Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not the meaning of "falsification" though, we must consider any observation that's inconsistent, that's what matters.

(Those are the same thing)

Meaning, that's HOW you attempt to falsify something. Which is really all the scientific method is.

Every fossil we dig up tests the theory. Every genetic test. Every description of physiology of any species, extant or extinct. Every time we find a new species, the theory is tested.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

(Those are the same thing)

Meaning, that's HOW you attempt to falsify something. Which is really all the scientific method is.

Every fossil we dig up tests the theory. Every genetic test. Every description of physiology of any species, extant or extinct. Every time we find a new species, the theory is tested.

Well your post said that evolution could be falsified by "Mammal fossils found in the Cambrian" which while true is - IMHO - misleading, it seems to imply that unless we find some "thing", the evolution hypothesis stands. But the Cambrian is falsified not by what is found but by what isn't found.

For evolution to be a true explanation for the Cambrian, then each of the many phyla must have had ancestors in common at some point in the past. Consider the phylum Arthropoda and its origins:

It has been proposed that the Ediacaran animals Parvancorina and Spriggina, from around 555 million years ago, were arthropods, but later study shows that their affinities of being origin of arthropods are not reliable. Small arthropods with bivalve-like shells have been found in Early Cambrian fossil beds dating 541 to 539 million years ago in China and Australia. The earliest Cambrian trilobite fossils are about 520 million years old, but the class was already quite diverse and worldwide, suggesting that they had been around for quite some time.

This is one of the problems in the Cambrian, we find multiple variants of a phylum, richly developed complex animals in many cases, but we find no ancestors, like Trilobites (an arthropod), there are many of those, fossils all over the place but although we find a multitude of variant Trilobites we never find evidence of long ancestral presence.

The evidence of the fossil record is that complex animals containing a vast array of already evolved biological features, just appear out of nowhere, this is why they call it an "explosion" it is the antithesis of gradual of continuous, it is characterized by discontinuity.

Remember almost all phyla we see today can be traced to the Cambrian, the first "versions" of each phyla just appear in the record, fully developed, differing markedly from other phyla, a highly diversified fossil array with no trace of common ancestral fossils and no credible explanation for that absence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well your post said that evolution could be falsified by "Mammal fossils found in the Cambrian" which while true is - IMHO - misleading, it seems to imply that unless we find some "thing", the evolution hypothesis stands

Which is true. Because of the mountains of mutually supportive evidence we have already found. It's not a "nascent" theory.

And by "mountains of evidence", I mean every shred of evidence ever found and every observation ever taken.


Same goes for the Theory of Electromagnetism. I mean, feel free to stick a fork in an electrical outlet to try to produce an "inconsistent observation", but I would not recommend it.

Yes, it's quite safe to call the Theory of Evolution a fact. Some theories are true. True things are facts.

The Theory of Evolution can safely be called a fact. As safely as saying the Earth revolves about the Sun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence of the fossil record is that complex animals containing a vast array of already evolved biological features, just appear out of nowhere

This is a misrepresentation. They did not "appear out of nowhere". The species from which they evolved are generally well known and are preserved in the fossil record.

Your use of that phrase demonstrates a lack of understanding about the theory. Every time we find a fossil with the earliest known example of a physiological trait, it's the "earliest we know of" this trait existing in nature.

That doesn't mean it "came from nowhere". In fact, the consistency of only finding this trait after a certain point in time demonstrates VERY WELL that the trait evolved from earlier species.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which is true. Because of the mountains of mutually supportive evidence we have already found. It's not a "nascent" theory.

And by "mountains of evidence", I mean every shred of evidence ever found and every observation ever taken.


Same goes for the Theory of Electromagnetism. I mean, feel free to stick a fork in an electrical outlet to try to produce an "inconsistent observation", but I would not recommend it.

Yes, it's quite safe to call the Theory of Evolution a fact. Some theories are true. True things are facts.

The Theory of Evolution can safely be called a fact. As safely as saying the Earth revolves about the Sun.

In the presence of a falsifying observation, prior consistent observations carry no weight, they are irrelevant. To argue that evolution can be regarded as a "fact" is to stop doing science, as soon as you regard a trusted theory as a fact you've come off the rails. To call any hypothesis a "fact" is to claim it cannot be falsified and that's not a theory any more it's a belief.

Look at Newtonian Gravitation, that was regarded by many (I hope you'll agree) as a fact, it was well tested and predictions based upon the model were always very close to observation, it was cherished and admired as a fundamental part of nature, true beyond doubt, that was the case from 1687 up until around 1846 (when Verriere became concerned) when it was realized that observations were inconsistent with Newton.

We now know why, we know that Newton's theory his entire model of mechanics was flawed, and it is recognized as a falsified theory.

So regarding a theory as a fact is unwise at best and unscientific at worst.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is a misrepresentation. They did not "appear out of nowhere". The species from which they evolved are generally well known and are preserved in the fossil record.

Your use of that phrase demonstrates a lack of understanding about the theory. Every time we find a fossil with the earliest known example of a physiological trait, it's the "earliest we know of" this trait existing in nature.

That doesn't mean it "came from nowhere". In fact, the consistency of only finding this trait after a certain point in time demonstrates VERY WELL that the trait evolved from earlier species.

I say "out of nowhere" to convey the mystery, the event is called "explosion" by paleontologists, they regard it as exceptional, rapid, unannounced by any prior fossil evidence. If it weren't extraordinary if it wasn't rapid or discontinuous then why would the paleontologists call it an "explosion"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In the presence of a falsifying observation, prior consistent observations carry no weight, they are irrelevant.

And in the absence of a falsifying observation, once mountains of evidence have been collected, it's safe to call a theory "true".

You're starting to flame out a bit. Your overly general arguments can be reduced to, "No theory can be confidrntly regarded as true". Which is obviously absurd, prima facie.

We now know why, we know that Newton's theory his entire model of mechanics was flawed, and it is recognized as a falsified theory.

This is totally false. Newton's theory is quite accurate and useful, on certain scales. The later theories COMPLETELY RELY on Newton's mechanics beong 100% true, at those appropriate scales.

Eistein's theories rely on Newton's equations and theory being true. He simply added the idea of the speed of light being the same in all frames. Then he figured the results of this, as applied to Newton's mechanics.

I say "out of nowhere" to convey the mystery

No, you say "out of nowhere" to expand the mystery into territory where it does not exist. It's an appeal to emotion. And it is false.

This isn't my first rodeo, you know.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is from the BBC's In Our Time academic round table discussion show.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 993960

What is the point of posting that?

How about you choose one of those questions and present it. Then, you describe what you have learned and not learned, when looking into it yourself.

Then maybe even make a clear and succinct point about it.

Then we will scrutinize what you have presented.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And in the absence of a falsifying observation, once mountains of evidence have been collected, it's safe to call a theory "true".

You're starting to flame out a bit. Your overly general arguments can be reduced to, "No theory can be confidrntly regarded as true". Which is obviously absurd, prima facie.

At what point do you decide that a theory can be regarded as "true" what conditions must a belief meet to be regarded as true, to be unquestionable? Bear in mind too, that like you, the Catholic officials overseeing Galileo also claimed to know universal truth.

This is totally false. Newton's theory is quite accurate and useful, on certain scales. The later theories COMPLETELY RELY on Newton's mechanics beong 100% true, at those appropriate scales.

Eistein's theories rely on Newton's equations and theory being true.

Are you claiming that Newton's theory of universal gravitation has not been falsified? let me get this straight, is that what you assert? Also general relativity does not "rely" on Newton's gravitational model or equations. It is a completely different, completely incompatible model.

No, you say "out of nowhere" to expand the mystery into territory where it does not exist. It's an appeal to emotion. And it is false.

It's a metaphor, I never intended it to be taken as a literal claim although one could, I do not. The cambrian fauna does appear abruptly in the fossil record, ask a paleontologist.

This isn't my first rodeo, you know.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What is the point of posting that?

It's interesting, relevant to the thread's topic.

How about you choose one of those questions and present it. Then, you describe what you have learned and not learned, when looking into it yourself.

Then maybe even make a clear and succinct point about it.

Then we will scrutinize what you have presented.

No, I think I'll do what I want to do actually.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At what point do you decide that a theory can be regarded as "true"

You tell me. When is the last time you jumped off your roof, thinking you might fall up?

When is the last time you stuck a fork in an electrical outlet?

Why is the quantum mechanical device in your hands working as it should? Why aren't you using smoke signals, or carrier pigeons?

Clearly you admit some theories are true.

So, you tell me.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You tell me. When is the last time you jumped off your roof, thinking you might fall up?

So you don't know. You say a theory can under some circumstances be regarded as a fact but do not know those circumstances. When something is a fact it can no longer be questioned, facts are always true, so to elevate a theoretical model to the status of an unquestionable dogma, is not science it's dogma and makes you no intellectually better than the Catholic authorities (aka truth police) that hounded Galileo.

When is the last time you stuck a fork I'm an electrical outlet?

You're confusing an observable phenomenon with a theory that explains that phenomenon. I do not doubt that I'd die if I jumped and I'd likely die if I stuck a metal fork into the outlet. I don't doubt that Cambrian fossils exist, I doubt the explanation offered, big difference.

Why is the quantum mechanical device in your hands working as it should? Why aren't you using smoke signals, or carrier pigeons?

Because nature has the remarkable property of being rationally intelligible.

Clearly you admit some theories are true.

Not me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don't know.

And you don't either.

So why do you think you have scored a point? Just like me, you accept that some theories are facts. But you don't know how and when exactly they became facts.

See? Another overly general, useless line of argument. Just as useless as your overly general arguments that no theory can be a fact. Yet there you are, accepting some theories as fact.

So you see the inherent incoherence in the things you are doing and saying. They simply.make no sense, when put next to each other, nor do they speak with any specificty to any single theory.

It's a very tired and dusty old tactic, you know. You are far from the first to try it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And you don't either.

So why do you think you have scored a point? Just like me, you accept that some theories are facts. But you don't know how and when exactly they became facts.

I do not accept any theory as a fact, that's you who broached that idea.

See? Another overly general, useless line of argument. Just as useless as your overly general arguments that no theory can be a fact. Yet there you are, accepting some theories as fact.

What are you talking about? in which post did you read that I did this "Yet there you are, accepting some theories as fact"?

So you see the inherent incoherence in the things you are doing and saying. They simply.make no sense, when put next to each other, nor do they speak with any specificty to any single theory.

It's a very tired and dusty old tactic, you know. You are far from the first to try it.

Weird, very weird.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do not accept any theory as a fact

Yes you do.

You accept some theories as true.

True things are facts.

Your strange aversion to the word "fact" is your problem to work through, not mine.

What are you talking about? in which post did you read that I did this "Yet there you are, accepting some theories as fact"?

I listed several examples. Please reread.

Your tactic is tired and old. "I will try to cast doubt on a single theory i dont like by arguing that no theory can be regarded as true".

Useless piffle.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes you do.

You accept some theories as true.

Which theories do you think I accept as true?

True things are facts.

Your strange aversion to the word "fact" is your problem to work through, not mine.



I listed several examples. Please reread.

Your tactic is tired and old. "I will try to cast doubt on a single theory i dont like by arguing that no theory can be regarded as true".

Useless piffle.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which theories do you think I accept as true?

I am not going to go in circles with you. This has already been described, with examples. Please reread.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am not going to go in circles with you. This has already been described, with examples. Please reread.

Yes I'd prefer you to not go in circles and simply substantiate the lie that I ever asserted any theory was a fact, I never did, you are a liar, I've asked you three times to prove I said that and you refuse, you had your chance and so now I am prepared to call you a liar just another dishonest debater.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes I'd prefer you to not go in circles and simply substantiate the lie that I ever asserted any theory was a fact

I never said you stated that.

I argued it as true, using your own actions.

This conversation is turning onto a series of me correcting your half truths and falsehoods. As expected.

Anyone can read the thread to see where and when I did that. You definitely accept some theories as true.

Regardless, your overly general arguments that no theory can ge regarded as true are obviously absurd. Your reliance on the idea of all theories being equal is absurd. Your reliance on the idea that all theories must be regarded as "possible, but not true" due to the possibility of future, inconsistent observations is absurd.

For a self teaching example, apply that idea to the Theory of Electromagnetism. You will learn a valuable lesson on your dishonest tactics.