|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2005 : 07:29:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What is responsible for these speciation? HYBRID probably believes it's caused by aliens from an other galaxy. A theist will obviously suggest God.
That is a wonderful question. It is such a wonderful question that no one really knows a satisfactory answer, IMHO. There have of course been dozens of answers.
Of all those dozens of alternatives, Occam's Razor has been used to cut away, and peel off practically all of them...
All that is left is "mutations in the DNA has changed species".
They have micro-evolved into a new species. It's the answer with most complying evidence, and none against, and it's at the same time the most elegant answer: as such, it is to me, a satisfactory answer.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 14:16:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I disagree. You can poke holes in theories without having to provide another theory to replace it. If you see something wrong with a theory, then you point it out.
That is only half the process. And you will be dismissed unless you can explain why it is wrong. Contained in the explanation of "why" there is the "improved" explanation of the facts.
There is an important distinction to make here. You can always question the validity of a "fact" or "observation" without presenting a better one. The meothods of obtaining observations are varied and always subject to some ammount of error. What I'm talking about is the theory, the explanation of the observations. If you find new evidence which precludes your old theory, then the new theory is implicated by the new evidence. Even if it isn't fully understood right away.
quote:
Imagine if today, we found that DNA can mutate, but only to a certain limit. This would make macro evolution impossible. Would we still say that macro evolution is responsible for the diversity life, even though we know it is bunk, just because we have yet to come up with another theory?
A poor analogy, for several reasons. Mutation is only one of the ways in which alleles shift frequency. We are aware of other causes.
I think what you were trying to say is that is we suddenly found that DNA could only "change" to a certain limit. If such an observation were made, and validated, then the understanding of that mechanism would lead to a change in the theory that we currently use to explain how species change over time.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 14:31:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is only half the process. And you will be dismissed unless you can explain why it is wrong. Contained in the explanation of "why" there is the "improved" explanation of the facts.
The why does not have to contain a new explanation (theory). It might just be a new observation (fact). An example: Old theory states: gravity is caused by invisible elastic bands attached between every object and the ground. The observation that people swinging knives wildly under falling objects does not stop the objects falling falsifies the theory. We don't have to propose that invisibe springs ABOVE the falling objects push them down, or anything else for that matter.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 21:59:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The why does not have to contain a new explanation (theory). It might just be a new observation (fact). An example: Old theory states: gravity is caused by invisible elastic bands attached between every object and the ground. The observation that people swinging knives wildly under falling objects does not stop the objects falling falsifies the theory. We don't have to propose that invisibe springs ABOVE the falling objects push them down, or anything else for that matter.
If you have a theory that is well supported by evidence, unlike the ridiculous example you create above, when you supplant the facts that support that theory with new facts that preclude the old theory... the new theory will be implicated by them (the new facts), even if you don't understand all of it at first.
I'm not disagreeing with the essence of what you guys are saying, just that you are stopping one step short. Yes, if you have an observation that excludes the explanation suggested by a current theory, then you cast doubt on that theory. But no holes are poked until you can cogently explain your new observation and you don't actually defeat or replace the old theory until you take your new observations and build a theory from them that better accounts for all the known evidences.
Am I making any sense here? hehe
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 14:05:54 [Permalink]
|
I think what Dude is saying is that you don't abandon a theory as well-supported as Evolution without first coming up with a better alternative. In the gravity rubber band analogy, the theory is so simple that it is easily disproven. Evolution is much more complex and malleable, so it would require either literally an unimaginable amount of new data so wildly inconsistent with the theory as to make it irreconcilable (hypothetically possible, but extremely unlikely), or a better theory to replace it. The second option is the norm, since scientific theories usually aren't adopted in the first place without being extremely applicable and productive.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Back to my example. I discover that DNA can mutate, but only within a certain limits. We agree that this falsifies macro evolution, do we not?
No, not at all. It would falsify DNA mutation as a mechanism for evolution, but again, that evolution occurs would not be in doubt. Remember, Darwin proposed his theory before anything about genetics was ever known. The observations that led to his theory would still require an explanation, and the theory of Evolution would remain the best explanation available, even if it is somehow shown that DNA mutation cannot account for the process.
quote:
Do you really think scientists would keep saying evolution is true until another theory comes along?
Yes. One only has to look at Newtonian physics at the turn of the last century. Scientists knew that their math was failing to explain observations from distant space. None of them suggested chucking out the whole thing out until Einstein's Theory of Relativity came along to correct their figures.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/26/2005 14:13:47 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 14:47:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you have a theory that is well supported by evidence, unlike the ridiculous example you create above, when you supplant the facts that support that theory with new facts that preclude the old theory... the new theory will be implicated by them (the new facts), even if you don't understand all of it at first.
It might be that the new facts imply a new theory, but if I don't understand all of it, and above all, if I don't actually propose another theory, then I hardly have a new theory. What I have is a theory found wanting (the old one that has now been falsified).
quote:
I'm not disagreeing with the essence of what you guys are saying, just that you are stopping one step short. Yes, if you have an observation that excludes the explanation suggested by a current theory, then you cast doubt on that theory. But no holes are poked until you can cogently explain your new observation and you don't actually defeat or replace the old theory until you take your new observations and build a theory from them that better accounts for all the known evidences.
Am I making any sense here? hehe
quote:
I think what Dude is saying is that you don't abandon a theory as well-supported as Evolution without first coming up with a better alternative. In the gravity rubber band analogy, the theory is so simple that it is easily disproven. Evolution is much more complex and malleable, so it would require either literally an unimaginable amount of new data so wildly inconsistent with the theory as to make it irreconcilable (hypothetically possible, but extremely unlikely), or a better theory to replace it. The second option is the norm, since scientific theories usually aren't adopted in the first place without being extremely applicable and productive.
If a new observation falsifies a theory, then a hole has been poked - whether or not I propose a new theory (there is always, of course, the possibility that the observation was wrong).
Whether or not the theory is well supported does not really matter. If it's falsified, then it's falsified.
Please note, though, that falsifying a theory does not automatically mean that it has to be fully discarded. A slight modification might be all that is needed. As an example, although Einstein falsified Newtons law of gravity, the law was not discarded. It was modified so that it only applies when objects are not travelling near the speed of light. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 15:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
If a new observation falsifies a theory, then a hole has been poked - whether or not I propose a new theory (there is always, of course, the possibility that the observation was wrong).
Whether or not the theory is well supported does not really matter. If it's falsified, then it's falsified.
Yes, but does falsifying one portion of a theory falsify the entire theory? I would say no. You seem to be implying it would.
I think there are several supporting lines of evidence in any scientific theory. Knocking out one wouldn't necessarily falsify the entire thing. So what's the tipping point at which a theory becomes no longer viable? I think that it's different for each theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I think I understand now. Are you trying to say this:
When you have a part of a theory that you know is wrong, then you don't throw the entire theory out, as it may only need some adjustments. Instead, you must try to make those adjustments while coming up with new theories, and only once a new theory is found to be better, can the old be thrown out.
That's exactly right. Or at least, that was my point. (I don't want to speak for Dude.) Even if you know a theory is flawed, you can use it as a framework to build upon if there is still much about the theory that is useful. Discarding the entire thing and starting from scratch would most likely be unproductive.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/26/2005 15:14:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 20:03:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, but does falsifying one portion of a theory falsify the entire theory? I would say no. You seem to be implying it would.
I think there are several supporting lines of evidence in any scientific theory. Knocking out one wouldn't necessarily falsify the entire thing. So what's the tipping point at which a theory becomes no longer viable? I think that it's different for each theory.
...
Even if you know a theory is flawed, you can use it as a framework to build upon if there is still much about the theory that is useful. Discarding the entire thing and starting from scratch would most likely be unproductive.
Don't confuse "false" with "not useful."
In an absolutely strict logical sense, Einstein falsified classical physics, because it strictly is not true that the mass of objects doesn't change based on their velocity. For a given mass and acceleration, you need to apply a certain amount of force, yes. But Einstein showed that for "normal" objects, if you want to double the acceleration, you need to more than double the force (waaay down in the tiny decimals, but the difference is not zero).
But classical physics is still highly useful, as nobody really gives a hoot that a NASCAR vehicle is 64 quadrillionths of an inch shorter when going 200 MPH than it is at rest. Similarly, when you're sucking down several dozen gallons of fuel over the course of a race, a few extra femtoliters due to the car's increased mass doesn't much matter. Who the hell cares?
Is classical physics strictly false? Yes. Is it so false that one needs to calculate gamma on the fly to win Talladega? Hardly.
Anyway, it's important to note that the validity of a theory doesn't necessarily mean that all of its predictions are incorrect. False theories can still be useful. And some true theories are worthless (those which explain the obvious, for example). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 20:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Don't confuse "false" with "not useful."
Ok, I get that "false" in the strict logical sense means that if any part is false, the entire thing is false. I was just asking if that definition was applicable to (all) scientific theories.
Even though classical physics was my own example, it is different in that it's more or less strictly mathematical, unlike Evolution. So perhaps classical physics can be falsified in a way that Evolution cannot. I mean, Evolution proposes several things, the main thrust of which is "organisms change over time." Is there really any single "hole" that one could poke in Evolution that would falsify all of it in the same way that classical physics was falsified?
I'm not arguing that Evolution can't be falsified (lest anyone pounce on that), I'm just wondering whether the same standards apply. Let me give one example to show what I'm thinking about. Classic physics described properties of all objects, and so one instance of an object doing something else is enough to falsify the theory. But in evolution there are several examples of organisms that remain virtually unchanged in the geological record, yet they do not falsify the theory.
Do you see what I mean? Evolution seems like a fundamentally different beast to me.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2005 01:11:33 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 23:28:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you see what I mean? Evolution seems like a fundamentally different beast to me.
It is.
And yes, you have clarified what I was trying to say somewhat.
With theories as complex as the ToE, even comming up with solid evidence that one of the mechanism isn't as important to the theory as we currently think it is, does not change the very basic observation that species change over time. Because our understanding is incomplete we expect the theories to shift as we learn more.
The type of observation that would throw a serious kink into the working of the current ToE is something like a cambrian reptile, or a devonian mammal. But even such a find would not falsify the observation that species change over time.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 00:33:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
If a new observation falsifies a theory, then a hole has been poked - whether or not I propose a new theory (there is always, of course, the possibility that the observation was wrong).
Whether or not the theory is well supported does not really matter. If it's falsified, then it's falsified.
quote:
H. Humbert wrote:
Yes, but does falsifying one portion of a theory falsify the entire theory? I would say no. You seem to be implying it would.
No. In the next two sentences I wrote "Please note, though, that falsifying a theory does not automatically mean that it has to be fully discarded. A slight modification might be all that is needed."
quote:
H. Humbert wrote:
Even if you know a theory is flawed, you can use it as a framework to build upon if there is still much about the theory that is useful. Discarding the entire thing and starting from scratch would most likely be unproductive.
It might be unproductive to start from scratch, unless the theory is seriously flawed to start with.
quote:
Dave W. wrote:
Don't confuse "false" with "not useful."
But classical physics is still highly useful...
Indeed. Don't they still use Newtonian physics to calculate orbits and stuff for space missions?
quote:
Dude wrote:
With theories as complex as the ToE, even comming up with solid evidence that one of the mechanism isn't as important to the theory as we currently think it is, does not change the very basic observation that species change over time. Because our understanding is incomplete we expect the theories to shift as we learn more.
The type of observation that would throw a serious kink into the working of the current ToE is something like a cambrian reptile, or a devonian mammal. But even such a find would not falsify the observation that species change over time.
Quite right. Falsifying ToE is not easy. It contains several components (sub-theories?), and falsifying one does not necessarily falsify all of it. The devonian bunny would seriously imply that the theory of common descent is wrong (or that geological theories are wrong, I suppose). Other parts of ToE might still stand.
But, let's for arguments sake say that a devonian bunny was found (with no apparent ancestors). Do you think that the theory of common descent would be cast in doubt? Do you think you need to propose a new theory if the old one is discarded?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 01:23:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
H. Humbert wrote:
Yes, but does falsifying one portion of a theory falsify the entire theory? I would say no. You seem to be implying it would.
No. In the next two sentences I wrote "Please note, though, that falsifying a theory does not automatically mean that it has to be fully discarded. A slight modification might be all that is needed."
I'm sorry but this is still unclear to me. You are saying that a falsified theory can still be useful, but that isn't exactly what I asked. Perhaps a better question is this: Do you consider a theory that is falsified only in part to be a "falsified theory?"
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2005 01:31:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
