You are correct. I respect K. Popper, but he is wrong
In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur,
Posted on 01/26/2006 11:47:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
To suggest that someone is claiming that there if "proof" out there, that evolution is false, is a bit like verbally shoving someone out on a limb, with one hand, and with a sharp saw in the other. It is fun, but well, not particularly illuminating. :) Would it not be fairer to say that the theory like completeness, in the sense of having evidentiary props to address every conundrum or curiousity which pops up along the way, while pointing out that nothing else out there looks more promising within the realm of science?
Do we not have proof that the earth is a near sphere, or is that just a theory buttressed by compelling evidence? Is proof just a legal and mathmatical term (meaning by the way quite different things in each)?
It looks like the answer you got from your other addressee makes Darwinism unfalsifiable.
"lacks completeness"
How would we differentiate between the two? ;)
Protoamines can fulfill the function of histones in some situations, and there is evidence that protoamines are evolutionarily related to H1 histones. In addition, although histones are highly conserved, they do still diverge as you look at older and older creatures, which is exactly what we should expect to see in an evolutionary scenario - the question isn't "why don't they diverge at all?", but rather "why don't they diverge more than they do?" If there was no divergence in any creature, that would be an anomaly that we would be hard-pressed to explain in evolutionary terms, but that's not the case - there's not much variation from one mammal to another, slightly more variation between plants and animals, and more variation still between mammals and, say, archaebacteria, which is, again, what we should expect to find, given what we already know about the relationships between those groups.
Now, the reason I ask, with a wink and a smile, how we'd differentiate between theory and speculation is that there's very much a speculative element to it. We do know that structures are co-opted into new functions all the time - we see it over and over again. We do know that there's a relationship between this structure and another, similar structure. We do know that the variation tracks the relationships between organisms that we've established through other means. Does this mean that we can say with certainty that this is how it actually, in fact, happened? No. We are talking about singular events, in the distant past, to which no one was a witness - we do not, and cannot know for a fact whether the development of life followed our neat little trees to the letter, and in fact it's exceedingly likely that they did not, that we have omitted many details of which we are unaware. This is an area where evolution advocates are occasionally guilty of overstating their case.
On the other hand, it is certainly plausible that histones followed a path like this in their evolutionary development, and it is definitely possible for them to have done so, and what many anti-evolution advocates have trouble understanding is that when you're confronted with the claim that it is absolutely, flat-out impossible for them to have evolved, as Hoyle claims, showing the mere possibility is enough to refute such a claim.
In science, the standard is the preponderance of evidence. Sometimes, with a great deal of time and evidence, where objections have been examined and found wanting, we get as far as beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, but of course that's hardly "proof" in and of itself, despite the legal profession's claims otherwise ;)
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the theory has not been falsified because it is, in fact, correct.
It is a pettifogger's attack to say otherwise -- and Darwinism is full of such pettifoggery.
But don't just take MY word that there is in meaning in the term "scientific proof" -- see for example the discussion of proof and evidence by Miller and MillerOn Evidence, Medical and Legal
Excerpt:
The Scientific Standard of ProofNow then the two Millers engage the term rationally, like adults. Can you? Though it is a challenge, I think you can meet it. Best regards!Science prizes objective certainty. For a hypothesis to be proved, or a theory to become theorem, [ideally] the evidence supporting it must be irrefutable. But science does not uniformly adhere to this standard. Subjective opinions and consensus among scientists often supersede the stricture of irrefutability.
Hence, scientific standards of proof are not uniform and well defined, in contrast to legal standards. Standards of measurement, ways of reporting and evaluating results, and particular types of experimental practices vary. As a result, there is no simple and reducible algorithm against which “good” science can be evaluated.
[Note: "ideally" and italics added by bvw.]
In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.
- Karl Popper
It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.
- Albert Einstein
You might consider actually understanding statements rather than blindly reacting to them. In your case, a flight of fancy is neither a theory nor falsifiable. It is merely a flight of fancy --- "homologs such as the protamines may well have served some entirely different function before doing what histones do now. A minor change to that homolog, and presto - histones."
Why do you trap yourself and seek to trap others? I gave one example of many that can be found by a person looking for truth. And Karl Popper, while wise to a point, is the NOT "One King Alone" in regards to defining what science is. What authority gave him such license? None! Take your idols of pettifoggery to the pit and throw them down, already!
There is no proof. I am sorry that this apparently offends you, but that is the case - as with most of life, there is no proof, only evidence and theories to explain that evidence.
You are correct. I respect K. Popper, but he is wrong
In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur,
No, it doesn't. It is no more an explanation than gremlins are.
Except, of course, that we've seen events such as I describe before, which makes them just a bit more plausible than gremlins. But if you don't want to see, I suppose you won't see.
So ultra-extremely improbable is not a working practical definition of impossible, either?
There is a meaningful word "proof", and a meaningful, useful and understandable term called "scientific proof".
You should probably consider it a weakness in your argument if you have to redefine words - "proof" or "impossible", for example - to make it go.
One held exclusively by you, apparently. Oh, and the lawyer. Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
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.