Posted on 10/21/2010 1:47:33 PM PDT by big black dog
In an experiment, there are one of more hypotheses. When positive predictions are made, there necessarily exists what is called a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis should be stated formally, and constructed before the study is conducted.
H0: Two simultaneous mutations are the upper limit for providing any functional advantage by evolutionary processes. H1: Evolutionary processes may result in three or more simultaneous mutations conferring a functional advantage to an organism.
In the example above, H0 is the null hypothesis, and H1 is the experimental hypothesis. When an experiment is conducted, a finding of 3 or more simultaneous mutations resulting in a functional advantage would be said to falsify the null hypothesis.
The final writeup would go something like, “Our experiments demonstrated that 3 simultaneous mutations occurred resulting in a functional advantage for the organism. Therefore, we reject H0 in favor of H1.” The trouble in evolutionary biology is that there often is no H0. There is no formal null hypothesis. Evolution is considered to be a fact, and the null hypothesis is not addressed or tested.
Consider a recent peer-reviewed article that provides a null hypothesis that has not been falsified by Darwinist researchers:
The theme of this paper is the active pursuit of falsification of the following null hypothesis: “Physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” At first glance the falsification of this hypothesis might seem like a daunting task. But a single exception of non trivial, unaided, spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would quickly falsify this null hypothesis.(1)
Again, the trouble with most Darwinists is that they would not even consider testing this null hypothesis, because “evolution is a fact.” It is my opinion, that the metaphysical worldview of these scientists (i.e., philosophical naturalism), prevents them from doing real science. Without testing their theories against ID hypotheses, they are failing to conduct valid research, and are engaging in little more than materialistic apologetics.
It is also possible to use a null hypothesis as an experimental hypothesis. Extra safeguards are needed with an experiment of this nature. Specifically, what is needed is more experimental power. This translates essentially to a larger subject pool or number of trials. The experimental power required varies based on the field of study and what is being studied. The level required is based on a scientific consensus. In other words, scientists may agree in a given area of study that the power must be 95%. This translates essentially to “The probability that a true experimental hypothesis will be supported by our methods.” The 5% in this case is considered to be an acceptable risk for the given field of study. In other words, 5% of the time in similarly conducted studies, we would find results that do not support the experimental hypothesis when the experimental hypothesis is in fact true.
In psychology, the level of power needed is often considered 80%. When a null hypothesis is used as an experimental hypothesis, the power needed may be set at 90 to 95%. There are other technical and statistical aspects of determining the number of trials or subjects needed, but I won’t get into that.
Suffice it to say, that properly conducted research may state as an experimental hypothesis: “Two mutations are the maximum number of simultaneous mutations that can occur in a population of X size and given Y generations which would confer a functional advantage.” This is one reason that part of the work done by Michael Behe in the Edge of Evolution is valid science. Hypotheses stated in this way are not arguments from ignorance, but valid scientific hypotheses that lend themselves to scientific investigation.
I don’t know if Dr. Abel, who published the article, The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, is an IDist or a Darwinist. That doesn’t really matter much to me, but what does matter is that he has given a fair treatment to the issue in a way that advances science.
Dr. Abel writes:
--
While proof may be evasive, science has an obligation to be honest about what the entire body of evidence clearly suggests. We cannot just keep endlessly labeling abundant evidence of formal prescription in nature “apparent.” The fact of purposeful programming at multiple layers gets more “apparent” with each new issue of virtually every molecular biology journal [179-181]. Says de Silva and Uchiyama:
Molecular substrates can be viewed as computational devices that process physical or chemical ‘inputs’ to generate ‘outputs’ based on a set of logical operators. By recognizing this conceptual crossover between chemistry and computation, it can be argued that the success of life itself is founded on a much longer-term revolution in information handling when compared with the modern semiconductor computing industry. Many of the simpler logic operations can be identified within chemical reactions and phenomena, as well as being produced in specifically designed systems. Some degree of integration can also be arranged, leading, in some instances, to arithmetic processing. These molecular logic systems can also end themselves to convenient reconfiguring. Their clearest application area is in the life sciences, where their small size is a distinct advantage over conventional semiconductor counterparts. Molecular logic designs aid chemical (especially intracellular) sensing, small object recognition and intelligent diagnostics [181].
What scientific evidence exists of physicodynamics ever having programmed a single purposeful configurable switch-setting? If we cannot present any such evidence, we should be self-honest enough to start asking ourselves, “How long are we going to try to maintain this ruse that the cybernetic programming we repeatedly observe is only ‘apparent’ rather than real?”
--
Indeed, if you want to start conducting real science in evolutionary biology, then it is time to start including ID notions as null or experimental hypotheses. However, the Darwinists are likely to continue their metaphysical pursuits at the sacrifice of properly conducted scientific investigation.
Creation scientists need to do this, too.
It looks and sounds vaguely sciencey. But there ain’t no real science in the whole article.
ID is the Creationists globull warming. Use big words so the rubes think it’s science. Keep the offering plates full.
“In an experiment, there are one of more hypotheses.”
In a coherent sentence, there is an object, a subject, and a verb.
“ID is the Creationists globull warming. Use big words so the rubes think it’s science.”
Nice try, but the metaphor of Darwinism with Global Warming is much more apt. Both are pronounced to be “proven science” by “all serious scientists”, despite any protests to the contrary. Both are treated with such reverence by their adherents that to even dare to question any of their basic premises will get one branded a heretic, and permanently blacklisted by the herd. Both serve to advance the humanist, secularist, liberal agendas more than they give us any significant scientific insight. Both of them serve as a type of replacement for religious faith for many of their believers.
“In a coherent sentence, there is an object, a subject, and a verb.”
Ok, besides the typo (of should obviously be or), what is wrong with his sentence, Grammar Gestapo?
In an experiment,
there < subject
are < verb
one or more
hypotheses. < object
No. Darwinism is supported by the scientific method. It is science. I will believe in ID/creationism when it is consistant with scientific method.
Try applying the null hypothesis method proposed in this post with “God exists”.
For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. Spelling and grammar count.
ID is the Creationists globull warming. Use big words so the rubes think it’s science. Keep the offering plates full.
This says to me you had no clue what you were reading, and as an evolutionist, you are projecting your ignorance onto others who disagree with you.
If Schroedinger is correct, you will never be able to prove it, because the observation may have affected the outcome.
Well stated.
“For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. Spelling and grammar count.”
You didn’t answer my question... where’s the grammatical error in the sentence? All I saw was an obvious typo.
“No. Darwinism is supported by the scientific method. It is science.”
Only partially, since there are certain assertions of Darwinism that are unsupportable by the scientific method. So really, only a part of Darwinism can be considered science, while the rest is philosophical speculation, or mere tautology.
“Try applying the null hypothesis method proposed in this post with “God exists”.”
Why would I attempt to use the scientific method to test an assertion explicitly outside of the bounds of naturalistic science? That venture is doomed to failure before it begins.
Having a typo in the opening sentence (obvious or not) is not a winning strategy for getting people to take seriously the thought process that went into the piece.
So, can we take this to mean that you agree I.D./Creationism has nothing to do with science?
Or do you claim it has nothing to do with God?
Even though the fact of genetic mutation is easily observed, and duplicated in science experiments, still, hundreds of millions of years of evolution cannot be replicated scientifically.
However, much of it is recorded in great detail in the DNA of every living thing, and in fossil records.
These are "historical" records which support the theory of evolution.
They don't support any other scientific theory.
“So, can we take this to mean that you agree I.D./Creationism has nothing to do with science?”
First of all, Creationism and ID are two separate things. Creationism is generally unscientific, or at least it is clearly not naturalistic science. ID, on the other hand, is not unscientific by nature of it’s assertions, but certain advocates of it might not follow strict scientific methodology. The same thing can be said of many Darwinists as well.
“Or do you claim it has nothing to do with God?”
Creationism inherently has something to do with God. ID doesn’t require a god, or posit anything about the existence of god.
“Even though the fact of genetic mutation is easily observed, and duplicated in science experiments, still, hundreds of millions of years of evolution cannot be replicated scientifically.”
That’s a nonsequiter. Genetic mutation does not necessarily equate with evolution. You are correct that the evolution that is asserted by Darwinists cannot be replicated, and therefore, under the scientific method, it cannot be considered to be proven.
“However, much of it is recorded in great detail in the DNA of every living thing, and in fossil records.”
Darwinists surely assert this, but that isn’t the only possible explanation for the observations of DNA or the fossil record. As the point of this article states, if you only look for evidence to support your theory, without acknowledging the possibility that the same evidence could support a contradictory hypothesis, then you have a blind spot in your methodology which can lead to untenable conclusions.
“These are “historical” records which support the theory of evolution.”
It’s good that you put historical in quotes, because of course, they are not really historical records at all. Historical records are recorded by human beings, so there’s no controversy where they originate from, and usually we have a pretty good idea about how to properly interpret them. DNA is a record of biological information, and the fossil record is a collection of biological specimens, both of which are subject to a controversy as to their origin and the proper method of interpreting the data contained therein. Darwinists claim they support the theory of evolution, but again, if no other competing interpretation is seriously evaluated, then this undermines the very support that Darwinists claim.
No they're not.
Both are simply efforts by the same groups of people to impose their Biblical-literalist world view on the teaching of science.
They come from the same people, they address the same issue, and for the same purposes.
One claims to be slightly more "scientific" than the other.
Neither truly is.
They are not science itself, but rather attacks on of science -- attacks for the purpose of creating "breathing room" for their non-scientific Biblical-literalist world views.
Boogieman: "ID doesn’t require a god, or posit anything about the existence of god."
It's advanced by the same groups that advance Creationism, and for the same purposes.
It uses some "scientific" sounding language to criticize science, but has produced nothing scientific itself.
Boogieman: "Genetic mutation does not necessarily equate with evolution."
How well do you understand the theory of evolution?
Evolution has two aspects, 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Descent with modifications can be driven by mutations.
Neither modification nor selection by itself is traditional evolution, both are required.
Boogieman: "the evolution that is asserted by Darwinists cannot be replicated, and therefore, under the scientific method, it cannot be considered to be proven."
The correct scientific word is not "proven," it's "confirmed."
The theory of evolution has been confirmed in many, many ways -- enough ways that no serious scientist doubts it.
Evolution has been observed on a small scale in real-time -- and it's very long-term effects are recorded in fossil records and DNAs of every living creature.
Your assertion that these records can be interpreted in an anti-Darwinian, pro-Intelligent Design, methodology is not confirmed or proved by any credible peer-reviewed scientific study. None.
Boogieman: "if you only look for evidence to support your theory, without acknowledging the possibility that the same evidence could support a contradictory hypothesis, then you have a blind spot in your methodology which can lead to untenable conclusions."
The scientific theory of evolution has no "untenable conclusions."
By contrast, "Intelligent Design Theory" is an untenable conclusion in unsuccessful search for data to support it.
In short: ID is the opposite of science.
Boogieman: "DNA is a record of biological information, and the fossil record is a collection of biological specimens, both of which are subject to a controversy as to their origin and the proper method of interpreting the data contained therein. "
No they are not -- they are only subject to attack by religiously motivated ideologues who wish to discredit science in favor of their own world views.
And BTW, this is the opposite of anti-Anthropomorphic Global Warming, which comes from published scientific work.
Boogieman: "Darwinists claim they [fossils & DNA] support the theory of evolution, but again, if no other competing interpretation is seriously evaluated, then this undermines the very support that Darwinists claim."
No other scientific interpretation has ever been seriously produced, presented, peer-reviewed and published.
“No they’re not.
Both are simply efforts by the same groups of people to impose their Biblical-literalist world view on the teaching of science.”
That a blatant falsehood. Sure, there are Creationists who are also involved in ID, but there are also non-Christians, and agnostics who are involved in ID as well. Even if every person who advocates ID was also a Creationist, it would not undermine my point that Creationism and ID are in fact, two separate things. If every evolutionist was also a member of the Democratic party, it would not mean that liberalism and evolutionism were the same thing. Guilt by association is not a good starting point for rational argument.
“It uses some “scientific” sounding language to criticize science, but has produced nothing scientific itself.”
I guess you don’t realize that criticism of science is a key part of science itself. Disproving a theory is just as scientific as proving a theory, and in fact, probably more crucial to the work of science.
“How well do you understand the theory of evolution?
Evolution has two aspects, 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Descent with modifications can be driven by mutations.
Neither modification nor selection by itself is traditional evolution, both are required.”
I understand it perfectly well, you don’t need to tell me there are two components posited as the mechanism for the divergence of species. However, to say that proving mutations happen is equivalent to proving evolution is ludicrous. You need to establish much more than that, i.e. that those mutations are of a nature that could, and actually do, create the type of changes to a species that evolution predicts. That’s one of the major areas where evolutionists are lacking for evidence.
“The theory of evolution has been confirmed in many, many ways — enough ways that no serious scientist doubts it.”
Yet, you ignore the point that I made about replicability. In science, which you seem so fond of, if you have a hypothesis, in order to confirm it, you must not only make a prediction, and observe evidence which confirms it, but others must be able to replicate this observation. Now, in the case of evolution, Darwin predicted that his theory explained how the diverse species we see today evolved from a common ancestor. This is not something that has ever actually been observed, and so certainly, it’s not something that we can claim is replicable. You can look at the fossil record or DNA and claim that we are observing the mechanism proposed in action, but we are not actually observing any such thing. We are observing static artifacts of something that may have happened in the past, if the assertion is true. However, we must assume the assertion is true if we are to believe that this is actually observation that can confirm the hypothesis. That’s circular reasoning.
“Evolution has been observed on a small scale in real-time — and it’s very long-term effects are recorded in fossil records and DNAs of every living creature.”
This is a logical leap to assume that the small scale changes in the genome that we can observe are the same mechanism which can explain what we observe in the fossil record, or the existing genome that has been formed before we could observe it. Now, normally, such a leap is acceptable when making a hypothesis, IF you can then observe the process in action and thereby gather evidence to validate or invalidate the assumption. However, we can’t observe the long-term process in action in order to confirm the assumption, so it’s not an acceptable leap in this circumstance.
“Your assertion that these records can be interpreted in an anti-Darwinian, pro-Intelligent Design, methodology is not confirmed or proved by any credible peer-reviewed scientific study. None.”
Well, as Climategate demonstrated, the peer review process is not a perfect process by any means. It has become dominated in some areas of science by groupthink and become little more than a feedback loop for one school of thought to the exclusion of any dissenters. Similarly to your expressed opinions, most scientists won’t admit that ID could ever be scientific, so they won’t allow anything ID related in a peer-reviewed journal. Then, they turn around and use the lack of peer-reviewed publications to say “ID isn’t science”. How convenient!
“The scientific theory of evolution has no “untenable conclusions.””
Of course it doesn’t, to a true believer. To a skeptic, however, some of the most fundamental assertions of evolution are untenable, since they fly in the face of simple logic and observed reality.
“No they are not — they are only subject to attack by religiously motivated ideologues who wish to discredit science in favor of their own world views.”
Right, so a controversy is not a controversy if you simply denigrate the people who hold the opposing viewpoint. Got it.
“No other scientific interpretation has ever been seriously produced, presented, peer-reviewed and published.”
With Darwinists firmly in control of all the journals and unwilling to entertain any other hypotheses, how could it be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.