Evolution In The Classroom

[Touchstone]

Thank you for understanding my struggle. But isn’t the Islamic idea, which is in the spiritual realm, falsifiable by another spiritual idea such as Hinduism?

No, and that’s a powerful point to raise here. “Falsify” doesn’t mean anything in the spiritual realm, in objective terms. False is whatever you think is false subjectively, and true is what you think is true subjectively. That doesn’t mean that some objective reality doesn’t underlie all these musings. But it does mean that when we put an idea into the “spiritual realm” it becomes impotent, inert as a claim to real knowledge. The benefit is, of course, such a claim can’t be falsified, even in principle, so the most you can expect there is for Islamic “spiritual realm” claims and Hindu “spiritual realm” claims to try and gum each other to death by proxy, by using culture and political and rhetorical influence to prevail over the other.

But this is no way leaves either the Muslim’s claim or the Hindu’s claim vulnerable. They are both perfectly unassailable, and the “battle for knowledge” can never be won between them, or even engaged, as neither qualifies as falsifiable. Which means they are “untruifiable” as well. There are simply notions that are embraced through subjective appeal.

“Spiritual”, then, as an adjective is a form of nihilism in terms of epistemology. Once an idea has been “spiritualized”, put beyond the reach of falsification, it is safe, and can never be discredited, only abandoned by choice. But it also becomes cypher in terms of real knowledge.

-TS

 

[grannymh]

No, and that’s a powerful point to raise here. “Falsify” doesn’t mean anything in the spiritual realm, in objective terms. False is whatever you think is false subjectively, and true is what you think is true subjectively.

So why was “Allah” brought up as an example in post 971?

That doesn’t mean that some objective reality doesn’t underlie all these musings.

Are the musings those referring to falsifiable? Did you mean that all these musings are subjective? While occasionally, the musings are underlined by some objective reality? And if there is some objective reality, what is the rest of reality?

QUOTE]
But it does mean that when we put an idea into the “spiritual realm” it becomes impotent, inert as a claim to real knowledge.

Why?

“Spiritual”, then, as an adjective is a form of nihilism in terms of epistemology.

Is this why the spiritual realm is impotent? One of those philosophers (whom I spaced out in class because they sounded like idiots) has created nihilism to take care of anything that bothers him subjectively.

But, how can there be a form of nihilism when it is defined, (dictionary philosophy) a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence and defined (dictionary psychology) A delusion that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

Once an idea has been “spiritualized”, put beyond the reach of falsification, it is safe, and can never be discredited, only abandoned by choice. But it also becomes cypher in terms of real knowledge.

-TS

All the subjective thinking in the world will not convince me that I am a cypher.

As for real knowledge, I personally distinguish between thinking subjectively and thinking objectively. I deeply respect the opinions of others in that regard. This is my own personal opinion. Thinking subjectively is not science. Thinking subjectively is not even common sense. But that is not anyone’s personal fault. Thinking subjectively appears to be the coin of a society immersed in the philosophies of relativism, misplaced Cartesian dualism, and materialism with a dash of nihilism when convenient.

Even the thought of a form of nihilism as being an acceptable term or presumption of any kind of epistemology is a nightmare to me. Once the idea of my human nature is spiritualized, I don’t matter a bit. I’ve lived too long so anyone can turn me into glue.

 

[rossum]

Falsifiability is indeed a big part of science. But science is self limiting by its own definition and therefore only can express a partial view of reality.

Of course. That is why we have History lessons, French lessons and Art lessons alongside Science lessons. Science concentrates on a limited area of knowledge and tries to do the best it can within that limited range - material causes of material effects.

Again trying to formulize the recognition of design should not be discouraged, We know it exists.

Everyone agrees that design exists - a watch is designed as in Paley’s example. The problem is with an immaterial designer of unspecified powers. Hence my question about falsifiability. An archaeologist knows that a watch she finds was not made by stone-age men because stone age technology did not encompass making a watch. If the designer has unspecified powers, or is omnipotent, then we cannot say what that designer cound not have done and we are back with an unfalsifiable theory. Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, but it is also not science.

Could we write a formula that first could identify the basics of something designed? Shape? Attributes? Color? etc… Rudimentary of course but still doable.

That is a task for ID to do - perhaps more time spent on science and less time on politics might be a good thing. Dr Dembski suggested exactly that in 2002.

Perhaps ID could never be falsifiable because there exists no instance of something not designed. Thar is some God.

In that case ID is just another example of Last Thursdayism and will be unfalsifiable and hence outside science. All scientific theories are in principle falsifiable or at least modifiable. If ID wants to be scientitific then it has to take the risk of being modified or falsified by the evidence. Currently ID explains everything - “the designer did it that way”. In scientific terms that makes it useless.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is any man-made object not designed?

All man-made objects are designed.

Is any designed object not designed?

Is any undesigned object designed? The problem is to distinguish designed objects from undesigned objects. So far the ID side has failed to come up with a workable objective method to do this.

rossum

 

[tjm190]

Right.

Are you against teaching gravity, if only empirical science is allowed? After all, all theory’s and law’s are ‘guesses’.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Heh.



I’m sorry, but Evolution just makes sense to me. Chance happenings tend to build up over millions of years, I would imagine.

Fair enough, but do you imagine it because you’re told to imagine it, and (for that matter) do I imagine otherwise because I’m told to imagine otherwise?

I’m faintly curious as to how your Paganism fits into this - I guess whatever you consider as God(s) (if anything) aren’t especially invasive ones! Pantheistic?

By the way, I commend you on admitting the issue as belief, rather than fact, which certainly beats a lot of pro-chance-evolutionists hands down, as far as I’m concerned

 

[Mystic_Banana]

All man-made objects are designed.

Is any undesigned object designed? The problem is to distinguish designed objects from undesigned objects. So far the ID side has failed to come up with a workable objective method to do this.

rossum

Personally, I see no evidence that the evolution by chance side have come up with anything, other than regular production of articles of (blind) faith

 

[buffalo]

Are you against teaching gravity, if only empirical science is allowed? After all, all theory’s and law’s are ‘guesses’.

Whatever you call falling or attraction can be taught because it is testable, repeatable and predictable. We call this gravity. We have formulas which are testable, repeatable and predictable. Why and how are different questions.

 

[tjm190]

Whatever you call falling or attraction can be taught because it is testable, repeatable and predictable. We call this gravity. We have formulas which are testable, repeatable and predictable. Why and how are different questions.

Wow, wow, wow, wait a second. All we know is that things fall down. And when you get far enough away from something, you don’t fall towards it anymore. Everything else is a guess.

 

[rossum]

Personally, I see no evidence

What you have and have not seen is not relevant. I cannot read Chinese so there is a great deal of evidence in Chinese that I have not seen. No one person can see all of the evidence.

that the evolution by chance

Evolution is not a chance process. Random mutation is a chance process. Natural selection is not a chance process. The combination of the two is not a chance process either. Chance affects the (name removed by moderator)ut to the process but has far less impact on the output.

rossum

 

[Mystic_Banana]

What you have and have not seen is not relevant. I cannot read Chinese so there is a great deal of evidence in Chinese that I have not seen. No one person can see all of the evidence.

Evolution is not a chance process. Random mutation is a chance process. Natural selection is not a chance process. The combination of the two is not a chance process either. Chance affects the (name removed by moderator)ut to the process but has far less impact on the output.

rossum

Just to ask again, what is doing the selecting in natural selection? I think we’ve already covered this - and doesn’t go anywhere to explain the vast improbabilities required for the whole scenario to start up in the first place…

 

[tjm190]

Just to ask again, what is doing the selecting in natural selection? I think we’ve already covered this - and doesn’t go anywhere to explain the vast improbabilities required for the whole scenario to start up in the first place…

Nothing ‘does’ the selecting, those best fitted to survive in the current environment survive. And again, the word probability only applies when an equation backs it up.

Saying ‘they are complex’ is a simplification of part of a calculation- you would then need to take into account the rate at which the events were occurring, what outcomes were more likely than others, if benchmarks were present, and quite frankly since we don’t even know what the first cell looked like you’d need some way of determining that.

 

[rossum]

Just to ask again, what is doing the selecting in natural selection?

Average reproductive effectiveness is doing the selecting. If you have more children than your neighbour then there will be more copies of your genes in the next generation than theirs.

Take a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

The small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population. That is how natural selection works - the more descendants you have the more copies of your genes there will be in future generations.

I think we’ve already covered this - and doesn’t go anywhere to explain the vast improbabilities required for the whole scenario to start up in the first place…

Please show your model and the calculations based on it. Just to say “vast” is insufficiently precise.

rossum

 

[LittleBits]

Why not teach evolution in the classroom? It’s real. Evolution has been pretty much proven, evolution is why the giraffe grew a long neck, and why bats developed sonar, and why snakes developed venom…evolution DOES NOT negate the existence of God.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Average reproductive effectiveness is doing the selecting. If you have more children than your neighbour then there will be more copies of your genes in the next generation than theirs.

Take a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

The small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population. That is how natural selection works - the more descendants you have the more copies of your genes there will be in future generations.

Please show your model and the calculations based on it. Just to say “vast” is insufficiently precise.

rossum

It’s the whole argument I’ve posted regularly: leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/svsu.html.

This, however, still doesn’t get past the argument of whether such mutations are positive or not. Skin conditions, congenital heart disease, and any number of other conditions seem to continue to develop and thrive despite all this. Have you any evidence that it is beneficial mutations in particular that are thus ‘selected’? On what basis are mutations beneficial? Has any of this been effectively tested, or is it just theory?

 

[grannymh]

O.K., Thanks to one poster, I am beginning to understand this business that a theory has to be falsifiable in order to be accurate. I am a bear with a very little brain.

As I now understand it, falsification is a very important (essential!) principle in science. In other words, a theory has to be liable for falsification. If the theory is falsified, it is dismissed.

This is a quote from Post 971: But the theories that are left standing must be at risk

of being falsified. That is, there must be some way, in principle, at least, for the evidence to emerge in such a way that we conclude the idea is false.
If you don’t have that, really, you got nothing in terms of real knowledge.

And the big question, at least to me, is –

How, that is in what area, is evolutionary theory regarding the human species liable for falsification? ? ? In other words, the theories that are left standing regarding human species must be **at risk of being falsified. **

So, what theories about the human species are at risk and please answer, what is that risk?

Blessings,
granny

The quest of knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[twinc]

ID and not evolution is seen as two and four and no one,three or five legs - with one it would be hopping mad ,with three one would have difficulty knowing which way to go and finish up stuck in a corner.With five one would be constantly tripped up and not know whether one was coming or going - twinc

 

[rossum]

This, however, still doesn’t get past the argument of whether such mutations are positive or not.

The great majority of mutations are neutral and do not have any effect on the phenotype; in humans this is 95% or more. Of the remaining non-neutral mutations the great majority are deleterious. Very very few are beneficial. For example, the average human has about 150 mutations of which about 145 are neutral, the remaining five are deleterious though perhaps only mildly so. However with a population of 6 billion that is still a very large number of mutations in which to find a good one.

The point of natural selection is that those rare beneficial mutations are amplified from generation to generation, as my table shows. They do not happen often, but when they do happen they are preferentially amplified by natural selection.

Have you any evidence that it is beneficial mutations in particular that are thus ‘selected’?

Yes. Ask any population geneticist. It should be obvious that not dying of malaria means that on average you will have more children than someone who is dead or incapacitated by malaria.

On what basis are mutations beneficial?

Apolipoprotein A-I Milano helps prevent heart attacks when eating a fat-rich Western diet. HbC protects against malaria. Both of these are beneficial in their environments.

Has any of this been effectively tested, or is it just theory?

It has been tested. See: malariaPlasmodium falciparum: These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.
This paper shows that given current conditions the HbC mutation will replace the HbS (sickle cell) mutation. It still protects against malaria, but does not have the severe disadvantages of the sickle cell mutation.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Why not teach evolution in the classroom? It’s real. Evolution has been pretty much proven, evolution is why the giraffe grew a long neck, and why bats developed sonar, and why snakes developed venom…evolution DOES NOT negate the existence of God.

Of course it does. That’s why men put up billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. And signs on buses: Man Created God.

Don’t you think that those people use evolution and evolutionary psychology as evidence their statements are true? Do you think they don’t actually believe what they’re preaching?

Evolution cannot be proven.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Calliso]

Of course it does. That’s why men put up billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. And signs on buses: Man Created God.

Don’t you think that those people use evolution and evolutionary psychology as evidence their statements are true? Do you think they don’t actually believe what they’re preaching?

Evolution cannot be proven.

Peace,
Ed

Any particular theory can;t be proven…they are always being modified and even replaced completely by new evidence. Also the fact that some people have used the theory for some non scientific purposes doesn;t mean anything when it comes to whether or not the theory is well supported scientifically. Plenty of people throughtout history have used Christanity and God as justification for horrible things…does that mean Christianity is false and bad? no of course not some people just miss used it. And evolution whether or not you want to believe it is one of the most well supported scientific theories.