Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

On 15 Dec 2005 18:07:31 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
<topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1134698850.997098.221080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Deadrat wrote:
>> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1134185339.710751.8690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> > > On 7 Dec 2005 22:55:56 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
>> > > <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
>> > > <1134024956.199783.132710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > I gather that you did not understand the implications of "not tree
>> > > like". We know from observation that cross-species genetic transfer is
>> > > quite rare. Finding large scale sharing across life without a
>> > > mechanism for it would refute the current theory. Sure, we might be
>> > > able to develop a new theory, but that was not the question.
>> >
>> >
>> > It could mean that some bacteria etc. found a way to do large
>> > cross-species transfers. Evo does not predict the frequency of such,
>> > and thus could bend to fit both observations (lots of cross-DNA
>> > transfers/pollution or pure trees). In that sense it is bendable almost
>> > like a capricious creator. Whether we observe trees or graphs
>> > (networks), evo can bend to explain it.
>>
>> We know that cross-species transfers of genetic material are rare.
>> That's a given from observation. If we were to observe an arbitrary
>> graph of genetic relationships instead of a tree, evolution would pretty
>> much be at a loss to explain it.
>
>No, because if non-tree *was* observed, one could say that
>cross-species DNA "contamination" messed up the tree.

Only if there was good evidence that this was the general mode of
transmission and only if the genetic pattern matched the morphological
one.

>Nobody could
>prove it didn't unless they put a video cam on every organism (and
>probably a microscope to make sure that bacteria crawling between
>species didn't cross pollute.)

Sorry, but proof is not how any science works. We could show that such
a transmission is unlikely to be the cause of the pattern.

>Thus evo could be described to fit a tree or non-tree genetic profile.

Yes, the theory would *change* with the data.

>Again, what specific observation would falsify evo once and for all?

There is no specific observation that would falsify, once and for all,
any well established theory in science. We have millions that support
evolution, it takes more than one to out-weigh them.

>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >> The problem is that there are fewer and fewer
>> > > >> possibilities to find these since all of the actual evidence supports
>> > > >> evolution.
>> > > >
>> > > >It might shrink its score, but not outright flunk it.
>> > >
>> > > I am not sure I understand what you mean. Simply put the observations
>> > > we have support the theory we have. If we had different observations
>> > > we would need a different theory. Just like in meteorology and physics
>> > > and astronomy.
>> >
>> > I asked for example observations that would outright flunk evo, but
>> > have not got any.
>>
>> No. You don't understand any. Violations of the nested hierarchy or
>> of biogeographic patterns would do it. Paleontology could easily falsify
>> the theory. It just hasn't.
>
>Not. See above.

Wrong. If the morphological pattern matched the genetic one and those
patterns pointed to a history that conflicted with the fossils that
would falsify evolution.

>[snip]
>
>> > This came about when you claimed that ID was not falsifiable but evo
>> > was. You use the same kind of "silliness" (your own label for it) to
>> > bash ID. In other words, evo could NOT make the very goal YOU set up.
>>
>> No, it can't make the goal *you* set up, which requires about 4 billion years
>> of global videotape.
>
>The "Time ate my homework" observation excuse again.

No, we are just pointing out that *your* request is silly. In effect
you assert that no knowledge is possible because we don't have
absolute evidence. You have to support your own standards, not whine
that we reject them.

>If it cannot be
>fully observed then it shares some space with MU etc. Welcome to the
>club! The universe does not have the goal of making every theory easy
>to observe.

Nothing in science is "fully observed". Evolution shares some "space"
with the claim that the core of the Earth is hot and metallic, it
shares some "space" with the claim that Pluto orbits the Sun. "Fully
observed" is your asserted standard. You have to actually show why it
is valid, not just handwave your confusion about MU. (The MU that is
potentially part of science is not the one you talk about.)
>
>> > Or that the Anthropic Principle made it that way out of mass
>> > probability. The only difference is that AP has not been barrowed by
>> > religion, and thus can be called "science" without massive fuss by
>> > those afraid of religious zealots.
>>
>> Please show where the anthropic principle has made its way outside
>> of the philosophy of science.
>
>Did you use the word "of" intentially? Hmmmm.

Did you forgot the show that the anthropic principle is part of
science? And do you not know of the field of the philosophy of
science?

[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... I dispute your charactericterization of science. ... What test do you propose which can falsify ID? ... Same with evo or SETI. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > cannot prove that species X does not exist. ... > certainly most would consider searching for species X a science. ... > falsify it unless the scope is somehow narrowed. ... even evo is not falsifiable in general. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... I dispute your charactericterization of science. ... What test do you propose which can falsify ID? ... Same with evo or SETI. ... As for evolution: it exists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof. ... Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider ... Why does the definition of science always include "lab tested ... something true, you can't falsify it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... I dispute your charactericterization of science. ... What test do you propose which can falsify ID? ... Evolution cannot be falsified because it is a fact that it happens. ... "It is verified by the fact that we have not found any plesiosaurs ...
    (talk.origins)