Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Patroklos]

This always goes in circles when the ignorant jump in the fray

Actually these things go in circles when people take themselves way too seriously, like yourself.

Lighten up

One of the great things about science is that in all its effort to prove things, the very rules of the process make it impossible to reach its goal. I believe in evolution, but in the end it is just my opinion. An educated one, considering that there are mountains of "evidence" for its truth, but that runs out at a point and I assume that it is true. I accept that I could be wrong (learn from that).

Then there is Boris. Boris read somewhere that if you put the word "theory" in front of it then it must be true. Though you have not seen evolution, touched it, experienced it, or in any other tangible way proven it exist, you BELIEVE in it and harshly defend it against all criticism.

You have faith in it, hypocrite

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then there is Boris. Boris read somewhere that if you put the word "theory" in front of it then it must be true. Though you have not seen evolution, touched it, experienced it, or in any other tangible way proven it exist, you BELIEVE in it and harshly defend it against all criticism.

You have faith in it, hypocrite

If you had bother to read the link, it addresses this point perfectly well:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

"Proven" is always provisional, and that's what science says. Saying that something isn't a "fact" or isn't "proven" because you hold those to words to be absolute delineations is actually misusing those words, since all facts are, indeed, provisional.

[Patroklos]

and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor

Something tells me alot of this goes on with this topic, from both sides, as we just experianced.

If we use scientific jargon then fine, it is proven. But in the world of actual definitions, it most definetly isn't, and you link says that.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If we use scientific jargon then fine, it is proven. But in the world of actual definitions, it most definetly isn't, and you link says that.

Science is the world of absolute definitions. Given the fact that it's the study of nature. Saying "the sky is blue" is as much as a fact in this case.

[Patroklos]

Science is the world of absolute definitions.

Agreed.

One of the most basic being...

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.

It is fine for scientists debated scientists to assume the defauts are the above, but when debating others Websters is where it is at. It is just as dissengenuous when religious people bring their jargon.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If we use scientific jargon then fine, it is proven. But in the world of actual definitions, it most definetly isn't, and you link says that.

You're completely missing the point. "Proven" isn't scientific jargon here--it's the actual meaning of "proven." Whether in science or without, "proven" has the same caveat: that all facts are provisional.

So your distinction is a false one. Evolution is "proven," based on provisional facts, just as much as gravity is "proven," based on provisional facts. All facts--scientific or otherwise--are subject to the same caveat.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not merely a "hypothesis," Ben, and it's disengenuous to describe it as such. It's one of the most well-supported theories (in the scientific sense of the word) that we have.

It is a hypothesis, and I would challenge your assertion that it has been as well proven as other scientific theories have been. The first thing I would cite is the lack of falsifiability of evolution. Since evolution is said to occur slowly over time, it cannot be disproven, until that period has passed. Unlike other theories that make claims which can be disproven, evolution makes claims that cannot be readily tested.

There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism.

Is there? That's a statement I find pretty incredible. Heliocentrism, falls from basic assumptions about the way in which the universe works, in the mass of the sun and how gravity operates between masses separated at a large distance.

The proof in favour of heliocentrism, is that we can actually go out in space and observe how the earth rotates the sun from our space probes. That's concrete, observational evidence, which common descent does not provide.

We cannot observe directly how common descent happened, we can only infer it from other evidence. Therefore, I would say heliocentrism is better supported than theories on common descent.

The number of scientists who question it is extremely small, and the number of biologists almost nil. Even those who question Darwinism accept common descent. I repeat: it's one of the most well-supported theories that we have.

Not when compared to heliocentrism, and many of our other theories in chemistry, physics, and biology. I would go so far to say that this assumption in biology is one of the things holding biology back.

It is certainly scientific to make the observation that evolution appears to happen through "random" rather than "guided" means, since that's what we seem to see. If no mechanism of guidance is detected, the scientific belief should be that the process isn't guided. That's a pretty basic principle of scientific method.

The assumption that just because one cannot detect guidance in a process does not necessarily prove that then process cannot be guided. It's an argument from silence. All one can say, according to the scientific method, is that we do know know whether the process is guided or not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is a hypothesis, and I would challenge your assertion that it has been as well proven as other scientific theories have been. The first thing I would cite is the lack of falsifiability of evolution. Since evolution is said to occur slowly over time, it cannot be disproven, until that period has passed. Unlike other theories that make claims which can be disproven, evolution makes claims that cannot be readily tested.

Utter bull****. Evolution could be falsified in several ways:

-a static fossil record;
-true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
-a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
-observations of organisms being created.

The "not falsifiable" trope is a Creationist canard from a long time ago, and is pretty funny, since Creationists have wasted a lot of hot air claiming there's evidence against evolution. If that were the case, it must be falsifiable, indeed.

The proof in favour of heliocentrism, is that we can actually go out in space and observe how the earth rotates the sun from our space probes. That's concrete, observational evidence, which common descent does not provide.

We cannot observe directly how common descent happened, we can only infer it from other evidence. Therefore, I would say heliocentrism is better supported than theories on common descent.

Except we HAVE observed common descent. It's the repeated denial of this that is so bizarre. It's basic biology:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Now, we haven't directly observed the earth rotating the sun. We've taken lots of measurements and done a lot of math based on assumptions of those physical models, sure. But actually seen the earth go around it? Nope.

Not when compared to heliocentrism, and many of our other theories in chemistry, physics, and biology. I would go so far to say that this assumption in biology is one of the things holding biology back.

Oh really? I know plenty of actual biologists who would ardently disagree with you. How is it "holding biology back?" Are you aware of the huge amount of scientific advance that has been accomplished precisely because of the acknowledgement of evolutionary mechanics?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence17.htm

In contrast, not a single scientific breakthrough of which I'm aware has come from positing that an invisible, metaphysical being might be behind it all.

The assumption that just because one cannot detect guidance in a process does not necessarily prove that then process cannot be guided. It's an argument from silence. All one can say, according to the scientific method, is that we do know know whether the process is guided or not.

If a process does not show any signs of being guided, the default assumption in science must be that it is not guided. Especially when one is positing an invisible, metaphysical being who has never been proven to exist as the agent of said process. If one were to say that, according to the scientific method, we don't know whether or not little green elves bing atoms together or not, do you think that would hold much water in scientific discourse?

Should we say that "random" weather patterns might be the work of Thor?

[Ben Kenobi]

Utter bull****. Evolution could be falsified in several ways:

-a static fossil record;
-true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
-a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
-observations of organisms being created.

First of all, I'll give the counterarguments.

1. A static fossil record shows that organisms are not being created, since if organisms were being created, then we'd see changes in the fossil record, wouldn't we?

A static or dynamic fossil record is not sufficient evidence in itself to show that evolution is true.

2. 'diverse lineages'

That's an interesting term. What do you call a platypus? Diverse lineages, and odd combinations of traits. What it seems to me is that the way in which lineages are established, is by relationships in the fossils. Ergo, it is impossible for a chimera to arise, as the lineages themselves are dependent on the fossil record.

3. A mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating. Yes, there are such biological mechanisms. They are a part of the human body, which causes cells to die, if they mutate beyond a specific point. Yet, I don't see evolutionists citing this as evidence contrary to evolution, rather, it is evidence that mutations must be controlled, in order to provide benefits to an organism.

4. Granted, however, don't we discover new species all the time? How would we know from our ignorance, that a species that is new, has been created, rather than simply overlooked, or undiscovered?

Now, we haven't directly observed the earth rotating the sun. We've taken lots of measurements and done a lot of math based on assumptions of those physical models, sure. But actually seen the earth go around it? Nope.

Um, yes we have. Space probes looking back on earth from space can show the motion of the earth around the sun.

Oh really? I know plenty of actual biologists who would ardently disagree with you. How is it "holding biology back?" Are you aware of the huge amount of scientific advance that has been accomplished precisely because of the acknowledgement of evolutionary mechanics?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FA..._evidence17.htm

In contrast, not a single scientific breakthrough of which I'm aware has come from positing that an invisible, metaphysical being might be behind it all.

This is old ground. Physics at the turn of the century said that there would be hardly cause to learn anything knew, things didn't really change until people started questioning some of the fundamental assumptions surrounding classical mechanics.

Chemistry seems to just be starting with this, in exploring the nature of the atom, and how that affects theories on bonding, and everything else, in applying the knowledge of physics to chemistry, in order to gain greater understanding of why chemistry works the way that it does. Evolutionary theory is part of the classical, and deterministic model of the world, and will have to be modified, just as physics was, and chemistry will continue to be.

If a process does not show any signs of being guided, the default assumption in science must be that it is not guided. Especially when one is positing an invisible, metaphysical being who has never been proven to exist as the agent of said process. If one were to say that, according to the scientific method, we don't know whether or not little green elves bing atoms together or not, do you think that would hold much water in scientific discourse?

No, and for the same reason, chance holds just as much water. Science can only say so much with the evidence that they have. To say that one cannot know whether a force drives evolution, is not a shame for science, but rather a proper understanding of the limitations. To ascribe the cause to chance, when a force behind evolution has not been detected, is an assumption based upon silence.

[Boris Godunov]

I must , so no time to address this all now, but I do have to point out this hilariously dumb bit of "reasoning" you use:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, I'll give the counterarguments.

1. A static fossil record shows that organisms are not being created, since if organisms were being created, then we'd see changes in the fossil record, wouldn't we?

A static or dynamic fossil record is not sufficient evidence in itself to show that evolution is true.

The issue is whether or not evolution is falsifiable, not whether or not Creationism would be supported by a static fossil record. You see, it is a completely false dichotomy to say that If Not Evolution, Then Creation. All such a falsification would achieve would be "Not Evolution."

But your statement is so dumb because it misses this crucial point: A static fossil record would completely contradict evolutionary theory. Without changes in organisms over time, there can be no evolution, naturally. Having an unchanging record would prove that organisms had not changed over time.

I find your assertion that a static record disproves Creation remarkably silly as well. Why would a static record contradict creation, if creation all occured simultaneously? The Genesis account is that God created all animals at the same time, in (presumably) their present state. There's no need to believe that creation is ongoing to be a Creationist. On the contrary, a static record would be strong evidence that animals were indeed all created in present form somehow.

Whether or not it was divine creation would be a point of debate, but there would be absolutely no way to say then that evolution had occured.

Say, how are those writings of Julius Caesar?

[Ben Kenobi]

The issue is whether or not evolution is falsifiable, not whether or not Creationism would be supported by a static fossil record. You see, it is a completely false dichotomy to say that If Not Evolution, Then Creation. All such a falsification would achieve would be "Not Evolution."

Granted, a static record would be a falsifiable claim against evolution, as it predicts a changing fossil record. However, the changing fossil record came first, before evolution. So it doesn't make sense to claim a static fossil record as falsifiable evidence against evolution, since the evidence was already there for a dynamic fossil record. The record suggested evolution as a theory, not the other way around, in that evolution made a prediction that could be verified and disproven.

I find your assertion that a static record disproves Creation remarkably silly as well. Why would a static record contradict creation, if creation all occured simultaneously? The Genesis account is that God created all animals at the same time, in (presumably) their present state. There's no need to believe that creation is ongoing to be a Creationist. On the contrary, a static record would be strong evidence that animals were indeed all created in present form somehow.

Yes, however, I never said that a static record disproves creation. I said that a dynamic record does not necessarily indicate that chance directed evolution is the only theory that works. I said the fact that the fossil record changes, is not proof in itself that evolution is directed by chance.

[Last Conformist]

The Platypus's bill, while superficially duck-like, isn't an avian bill. Incidentally, bills and beaks are pretty widespread things.

If you want actual predictions of evolutionary theory, how about that molecular phylogenies should match morphological ones, that irreducibly complex biological systems should exist, that forms intermediate between humans and great apes should be found (in Africa, or so Darwin guessed), that there should be a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosomal Adam, and that pathogenic microorganisms should tend to develop resistance to drugs?

[DeathByTheSword]

i dont know about you guys but hasnt any of you ever done that test that text bacteria introduces them in a different inviroment and after 3 days could be counted as a different species as there control group because they need totally different resources to survive?...this shows that one group of creatures can turn into another group of creatures proving that organismes to be created...

or am i missing a big step in my thinkin right now

[Spiffor]

It's always an endless entertainment to see people so desperate for their beliefs that they'd cling to anything to say that evolution doesn't exist.

Thanks Ben for the laugh Do you have flat-earther friends, by any chance? It'd further increase the entertainment from such threads

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
That cardinal basically said that all the knoledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, population biology, genetics, and palenotology that PROVE evolution via natural selection is a fact [snip]

I'm interested .
What is it that proves that evolution occurs through natural selectiion? (I assume "natural selection" means "ransom mutations that make the specimen more viable, and thus which spread to the whole species over the course of generations, as less fit specimen die out")