Evolution Disclaimer Supported

Thank you for your explanation, Physicist! I won't need to ask you about proofs. However, I found this description which might be helpful to lurkers following the Euclidian v. Riemannian Geometry discussion:

The Origins of Proof

Both the Greeks of Euclid's time, and later Arabic mathematicians, had an intuition that the fifth postulate could actually be proven using the definitions and common notions and the first four postulates…

In fact, the fifth postulate is not derivable from the other postulates and notions, and nor is it universally true. Mathematicians continued to be fascinated by the fifth postulate throughout the centuries, but it was not until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (through the efforts of a number of famous mathematicians including Legendre, Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky, Riemann, Beltrami and Klein), that we came to know about geometries (called non-Euclidian geometries) where the fifth postulate is not true.

The fifth postulate can be shown to be true in a plane (or Euclidian) geometry. However, there are many other geometries where it is not true. Surprisingly enough, this is easy to illustrate! Consider the simple case of a sphere's surface.

It is impossible to draw a true straight line on a sphere without leaving the surface, So in spherical geometry the Euclidean idea of a line becomes a great circle. Thinking of the Earth, any line of longitude is a great circle - as is the equator. In fact the shortest path between any two points on a sphere is a great circle. (More generally, a minimal path on any surface is known as a geodesic.)

One of the consequences of Euclid's first four postulates is that if two different lines cross, they meet at a single point. This presents a small problem on the sphere, since distinct great circles always cross at two antipodal points! Two lines of longitude always cross at both the North and the South Pole!

But remember, we haven't yet said what the spherical analogue of a Euclidean point is! All we have to do is define a point in spherical geometry to be a pair of antipodal points and the problem promptly disappears. According to Euclid's definition number 23, "Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction". Given these definitions, it is easy to see that Euclid's first four postulates still make good sense. The fifth postulate, however, fails because it is impossible to draw two different lines that do not meet. In spherical geometry there are no parallel lines!

One of the consequences of the failure of the 5th postulate is that it is no longer true that the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees.

Regarding your ongoing debate with Dr.Frank, I thought y’all might get a kick out of this: Hubert Yockey on a discussion board

Pose this proposition to your enemies (not your friends): Given any two theories, an experiment will decide between them and prove one true and one false. This is the philosophy of Sir Karl Popper. When a physicist does an experiment to prove that an electron is a particle, it behaves as a particle. When another physicist does an experiment to show an electron is a wave, it behaves as a wave. In some diffraction experiments ray tracing shows the electron or neutron was in two places at once. Thus these experiments prove the wave-particle dualism. Einstein was extremely annoyed by this and suggested experiments to explain what he regarded as a dilemma. He exclaimed: Der lieber Gott wuerfelt nicht mit der Welt! Bohr's reply was: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do!"

Faced with what physicstis and chemists have had to accept from relativity and quantum mechanics, taking the origin of life as an axiom seems rather tame.

I'm sorry, I meant to ping you to post #501...

And God said, " ."
Eventually one of the scientists suggested they stop wasting their time, and they went back to their labs to get some work done. ."

Strangely enough the bible has anticipated this response:

2Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

But the word "theory" is used similarly in each. Theory means an explanation of observed regularities. It does not mean speculation (except when used by lawyers.)

Could you explain what the "continuum hypothesis" has to do with fluid flow? Do you know if the continuum hypothesis is true or false? Do you know what has been proved? Does the continuum hypothesus allow the formation of a vacuum in a menstruum? Or is that just the residuum of an ignis fatuus? (Sort of in honor of G. uu. Bush.)

Thank you for your post!

As with math and science, legal theories have to follow certain constructions (e.g. law, case law) in order to be viable. In common use, the word speculation could be a synonym for the word theory; however, IMHO, theories offered by these three disciplines would not be mere speculation.

Lurkers might enjoy reading more about The Philosophy of Mathematics and Hilbert's Proof Theory (pdf)

The questions asked mathematics are different from the questions asked in physics.

We've been trying to explain to you how the word theory is used by scientists (and mathematicians for that matter.) You choose to use your own meaning. According to the Humpty-Dumpty theory, you are entitled to do so. According to Aristotle, this makes communication hard.

Correct. You may call the mean value theorem valid, but you cannot call it "true." You may wish to read an introductory book on the foundations of mathematics for an elucidation of this point. Proofs are valid or invalid, not true or false.

Euclid was right in that the fifth postulate had to be a postulate. Euclid's only real failing in geometry was the failure to distinguish between the inside and outside of a triangle. Hilbert's axiomization fixes things up.

Thank you so very much for the explanation!

It seems to me that math is much more "formal" in the development of a theory and in proving it. Granted, that may be because I'm so fond of math - but still, science does not seem anywhere near as formal (except of course when the science is coupled tightly with math.)

Any alternate hypothesis to "common descent" would have to address all the facts.

Actually no. In Darwin's own words:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. "
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", Chapter 6.

By Darwin's own terms, evolution has been disproven with Behe's bacterial flagellum.

Scientific endeavors are obligated to connect up with the "real world." Mathematical endeavors do so at leisure.

This belief is required if one rejects the idea of a creator. The odds of a random abiogenesis are so ridiculously high -- pondering this caused Fred Hoyle to accept the existence of an intelligent creator -- that a need for a second one would destroy the faith of even the most strident atheist.

Absolutely true, and that is why evolution cannot deal with the idea of the archaea, eukaryotes, and prokaryotes not being ancestors or descendants of each other. However, a view that includes a Creator has no such problem.

I often say that science is continually disproving evolution and the discovery of a 3rd kingdom of single celled creatures certainly is another disproof of evolution. Also these archaea are quite interesting. They live in chemical vents where no other life can live usually. Now what is particularly interesting about this is that of course these thermal vents are very far away from each other both on land and sea, these particular creatures are therefore isolated from others like it and not only that they are all quite different and very unlikely for both reasons to have descended from each other.

One can believe in God and also accept the science of chemistry.

The science in this case is actually biology - no natural DNA not made by living things has ever been found or produced in any natural way in a laboratory. In addition, there is no chemical basis for the sequences in DNA and one would need at least a string of half a million DNA bases for the first reproductive life on earth. So, it is quite impossible according to the scientific facts and no one has been able to even formulate a theory of abiogenesis which fits the present scientific facts. Science is not about possibilities. Events which have 1 chance in an infinite amount of chances of happening are not science and that is what we are speaking about with abiogenesis. Only someone devoutly atheistic which totally disregards the scientific evidence would say that life can come from non-living matter.

you don't listen very well, do you?

Evolution is science

This discussion is about whether evolution is scientifically true. Your opinion has been noted, but no facts in support of it have been given other than the constant repetition of the mantra that 'evolution is science'. Now if YOU believed in evolution because it is scientifically true, you would be able to easily give testimony to the science which proves evolution. Since you cannot do that then your opinion is only based on an emotionally deep seated belief.

The evidence I and others have given against evolution on this thread has not been contradicted by you or others here, therefore it must be admitted at least that evolution has many faults and such faults should be taught in schools . Teaching is about truth, not about indoctrination, which is what evolutionists want to do.

It seems to me that math is much more "formal" in the development of a theory and in proving it.

Just to elaborate on your point, Mathematical "theories" are so much more formal because we rely upon logic, which in turn requires great intellectual rigor, to deduce the conclusions from very precisely formulated axioms. It is because of the formality and precision that we are able to "prove" our conclusions in Mathematics, while we never can do so in the same sense in scientific theories.

Scientific "theories", OTOH, are accepted (not proven) based upon observational results and experimental evidence (especially repeated failed attempts to falsify it), which are always incomplete, leaving open the door for future falsification.

While there are some differences between Mathematical and scientific "theories," it bears repeating that they still share a great many common attributes. In particular, both are conceptual frameworks that have broad explanatory power over the phenomona (or topics) within their respective scopes, and both must be conceptually falsifiable, the difference being that while a scientific theory is always at risk of being falsified, a properly deduced Mathematical theory (one with sound axioms and valid logical deductions), though capable of falsification, will never be, because our "proof tools" allow us to exclude the existence of any counter example.

Let's talk about Behe, shall we? Or are you going to ignore this post as well?

These comments are from this page http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm

'Scientists say...'
Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. For some reason he has decided to completely bypass professional review and go directly to a Darwin-doubting public. But more to the point, what is wrong with this book? Here is a summary of the critiques you will find included on this page and others:

First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...

"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]

But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of small modifications: 1) Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and divergence. By Behe's definition, many systems we see around us are IC, and yet have developed gradually. Think of the chaotic growth of towns into large cities, the self-organizing forces behind market economies, and the delicate causal webs that define complex ecosystems. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs. So given an IC system, it could either be the product of coordinated design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic process. The truth is, we should expect Darwinian evolution to produce such systems in biology, and not be surprised to find them. The underlying processes are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and they have been understood for many years. Biochemical structures and pathways are not built up one step at a time in linear assembly-line fashion to meet some static function. They evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions. The ability of life to evolve in this fashion has itself evolved over time. Detecting IC does not indicate design, and therefore Behe's hypothesis collapses. H. Allen Orr says it best in his perceptive review:

"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong." [*]

I think that is about all I need to say about that.

Get a grip Gore3000, if that's all you got, you got a BIG problem!!

Unless you can specify the exact chemical and morphological mechanisms by which life came to be, you do not have a believeable warrant to calculate the odds against it.

Always trying to put the shoe on the other foot. You messed up on this one though. We do know EXACTLY the chemical components of life, we do know EXACTLY the code by which life is ordered. It is from this knowledge that the SCIENTIFIC determination that abiogenesis is impossible has been made.

Scientific endeavors are obligated to connect up with the "real world." Mathematical endeavors do so at leisure.

LOL! Thanks for your post!