Re: The nature of debates

In message <oKoxj.6685$Z_2.3001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, tony <tony.deeney@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WC+OqxIxEZwHFw1X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <qjfwj.3747$St5.3188@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, tony
<tony.deeney@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"AC" <mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnfrjo6g.95d.mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:36:47 GMT,
tony <tony.deeney@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh Hayes" <joshno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A45DB3923D66joshblargnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been discussing, cordially, with a creationist correspondent,
the
value of debates in the creation/evolution argument.

I've been trying to put forward the case that debates are only useful
in
subjective matters. I was a debater (and sure, to forestall the
inevitable joke, I was a "master debater") in high school, good enough
to go to the state championships where we lost to those bizarre
cloneboys from Detroit Catholic Central, but am I bitter? -- now,
where
was I?

Oh, right, the value of "debate" in establishing "truth".

There is none. In various tournaments and leagues, I won close to 95%
of
the debates I engaged in, according to the judges. But I only knew
which
side I'd be on when we flipped a coin 10 seconds before the start of
the
debate. Doesn't this say something about the utility of debates in
deciding truth?

I think it's useful to debate subjective issues -- and here I don't
mean
things which are hopelessly vague, but rather, issues of policy or
judgement, for which evidence can be marshalled on both sides, which
nevertheless do not avail themselves of objective categorization.

We can debate the utility of establishing, say, a single-payer health
care plan under the Federal government in the US. We can debate
whether
Robert Frost was a good poet or a hack. We can debate whether
Impressionism is the bee's knees, or the end of civilization as we
know
it.

But we can't debate whether the Earth is round, or flat. It's round.
That's an objective truth, and there's simply no evidence to be
marshalled for the opposing perspective. Similarly, we can't debate
geocentrism versus heliocentrism.

And -- surely you saw where I was going -- we can't debate evolution
versus creationism to any useful purpose. You can only debate when
there
are two sides; it's like the old middle-school insult: "I'd engage you
in a battle of wits, but I never fight an unarmed man."


I can't disagree with anything that you say here - except to point out
that
the debate continues. So your statement that there aren't two sides
is....well, debatable!
While you believe that Evolution is beyond dispute and you compare it
to
geocentrism and heliocentrism. I have to state that, in all honesty,
I
can't see that all branches in science are the same. Gravity is beyond
dispute - it is testable, measurable, demonstratble and repeatable.

While there is compelling arguements and interesting evidence to
support
evolution a great deal of what is argued over is inference. While
certain
things about evolution can be demonstrated as a fact - gene
mutation/drift
etc. There are anomolies and inconsistencies that are enough to
convince a
sceptic and are convenienlty ignored/dismissed by evolutionists. I
browse
this group often, and I see a great deal of postings - I notice that a
lot
of people start to throw insults. Which achieves nothing!!

Everything we *know* is ultimately inferred. Even you reading my
response
is an inference, based upon your brain's translating, collating,
processing,
storing (and eliminating a good deal of) the raw sensory data. If
inference
is somehow a weaker form of knowing, then I'm afraid you're wandering
down
a
course towards epistemological nihilism.


Sorry for the apparent delay in responding to this. I worked on a lengthy
response and posted it using a web browser rather than an email client...
Result a large waste of effort. My closing statement was that I took too
long in responding and could ill afford the time - which is why I browse
more than post! So I am annoyed that it is lost! (Of course the points
made
in the lost post were all articulate expressed and incontravertable in
nature! ;) ).


I am clear in my own head in this even as you 'infer' I drift towards
'epistemological nihilism' in suggesting that all observation are
inferences. I suggest that you fog the issue.


If you want to convince a moderate sceptic that the earth is round - then
take him into space. If you want to convince him that we orbit sun - show
him star charts. Planets in telescopes - chart orbits and loops of
inferior
and superior planets. Explain the seasons - show space probe data,
stonhenge. Take him into space again. The planets will 'roll' through
the
stars like clockwork he will be hard pressed to deny this, year after
year.
If you want to convince him of Gravity or Newtons laws. show him all the
F=ma experiments and Cavendish boyd. These are all demonstratable and
repeatable over and over.

If you want to convince a moderate sceptic of evolution - you can present
arguments about naturilism, descent with modification. You can point to
similarities between species eg the five digit fingers and birdwing bones
etc. You can show Dna similarties between human and chimp etc. You can
demonstrate small morphilogical changes and minor speciation events - ie.
two species which are no longer able to crossbread but seem to have a
common
past and you will prove beyond reasonable doubt that natural
selection/evolution is a 'fact' but if he asks about large scale hard
evidence of 'Macro evolution.' You are thrown onto a patchy fossil record
of which anti - evolutionists bang the drum. You have to explain that the
record is incomplete, that stasis is evident - but this can be explained
by
arguments. If you want to show him some hominds - he can ask "how do you
know that these are ancestors of man?"

The fossil record is not the whole of evidence for macroevolution (or
common descent if you prefer); in fact it is only a small part of it. You
even seem to recognise this, when you refer to anatomical and genetic
homologies. (You did however overlook the biogeographical and
palaeobiogeographical evidence, and some other items.)

We can't wait to witness this large scale evolution - because we could be
in
a period of stasis. Eventually evolution can be proved as a fact when
records track the large scale change of some species beyond anyones
reasonable arguments. However interpretation 'after the fact' with a
pressuposition of evolution doesn't cut for some.

I don't doubt there is real science being undertaken in this field, but at
present we have a narrow window in time and anything outside this window
is
extrapolation and scientist know that the longer you extrapolate results
the
more uncertain they become. Dawkins claims that you have to accept
Macroevolution you must accept microevolution there is no wall - but that
fits his world view e.g. Small populations appear to grow exponentially,
but
can often suddenly end in a "J" or "S" curve or plataue .Interestingly I
often read that evolutionists claiming equivical status to other science
disciplines - I never have read physicists reciprocating. However, they
are
perhaps less challenged by passionate antagonists.

I hope you mean equivalent status.

A famous physicist, Richard Feynmann, ranked the theory of evolution 3rd
amongst scientific theories, after quantum mechanics and general
relativity.


Even amongst evolutionists there is debate about the mechanisms of
evolution. I am refering to the debate of punctuated evolution vs
gradualistic evolution.

Just as is there are huge debates over the nature of gravity. Part of
the
process is measurement (which we can do with gravity), the other is
explanatory. I'll go out on a limb and say we understand a great deal
more
about the fundamental nature of biological evolution than we do about
gravity. We can't even make gravity make sense within quantum mechanics
at
the moment, and it is the chief thorn in the side of unifying QM and GR.


"Over the last twenty years, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould and
thier
supporters have been engaged in a savage battle over evolution, which
continues to rage on even after Gould's death in 2002." Kim Sterenley
(Dawkins versus Gould, Survival of the fittest)

This is a real overstatement of the debate. Underneath, i suspect, is a
lack of understanding what PE is, and of what Dawkins has to say on it.


It is a quote from the book, written by an evolutionist in which she
articulates the difference between theorres! She herself favours Dawkins
in
the debate! I think she understands.

I've read both Gould and Dawkins, and see very little difference between
their positions.

Well, again, I repeat that - this is a quote and not put forward as my
opinion. I understand that there was great hostility to Einstein's theory
when first muted as it challenged the well respected theories of Newton.
Scientist can be very conservative.

I don't seen the relevance of the claim about Einstein to the matter under discussion. I also doubt that it is an accurate statement.




I am quoting from the back cover. I read this book last summer - very
interesting and very readible. It discussess the evolutionary
arguments
very well, but all the arguments are basically natural selection.

Gould is an evolutionist - but he found that the fossil record does not
support the gradualistic evolution his famous statement "Stasis is
data"
has
been quoted over and over again by Creationists and no surprise - it
was
refreshingly honest and brave to hear an evolutionist admit that the
fossils
don't support evolution except in the broadest sense.

That's a horrible mutiliation of what Gould said. I think a better
source
of what Gould says would be to read something by Gould, rather than
someone's "take" on it.


Apologies - my take!!



Now while he has interpreted the fossil record as demonstrating mass
extinctions - Dawkins would argue that the fossil record is incomplete,
and
be satisfied with that. Creationists would argue that the record does
not
support evolution at all - some argue that it is evidence of the
flood!!!
:@

My point is that, as I have discovered, living with my wife for 20yrs!
Two
people can see the same evidence and be convinced that the
interpretation
is
beyond dispute. They may even consider that the other opinion's sited
are
being dishonest - and I have heard both sides of this forum claim that
the
other lies. My definition of a fact - eg gravity, heliocentrism - is
that
it is beyond dispute. If a sizeable group argue about it, and this
seems
to
be the case for evolution, rather than Heliocentrism, then it remains a
theory to be proven.

You've so badly undermined your point that I'm not sure where you can go
from here.


No .. there is no one here arguing for geocentrism?

Why does only here matter? There are people out there who argue for
geocentrism. (And surveys suggest that considerable proportions of the
populace believe it.) There may even still be flat-earthers out there.

The physics newsgroups are infested with relativity deniers. We recently
here had an outbreak of plate-tectonics deniers. A lot of people believe
that America never sent men to the moon. Astrology may even be believed in
by a majority.

Well then - who gets to decide who's right or wrong? If they can make an
alternative interpretation of the evidence, then they may be justified in
banging on - hey they might be right yet in the minority! What is a fact?
When does the debate end?

All interpretations are not equal. Do you really think that "explanations" of the fossil record in terms of hydrological and ecological sorting are cause for doubting that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs lived 65 million and more years ago, and so on? Being open minded is all well and good, but you don't want to be so open minded that your brains fall out.

When people insist on presenting bad arguments for their position I think that we are justified in concluding that they have no good arguments, and that their position is false.




I agree however, that debates are poor means of finding truths. They
seem
more about articulate delivery and scoring points as you say.
Creationists
and Evolutionists both have questions they don't like to be asked.

And what questions are there that "evolutionists" don't like to be
asked?


I will not troll out a whole load of creationist questions - which may or
may not have been answered - ie. to somones satisfaction, but not
everyone's

e.g. What will it take to disprove evolution?

I have heard an answer like 'mouse bones in dino droppings' but i suggest
that this will only be called a hoax, or move the view of the fossil
record.

The usual offering in this vein is a Cambrian rabbit fossil. Mouse bones
in dinosaur coprolites is somewhat ambiguous - rodents at least (if not
murids in particular) may well predate the K-T boundary. (Because of the
possibility of errors, hoaxes, etc, looking for a single fossil to
overthrow all the evidence in favour of evolution is vainglorious - we
can't be sure that the fossil is correctly interpreted.)

The claim that evolution is not falsifiable is false. It only appears
(superficially) to be so because it has already passed so many possible
falsifications.

Evolution, in the sense you intend, would have been falsified if the
geological column had failed to show faunal succession, or if the faunal
succession didn't show correlation between the fauna of successive ages
(for example if mammals and dinosaurs occupied alternate million years
spans).

It would have been falsified if organisms had been found to have had
different, randomly distributed, genetic codes.

It would have been falsified if the hierarchy inferred from sequences of
genes were found to be uncorrelated with that inferred from anatomy, etc.

A complete absence of intermediates between modern groups in a
sufficiently rich fossil record would cast considerable doubt on it, as
would a distribution of organisms in the modern world where the
distribution depends only on climate and substrate - for example if cacti
were found in deserts worldwide, rather than just in the Americas [1].

Everytime a new fossil is studied, or a new bit of DNA is sequenced, there
a potential of finding evidence against evolution. (With the amount of
confirmatory evidence it would require striking evidence to overturn the
theory from a single observation, but an accumulation of evidence would
still do the trick - for example it could be the case that by some freak
of chance we've only sequenced DNA from organisms and loci that support a
hierarchy consistent with that inferred from anatomy, and as we continue
to sequence more and more organisms and loci we will find that the
apparent correlation was a chance illusion. (But, my impression is that
the trend is in the other direction.)

[Given the current sample size, the chance that the observed correlation
is a chance illusion, is minuscule, and no plausible argument has been
offered that it is an artefact of bias in the sample selection.]

About 15 months back I wrote a post about another test of evolution which
we are just beginning to perform.


I acknowledge that much of what you say is a strong argument, yet at the
same time evolutionists will find single fossil samples or parts of skulls
and make exagerated claims - why then are single fossil anomalies so easily
ignored. Darwin based his theory on early fossil records and had already
witnessed the geological column and fauna succession and any interpretation
of this is after the fact - disturbances to this column can be waved away.

You'll have to cure yourself of your obsession with the fossil record. You might also like to read the "Origin of Species" before you make claims of what Darwin based his theory on. Darwin based his theory on several lines of evidence. He spent two chapters (of 14) on biogeography, one on comparative anatomy, etc, three on variation, and two on competition and selection, inter alia, compared with two on the fossil record, one of which is addressing the relative paucity of support for the theory (much more has been found since) from the fossil record.

Even if some wild anomaly pops up - then all that would be done is that it
is re-evaluated

We seem to share a great deal of common dna with mice!

Yes. That is part of the evidence for common descent. We share a lot of DNA with rodents (including mice) and lagomorphs, and more DNA with colugos and tree shrews, and yet more with lemurs, lorises and tarsier, and yet more with monkeys, and yet more with gibbons, and yet more with orang utans, and yet more with chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. We have DNA in common with other placental mammals, but less than with primates; we have DNA in common with marsupials, but less than with placentals such as elephants; we have DNA in common with monotremes, but less than with marsupials; we have DNA in common with birds and reptiles, but less that with monotremes; we have DNA in common with amphibians, but less than with birds and reptiles; we have DNA in common with coelocanths and lung fish, but less than with amphibians; we have DNA in common with ray finned fish, but less than with coelocanths and lung fish; we have DNA in common with sharks and rays, but less than with ray-finned fish; we have DNA in common with hagfish and lampreys, but less than with sharks and rays; and so on, until we get to having DNA in common with bacteria, but less than with plants, algae, fungi, ciliates etc.

And I believe that DNA evidence established that neanderthal man is not our
ancestor and so we still have missing links.

There's a non sequitur in there. Yes, it appears that Neandertal Man is not ancestral to living human populations (but we can't exclude a small contribution to the gene pool), but the conclusion that we still have missing links does not follow from that.

We have fossils of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus, 8 different species of Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus platyops, habiline grade Homo (Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis), erectus grade Homo (Home erectus and Home ergaster), Homo floresiensis, and an array of archaic human forms including Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo georgicus, Homo cepranensis, from which emerge Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Preceding anatomically modern man we have Homo sapiens idaltu.

Evolution is a bush, not a ladder, and we can't be certain that any particular fossil population is directly ancestral to any later population, or two ourselves, but there's a definite morphological trend from less human-like to more human-like forms. What more do you want?

Living fossils - only prove we are mistaken about time lines.

That looks like another non sequitur. I don't see how you can get from living fossils (morphologically conservative clades) to *proof* (what happened to your vaunted tolerance for other opinions?) that we are mistaken about time lines - I don't even see how you get an argument to that effect.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/93ef19a39010a794

Interesting I was unaware of ORFs - but these do not disprove evolution I
accept. Nor the Cambrian explosion.

This is not to say that I don't respect the work done by scientists in this
field - particularly the work on dna.

I just don't see anything that would even convince me that we have disproved
evolution. Yet in the future I believe it can be proved - but not
disproved.

Naive falsification isn't the be-all and end-all of the epistemology of science, but there is a nugget of truth at the bottom of it; it is harder to demonstrate something to be true beyond unreasonable doubt than it is to demonstrate something to be false. We haven't disproved evolution, for the simple reason that it is a fact (per Gould, an inference confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to deny its factuality). But I gave you a number of ways that evolution could have been disproved had it been non-factual - I don't expect you to be convinced that evolution had been disproved, but I am disappointed that you don't accept them as an answer to your question "What will it take to disprove evolution?"




Tony

(Just to be clear - I would describe myself as having previously being
convinced in evolution, then for a period as a Creationist, but now
find
that I am somewhere 'inbetween' I am personally unconvinced by claims
that
'Macroevolution' is proven. I accept that the only reasonable
naturalistic
explanation for the existance is evolution - and acknowledge that there
are
convincing arguments. However, I find that there is something pretty
fantastic about this world and universe that will never be explained in
purely naturalistic terms. If evolution happened it does not explain
itself - sorry we are too fantastically complex. Dawkins - "meethinks
it
is
a weasel" software is a joke. I find that Dawkins latest book - the
God
delusion has not helped - and there are ripostes to much of his points.
I
resent that either side of a debate should resort to insult or
dismissal.
I
sometimes cringe when I see some of the creationist posts - and can
often
be
annoyed at evolutionist claims. I don't have the answers - many people
think they do!)

I'd dearly love to know what your definitions of some key words are
here:

What do you mean by "macroevolution"?
.

You'll find it in dictionary.com it is a real word.

That's not a particularly responsive reply. Macroevolution is commonly
understood among biologists to include speciation, so you have already
conceded that macroevolution is observed (which I assume would mean that
you would also concede it to be proven).

Well I tire of what I see is an apparent denial of recognition of this
word - my previous 'lost post' did offer more detail - including a link to
dictionary.com.

Microevolution - is a fact. Few can deny the effect of selective breeding
in generating great danes and scottish terriers. However - they are both
just dogs. Even if they are mechanically challenged when trying to mate and
could lead to a speciation event if all other intermediate sized dogs were
to die in a freak intermediate sized dog disease. It is questionable that
our two new species are 'fitter' than the wide range of dogs that existed
before - certainly they are initially less adaptable. However they are
still just dogs!

Macroevolution to Dawkins is a given - but this fits his world view.
Changing a bacteria to a fish like reptile to mammal to an ape to a man
takes an enormous (astronomical) amount of fortuitous mutation. That is
Macroevolution.



What do yu mean by "complex"?

I am complex, you are complex - dawkins' "methinks it is a weasel" program
is simple. Whatever the mechanism of 'creation' a human being is a
remarkable achievement for evolution/God/other. Dawkins 'methinks it is a
weasel' is a joke as a parody of this achievement and fundmently flawed.

Dawkins "methinks it is a weasel" is an illustration of the constrast
between the effectiveness of variation and selection compared to that of a
random search. To dismiss it as "as a parody of this achievement and
fundmently flawed" indicates that you fail to understand his point.

Well, the programme only demonstrates the obvious. That is given weighted
scoring and programmed mutation - a sequence of said programmed mutations
will converge on the previously entered code. It is an excercise in the
obvious.

Too many creationists don't find it an exercise in the obvious. You could look into Zachriel's Mutagenator programs, written in response to a creationist's assertions about the ineffectiveness of variation and selection.

It illustrates his point of view but bears little resemblence to any
reality.

You continue to demonstrate your failure to understand his point. It's not supposed to be a model of reality; it's a demonstration of how much more effective mutation and selection can be as a search algorithm, compared with a random search.

How many Generations of mutations would it take to generate "war & peace?"
How long would this take? I assume that you would accept that War & Peace
is still simpler than humans - that can write war & peace? How long would
it take if we didn't actually give it a copy to start - nor give it any more
than a few bytes of code.

Why do you criticise Dawkins for offering an unrealistic model, and then turn round and do the same yourself?

What if we didn't programme mutation in, but let it cross code with other
strings as in sexual reproduction without error correction and relied on
computer copy errors to generate mutation? I think that algorithms of this
sort may prove interesting - a little like the game of "life"
(http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/) but may fail to produce anything
complex.

Have you looked into the literature on artificial life (e.g. Tierra and Avida) and genetic algorithms?


What do you mean by "naturalistic"?


I have at no times refered to any 'Godidit' arguements and don't expect
you
to accept them - I wouldn't either. However - there is much that will
never
be explained and belongst to speculation and debate.

:)

My point is that - the debate is not over - 'cause one side declares
triumph.

--
Aaron Clausen mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx

fnor


[1] One species of cactus, with a stick berry, is found in Africa and
India. This is inferred to be a recent dispersal by birds.
--
alias Ernest Major


My point is not that evolution did not happen - just that for one side of a
debate declare itself victorious or to state that it has established a fact
is a little egotistical.

I was tactful last time - I didn't mention the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide. You are arguing that a fact isn't a fact if there are people who deny that it has the status of a fact. That argument holds equally badly against the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide as against common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes.

If you want to argue against the factuality (or certainty) of common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes, you should address the evidence, not make that fallacious (it's fairly close to argumentum ad populum) argument.


tony


--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The nature of debates
    ... I think it's useful to debate subjective issues -- and here I don't mean ... and there's simply no evidence to be ... While you believe that Evolution is beyond dispute and you compare it to ... Creationists would argue that the record does ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Great Evolutionists Name-calling machine
    ... I have never seen any "evolutionist", as you call them, lose a debate ... Religion never appealed to me until I saw the scientific ... I used to believe in evolution. ... Yes, most creationists do lack scientific integrity, which is why they ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Great Evolutionists Name-calling machine
    ... I have never seen any "evolutionist", as you call them, lose a debate ... bogus field techniques, or his complete lack of compelling evidence, ... I used to believe in evolution. ... Yes, Creationists, particularly the 'scientific' Creationists, have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The nature of debates
    ... We can debate whether ... and there's simply no evidence to be ... While you believe that Evolution is beyond dispute and you compare it to ... been quoted over and over again by Creationists and no surprise - it was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Great Evolutionists Name-calling machine
    ... I have never seen any "evolutionist", as you call them, lose a debate ... I used to believe in evolution. ... It is funny how creationists avoid the facts then. ... Yes, most creationists do lack scientific integrity, which is why they ...
    (talk.origins)