9
   

What is Proof?

 
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2018 08:56 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines of reasoning
.
This statement alone shows the inane logic youve employed to try and deny facts and EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence that disproves (or even questions)evolution.


Quote:
the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Your consistant hobby is to "Quote mine" and its almost felonious. Popper said that evolution IS falsifible by following the predictions that the underlying sciences make.

The latest big one was made late in the first decade of the new millenium. Neil Shubin, a paleontologist and dean of the U of Chicago School of medicine said that, if fossils showing the development of the transition of fish to amphibians do exist, they would be in a small segment of the Devonian sediments (Because there were not a lot of separate species of lobe finned fishes).

So the museum and the Philly Academy of SCience spent several million on some "Popperian expedition that would make or break the application of falsification in the targeting of the rise of amphibians"

These guys spent 3 years looking for what they expected to exist as a series of fossils of a fish that had a neck and the transition of fins to feet.
They went to Ellsmere Island and commited 3 years of summer field seasons, leaving families an vacations and careers behind and went a -digging and surveying. Late the third year they found a new pre tetrapod (they called it a "Fishapod") Tiktaliik Rosaea.

GUESS WHAT, Popper was right, falsifiability works (All you need is a little knowledge of its application and understanding what it says)

Falsification is the process of making a prediction based upon what the theory would predict. If that pprediction is rendered false or is supported are both applications of Carl's statement.
In one,falsification proves the prediction is false and other hypotheses must be chosen.
OR, as in the case of Tiktaliik rosaea, The prediction was RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

As I asked you many times---Tell me of ANY scientific discovery that was EVER made by employing Creationist thinking.
I can answer: NONE EXIST (you can continue denying the old Huttonian chestnut that, paraphrased by me, states, WHAT WORKS IS USUALLY WHATS RIGHT
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2018 09:04 am
@farmerman,
s its frequently said about ALL THEORIES in science."The only way to prove em is by NOT disproving em"
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2018 07:25 pm
@neologist,
Firstly - You cannot prove anything until you have defined it.
Secondly - You know this.
Thirdly - I can prove that you know this.
Finally - You now have the oppurtunity to prove me wrong.

Check out 'Nassim Haramein', neo:)
Great things forthcoming.

Guess why they never whacked Tesla?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Feb, 2018 05:45 pm
@farmerman,
gungasnake said
Quote:
Quote:
what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines of reasoning


Farmer said
Quote:
.
This statement alone shows the inane logic youve employed to try and deny facts and EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence that disproves (or even questions)evolution.
There is no evidence that disproves evolution, because evolution happens. That is the way all things develop whether its something man makes or God makes. The process is always the same, "complexity is added over time either by constant intelligent input, or by an algorithm of artificial intelligence that was initiated by intelligence at abiogenisis.

Quote:
Your consistant hobby is to "Quote mine" and its almost felonious. Popper said that evolution IS falsifible by following the predictions that the underlying sciences make.


Words mean things. People will say things like, "nature chose these characteristics by the natural process of evolution." That statement is true nature chose because nature is an algorithm of artificial intelligence programmed to chose.

Nobody will argue that natural selection is not random, and it is not capable of choosing. The question is, "how did matter arrange itself so perfectly in the quantum mechanics of the DNA of the natural world we observe that it can so perfectly add complexity and diversity, by using sequential processes that develop extreme complexity, without any further outside intelligent input?"

For an algorithm, of artificial intelligence capable of developing highly complex organisms, to come into existence by chance without intelligent origination is a possibility, but what is the possibility, and why can't we replicate it?

I think the statistical analysis of the chances of this algorithm arranging itself by chance fulfills Poppers falsifiability requirement because the chances are 1/a very huge number.
wiki on Popper
Quote:
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive; it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. To say that a given statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory)—call it "T"—is "falsifiable" does not mean that "T" is false. Rather, it means that, if "T" is false, then (in principle), "T" could be shown to be false, by observation or by experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that their theories are not falsifiable.


Solving this low probability problem by introducing an infinite number of universes we cannot see, goes against Poppers requirement that a theory be falsifiable to be scientific, because all science does is keep adding (they can be imaginary or real universes, it doesn't matter because we can't observe them) universes to the theory till that ratio of 1/a realy big number becomes manageable.

On the other hand I have argued that today the pattern holds true that all algorithms (order) are created by intelligence or artificial intellignce that was established by real intelligence. Most people agree with that statement. It is scientific. We have not observed order appearing without intelligent guidance but atheists speculate it happened in the past during the esablishment of the algorithm that established the laws of nature.

You keep providing proof through the fossil record that the algorithm of natural selection works. I think gungasnake would agree it works.

Your evidence that supports your theory makes two unfalsifiable assumptions. One is that the initiation of the algorithm of natural selection (artificial intelligence) breaks the pattern we observe today that, "all algorithms of complexity are created by intelligence." It is unfalsifiable because if there is an author to the information stored in the atoms and algorithms of the universe, logically he has to be outside the universe to initiate the organization of the information stored in the universe as it came into existence. That author would fit the characteristics of a person and would have to be searched for using methods that mainstream science is unwilling to use because, the search for a person that initiated the process, is different than a search for an understanding of the process and how it runs. The real person that did it might not be falsifiable if it is true that he or it exists.

Similarly, it is not falsifiable that I created this response, because it is a true fact that I typed it.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Feb, 2018 06:15 pm
@brianjakub,
still on the algorithm bus eh?
Write when you get work.

Quote:
The question is, "how did matter arrange itself so perfectly in the quantum mechanics of the DNA of the natural world we observe that it can so perfectly add complexity and diversity, by using sequential processes that develop extreme complexity, without any further outside intelligent input?"
.
Your biggest mistake is to assume that Matter arranges itself so perfectly when in the physical world, things like "defect lattices" are what allow us to mine gold from gangue. Fore eevery perect dodecahedron of garnet, are tens of thousands of triclinic or monoclinic "duds"(They arent duds they just xist in another plane of organization.

As far as Biology, we see that , in the non - coding mass of DNA there exists a genetic variability that is a mathematical function of the effective number of breeding organisms within a large population times an evolution factor , which is a function of the generational duration. BUT rather than achieving a number which should cluster about 0.04 to 0.06, we see lower numbers that yield to some factor of selection going on based on environmental conditions. For the coing mass of DNA we see that no neutral variability is ever predictable.

Adaptability or non-adaptability seems to be the engine of evolution and genetic variability is the fuel. Ive been watching data being recorded about Polar Bears. While many predict the demise oif thi entire species as it becomes a victim of summer ice-free condition that are becoming more frequent in the arctic.
Instead, what we are seeing is that some adaptability engine, fueled by the large number of regional individual populations of bears (each with what appears to be unique STR (short tandem repeat alleles-).. Several of these populations have begun successfully adapting to the conditions. One population hs learned to increase its swimming among open ice drifts and "sneaking up on seals like Killer whales do).
It appears that this will start with some behavioral modification and , maybe, several generations down the line, e will see more aquatic adaptation in polar bears than already exists (Remember , their generic species name is already Ursis maritimus).

Theres a lot of study being done in the recent fossil record where DNA can be extracted an studied along with the fossil structures and adaptability (and in the case of mammut and cave bear non-adaptability) can be reviewed




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Feb, 2018 04:28 am
@farmerman,
Maybe that was too inside but, as far a DNA goes, the molecule is ahuge mess. Several strands of DNA with extreme structure are often whats needsd to define a function. and the resulting phenotypic structure, since its always a modification of something thats already there, is more often a cluster **** of complex, kinda weird things, like the tongue of a woodpecker.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 09:11 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Your biggest mistake is to assume that Matter arranges itself so perfectly when in the physical world, things like "defect lattices" are what allow us to mine gold from gangue. Fore eevery perect dodecahedron of garnet, are tens of thousands of triclinic or monoclinic "duds"(They arent duds they just xist in another plane of organization.

As far as Biology, we see that , in the non - coding mass of DNA there exists a genetic variability that is a mathematical function of the effective number of breeding organisms within a large population times an evolution factor , which is a function of the generational duration. BUT rather than achieving a number which should cluster about 0.04 to 0.06, we see lower numbers that yield to some factor of selection going on based on environmental conditions. For the coing mass of DNA we see that no neutral variability is ever predictable.
Matter is arranged, (and so is the false vacuum of space we know as The higgs field, dark energy, and dark matter) that is not a mistake, that is a scientific fact. If it wasn't arranged it could not store energy in the form of information. (Which is the information necessary for quantum mechanics and relativity to function and support the chemcal processes necessary for chemistry DNA to operate.) It is your mistake, to assume the information stored as energy in matter and the false vacuum arranged itself, not mine.

So we have defects in the nearly perfect information stored in the matter and biology of the universe. That is to be expected. Even little ol' us are messing up the system every day. (look at climate change)

Quote:
As far as Biology, we see that , in the non - coding mass of DNA there exists a genetic variability that is a mathematical function of the effective number of breeding organisms within a large population times an evolution factor , which is a function of the generational duration. BUT rather than achieving a number which should cluster about 0.04 to 0.06, we see lower numbers that yield to some factor of selection going on based on environmental conditions. For the coing mass of DNA we see that no neutral variability is ever predictable.
You have proven to have an extremely highly developed understanding of the algorithms of DNA and natural selection. You teach me every time you respond. I almost always have to look something up.

Quote:
Adaptability or non-adaptability seems to be the engine of evolution and genetic variability is the fuel. Ive been watching data being recorded about Polar Bears. While many predict the demise oif thi entire species as it becomes a victim of summer ice-free condition that are becoming more frequent in the arctic.
All algorithms solve a problem. Natural selection of mutations or pre-programmed DNA are algorithms that do a very good job of solving the following problems :

1. How are species to survive as the environment changes.
2. How are correct species and environments always going to be there for all the symbiotic relationships necessary for complex ecosystems to survive.

Quote:
Adaptability or non-adaptability seems to be the engine of evolution and genetic variability is the fuel.
Survival is the driver of the algorithm of evolution through natural selection. It is the problem it was designed to solve. Genetic variability can be random or preprogrammed through latent DNA. (Everything has a purpose, even "defect lattices" teach us something.)

Quote:
Theres a lot of study being done in the recent fossil record where DNA can be extracted an studied along with the fossil structures and adaptability (and in the case of mammut and cave bear non-adaptability) can be reviewed


Once again you reveal your understanding of the algorithm evolution through natural selection.

Quote:
still on the algorithm bus eh?
Write when you get work.

Maybe we both should have gone into computer science. We both understand algorithms quite well. Fortunately, I've already have a job that pays six figures though.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 10:56 pm
@brianjakub,
oy, theres really no discussing with you. Im saddened that your mind is so ossified at an apparent young age. Asserting what "is" means that youve not carefully considered the range. Ive only been discussing aspects of your given hypotheses about "algorithms". YOUR paraphrased statement was not that components were "arranged" (of which I hve no argument Thats a Dr Obvious statement with which one can agree) You stated that matter was PERFECTLY arranged (which implies design, which implies designer) .

Ireally dont care about how you wish to arrive at some understanding of the structure of chemical matter , but it sure as hell isnt "Perfectly ARRANGED"

Youre just trying to modify your statemenst after being challenged with evidence from something as mundane as crystal structures. Id like you to define to me what the hell you mn by the term"information". eve gone back and forth and Im almost sur e to where you seem to arrive but Id like to know for sure.

Youre assertions about the "Algorithms" of biology are your statements not mine. I think you are all wet because when we see such variability in "variation indeces" all we can do is discover what an evolution rate nd output for a large population is. The only information is the way that we create it to try to quantify an index. Such "information" has been a pet assertion area of Intelligent Designers by discarding natural selection in favor of some neutral hypotheses to which all life supposedly responds.
Since w see that such IS NOT the case, we also see that variability rates and population structures change at different rates . By your definition, its really not "information" its random number generation, tht seems only to respond to the present environment/
Lifes too damned dynamic for us to try to pat it in place by some artificial (and rather simplistic) index.

No matter, good luck to your studies. Im almost sure that sooner or later you will exchange concepts of purpose and specified information driven life and look at random response driven organisms.





0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is Proof?
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/19/2018 at 08:06:46