Re: Evolution and Observation Gap

topmind wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-19, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:

'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'

http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm

It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
a fact that it does.

Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
probability, but not zero.

In the absence of observation (either direct or indirect) certain facts
may be derived by way of logical inference. In this case we know that
Pluto is a planet. We also know that planets orbit their parent stars.
Thus we can infer that Pluto orbits its parent star just like other
planets. Although we've never seen Pluto make a complete orbit we
nevertheless have a high level of confidence in the fact that it does.


The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.

I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.

The nature of the designer prevents the study of intelligent design
from revealing empirical evidence to the researcher. I don't know
about this ID-DNA hunt you speak of but any such effort would be
futile. It is impossible to reveal any clues about a phenomena with a
supernatural origin. The supernatural agent (our imagination) changes
the outcome to fit the evidence and the information can never be
confirmed.

SETI on the other hand is the study of artificial signals with real
physical origins. Despite the highly speculative nature of the study,
and regardless of whether it is or is not successful, SETI it is at the
very least genuinely scientific. Because it is search for naturalistic
facts and not a quest for supernatural confirmation, any information
gathered from the experiment can be confirmed.

So there is your divider line. Whether you continue to believe that
science is flawed is your own problem.


Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact". If you have a formal
consensus definition of "fact", then let's see the damned thing.
Otherwise stop posing as if you are the center of the definition
universe.

A "fact" is simply information that I have a high level of confidence
in. A scientific "Theory" is defined as an explanation of facts. Both
Facts and Theories remain open to refutation in the light of new
information. In science nothing is absolutely true. Just in case
you're looking for another dividing line, in religion everything is
absolutely true.

Going back to the example above, all observations that were necessary
for us to have a high level of confidence in the information were made.
Pluto was observed to be a planet and planets were observed to orbit
their parent stars. Even though Pluto was never observed to orbit its
parent star we have a high level of confidence that it does. Thus we
do consider it a fact.

Perhaps you're confused because you need for there to be absolute truth
in your world. Or perhaps you're confused because you haven't learned
why science works the way it does. But you really do need to take a
step back and try to understand why your arguments are not logically
sound.



Mark

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey Mr. Hyde!
    ... Some other things to note about Pluto: ... It's moon, Charon, doesn't exactly orbit Pluto so much as BOTH ... Very near the Sun (in the vicinity of the ... inner 4 planets, for instance) it would likely be difficult for a ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • New Horizons Update - September 2005
    ... spaceship to Pluto. ... we were taught that our solar system ... contains four rocky planets on the inside, ... Neptune on a retrograde orbit that is the hallmark of gravitational ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
    ... If you include moons in consideration the first definition eliminates Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and Eris. ... The second eliminates every candidate _except_ Eris, and even then Eris may sometimes temporarily lose planethood when other large Kuiper belt objects pass near it. ... In the second definition Pluto and Eris are sometimes planets and sometimes non-planets depending on how the other large Kuiper belt objects are arranged on any given day. ... Ceres itself is also sometimes a planet and sometimes not depending on where it is in its orbit relative to Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Pluto: Pwned!
    ... marked down for answering "pluto" when their 3rd grade science teacher ... asks them to name all the planets ... ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Physical Manifestations: The Evidence says "God"
    ... It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science ... sized planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. ... planets it caused the anomalies of their moons, ... the dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading