Evolution in action? African fish could be providing rare example of forming two separate species

Cornell University ^ | 01 June 2006 | Sara Ball

[metmom]

Because I am not an advanced student of any natural science, my evaluation of evidence is limited to verifying that claims of evidence are logically consistent and that claims of scientific explanations satisfy the standards of the scientific method.

If you are not an advanced student of any natural sciences, how are you qualified, and why do you think you're qualified, to sit in judgment of others and determine if what they are presenting meets the scientific criteria and is consistent with the scientific method?

If this is true, then you should be able to define a hypothetical falsification criteria for the explanation. Thus far, I have not observed that you have done so.

Sure, show me a clear example of where order is known to have come into existence without known intelligence behind it; that is without PRESUMING no intelligence. The world around you is filled with examples of order that is known to have come into being as a result of intelligence. One example of order where it's known, not presumed, that no intelligence is involved would suffice.

[Dimensio]

No, your turn. You disprove it.

It is impossible to formulate a disproof when you establish that there is no possible falsification critieria. Your claim is non-falsifiable, because you have acknowledged that you discard any occurance where no intelligence is discernable because there may be non-discernable intelligence. Your claim is predicated upon a logical fallacy, and as such has no validity.

Since you cannot provide examples, supported by anything, that order can arise from non-order without intelligent intervention, then it can be reasonably concluded that no such examples exist and there is no basis for coming to that conclusion.

Your conclusion is founded upon a false premise. It is not that I am unable to provide examples, it is that you have acknowledged that you will not accept anything as an example, because you may use the excuse that a non-discernable intelligence is involved in any example provided. You have biased your sample by ruling out any information that could potentially disprove your claim, and in so doing your claim is logically invalid.

Deciding that something happens with no basis for it is irrational.

This is a strawman.

[Dimensio]

you are not an advanced student of any natural sciences, how are you qualified, and why do you think you're qualified, to sit in judgment of others and determine if what they are presenting meets the scientific criteria and is consistent with the scientific method?

I acknowledge that my evaluation may not be thorough, but there are still standards that I am competent to apply. For example, if an individual acknowledges that their explanation invokes supernatural entities or agents, then their explanation is not scientific. If an individual is unable to provide a hypothetical falsification criteria for a claim, then their claim is not scientific.

Scientific claims only address and explain the natural universe. They also must be falsifiable. Those standards do not require an extensive scientific background to apply when evaluating a statement as scientific.

Sure, show me a clear example of where order is known to have come into existence without known intelligence behind it; that is without PRESUMING no intelligence.

What possible means could be used to determine that no intelligence is involved in such an event?

If you cannot provide a means for testing for intelligence -- test that would fail should intelligence not be involved -- then your claim is non-falsifiable, and as such not meaningful.

[Dimensio]

And you have claimed that evolution is a scientific explanation. If this is true, then you should be able to define a hypothetical falsification criteria for the explanation.

Precambrian rabbit fossils. A transposon found in both whales and cows, but not in hippos.

[Dimensio]

Sounds to me like you are opposed to any dialogue to which you don't have an answer for.

Your conclusion is not logical. That I cannot provide an explanation, on demand, for events that I do not claim occur does not mean that I am unwilling to discuss the topic.

I do not understand your insistance that I provide an explanation for an event that I do not claim occured.

[Dimensio]

Can't you understand the meaning of it by reading it?

The meaning of what, exactly?

[Dimensio]

Which in fact Evolution does not, simply because there has not been one example save the fruity flies or whatever, and the fact those species thought evolved still exist today...... The second definition,

I am unable to understand the meaning of this statement. If you are referring to fruit fly experiments, I do not understand how they falsify the theory of evolution. I also do not understand why you -- or any creationists -- believes that the existence of certain species once thought extinct is somehow a problem for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not state that species must die out or evolved into a significantly different form within a specific timeframe.

[taxesareforever]

A transposon found in both whales and cows, but not in hippos. Come again?

The first transposons were discovered in maize (Zea mays), (aka corn) by Barbara McClintock in 1948, for which she was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1983. She noticed insertions, deletions, and translocations, caused by these transposons. These changes in the genome could, for example, lead to a change in the color of corn kernels. About 50% of the total genome of maize consists of transposons. The Ac/Ds system McClintock described are class II transposons. One family of transposons in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster are called P elements. They seem to have first appeared in the species only in the middle of the twentieth century. Within 50 years, they have spread through every population of the species. Artificial P elements can be used to insert genes into Drosophila by injecting the embryo. For the use of P elements as a genetic tool see: "transposons as a genetic tool". Transposons in bacteria are also called insertion sequences. They usually carry an additional gene for a function other than transposase, often an antibiotic resistance. In bacteria, transposons can jump from the "regular" DNA to plasmids and back, allowing the transfer and permanent addition of, for example, antibiotic resistance, leading to multiresistant strains. Bacterial transposons of this type belong to the Tn family. The most common form of transposon in humans is the Alu sequence. The Alu sequence is approximately 300 bases long and can be found between 300,000 and a million times in the human genome.

[taxesareforever]

The theory of evolution does not state that species must die out or evolved into a significantly different form within a specific timeframe.

Now there's some factural information. The ToE doesn't state anything must happen. All it does is state hypothetical answers to questions that are raised as new issues continually appear. Their direction changes just like the wind as new finds turn up. Anything can be made to fit into the ToE since there are so many gaps that need filling.

[metmom]

What possible means could be used to determine that no intelligence is involved in such an event?

If you cannot provide a means for testing for intelligence -- test that would fail should intelligence not be involved -- then your claim is non-falsifiable, and as such not meaningful.

Again, throwing the burden of proof back on me to provide you with something to use instead of doing the work yourself. You can't provide an instance where order is demonstrated to arise from non-order without intelligence being involved where I can show you example after example of cases where order has clearly come from non-order that is known to have intelligence behind it. In other words, you can't do it; you can't falsify it. I rest my case.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The meaning of what, exactly?

The claim. As in...

I am asking metmom to show that the claim is meaningful by presenting a hypothetical example that, if observed, would show the claim to be false.

Aren't you aware of what you keep asking for, or do you forget from post to post? Why do you want a "hypothetical example that...would show the claim to be false" before you can establish that a statement is meaningful? Most people can figure out that, say, the claim "Ellsmere gravenly besotten, shores up the tidal shoals at midnoon" is meaningless, without having to ask for a "hypothetical example that would show the claim to be false."

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

your claim is non-falsifiable, and as such not meaningful.

What must daily life be like for the poor sods who actually believe this drivel? An exchange of sweet nothings between a darwinian and his popperite girlfriend...

"My sweetpea, my little cabbage, I shall make a claim now: I love you."

"I...? Love...? you...? Darling, you haven't supplied a way of falsifying that claim. As such it's meaningless. What are you trying to say, my big strong hunny?"

"Ah, my little radish, you forget the acid vat I keep downstairs for this very purpose! For at any moment, my love, I can toss you headfirst in it, and falsify my claim!!"

"Oh you big strong loveable brute! You think of everything! I understand now! You were saying you love me! I love it when you say you love me!"

[Dimensio]

Again, throwing the burden of proof back on me to provide you with something to use instead of doing the work yourself.

The burden of proof is upon you to show that your claim can be evaluated meaningfully. If it is impossible to determine that no intelligence is involved in a process of order from non-order, even when no intelligence is involved, then you cannot derive a meaningful statistic from your observation and any conclusions that you have drawn are invalid.

In other words, you can't do it; you can't falsify it.

Your claim has no established falsification criteria. You have refused to define paremeters for an observation that would falsify your claim. As such, your claim cannot be evaluated as meaningful, as all possible observations will satisfy your claim. That does not mean that you are correct, it only means that your claim cannot be evaluated in any meaningful way.

To compose another analogy, I can point out that some cases of human death are demonstratably the result of murder. I can also claim that it is always possible for cases of human death that do not appear to be murder to have actually been caused by human hands, but then expertly covered up; a car wreck could have been sabotage, and a heart attack could have been drug induced. As such, while there are cases of deaths that are known to be homicide, there are no known cases of deaths where homicide cannot be completely ruled out, as even without evidence of a homicide, there may have been a homicide covered up so well as to be undetectable. According to your reasoning, it is therefore logical to conclude that all deaths are the result of homicide.

[Dimensio]

How, exactly, does your brief overview of transposons address my statement?

[Dimensio]

Now there's some factural information. The ToE doesn't state anything must happen.

Non-sequitur. Strawman.

All it does is state hypothetical answers to questions that are raised as new issues continually appear.

Strawman. The theory of evolution has been used to make successful predictions.

Their direction changes just like the wind as new finds turn up.

Please support this claim with evidence.

Anything can be made to fit into the ToE since there are so many gaps that need filling.

Please explain the gaps that you claim exist.

[Dimensio]

What must daily life be like for the poor sods who actually believe this drivel? An exchange of sweet nothings between a darwinian and his popperite girlfriend...

It would appear that you are attempting to equate statements of affection with scientific explanations. Such a comparison creates an invalid analogy.

While it is possible to evaluate claims of love based upon known brain chemical respones that can be measured with current technology, I acknowledge that such techniques are rarely used regarding claims of love. As such, claims of love are non-falsifiable, and require "faith" of those hearing them. They are specific declarations not scientific claims nor claims of evidence, and cannot be evaluated by the same metric.

The claims of metmom are that Intelligent Design is supported by a series of observations. By refusing to demonstrate that the standard by which metmom evaluates these observations can, under any hypothetical circumstance, produce a result contrary to her claim, metmom demonstrates that the claim has no merit, as it is not actually a measure of evidence. Metmom is making a claim of evidence, when actually it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

claims of love are non-falsifiable

"Oh Janet, my sweetie-pie, my perky Popperite, I love you!"

"You don't mean that, do you? If you meant it, you would postulate a way to falsify it, hunny-cakes!"

"Ah, my round little pumpkin, you are forgetting the chainsaw I keep lying around for this very purpose! With a moment's notice, I can revv it up and mercilessly bisect you into a bloody mess, my love."

"Oh Darren you daring Darwinian! The falsification criteria has been met! You really do mean what you say! You really do love me!"

[Dimensio]

I am curious. Do you believe metmom's argument to be valid, or are you merely attempting to play semantic games?

[tgambill]

lololol....:) great....

[taxesareforever]

How, exactly, does your brief overview of transposons address my statement?

If you can't spot the falsity of your statement by what I sent there really is no need for me to explain it to you.