Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Techne]

Evidence have been the means of human reasoning, so if you dismiss the premise that evidence cannot be sufficient then your dismissing the idea of reasoning itself. Which doesn't make sense. Whether or not the observer accepts it because of despite evidence is invalid, because it still doesn't make it logical. For example if I accept that the tooth fairy is real then I do that by accepting a fault premise, this might be logical with that condition that my premise holds, however it doesn't make it more rational, given the assertion that that premise has already been rebutted.

Just to be clear, I am not dismissing the idea of reasoning itself.
I am not dismissing the premise that evidence can be sufficient.

So, just to clarify again.
1) The following is an assertion: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
2) Based on the assertion above (itself), it logically follows that we can dismiss it if is asserted without evidence.

I contend that there is no evidence that the assertion is true, and based on that, we can dismiss it. Appealing to "the means of human reasoning" just begs the question "is the means human reasoning always correct". The simple answer is no.

What is worse, there are good reasons to think it is simply false. As explained, a professor can assert that Tiktaalik demonstrates an evolutionary transition without presenting any evidence and you and I do not have to dismiss it as we can accept it based on the authority of the Professor. So not only is there no evidence that the assertion above (1) is true (therefore making it self-refuting), there is good reason to simply reject it.

Nope , im pretty sure you're trying to argue about something you agree with. But you know what since you want to disagree please give me your contact details. I will send some salesman your way who will assert amazing things about their products. You must then accept what they assert and buy the products :erm: .

I don't know why you keep committing yourself to the "black-and-white" fallacy. The above assertion can be false (and there are good logical reasons to simply reject it) and this does not imply that all assertions have to be accepted.

Apart from the fact that metaphysics is bunk, please be so kind as to state the assumptions on both sides ( as it were ) in plain and simple statements. Because except for the assumption that there is something out there, outside of my head, I can't see what else you need to make scientific beginnings.

It is interesting that in other posts you make empirically unverifiable metaphysical statements such as "there is no purpose" and "everything just is" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then in other posts claim it is a fact that "metaphysics is bunk".

Utterly self-refuting, but to each his own I guess...

 

[Techne]

Speciation is required for evolution from a common ancestor. Otherwise the only "evolution" you have is one species changing into another. Even that is debatable as more than a simple back and forth exchange of genes is required for a new species to emerge.

Define "species" and "speciation". There are like 24 different concepts of species.

 

[rwenzori]

It is interesting that in other posts you make empirically unverifiable metaphysical statements such as "there is no purpose" and "everything just is" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then in other posts claim it is a fact that "metaphysics is bunk".

Utterly self-refuting, but to each his own I guess...

You usual tosh. You must be delighted that a bit of Phil has turned up in Sci, enabling your PD-banned voice.

My claims are not metaphysical - purely empirical based upon there being zero evidence of purpose. If you would care to offer credible evidence of purpose to my evolutionary past and my "destiny", be my guest. Otherwise, merde accidit, bru. You really need to grow up and get over this need for "meaning" and "purpose".

 

[Techne]

My claims are not metaphysical - purely empirical based upon there being zero evidence of purpose. If you would care to offer credible evidence of purpose to my evolutionary past and my "destiny", be my guest. Otherwise, merde accidit, bru. You really need to grow up and get over this need for "meaning" and "purpose".

The question of whether there is purpose or not is not something that can be solved with empirical science. There is no experiment to test whether there is or isn’t purpose. Scientists do not qualitatively or quantitatively measure whether there is purpose. They don’t look through a microscope or use some other instrument and conclude that there is no evidence of purpose within a 99% interval of certainty. In other words, the question regarding whether there is or isn’t purpose is irrelevant to the empirical and real sciences. Empirical science does not deal with the question of purpose. The question of purpose is for the logical and rational sciences. You guessed it, it is ultimately a metaphysical issue.

You are simply confused in thinking it is an empirical issue or that it has even been empirically resolved. What makes it worse, you probably don't even have a proper definition for the concept of purpose. I can suggest you read up on Aristotle. Throw me a PM then I'll will provide you few links to good reading material if you are interested.

 

[Geriatrix]

This thread made me think of the books of Bokonon.

The ironic thing is the cat's cradle is only a tangled mess when fingers stretch out it's shape. Eyes can only try(and fail to) to shape out it's meaning when it's supported in its formed structure, can't they?

 

[rwenzori]

The question of whether there is purpose or not is not something that can be solved with empirical science. There is no experiment to test whether there is or isn’t purpose. Scientists do not qualitatively or quantitatively measure whether there is purpose. They don’t look through a microscope or use some other instrument and conclude that there is no evidence of purpose within a 99% interval of certainty. In other words, the question regarding whether there is or isn’t purpose is irrelevant to the empirical and real sciences. Empirical science does not deal with the question of purpose. The question of purpose is for the logical and rational sciences. You guessed it, it is ultimately a metaphysical issue.

You are simply confused in thinking it is an empirical issue or that it has even been empirically resolved. What makes it worse, you probably don't even have a proper definition for the concept of purpose. I can suggest you read up on Aristotle. Throw me a PM then I'll will provide you few links to good reading material if you are interested.

No, you are the one who has shown mucho confusion about "purpose" in innumerable PD threads in the past - remember all your ID crap LOL!

Your "metaphysical issues" all seem to boil down to misunderstandings about language coupled with imaginative constructs. You dealt me an Aristotle, allow me to raise you a Carnap ( which I have pointed you to several times before ):

This requirement for justification and conclusive foundation of each
thesis will eliminate all speculative and poetic work from philosophy.
As soon as we began to take seriously the requirement of scientific
strictness, the necessary result was that all of metaphysics was banished
from philosophy, since its theses cannot be rationally justified. It must
be possible to give a rational foundation for each scientific thesis, but
this does not mean that such a thesis must always be discovered rationally,
that is, through an exercise of the understanding alone.

Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their propositions non-verifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their propositions and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense.

So, if you cannot produce any evidence of god's great purpose for the pinnacle of his creation ( that's you and me, babe ), your claim of purpose is just a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", as usual.

Besides, I think any divine purpose could be empirically verifiable - some massive appearance ( Cecil B de Mille style ) of Jehovah on a chariot, being hauled by four apocalyptic horses, thunder, lightning, sulphur and god knows what, appearing over the hill and telling us so LOL! Plenty real evidence of lack of divine purpose though - wtf did he make all those species-that-are-now-extinct for? Unless he is an incompetent, maybe even an ANC card holder.

 

[Techne]

It appears you are between a rock and a hard place here.
1) Either purpose is empirically verifiable and thus there is some way to empirically test for the existence of purpose. This automatically makes discussions about purpose valid in the natural sciences section as well as relevant to empirical science.
2) Purpose is not an empirical issue, instead it is a metaphysical issue.

For option one to be valid, could you perhaps provide a clear definition of the concept of purpose so that we may empirically test for it. So how about that...

The same applies for option 2, but I suspect option two does not really appeal to you since you think "metaphysics is bunk" and will appeal to some form of scientism (which btw turns out to be self-refuting, Carnap didn't realize it, or didn't want to).

But just in case option two applies, read up on Aristotle, Carnap just makes silly self-refuting statement about metaphysics. I can't understand you infatuation with the man.

Personally, option two is the common sense and logical view and going with Aristotle also appears to be the preferred option. To be sure, for Aristotle the purpose of something is identified with its natural ends. Purpose is just a natural phenomena and intrinsic to natural substances. Nothing really special about it. Just common sense.

But, hey, maybe you have some kind of definition for the concept of purpose so that it becomes an empirical issue. Waiting...

 

[rwenzori]

It appears you are between a rock and a hard place here.
1) Either purpose is empirically verifiable and thus there is some way to empirically test for the existence of purpose. This automatically makes discussions about purpose valid in the natural sciences section as well as relevant to empirical science.
2) Purpose is not an empirical issue, instead it is a metaphysical issue.

For option one to be valid, could you perhaps provide a clear definition of the concept of purpose so that we may empirically test for it. So how about that...

The same applies for option 2, but I suspect option two does not really appeal to you since you think "metaphysics is bunk" and will appeal to some form of scientism (which btw turns out to be self-refuting, Carnap didn't realize it, or didn't want to).

But just in case option two applies, read up on Aristotle, Carnap just makes silly self-refuting statement about metaphysics. I can't understand you infatuation with the man.

Personally, option two is the common sense and logical view and going with Aristotle also appears to be the preferred option. To be sure, for Aristotle the purpose of something is identified with its natural ends. Purpose is just a natural phenomena and intrinsic to natural substances. Nothing really special about it. Just common sense.

But, hey, maybe you have some kind of definition for the concept of purpose so that it becomes an empirical issue. Waiting...

No rocks and hard places here old chap.

Since we are spikkin da Eenglish, not Greek, here is a working definition from the OED:

The reason for which something is done or made, or for which it exists; the result or effect intended; an instance of this.

Note the "for which": ie NOT "because of which" something might exist. The Aristotelian "final cause" is rightly much denigrated in terms of "purpose" as it can be interpreted that there are intentions ( not "intentionality" now, god forbid ) in inanimate objects. So, not common sense, nor even English.

Now, of course one can probe "purpose" empirically in many situations, and probably get quite close. "Why did you punch that clot in the schnozz?" "To shut him up". "Why did you get ADSL installed?" "Oh, to shred carrots".

To take this to some divine universal scheme, to see "intention" in our "creation", to see "creation" at all, are all pure imagination. If you think that "purpose" has no implication of intention, then you are not spikkin Eenglish, in fact you are not on the page in this thread at all.

If you are still clinging to Aristotle, indeed to metaphysics, might I suggest getting to understand language, as you will still be clinging in turn to linguistic constructs that give you the illusion of explanation and structure. Rather go outside and kick a rock, and work from there.

 

[Techne]

Teleology can be summed up as "every agents acts towards an end". Agent here just refers to any substance and does not necessarily imply any sort of consciousness or intelligence that is intrinsic to the substance. An end of an agent (in this context) is any natural end that derives from what kind of thing it is. Two examples, firstly two electrons being repelled, secondly gravity.
For electrons, simply put, the natural ends of electrons are;
1) The generation of an electric field.
2) The generation of an electrostatic potential.
3) The generation of a magnetic field.
4) The generation of a vector potential.

What happens with two interacting electrons is that each electron generates an electric field (among other natural ends). These fields interact and generate a force. This force results in the movement of the electrons away from each other. The electrons, interacting electric fields and forces all have natural ends. These include the generation of electric field, generation of force and generation of movement respectively.

Gravity is a force that causes objects of mass to attract each other with a force proportional to their mass. Therefore, it simply follows that the natural end of gravity is to attract objects of mass with a force proportional to their mass. We may not know much about the mechanisms of gravity. There are various theories in loop quantum theory or M-theory etc. This however, does not take away what we know about gravity's natural ends.

These natural ends simply derive from what kind of things they are, their nature if you want.

Your examples of “probing purpose empirically” actually presuppose the existence of natural ends and even intentionality. There is no empirical apparatus that measures “natural ends” or “intentionality”. Empirical science cannot measure goals or purposes. You can't claim that science has demonstrated that things happen with or without goals or purposes or natural ends. Its metaphysics. You either accept them (as an Aristotelian might and as you appear to in your examples) or simply deny they exist (like Alex Rosenberg, you should read his book “Atheist’s Guide to reality”). Doing so merely depends on your metaphysical foundations.

So, after thinking about it (you know, thoughts are about things and intentionality appear to be real) I decided (free will is nice to have you know) to kick the rock and guess what, the natural end of gravity was pretty clear to observe. But that is just me, I see no reason to deny the reality of intrinsic natural ends of substances.

 

[DJ...]

Intentionality, teleology, defining each and every word and still not an ounce of on-topic discussion, phrony. You really do go out of your way to fsck up threads. This is why you have been banned on at least three occasions from this forum and from PD.

Please remove yourself...

 

[Techne]

Intentionality, teleology, defining each and every word and still not an ounce of on-topic discussion, phrony. You really do go out of your way to fsck up threads. This is why you have been banned on at least three occasions from this forum and from PD.

Please remove yourself...

Sorry chap. Any thoughts on the logical arguments against the reality of evolution aka change?

 

[porchrat]

Teleology does not belong in Natural Sciences. Come on people. Take it to PD.

 

[Unhappy438]

I don't know why you keep committing yourself to the "black-and-white" fallacy. The above assertion can be false (and there are good logical reasons to simply reject it) and this does not imply that all assertions have to be accepted.

Ok then herp derp you go ahead and reject it, i will sell all sorts of products to you. It will be like taking candy from a baby..

 

[cyghost]

Sorry to add to the derail here for a second, but then again we haven't seen any logical and or empirical objections to evolution and I don't think we will either.

Techne has a valid point when he questions "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"; if it it is an assertion itself. (it isn't often he makes me think but when he does I have to thank him)

I think the "assertion" is merely a restatement of the burden of proof, in albeit more poetic terms.

I don't know how in depth anyone really wants to discuss it but I think if you want to reject this "assertion" you are free to do so of course. Can it perhaps be seen as an axiom on which to base rational and skeptical thought?

I tried searching for others discussing it and got this interesting thread. Food for thought at least.

 

[Techne]

Ok then herp derp you go ahead and reject it, i will sell all sorts of products to you. It will be like taking candy from a baby..

Again with the black-and-white fallacy.... Why?

 

[rwenzori]

1) The following is an assertion: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
2) Based on the assertion above (itself), it logically follows that we can dismiss it if is asserted without evidence.

I contend that there is no evidence that the assertion is true, and based on that, we can dismiss it.

Only if it is a valid assertion. A paradox, a paradox.

Your logic is a bit flaky at the best of times heh heh.

This thread should be moved to PD.

 

[cyghost]

This thread should be moved to PD.

A pity as I applaud the reasoning behind it... hard not to comment on off topic stuff though :\

Perhaps a *very* strictly moderated thread that simply deletes any and all off topic posts out of hand could work, otherwise I don't see it staying "pure".

 

[Geriatrix]

Impossibru!

 

[SoulTax]

So, just to clarify again.
1) The following is an assertion: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
2) Based on the assertion above (itself), it logically follows that we can dismiss it if is asserted without evidence.

I see the statement as self vindicating not self refuting. I see where you are coming from, and its a very funny twist of logic. But it is a twist of logic and I think you know it. :erm:

 

[Techne]

I think there are good logical arguments for the case that variation is not random with regards to fitness (whatever your definition) but merely indeterminate.