And you still have not addressed the actual issue, because you continue to assert Equivocation instead. There’s a trend developing with you; it's ignorance with bluster.

"If a search of Q layer does NOT reveal another X fossil, that does not falsify the proposition that the X fossils were, in fact, found in the Q layer."
Your logic a shockingly poor in the way you miss the point of falsification.


That is merely a cheap-ass insult with zero content.

”Finding fossils out of order would falsify the ordered model, therefore that ordered model is falsifiable. This isn't complicated, I am surprised you are having so much difficulty with this very simple logic.”

Fossils cannot be found out of order, because only the acceptable, evidentially, elite-pre-approved geologic columns are allowed as evidence. I’m not terribly surprised at your responses.

"I will produce my analysis of Coyne's video claims before long. And I will produce falsifiers which he claims cannot (do not ever) exist."
I will not be holding my breath, but ok, you are going falsify evolution.”

Wait, you just said you are going to produce falsifiers, so by your own words evolution is falsifiable!


Only rationally falsifiable, probabilistically and statistically falsifiable, but never materially falsifiable because there is no objective, material evidence which can be tested for Popperian falsification. Without any actual objective, material evidence, neither empirical validation nor Popperian falsification can be produced. The logic and probabilities which falsify evolution thoroughly will not be accepted by the cult of True Believers. They will demand material falsification, when they have no reputable material evidence themselves.

Stan said...

"33 years as an engineer"
So, have you taken university level science courses or were you self taught as a non-degreed engineer? This is not an issue of ad-hominem. You display such fundamental lack of knowledge of the basics of science I just want to get a sense of your background.


You are full of shit. You do not address issues, you merely assert fallacies and insults rather than provide an actual exchange of knowledge. That is the mark of a troll. I try to be accommodating to those who wish to see the illogic of evolution. But I refuse to accommodate the crap that trolls like you put out as if you actually know something which you do not reveal, except via insults.

FYI: insults are not facts. You have nothing factual. You are an insult monger, the mentality of the 9 year old.

"The only facts are the existence of the fossils; everything else is subjective projection."
Your honor, the only facts are the body with 4 bullets, the marks on the shell casings found, and the marks on the shell casings found when test firing my pistol and the positive test results of gunpowder residue on my hands, everything else is subjective projection.”


And you didn’t actually do it, because I did, and I created a false evidentiary trail. False Analogy; poor thinking. But a good analogy for evolution.

”"In fact, finding subsequent fossils frequently falsifies prior subjective projections, as happened in the "direct horse lineage" used by Coyne, and falsified by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951, some 60 years prior."
So again, evolution is falsifiable by your own words!!!”


You obviously don’t have a clue who George Gaylord Simpson is, or what he did, or the new conclusion drawn on different data which nuked the prior claim, while installing the new claim.

You actually are an ignorant troll, a pretender to knowledge which you obviously don’t have and don’t even care about. You're only interested in wasting the time of real people. So, you’re done here.

You are banned. Go whine to Hugo, OK?