I am adding a third thread of concurrent questions.
If you were to find that abiogenesis were found to be impossible or find that protein domain evolution (the many modern protein domains each arising de novo from similar nucleotide sequences or random sequences of nucleotides) to be impossible, would you concede that evolution is not a sufficient explanation for modern diverse life?
no, i would not. my response about abiogenesis is above. but on a higher level, it is not enough to find hypotheses in a theory incorrect. a better supported theory must be presented in its place.
I am not saying evolution is not falsifiable. the very definition of a scientific theory is that there must be tests run on hypothesis that could invalidate the ideap proposed. If there are enough of them demonstrating the many hypotheses supporting evolution are false, then evolution would be rejected as a theory. the thing that would need to happen is a new, better supported theory would need to be presented.
BTW, this is 1 reason why ID fails as scientific theory. science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
This query is not close to being closed yet.
While your response suggests it, I presume you do not claim that all a theory requires to be held valid is merely the lack of a better theory.
I will rephrase the question.
If a theory describing a phenomenon requires a process which turns out proven to be impossible, is the theory still a valid theory?
Or must it be abandoned in search of another?
I am not suggesting that abiogenesis has already been proven impossible, I am asking if you would abandon evolution if the scientific community determines that abiogenesis is impossible. (evolution and abiogenesis are different things)
In other words, do phenomena exist for which we have no theory?
i thought you suggested the first query was closed and i was agreeing to that. maybe i dont understand the process or maybe the response i gave posted to the wrong line?
no problem.
There are currently 3 Socratic Queries and indented under each there are Responses
The first query is above: and copied here
1) natural selection of random variations certainly do produce diverse species and
2) that while the process of abiogenesis may not be known, it certainly did take place with out extra natural intervention. and
3) the level of certainty for these two facts are on the same level as our confidence in the current understanding of gravity.
To Tom wrote yesterday
ok cool. this one is closed.
Now I intend to build on our agreement on that point further queries point by point.
It may not seem like its leading anywhere, but I am playing the role of the refuter so I should have a point by point plan leading toward agreement. If I don't then I won't be able to make my point.
This query poses a hypothetical question in its Socratic Query header. See above
Hypotheses come before theories. It would be better to say that "Phenomena exist for which we have no well-supported hypotheses." Evolution is built from a huge collection of hypotheses. the more well-supported hypotheses a theory has, the stronger the theory. Evolution is one of the strongest theories we have.
To replace an existing theory, it is not enough to say some of the hypotheses are not well-supported. a new, better supported theory must also be put forth.
If a hypothesis is proven poorly supported, it must be abandoned and an new hyopthesis needs to be researched.
Demonstraing something is scientifically "impossible" is a tricky statement. it use to be impossible for man to fly. then, we figured out how the laws of nature governing flight. what do you mean by "impossible"?
While flying might have been thought impossible by many, no thinkers through out history declared it so. They held the possibility open. From Da Vinci all the way back to stories of Icarus
On the other hand we can know with great certainty that aeronautical flight controls are impossible in space.
To keep this query on track, let us first agree on our definition of the collection of hypothesis which we include in "evolution" That way neither of can wiggle out of something with. "but I wasn't talking about that, it was something else"
Can we agree that "evolution" is confined to the theory that natural selection acts on random variations favoring only those variations which increase self reproduction?
So that from now on, "evolution" includes any group of notions, by what ever designation, which support this theory.
Heres a definition of evolutionary theory I am comfortable with:
- evolution: organisms change through time
- decent with modification: evolution proceeds through the branching of common decent
- Either or both: gradualism (slow, steady change) or punctuated equilibrium (long periods of calm with brief periods of rapid change)just which or both is right is unsettled in the scientific community.
- Multiplication: evolution produces increasing numbers of new species
- natural selection: populations tend to increase geometrically; the environment limits the population it can support; the result is a struggle for survival; there is variation in every species; in the struggle for survival, individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals less well adpated
* paraphrasing from Ernst Mayr
These are all observations. "evolution produces" "populations tend to" A theory on the other hand attempts explanation of the process.
So to bring it back to the question of response 6, can we agree that the theory of evolution is that the forces of nature act to select for random variations of organisms which endow greater reproductive ability.
If we can agree what a theory is we can bring it back round to closing the subject of this query.
I'm not sure how to respond to you dismissing the definition. I think it is a fair one. It describes all of the things that occur in evolution. I had to paraphrase somewhat to get it to fit in the limited number of words. What I was aiming for was a more complete definition over what you had offered.
We are making progress. In Q1 we established that you claim diverse life today arose by natural means entirely requiring no extra natural involvement.
We are close to establishing your definition of the theory regarding how that happened without extra natural involvement.
We still need to close Q2 where we establish your criteria for a "good" theory
When we establish that, I intend to show that the theory you describe in Q3 does not satisfy your own criteria from Q2.
So you have a heads up. Find a description of evolution and criteria for "good" theory that are consistent.
Work it one question at a time. We can stay on Q3 until we have it worked out to your satisfaction. That is what Socratic method is all about. Working toward resolution to the satisfaction of the afirmer.
So, I am still content that my paraphrased defintion of evolution is sound. To the best of my knowledge, the elements in the defintion have predictable, verifiable results supporting the theory and no other theory have more support therfore qualifying for supplanting the theory.
I am concerned with your use of "proven" or "good" as descriptor of how well supported a theory is. These are irrelevant terms with regard to judging a scientific theory.
OK. Well let's nail down the theory as you believe it to be.
In your response 7 you rehearse 5 statements. Four of them are just more detailed versions of the first "- evolution: organisms change through time"
Do you agree that this is merely an observation, not an explanation for how or which natural forces cause the observations?
If we agree on this, we can move on to the 5th and to "proven" or "good"
Dictionary definition of a scientific theory: A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
So, yes, a theory is comprised of observations but other things as well.
"Organisms change through time" is not an apt substitue for Mayr's definition because it is incomplete. I am changing through time (aging). This is not a replacement for a full theory of evolution. the other elements of the definition explain what else is happening besides an organism changing. "how" is explained elsewhere
Then its the "how" that we need.
Everyone knows that different animals lived at different times. That is an observation.
Claiming that the animals we see today came from the animals of which only fossils still exist today with out providing some explanation how that came to be is at issue.
Do you claim the explanation is unavailable is"elsewhere" or do you claim there is enough of that explanation to qualify the explanation as a well supported theory. If so, please provide that part; the "how"
in 146 words? yikes. by "elsewhere" i meant found in the details of evolutionary theory. we were trying to settle on a definition of evolution. the theory explains the over-all relation of the concepts, hypothesis, etc.
animals living at different times is not an observation. it is a fact. using the terms precisely is important.
if you are asking for evidence of speciation, here's one: evolution predicts evidence of relationship between species is identical mutation in separate, closely related species. such a mutation is found in humans and our closest related great apes. a retrovirus created a neutral mutation before homo sapiens and the great apes split off from each other.
For more, see Ken Miller's book "Only a Theory."
other evidence: Whales and dolphins can be born with vestigial legs, chicken have genes for teeth. these are evidence of past genetic relatives.
-No worries. The word limit keeps us on one subject at a time. There is no limit to how many bites we divide the broader subject into.
-Not "animals living at different times is not an observation," but "animals of which only fossils still exist today"
-I am actually not interested in supporting evidence right now. First I want to know exactly what we are supporting.
how about the second paragraph of our discussion page:
"...members of each species differ from one another... these differences are compounded... lead to speciation... some variations help an organism survive... allowing fit organisms greater procreation... until it permeated the species."
Now that's a theory. If you agree with this as the theory you support for the explanation of the life's diversity we observe today, then I have one more question before closing this query and move to supporting ( truncated for length...)
i guess thats ok but i am not sure you dont want to just go with an accepted theory of evolution in stead of trying to make up a new one.
I would be glad to. Can you provide a concise definition which is to your liking?
OK. So is it the fifth?
"there is variation in every species; in the struggle for survival, individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals less well adpated "
Because the other four are merely observations which are in need of explanation. The fifth begins to provide some explanation for the observations.
Of course that statement doesn't include supporting evidence for each statement, but we can get to that. Are you satisfied with this as THE theory?
I am not sure where to go from here. I am happiest with the definition of evolution I provided in my response #7. It is a good paraphrase of Ernst Mayr's definition of evolution. It was used in a book by Michael Schermer I am fond of. it addresses each of the largest pieces of evolutionary theory.
In my first query, we established that your position is that the diversity of life observed today as well as the initiation of that life from non life occurred without any supernatural help.
In the second, you state "evolution is one of if not the best supported theories in science. I have no idea how well the theory of abiogenesis is supported."
The third is not yet closed. I am trying to disambiguate just how proven you believe it is.
If you are satisfied with the observations you made in response 7 of Q3, for the best way to explain evolution, I will move onto establishing your position on just how "proven" a conjecture must be to be "one of, if not the best supported theories"
Jerry
Hide all but last response