Moved thread: Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution

[NeoRicen]

Thread has pretty much ended up being a discussion regarding evolution rather than a political issue about politician's stated view on evolution so I've moved it to the "Science...." section.

V4af9Q0Fa4Q
Sorry I don't know how to embed. Fixed

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. He also echoes Huckabee when he says he doesn't think it matters.

How does this affect the Ron Paul supporters here? Shaken a little bit to find out he denies science?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q
Sorry I don't know how to embed.

Quote my post and you will see.:)

V4af9Q0Fa4Q

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's a theory with no proof on either side and it's a theological question.

(paraphrase)

I am now 100% not voting for Ron Paul.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's a theory with no proof on either side and it's a theological question.

(paraphrase)

I am now 100% not voting for Ron Paul.

Curious.

If a candidate supported everyone of your political thoughts but did not believe in evolution would you not vote for them?

What is the relevance?

[corplinx]

I was 100% not voting for Ron Paul before, but this wouldn't have had any effect if I was voting for him.

Its a very common belief for americans. There's really nothing to see here.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Curious.

If a candidate supported everyone of your political thoughts but did not believe in evolution would you not vote for them?

What is the relevance?

It is relevant because it shows that he is too stupid to be trusted to make decisions based on science and shows danger in educational policy.

If a candidate supported every single one of my political thoughts they'd have a worse chance of winning in the US than Ron Paul.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is relevant because it shows that he is too stupid to be trusted to make decisions based on science and shows danger in educational policy.

So anyone who does not believe in evolution is stupid?

[volatile]

So anyone who does not believe in evolution is stupid?

Maybe not stupid, but certainly not wise enough to be president of the local darts team, let alone the most militarily-equipped country on Earth!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Maybe not stupid, but certainly not wise enough to be president of the local darts team, let alone the most militarily-equipped country on Earth!

Interesting.

[fishbob]

So anyone who does not believe in evolution is stupid?

Not belief, and not stupid.

An honest look at the evidence shows that evolution makes sense, and is NOT theological.

Anyone who disputes evolution is wither too lazy to look at the facts or too dishonest to evaluate them fairly. A person with these characteristics is not qualified to be a toilet bowl taste tester, much less president.

[volatile]

Interesting.

Interesting? Interesting?! Isn't one T'ai Chi on this board enough?!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Interesting? Interesting?! Isn't one T'ai Chi on this board enough?!

Sorry, I don't know T'ai Chi.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Anyone who disputes evolution is wither too lazy to look at the facts or too dishonest to evaluate them fairly. A person with these characteristics is not qualified to be a toilet bowl taste tester, much less president.


The vitriol is moderately impressive.

[volatile]

Sorry, I don't know T'ai Chi.

You've been here long enough to make over 2.5 thousand posts and don't know who T'ai Chi is?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You've been here long enough to make over 2.5 thousand posts and don't know who T'ai Chi is?

I have not been here that long. I just post in a plethora of conversations at the same time. If T'ai Chi posts in the CT section that is most likely why I have not experienced him as I rarely post there.

[volatile]

The vitriol is moderately impressive.

Vitriol? It's common sense, JD...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Vitriol? It's common sense, JD...

I thought he could do better.

[NeoRicen]

It doesn't particularly bother me that he doesn't believe in Evolution, it's like a candidate believing in God. As an atheist I'd prefer they didn't but it's relatively unimportant.

However evolution is a good litmus test. It shows how far someone is willing to go to deny science for their religious beliefs. Someone who is willing to just deny such accepted science is dangerous. How would they react to other scientific issues they may come up against in their presidency (Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Cloning et.c.)? It also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of science, especially when you, as Ron Paul did, call it "only a theory".

Even if it is the belief of a majority of Americans the President of the country should be better than the majority, it's why they should lead them, not just live among them. They need to do the hard things, to be willing to accept solid evidence no matter what it means, to be better than someone who would just deny it.

Someone willing to deny hundreds of years of scientific research and facts for their religious beliefs is not fit to be President.

I should note it's possible he's just pandering, which Ron Paul supporters would probably hate me more for saying.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Someone willing to deny hundreds of years of scientific research and facts for their religious beliefs is not fit to be President.

:confused:

Origin of Species was written in 1859.

[RecoveringYuppy]

:confused:

Origin of Species was written in 1859.
But the evidence of evolution goes back a century beyond that.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But the evidence of evolution goes back a century beyond that.

Scientist were studying evolution in the 1760's?

[corplinx]

It doesn't particularly bother me that he doesn't believe in Evolution, it's like a candidate believing in God. As an atheist I'd prefer they didn't but it's relatively unimportant.

However evolution is a good litmus test. It shows how far someone is willing to go to deny science for their religious beliefs. Someone who is willing to just deny such accepted science is dangerous. How would they react to other scientific issues they may come up against in their presidency (Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Cloning et.c.)? It also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of science, especially when you, as Ron Paul did, call it "only a theory".

Even if it is the belief of a majority of Americans the President of the country should be better than the majority, it's why they should lead them, not just live among them. They need to do the hard things, to be willing to accept solid evidence no matter what it means, to be better than someone who would just deny it.

Someone willing to deny hundreds of years of scientific research and facts for their religious beliefs is not fit to be President.

I should note it's possible he's just pandering, which Ron Paul supporters would probably hate me more for saying.

I don't think that not believing in evolution is necessarily a denialist position though. When I was growing up in the puritanical part of the south, it simply wasn't even taught. However, I was taught something called "natural selection". They just didn't call it evolution.

I'd be willing to wager that most americans when polled acknowledge genetics, inheritance, survival of the fittest, mutation, and other concepts related to synthetic evolution. They just reject "evolution" as their pastors have taught them that their god is the source of all life and that evolution says life happened by chance.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Scientist were studying evolution in the 1760's?
That's right. You might note the Darwin wasn't so much trying to prove evolution as he was trying to explain how it happens. And a prior generation of scientists (ex: Lamarck) had already taken a stab at trying to explain it. And even though Linneaus was a Christian and creationist the evidence he compiled as a side effect of his work developing a taxonomic system lead many (such as Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus) to consider to evolution.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That's right. You might note the Darwin wasn't so much trying to prove evolution as he was trying to explain how it happens. And a prior generation of scientists (ex: Lamarck) had already taken a stab at trying to explain it. And even though Linneaus was a Christian and creationist the evidence he compiled as a side effect of his work developing a taxonomic system lead many (such as Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus) to consider to evolution.

Was not Lamarck in the 1800's?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That's right. You might note the Darwin wasn't so much trying to prove evolution as he was trying to explain how it happens. And a prior generation of scientists (ex: Lamarck) had already taken a stab at trying to explain it. And even though Linneaus was a Christian and creationist the evidence he compiled as a side effect of his work developing a taxonomic system lead many (such as Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus) to consider to evolution.

I am very curious: Why are you trying to defend the claim that evolution has had hundreds of years of scientific research?

[RecoveringYuppy]

@JDG

Yes. Did I imply otherwise?

ETA: We cross-posted. This is reply to your question about when Lamarck did his work.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I am very curious: Why are you trying to defend the claim that evolution has had hundreds of years of scientific research?
Because it does.

[Checkmite]

So anyone who does not believe in evolution is stupid?


No. But anyone running for president who doesn't believe in evolution, AND publically insists there's no such thing as church/state seperation, is dangerous.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

@JDG

Yes. Did I imply otherwise?

Based on what you were responding too, yes. Otherwise you presented irrelevant information for the quote.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Based on what you were responding too, yes. Otherwise you presented irrelevant information for the quote.
Huh? I pointed out scientists from the two generations prior to Darwin. How is that not relevant to explaining that the study of evolution goes back to the 1750s?

[fuelair]

So anyone who does not believe in evolution is stupid?
Well, duh!!! (or ignorant - assuming they have not been exposed to the concept).:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Huh? I pointed out scientists from the two generations prior to Darwin. How is that not relevant to explaining that the study of evolution goes back to the 1750s?

Please name a scientist that was working on evolution in the 1750's.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I already did. Linneaus. And Charles Darwin credited Buffon as beginning the modern scientific study of evolution. And besides, Lamarck and E. Darwin, who I also mentioned already, are far enough back to justify "hundreds of years of study of evolution" as accurate.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So anyone who does not believe in evolution is stupid?

No, just people who use the arguments he gave :p .

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No. But anyone running for president who doesn't believe in evolution, AND publically insists there's no such thing as church/state seperation, is dangerous.

Yeah, that's where I get concerned about education and religion.

[fuelair]

Please name a scientist that was working on evolution in the 1750's.
HTO: Comte de Buffon, Histoire Naturelle (1749+..Pub dates).
Very limited publication so as to protect himself from the stupid/ignorant.:)
He also had to be carefull about certain geological observations for the same reason.



Do you not check stuff like this before you post - took no time at all to verify and double check dates.

[fuelair]

Was not Lamarck in the 1800's?
well, he was still alive then, and officially published then -but most of his work was prior. (late middle-end of 1700's - though Buffon counters that problem anyway. I would give you Linnaeus since he thought there were no changes just the species but 1750 still covered for all the importance a year or two makes in this discussion.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I would give you Linnaeus since he thought there were no changes just the species but 1750 still covered for all the importance a year or two makes in this discussion.
Linnaeus is a very interesting case. He wasn't intending to work on evolution and religiously objected to the idea of common descent, but his work was extremely persuasive evidence of just that. Hard for creationists of today to fault him with an anti-Christian bias (so they fault him other ways or ignore him).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

HTO: Comte de Buffon, Histoire Naturelle (1749+..Pub dates).
Very limited publication so as to protect himself from the stupid/ignorant.:)
He also had to be carefull about certain geological observations for the same reason.



Do you not check stuff like this before you post - took no time at all to verify and double check dates.

We seem to be expanding what the study of evolution means. By this account we could also include Aristotle with his ideas of natural selection and further claim that evolution has been studied for thousands of years.

[RecoveringYuppy]

We seem to be expanding what the study of evolution means. By this account we could also include Aristotle with his ideas of natural selection and further claim that evolution has been studied for thousands of years.
How so? Buffon was cited by Charles Darwin as the originator of the modern idea of evolution. Linneaus certainly produced evidence that meets modern ideas of what science is. How as Lamarck not studying it, as he came up with a falsifiable theory of it? And did the first cataloging of the fossils evidence, evidence which still stands today.

[Checkmite]

Yeah, that's where I get concerned about education and religion.

Zactly.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How as Lamarck not studying it, as he came up with a falsifiable theory of it?

Please present Lamarck's theory of evolution and show how it is falsifiable. (1800's)

[RecoveringYuppy]

His theory of evolution was that acquired characteristics were inherited and it was disproven by showing that acquired characteristics weren't inherited. (Mice whose tails had been cut off bore children with tails, for one experiment).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

His theory of evolution was that acquired characteristics were inherited and it was disproven by showing that acquired characteristics weren't inherited. (Mice whose tails had been cut off bore children with tails, for one experiment).

Very good.

Now, please present the falsification for the current theory of evolution.

[RecoveringYuppy]

The current theory hasn't been falsified. It could be falsified by finding a "chimera" species: a species that has half it's DNA in common with one species (A) and half in another species (B), where A and B do not share any DNA. Less extreme examples could qualify as falsifications also. Any set of DNA that contradicted a family tree relationship would suffice.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The current theory hasn't been falsified. It could be falsified by finding a "chimera" species: a species that has half it's DNA in common with one species (A) and half in another species (B), where A and B do not share any DNA. Less extreme examples could qualify as falsifications also. Any set of DNA that contradicted a family tree relationship would suffice.

What species currently share zero DNA?

[WildCat]

Very good.

Now, please present the falsification for the current theory of evolution.
Have you always rejected the ToE, or is this a new position you've arrived at since you learned of Ron Paul's rejection of it?

[RecoveringYuppy]

What species currently share zero DNA?
None that I know of.

[WildCat]

Now, please present the falsification for the current theory of evolution.
There is none that I'm aware of, perhaps Ron Paul is holding out on the ground-breaking evidence that would support his position? Now, what would falsify the ToE is if it was discovered that complex life arose prior to or at the same time as single-celled organisms. But as it turns out, single-celled organisms preceded more complex forms by hundreds of millions of years.

[Pardalis]

Wait a second, he's a physician and he still confuses evolution and abiogenesis?

:faint:

[Pardalis]

Wait a second, when he was asked if he didn't believe in evolution he didn't raise his hand, which makes him either a coward or a liar.

SmUbe7-GpP4

[ZenFountain]

I could see this as a non-issues, i.e. judge someone on how they govern, not what they believe, however this nonsense has gone on far too long. The public school system is not going away and theological teachings, no matter how crudely veiled, are little more than a pathetic attempt to keep the masses complicit in the status quo, never examining the fundamental questions on nature of their existence and of society.

I'm tired of politicians like Paul dodging the question as unfair or irrelevant. Perhaps Darwin's theory in of itself is not of epic importance, but what he fails to realize is that the question has become a flash point in the ongoing battle between those who seek truth and those who do not. It's as simple as that, and the ones answering "no" continue do so at their own peril.

[Pardalis]

Remind me to never get injured or ill in Texas.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wait a second, when he was asked if he didn't believe in evolution he didn't raise his hand, which makes him either a coward or a liar.

SmUbe7-GpP4

Normally I'd object to that, but if the shoe fits...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

None that I know of.

Then your presentation of a falsification of ToE is not possible.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Then your presentation of a falsification of ToE is not possible.
What do you mean my presentation isn't possible?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What do you mean my presentation isn't possible?

Yes, you presented as a falsification of ToE :

It could be falsified by finding a "chimera" species: a species that has half it's DNA in common with one species (A) and half in another species (B), where A and B do not share any DNA.

Now if all species share some DNA than what you have presented is not a possible falsification.



The key to scientific theory is the ability for that theory to be falsified. If there are no reasonable criteria for a scientific theory to be falsified than it is just a theory in the common sense. Meaning that it is a belief.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Now if all species share some DNA than what you have presented is not a possible falsification.
Don't know how you figure that.

[Pardalis]

What's your alternative Jerôme? God?

Now that's falsifiable. :rolleyes:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What's your alternative Jerôme? God?

Now that's falsifiable. :rolleyes:

Of course "God" is not falsifiable, that makes that explanation a poor scientific theory. The unfortunate circumstance is that ToE is also unfalsifiable and thus poor scientific theory.

[WildCat]

Now, what would falsify the ToE is if it was discovered that complex life arose prior to or at the same time as single-celled organisms. But as it turns out, single-celled organisms preceded more complex forms by hundreds of millions of years.
Jerome, this would falsify evolution, yes?

[OneShotKi11]

Do you know how many candidates actually support the theory of evolution?

For the most part from what i understand almost all of them believe in a God.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, this would falsify evolution, yes?

Now, what would falsify the ToE is if it was discovered that complex life arose prior to or at the same time as single-celled organisms. But as it turns out, single-celled organisms preceded more complex forms by hundreds of millions of years.

Unfortunately there is nothing observable or testable in your presentation of potential falsification. One must keep in mind our dating methods tend to be circular.

[Pardalis]

Of course "God" is not falsifiable, that makes that explanation a poor scientific theory. The unfortunate circumstance is that ToE is also unfalsifiable and thus poor scientific theory.

It works, it's applicable to hundreds of different fields. If you've got something better to propose...

[WildCat]

Unfortunately there is nothing observable or testable in your presentation of potential falsification. One must keep in mind our dating methods tend to be circular.
Our dating methods are quite accurate enough for this test.

So this is what you're reduced to JDG, denying accepted dating methods? Please present your specific objections.

[WildCat]

I'll just note that scientific ignorance from our elected officials can be extremely costly for everyone. Just look at the new energy bill just passed, which includes billions in ethanol subsidies which will further drive up the cost of food and won't reduce reliance on foreign oil one bit. Nor will it reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Frankly, I'm tired of idiots running the country.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'll just note that scientific ignorance from our elected officials can be extremely costly for everyone. Just look at the new energy bill just passed, which includes billions in ethanol subsidies which will further drive up the cost of food and won't reduce reliance on foreign oil one bit. Nor will it reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Frankly, I'm tired of idiots running the country.

Totally. Ethanol seems great if you only look at the cover and don't do any actual research.

Methinks pork barrel spending is involved.

[fishbob]

The vitriol is moderately impressive.

Vitriol? Please explain.

[Rika]

Do you know how many candidates actually support the theory of evolution?

For the most part from what i understand almost all of them believe in a God.

Those two positions are not mutally exclusive.

[fishbob]

Unfortunately there is nothing observable or testable in your presentation of potential falsification. One must keep in mind our dating methods tend to be circular.

Bzzzzt. Credibility now zero.
You lose.

Dating methods are only circular in the minds of those who have not studied them, and who have bought the Creationist line.

[NeoRicen]

Unfortunately there is nothing observable or testable in your presentation of potential falsification. One must keep in mind our dating methods tend to be circular.
All you'd have to do is find a fish fossil or something similarly complex amongst the layers of Earth from before they should have evolved.

What do you mean our dating is circular? Our dating methods are very well established and reliable now.

[ConspiRaider]

I'll just note that scientific ignorance from our elected officials can be extremely costly for everyone. Just look at the new energy bill just passed, which includes billions in ethanol subsidies which will further drive up the cost of food and won't reduce reliance on foreign oil one bit. Nor will it reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Frankly, I'm tired of idiots running the country.
Roger that, Cat.

Ron Paul is a prime example of the notion that one does not necessarily get wiser as one gets older.

Even politically, he's stupid. He could have hedged, quite acceptably. "I accept the theory of evolution, although the discipline of science does not challenge or threaten my religious beliefs or my relationship with the Creator."

Nice, bland, out-of-trouble-keeping statement. But he couldn't even do that. Why? Because he's stupid. Therefore, too stupid to be the President of the United States.

[Matteo Martini]

It's a theory with no proof on either side and it's a theological question.

(paraphrase)

I am now 100% not voting for Ron Paul.

Basically, also Popper wrote that evolution is not a scientific theory ( then he changed his mind )

[Matteo Martini]

Basically, who cares if the president believes in evolution or not?

[ConspiRaider]

Basically, who cares if the president believes in evolution or not?
There is no such thing as "belief" in evolution.

There is merely acceptance - or ignorance. In Paul's case? The ignorance is not to be tolerated. He's old. He's educated. He's experienced. He damned well should KNOW that evolution is how it all came about. That he does not accept this deeply proven explanation for the adaptation of life? Shines a revealing light on a huge blank spot on his cerebral cortex - a blank spot deliberately created. Why? And what are the consequences to those future led, from a potential leader who shields and sanitizes his thinking mechanism regarding a concept so obvious?

[NeoRicen]

Perhaps the worst part is he's a physician, he should know damn well Evolution is scientific fact!

[Smackety]

He believes in evolution of course, we all do. It is like asking if the earth is round or if you did a really deep hole will you find hell, he just has to lie because he is on the right. He wants to get elected doesn't he? It sounds like we are accusing a politician of being political.
I think the real questions are: Does the religious right exert control over the republican party? Why does Ron Paul think aligning himself with the Republican party is most advantageous towards his personal desire for power?

[Lonewulf]

We seem to be expanding what the study of evolution means. By this account we could also include Aristotle with his ideas of natural selection and further claim that evolution has been studied for thousands of years.

Wow.

You're really intent on arguing to your last breath just so you can look like you're getting points.

This is ridiculous. Evolution isn't a matter of "belief". Are you really going to say that Evolution hasn't been proven at all? Are you really going to say that someone can ignore all of the science behind it (whether there were hundreds of years or not... I guess you're claiming that Darwin "invented" Evolution, which is about as logical as anything else you've posted here...), and still be trusted with any other scientific finding that doesn't agree with their religious views?

I'd call your loyalty admirable, if it wasn't so blind.

[Kerberos]

Of course "God" is not falsifiable, that makes that explanation a poor scientific theory. The unfortunate circumstance is that ToE is also unfalsifiable and thus poor scientific theory.

I believe Wildcat asked you if you've always denied evolution or if you only began to do so when you learned that RP did? I'd like an answer as well.

[Lonewulf]

He believes in evolution of course, we all do.
I hate to say it, but do you have evidence for this claim?

It is like asking if the earth is round or if you did a really deep hole will you find hell, he just has to lie because he is on the right.
There are other techniques besides lying, though.

He wants to get elected doesn't he? It sounds like we are accusing a politician of being political.

If he was a smart politician, he wouldn't have put his foot in the door here with one side, and push away all of those that would have supported him otherwise.

He needs better speech writers.

I think the real questions are: Does the religious right exert control over the republican party? Why does Ron Paul think aligning himself with the Republican party is most advantageous towards his personal desire for power?
Good question.

[Lonewulf]

I believe Wildcat asked you if you've always denied evolution or if you only began to do so when you learned that RP did? I'd like an answer as well.

I'm curious too.

Jerome turned creationist, or was he always creationist?

It's hilarious. "Unfalsifiable theory"? LOL. Stupidity on a grand scale.

Tip: Fossils are evidence. DNA is evidence. Genetics are evidence. Genetic mutations are evidence. Short-term evolutionary changes are evidence. If you wanted to prove evolution wrong, you would not find any of these things.

Unfalsifiable my ass.

But it was all invented by that EEEEEVIL Darwin. OMG!

[Smackety]

I hate to say it, but do you have evidence for this claim?


There are other techniques besides lying, though.



If he was a smart politician, he wouldn't have put his foot in the door here with one side, and push away all of those that would have supported him otherwise.

He needs better speech writers.


Good question.


Sorry Lonewulf - I retract my claim that everyone believes in evolution. I will use ;) more!

I can probably defend my claim that politicians lie however, don't you think? :D

[PixyMisa]

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. (JBS Haldane.)

[Lonewulf]

Sorry Lonewulf - I retract my claim that everyone believes in evolution. I will use ;) more!
True 'nuff.

I can probably defend my claim that politicians lie however, don't you think? :D

Naw. Politicians always tell the truth! Grandpappy Nixon taught me that!

[volatile]

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. (JBS Haldane.)

I was just about to post that myself.

Jerome - saying that something is falsifiable is NOT the same as saying there exists evidence that proves the theory wrong. Is that where your misunderstanding comes from?

Of course there isn't any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. There is lots of things that potentially falsify evolution (that's why it's falsifiable and not falsified), but all the evidence we ever find adds ever more weight to it.

[WildCat]

he just has to lie because he is on the right. He wants to get elected doesn't he?
I thought Ron Paul's strength was that he told it like it is, he's the only honest politician running? I guess not. So can you tell us what other hot-button issues Ron Paul is lying about? Does he secretly accept the priciple behind fiat money? Know there's really no no New World Order secretly plotting to merge the US, Canada, and Mexico into one single state? There really isn't a "NAFTA Superhighway"?

Tell us, I want to know what else Ron Paul is lying about.

Sorry Lonewulf - I retract my claim that everyone believes in evolution. I will use ;) more!

I can probably defend my claim that politicians lie however, don't you think? :D
Oops, nvm, it's early and my sarcasm meter isn't properly working yet... :blush:

[Matteo Martini]

There is no such thing as "belief" in evolution.


OK.
Let` s call it " endorsement "


There is merely acceptance - or ignorance. In Paul's case? The ignorance is not to be tolerated. He's old. He's educated. He's experienced. He damned well should KNOW that evolution is how it all came about. That he does not accept this deeply proven explanation for the adaptation of life? Shines a revealing light on a huge blank spot on his cerebral cortex - a blank spot deliberately created. Why? And what are the consequences to those future led, from a potential leader who shields and sanitizes his thinking mechanism regarding a concept so obvious?

Wait.
There is an old debate if " evolution " can be considered as science, in Popper` s way to define what is science and what is not.
If I remember well, Popper himself, in the beginning, wrote that evolution is not science, later he retracted.
I do not think that it is that wrong to say that we doubt that evolution can be considered as " science ", in Popper` s definition of science.
Doubting that evolution is science, is quite different from endorsement of intelligent design

[Darth Rotor]

It doesn't particularly bother me that he doesn't believe in Evolution, it's like a candidate believing in God. As an atheist I'd prefer they didn't but it's relatively unimportant.

However evolution is a good litmus test. It shows how far someone is willing to go to deny science for their religious beliefs. Someone who is willing to just deny such accepted science is dangerous.

== snip==

I should note it's possible he's just pandering, which Ron Paul supporters would probably hate me more for saying.
Let me understand you, if I may.

Ron Paul, a doctor who became a politician, denies science?

I think not. Medical school and medical practice is up to its ears in science. Bringin' babies in the modern age (the number espoused by his campaign is about 4,000) is hardly anti science.

I should note it's possible he's just pandering, which Ron Paul supporters would probably hate me more for saying.
Yep. Of course he's pandering. He's a politician now. ;) Let the Ron Paul fans attack me for that. You and I can stare them down, I think.

DR

[WildCat]

There is an old debate if " evolution " can be considered as science,
No, there's not. There's just religious nutters in denial.

[danielk]

Er, what's this discussion about? According to my understanding evolution is falsifiable. As has already been said in this thread, the theory of evolution predicts the order in which fossils are layered in the ground. Find some which are clearly out of line and in a stable environment, and you have proved evolution false.

If I were American, Ron Paul's ignorance about science, despite the importance of the topic of evolution in the public mind, would definitely be a reason not to vote for him.

[Matteo Martini]

No, there's not. There's just religious nutters in denial.

Er, what's this discussion about? According to my understanding evolution is falsifiable. As has already been said in this thread, the theory of evolution predicts the order in which fossils are layered in the ground. Find some which are clearly out of line and in a stable environment, and you have proved evolution false.

If I were American, Ron Paul's ignorance about science, despite the importance of the topic of evolution in the public mind, would definitely be a reason not to vote for him.

I hope I am not derailing going off-topic here

I maybe be wrong, but..

Karl Popper, Unended Quest (London: Routledge, 2002) 194, Questia, 4 Sept. 2007 . Originally published in 1976.

p. 195
I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme–a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

[..]

I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme.

It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under “favourable conditions”. But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions are-except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge.

And yet I believe I have taken the theory almost at its best–almost in its most testable form. One might say that it “almost predicts” a great variety of forms of life. 283 In other fields, its predictive or explanatory power is still more disappointing. Take “adaptation”. At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological.

http://afdave.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/

[Darth Rotor]

Remind me to never get injured or ill in Texas.
If you get cancer, you could do a lot worse than the MD Anderson Center in Houston. That snarky remark doesn't fit reality.

DR

[WildCat]

I maybe be wrong, but..

Karl Popper, Unended Quest (London: Routledge, 2002) 194, Questia, 4 Sept. 2007 . Originally published in 1976.
Wow, what a bunch of nonsense! As has been shown to you, evolution is in fact falsifiable. You found one guy who once claimed it wasn't, big deal. Frankly, I never heard of Popper before and have no idea why you think he is some kind of pre-eminent authority on what is and isn't science.

[brodski]

Frankly, I never heard of Popper before and have no idea why you think he is some kind of pre-eminent authority on what is and isn't science.

Um, because he is (was) one of the preeminent philosophers of science. perhaps?

her did, aslo say this "“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. … The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”"

he was wrong, and admitted it.

[Matteo Martini]

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense! As has been shown to you, evolution is in fact falsifiable.

Shown to me, where?


You found one guy who once claimed it wasn't, big deal.


Sir Karl Raimund Popper was not " one guy ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper


Frankly, I never heard of Popper before

That explains way a whole lot of things about you.
Now, I understand many things you said in the past..


and have no idea why you think he is some kind of pre-eminent authority on what is and isn't science.

As he was the " pre-eminent authority on what is and isn't science "!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Drat!!
11600 and more posts and you have still to grasp the basics..

[WildCat]

Um, because he is (was) one of the preeminent philosophers of science. perhaps?
Philosophy is not science. As soon as the word "metaphysical" is used in a discussion I think the guy is... :woowoo

[danielk]

Karl Popper, Unended Quest (London: Routledge, 2002) 194, Questia, 4 Sept. 2007 . Originally published in 1976.
I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme–a possible framework for testable scientific theories.
Yes, I know about Popper's stance on evolution, and have actually read some of what he wrote on the topic. I happen to like Popper's philosophical approach quite a bit, but I think he was wrong on evolution. As the fossil order example shows, evolution does indeed make testable predictions.

(Side note: Ironically, as far as I understand, some of the things creationists demand as evidence, which would supposedly convince them that evolution is true, would actually disprove it: Such as a freak fossil that's half-bird and half-mammal.)

Sadly, Popper appears to completely miss the point when he asks for a prediction of how life will evolve in the future. Or maybe he knew that it was a nonsensical request, and just wanted to point it out. But he missed other, possible predictions of the theory of evolution on earth.

[volatile]

Um, because he is (was) one of the preeminent philosophers of science. perhaps?

Indeed. And it was he who invented (or at least codified) the entire theory of falsification.

Sorry, WildCat, but Popper's the go-to-guy on falsifiability. It seems from the quote above that he's not the go-to-guy for biology, but there you have it.

[volatile]

Philosophy is not science. As soon as the word "metaphysical" is used in a discussion I think the guy is... :woowoo

Yeah... ummm... wanna keep digging, WildCat?

We were talking about falsifiability. Falsifiability is philosophy. Indeed, the entire process of the scientific method is based, very firmly, in philosophy, and, to a large degree, in the philosophy of Karl Popper.

Whilst your substantive point is valid, saying things like this make you look like an idiot.

[danielk]

Philosophy is not science. As soon as the word "metaphysical" is used in a discussion I think the guy is... :woowoo
Er, sorry, but the guy happens to have defined modern science. Well not he alone but he played an important role. The falsifiability idea is his baby. (If I remember correctly he didn't exactly invent the idea, but he certainly expanded on it.)

Are you sure you never heard of Popper?

[WildCat]

Shown to me, where?
Posts #49 and 83... :rolleyes:

Sir Karl Raimund Popper was not " one guy ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
He is a philosopher and uses the word "metaphysical" to make a point. 'Nuff said.

[Matteo Martini]

Philosophy is not science. As soon as the word "metaphysical" is used in a discussion I think the guy is... :woowoo

:)
LOL
You are hopeless..

[volatile]

Frankly, I never heard of Popper before and have no idea why you think he is some kind of pre-eminent authority on what is and isn't science.

Because he's the guy that defined the modern scientific method in the first place.

[WildCat]

We were talking about falsifiability. Falsifiability is philosophy. Indeed, the entire process of the scientific method is based, very firmly, in philosophy, and, to a large degree, in the philosophy of Karl Popper.

Whilst your substantive point is valid, saying things like this make you look like an idiot.
If Popper thinks evolution isn't falsifiable, he's an idiot. Sorry... maybe he just got senile in his old age when he made the claim. And I see MM used publication dates years after Popper died to add cred to his claim, bad form.

Find complex life forms preceding simple ones and you've falsified the ToE. I don't see how it could be any simpler.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I know about Popper's stance on evolution, and have actually read some of what he wrote on the topic. I happen to like Popper's philosophical approach quite a bit, but I think he was wrong on evolution. As the fossil order example shows, evolution does indeed make testable predictions.

(Side note: Ironically, as far as I understand, some of the things creationists demand as evidence, which would supposedly convince them that evolution is true, would actually disprove it: Such as a freak fossil that's half-bird and half-mammal.)

Sadly, Popper appears to completely miss the point when he asks for a prediction of how life will evolve in the future. Or maybe he knew that it was a nonsensical request, and just wanted to point it out. But he missed other, possible predictions of the theory of evolution on earth.


If I remember well, at first Popper required scientific theories to be able to predict future happenings.
Of course, you can not make predictions looking at fossils.
I do not really understand how you can say " As the fossil order example shows, evolution does indeed make testable predictions ".
Then, he later changed his stance, so that evolution did become part of science, according to the criteria he set.

Posts #49 and 83... :rolleyes:
He is a philosopher and uses the word "metaphysical" to make a point. 'Nuff said.

Keep digging..
BTW, you are part of my sign, now, for future memory..

[danielk]

He is a philosopher and uses the word "metaphysical" to make a point. 'Nuff said.
Dude... "metaphysical" may be one of the woos' favorite words now (because of the beyond-ish sound of it I guess), but that doesn't mean everyone who uses the word is a woo.

For someone who likes to take a scientific approach to things, dismissing Popper, of all people, is ignorant to say the least. Sorry, no offense intended, but you do need to read up on the guy. He's kinda important in the science business.

[WildCat]

Hmmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
Karl Popper denied the existence of evidence and of scientific method. Popper holds that there is only one universal method, the negative method of trial and error. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, art and so on, but also the evolution of life.

Is this the same guy who "defined the modern scientific method"? :confused:

[volatile]

If Popper thinks evolution isn't falsifiable, he's an idiot. Sorry... maybe he just got senile in his old age when he made the claim. And I see MM used publication dates years after Popper died to add cred to his claim, bad form.

Find complex life forms preceding simple ones and you've falsified the ToE. I don't see how it could be any simpler.

He's not a biologist, was wrong about the nuts and bolts of evolution, but he is resolutely NOT an idiot. In fact, he even changed his mind when it was pointed out to him where his errors lay.

Furthermore, that you dismissed him out of hand because he was a 'philosopher' (and that you see that as a dirty word) speaks volumes about your own blind spots, prejudices and ignorance, frankly. The man invented modern experimental protocol, fercrisssakes.

[brodski]

Philosophy is not science. but Science is philosophy, some may say the useful bits of philosophy, but still it is philosophy.


As soon as the word "metaphysical" is used in a discussion I think the guy is... :woowoo
you would be wrong, very wrong, just because woos misuse a word don't mean that everyone who sues that word is a woo. You may as well accuse all quantum physicists of being woo too.

Of course, as you have just used the M word... ;)'

[Dr Adequate]

I hope I am not derailing going off-topic here

I maybe be wrong, but..

Karl Popper, Unended Quest (London: Routledge, 2002) 194, Questia, 4 Sept. 2007 . Originally published in 1976.

p. 195
I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme–a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

[..]

I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme.

It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under “favourable conditions”. But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions are-except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge.

And yet I believe I have taken the theory almost at its best–almost in its most testable form. One might say that it “almost predicts” a great variety of forms of life. 283 In other fields, its predictive or explanatory power is still more disappointing. Take “adaptation”. At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological.

http://afdave.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/sir-karl-popper-and-the-demarcation-of-science-falsifiability-predictions-and-retrodictions/ He changed his mind.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology ... I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits ...

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.

It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

[Matteo Martini]

If Popper thinks evolution isn't falsifiable, he's an idiot. Sorry...

So, you were saying..
Popper is an " idiot " when he speaks about falsifiability..
Please, go ahead.. :)
It is so funny to follow you..
Just to see how much further you can sink in the ( err.. ) mud


maybe he just got senile in his old age when he made the claim. And I see MM used publication dates years after Popper died to add cred to his claim, bad form.


Originally published in 1976
Go ahead.

[volatile]

Hmmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)


Is this the same guy who "defined the modern scientific method"? :confused:

Re-read that, understand what it means, then come back and apologise for being a doofus.

Good experimental control relies on falsifiability. The creation of testable hypotheses relies on falsifiability. That's what he means by "not believing in evidence" - you can have all the evidence in the world for your hypothesis, but you must always be open to the fact that it can be proven wrong. You can never prove something right, but you can disprove it.

That's not a bad thing; indeed, it's a very, very good thing that allows science to keep developing a-pace.

Keep digging.

[Matteo Martini]

He changed his mind.

I know ( see my post n. 105 ).
My point is that not even him, at least at the beginning, was sure that evolution is part of science

[WildCat]

Furthermore, that you dismissed him out of hand because he was a 'philosopher' (and that you see that as a dirty word) speaks volumes about your own blind spots, prejudices and ignorance, frankly. The man invented modern experimental protocol, fercrisssakes.
I will admit I find the art of philosophy dry and largely useless, what practical uses it does have seems self-evident to me. But maybe my prejudice stems from too much of Interesting Ian here... if you don't know who he is you're much better off. ;)

[Matteo Martini]

Hmmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

Is this the same guy who "defined the modern scientific method"? :confused:

I have the strong suspect that you are not even understanding what this conversation is about..
Please, read carefully here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ( this was his proposed criteria about what has to be considered as science and what is not )
Here is the big point we are talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable

[danielk]

If I remember well, at first Popper required scientific theories to be able to predict future happenings.
Yes, but as I interpret it, the actual intention of that restriction is to prevent retrospective tailoring of a theory to match the facts. This is necessary because it's fairly easy for humans to delude themselves and make any wacky idea match some finite set of facts.

Therefore, in that sense, the predictions the theory of evolution does make are predictions of future events. It predicts you are going to only find fossils in a certain order derived from their lineage. The finding is a future event, even if the fossil is already in the ground now. The important bit is that we do not know about the fossil at this point.

[Dr Adequate]

My point is that not even him, at least at the beginning, was sure that evolution is part of science ... I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and very ready to accept evolution as a fact.

[WildCat]

Re-read that, understand what it means, then come back and apologise for being a doofus.

Good experimental control relies on falsifiability. The creation of testable hypotheses relies on falsifiability. That's what he means by "not believing in evidence" - you can have all the evidence in the world for your hypothesis, but you must always be open to the fact that it can be proven wrong. You can never prove something right, but you can disprove it.
Like I said, self-evident. People acquired enormous knowledge through trial and error for eons before Popper came about. It just seems silly to me that someone would think that without Popper stating that scientists would be working on things that don't work because Popper wasn't there to point out the obvious.

[danielk]

I will admit I find the art of philosophy dry and largely useless, what practical uses it does have seems self-evident to me.
Popper happens to be one of those who aren't dry and useless. Read him, you'll like the guy. He smashed totalitarian ideologies and championed the cause of freedom, forchrissakes!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wow.

You're really intent on arguing to your last breath just so you can look like you're getting points.

This is ridiculous. Evolution isn't a matter of "belief". Are you really going to say that Evolution hasn't been proven at all? Are you really going to say that someone can ignore all of the science behind it (whether there were hundreds of years or not... I guess you're claiming that Darwin "invented" Evolution, which is about as logical as anything else you've posted here...), and still be trusted with any other scientific finding that doesn't agree with their religious views?

I'd call your loyalty admirable, if it wasn't so blind.


The point of presenting Aristotle and natural selection was to show that it is ridiculous to claim that evolution has been studied scientifically for hundreds of years. Presentation of an idea is not scientific study.

Science does not find proofs, mathematics finds proofs. Science presents the most reasonable explanation based on current observations and tests.

I have zero religious loyalty. In fact I reject religion fully as it is a dangerous tool of control.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, but as I interpret it, the actual intention of that restriction is to prevent retrospective tailoring of a theory to match the facts. No, not really. The world "predictions" is misleading in this respect, "logical consequences" would be more accurate. Otherwise you'd have to say that elliptical orbits, for example, don't constitute evidence for the theory of gravity.

[UserGoogol]

Like I said, self-evident. People acquired enormous knowledge through trial and error for eons before Popper came about. It just seems silly to me that someone would think that without Popper stating that scientists would be working on things that don't work because Popper wasn't there to point out the obvious.

Well isn't it a bit "wooish" to claim that we can simply accept science as self-evident? Everything must be questioned. Science provides a very nice way to question beliefs, but there are many other beliefs that science cannot really test. (Of course, it could be argued that a belief that science cannot test is nonsense, but that itself is a claim that science cannot test.) That science is "true" is itself a philosophical claim. Thus, philosophy and its abstract reasoning must pick up the slack, if you want logical rigor.

To be honest, people like Interesting Ian led me, rather than to reject philosophy as a whole, to examine philosophy all the more closely so that I can rigorously say: "that's stupid and you're stupid for saying it."

[WildCat]

Popper happens to be one of those who aren't dry and useless. Read him, you'll like the guy. He smashed totalitarian ideologies and championed the cause of freedom, forchrissakes!
I thought General Patton smashed totalitarian ideologies... :p

Oh well, this is why you never see me posting in the Philosophy threads. It's simply something that doesn't much interest me, we all have our weak points.

[danielk]

No, not really. The world "predictions" is misleading in this respect, "logical consequences" would be more accurate. Otherwise you'd have to say that elliptical orbits, for example, don't constitute evidence for the theory of gravity.
Hm? I don't understand. How is the word "predictions" misleading? Isn't the idea of predictions in science to take a theory, think of logical consequences (just as you say) and look if it matches reality? Hm wait, I think I know what you mean now, you're talking about time and that it isn't necessarily involved. Well OK, but my interpretation of prediction allows predicting results of measurements you'll make, and thus amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?

[Matteo Martini]

...

I can not but re-quote what I quoted before.

Karl Popper, Unended Quest (London: Routledge, 2002) 194, Questia, 4 Sept. 2007 . Originally published in 1976.

p. 195
I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme–a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

[UserGoogol]

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme–a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

Well I suppose that's actually technically true depending on what exactly he means by "Darwinism." Evolution in the minimal sense of "things evolve" is not particularly testable, since almost any hypothetical organism could have in principle evolved, and even if it didn't, just because things evolve doesn't mean they can't do other things too. What's testable is the claim that all life on Earth is the cumulative effect of evolution over billions of years, that humans evolved in such-and-such a way, and so forth.

I don't really think that gets Ron Paul off the hook, though, since he was not making such a philosophically precise claim but rather rejecting the theory outright. (I think anyway, I haven't had time to look through the video.)

[Matteo Martini]

No, not really. The world "predictions" is misleading in this respect, "logical consequences" would be more accurate. Otherwise you'd have to say that elliptical orbits, for example, don't constitute evidence for the theory of gravity.

Not so simple.
Elliptical orbits per se are not evidence of anything.
You have to have a theory that explains future happenings better than existing theories ( or common sense ).
A theory can explain future facts with more precision than existing theories, can replace them
That is the point.
The theory of gravity is valuable, as predicts the movements of planets / stars, galaxies, etc. with more precision than existing theories / common sense

Yes, but as I interpret it, the actual intention of that restriction is to prevent retrospective tailoring of a theory to match the facts.

I think so.


This is necessary because it's fairly easy for humans to delude themselves and make any wacky idea match some finite set of facts.

That is the point.


Therefore, in that sense, the predictions the theory of evolution does make are predictions of future events. It predicts you are going to only find fossils in a certain order derived from their lineage. The finding is a future event, even if the fossil is already in the ground now. The important bit is that we do not know about the fossil at this point.

That is the point.
The problem, maybe, in my opinion, is that you can always " re-arrange " a theory in order to fit possible future discoveries.
Just to give you an example.
Marxism has been defined as a " scientific theory " of society, but, Popper criticized that, showing that every future ( possible ) happening can be described using the basic theories of Communism ( or Marxism, if you like it best ) and, therefore, Marxism is not science.
The same danger can happen with the theory of evolution.

[Matteo Martini]

Well I suppose that's actually technically true depending on what exactly he means by "Darwinism." Evolution in the minimal sense of "things evolve" is not particularly testable, since any hypothetical thing you see that might contradict that theory can be handwaved away by saying "Well, they do other things besides evolve." What's testable is the claim that all life on Earth is the cumulative effect of evolution over billions of years.

If by " testable ", you mean " falsifiable " and therefore " scientific " ( in Popper terms ), there might be problems defining that the " claim that all life on Earth is the cumulative effect of evolution over billions of years ", but I am not really sure of that.
Requires a knowledge on the subject I do not have.
Maybe, we can ask WildCat ( sorry, bad joke )


I don't really think that gets Ron Paul off the hook, though, since he was not making such a philosophically precise claim.

Agreed with that

[danielk]

Well I suppose that's actually technically true depending on what exactly he means by "Darwinism." Evolution in the minimal sense of "things evolve" is not particularly testable, since any hypothetical thing you see that might contradict that theory can be handwaved away by saying "Well, they do other things besides evolve." What's testable is the claim that all life on Earth is the cumulative effect of evolution over billions of years.
Nice. I think that sums it up quite well, in light of Popper's focus on his observation that natural selection is a tautology.

[WildCat]

Science does not find proofs, mathematics finds proofs. Science presents the most reasonable explanation based on current observations and tests.
There are a few scientific proofs, called Laws. The problem is Ron Paul is using a layman's definition of a word ("Theory") that has quite a different meaning in science. And that he rejects it outright, coupled with his belief that states are free to establish a religion, is cause for concern.

[danielk]

The same danger can happen with the theory of evolution.
But not with regard to the fossil record.

[Matteo Martini]

There are a few scientific proofs, called Laws.

" Scientific proofs "??


The problem is Ron Paul is using a layman's definition of a word ("Theory") that has quite a different meaning in science.

What do you mean?
I do not get it.

[Matteo Martini]

But not with regard to the fossil record.

The danger is that you can have the theory of evolution that explains the current fossil record.
Tomorrow, a fossil of a bird is found in an historical time frame when it was not supposed to exist ( the bird, I mean ), than it would not be difficult to adapt the theory to explain the new findings.
This is how I see it

[UserGoogol]

There are a few scientific proofs, called Laws. The problem is Ron Paul is using a layman's definition of a word ("Theory") that has quite a different meaning in science. And that he rejects it outright, coupled with his belief that states are free to establish a religion, is cause for concern.

Scientific laws are not proven. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was ultimately disproven, although it's still generally deemed to be close enough for most practical purposes.

[Matteo Martini]

V4af9Q0Fa4Q
Sorry I don't know how to embed. Fixed

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. He also echoes Huckabee when he says he doesn't think it matters.

How does this affect the Ron Paul supporters here? Shaken a little bit to find out he denies science?

Yes, he says he does not believe in it, and that is maybe bad.
But, at the end, he says that the President should stay out of such discussions, and that is the important point

[Dr Adequate]

I can not but re-quote what I quoted before. And I could do something other than point out that he later admitted that he was wrong, but why would I want to?

[volatile]

Like I said, self-evident. People acquired enormous knowledge through trial and error for eons before Popper came about. It just seems silly to me that someone would think that without Popper stating that scientists would be working on things that don't work because Popper wasn't there to point out the obvious.

Oh, it seems self-obvious now, after the fact... :rolleyes: The fact of the matter is that it really did take Popper to point this out to people. That someone else might have done it sooner or later is beside the point, because no-one had done so before.

I can't really understand why so many people are so flippant about rejecting philosophy - it underpins everything from science to law to politics, religion, ethics, morality. The whole of academia, every discipline, is predicated in philosophy. That you can even describe a process as "trial and error" relies on philosophical axioms. That you can talk about "truth" and "evidence" relies on a great deal of philsophical wrangling over what those terms actually mean right here in the real world.

Read some philosophy before you dismiss it all as "self-evident" - of course it's self-evident now because someone has pointed out how that is the case, but dismissing philosophy for being obvious is like saying Darwin was just "stating the obvious" about evolution!

Everything's obvious when it's spelt out to you coherently and logically (and logic, by the way, is a branch of philosophy too).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

" Scientific proofs "??

There is no such thing as a scientific proof.



What do you mean?
I do not get it.

The common meaning of theory is generally speculation based on facts.

The scientific meaning of theory is the incorporation of scientific laws and tested hypothesis which explain large groupings of observations. A scientific theory has greater weight than a scientific law.

[Dr Adequate]

Well OK, but my interpretation of prediction allows predicting results of measurements you'll make ... But it must also be acceptable to "predict" the results of measurements you've already made, otherwise evidence would always lie in the future.

[volatile]

And I could do something other than point out that he later admitted that he was wrong, but why would I want to?

To be fair on the guy, Dr. A, he did point that out in the very first post he brought this up in!

[Dr Adequate]

The danger is that you can have the theory of evolution that explains the current fossil record.
Tomorrow, a fossil of a bird is found in an historical time frame when it was not supposed to exist ( the bird, I mean ), than it would not be difficult to adapt the theory to explain the new findings. Tell us how to adapt the theory of evolution to explain a bird in the Precambrian.

[danielk]

The danger is that you can have the theory of evolution that explains the current fossil record.
Tomorrow, a fossil of a bird is found in an historical time frame when it was not supposed to exist ( the bird, I mean ), than it would not be difficult to adapt the theory to explain the new findings.
This is how I see it
No, I don't think so. The order is based on the lineage. Of course, with fossils it is a bit hard to get enough genetic material to determine lineage without any doubt (I hope a biologist will correct me if I'm talking stupid). However, even with imperfect knowledge of the exact lineage, it still has to fit all fossils and be internally consistent as well.

I suppose it's probably more likely that the wiggle room lies elsewhere, for instance in the fact that stuff in the ground sometimes moves around. However, I'm sure a geologist would be able to determine if there are tell-tale signs for such movement or not. And as I understand it, the fossil layers are pretty intricate -- hard to move anything around and keep it intact.

[Matteo Martini]

There is no such thing as a scientific proof.

The common meaning of theory is generally speculation based on facts.

The scientific meaning of theory is the incorporation of scientific laws and tested hypothesis which explain large groupings of observations. A scientific theory has greater weight than a scientific law.

Why do you say this to me?
I completely agree that " scientific proof " is a contradiction in terms, as science is, by definition, always looking for new evidence to disprove current theories.

P.S.
I do not agree with " A scientific theory has greater weight than a scientific law "

P.P.S.
Soon this part of thread will be closed as we are derailing ( ? )

[Matteo Martini]

Tell us how to adapt the theory of evolution to explain a bird in the Precambrian.

Unexpected findings ( not on the size that you are talking about ) have already been found in quantities.

[WildCat]

Scientific laws are not proven. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was ultimately disproven, although it's still generally deemed to be close enough for most practical purposes.
Point taken, but it holds true in the non-quantum universe doesn't it?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Tell us how to adapt the theory of evolution to explain a bird in the Precambrian.

Reformulation of the branching of genetic changes. It would be postulated that a small grouping of species had a dramatic isolated evolutionary jump insulated from the rest of life.

[WildCat]

Unexpected findings ( not on the size that you are talking about ) have already been found in quantities.
Examples?

[volatile]

Point taken, but it holds true in the non-quantum universe doesn't it?

No.

You've heard of Einstein, right?

[danielk]

But it must also be acceptable to "predict" the results of measurements you've already made, otherwise evidence would always lie in the future.
I think that's already covered by the basic requirement that a theory obviously needs to match the facts which are currently known. Maybe I misread Popper, but I got the impression that the problem with retrospective fact-fitting was important to him. Well, I should read it again at some point anyway.

[WildCat]

Reformulation of the branching of genetic changes. It would be postulated that a small grouping of species had a dramatic isolated evolutionary jump insulated from the rest of life.
No, evolution requires similar predecessors. If a mollusk changed directly into a bird it would destroy the ToE.

[WildCat]

No.

You've heard of Einstein, right?
Ah, OK. Forgot about that! Point taken. :blush:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, evolution requires similar predecessors. If a mollusk changed directly into a bird it would destroy the ToE.

You are beginning to see the problems. The answer for this is we have yet to find the intermediate stages or the back-tracking to previous thought. You do know that evolution was at one time considered to have dramatic jumps in change. This thinking would allow for your example above and the ToE would revert back to its old thinking and again this example would not be a falsification of the theory.

[Lonewulf]

Wow.

The Theory of Evolution has actually been compared to Marxism.

I'm gonna go cry.

[WildCat]

You are beginning to see the problems. The answer for this is we have yet to find the intermediate stages or the back-tracking to previous thought.
There are no gaps quite as big as the one you describe in the fossil record. You have advanced vertebrates appearing from simple invertebrates!

[Matteo Martini]

No, I don't think so. The order is based on the lineage. Of course, with fossils it is a bit hard to get enough genetic material to determine lineage without any doubt (I hope a biologist will correct me if I'm talking stupid). However, even with imperfect knowledge of the exact lineage, it still has to fit all fossils and be internally consistent as well.

I suppose it's probably more likely that the wiggle room lies elsewhere, for instance in the fact that stuff in the ground sometimes moves around. However, I'm sure a geologist would be able to determine if there are tell-tale signs for such movement or not. And as I understand it, the fossil layers are pretty intricate -- hard to move anything around and keep it intact.

And I could do something other than point out that he later admitted that he was wrong, but why would I want to?

Tell us how to adapt the theory of evolution to explain a bird in the Precambrian.

The point is that ( if I remember well ) there is no thing like a perfect scientific theory and a perfect crap.

A theory can have more scientific content, and therefore, can be valuable if:

1) explains observation better/ with high accuracy than common sense / current theories
2) can make predictions which are in contrast with current theories / common sense

Point 2 is important.

Now, for example, Einstein` s theory of general relativity is not only valuable as it explains observations better than former theories ( classical phisics / mechanics based basically on Newton` s three laws ), but also because it made predictions about future outcomes of experiments with were in contrast with former theories ( see above ).

This is the weak point of the theory of evolution, as it is quite difficult to think about how to do an experiment / research with the intention to try to falsify the theory of evolution.

If I remember well, Popper, in the beginning, stressed the need for scientific theories to be able to make predictions, and said ( if I am not wrong ), that the more a theory made accurate predictions and the more those predictions were in contrast with commons sense / previous theories, the more such a theory would have had " scientific value ".

If I remember well, later he changed and he dropped the requirement for scientific theories to predict future findings, as maybe too many pieces of current science would have been left out.

[RecoveringYuppy]

You are beginning to see the problems. The answer for this is we have yet to find the intermediate stages or the back-tracking to previous thought. You do know that evolution was at one time considered to have dramatic jumps in change. This thinking would allow for your example above and the ToE would revert back to its old thinking and again this example would not be a falsification of the theory.
Any place where you have to change the theory in any way to adapt to new information means you falsified something. This really ought to be a simple point.

And we can't "simply" revert back to previous thinking. We've actually measured mutations rates. Those old ideas were falsified and can't be restored without ignoring the information that falsified them in the first place.

[PixyMisa]

I will admit I find the art of philosophy dry and largely useless, what practical uses it does have seems self-evident to me. But maybe my prejudice stems from too much of Interesting Ian here... if you don't know who he is you're much better off. ;)
I'm about as impressed by philosphy in general as you are, but of the few philosophers I consider worthwhile, Popper is one of the foremost.

In fact, I have his The Logic of Scientific Discovery right here on my desk. Admittedly that's largely because I went shopping for philosophy books one day and it's been sitting there ever since, along with Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Breaking the Spell, and two volumes of Gunsmith Cats.

[Matteo Martini]

Examples?

The long goodbye: Neanderthals survived far longer than thought

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200609/ai_n16927584

The first one I found.
But I have read of others..

[Matteo Martini]

Wow.

The Theory of Evolution has actually been compared to Marxism.

I'm gonna go cry.

Drat!!
Making such a twist of what I said..

[danielk]

Wow.

The Theory of Evolution has actually been compared to Marxism.

I'm gonna go cry.
Whawhahwhat?! I think you're completely misinterpreting Matteo Martini's reference.

[Kerberos]

I have zero religious loyalty. In fact I reject religion fully as it is a dangerous tool of control.

So you did not then obfuscate about evolution before your guru did, is that correct?

[Henners]

Unexpected findings ( not on the size that you are talking about ) have already been found in quantities.

Brilliant.

You guys are just great at handling out rope until there's enough for a complete noose.

[WildCat]

The long goodbye: Neanderthals survived far longer than thought

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200609/ai_n16927584

The first one I found.
But I have read of others..
That has nothing at all to do with the viability of evolution. A living Neanderthal today would not discredit the ToE.

[PixyMisa]

That has nothing at all to do with the viability of evolution. A living Neanderthal today would not discredit the ToE.
Right.

Coelacanths and horseshoe crabs have been around, largely unchanged, for hundreds of millions of years. That homo neanderthalensis survived 6,000 years beyond what we originally thought is only of interest because they were so closely related to us. It certainly doesn't raise any questions for evolutionary theory.

[Matteo Martini]

That has nothing at all to do with the viability of evolution. A living Neanderthal today would not discredit the ToE.

This is the first reference I have found to show you that there are, indeed, unexpected findings in paleontology, almost continously.
It is 1:30 a.m. in Japan, and I have no intention to do more research for you.
Believe me or not, it is OK.
Study Popper, it is a shame that you do not even know who he was.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you did not then obfuscate about evolution before your guru did, is that correct?

:confused:

No guru here. I think for myself. To ignore the realities of science and accept blindly the current explanations would be placing trust in gurus.

[Matteo Martini]

I think that's already covered by the basic requirement that a theory obviously needs to match the facts which are currently known. Maybe I misread Popper, but I got the impression that the problem with retrospective fact-fitting was important to him. Well, I should read it again at some point anyway.

Basically, if I understood Popper well, the more a theory could not be fixed with what you call as " retrospective fact-fitting ", the more scientific the theory.

Wow.

The Theory of Evolution has actually been compared to Marxism.

I'm gonna go cry.

I was saying..
The more a theory can be falsifiable, the more the theory is scientific.
Just as an example, Marxism, which was historically dubbed as " scientific " has been " retrospective fact-fitted " ( if I may use this expression ) quite some times.
If I remember well, Marx did make very few predictions, and the one had been found dead wrong.
Somewhen, before 1914, he said that, due to the current deteriorating of the political outlook in the West, it ws inevitable that there would have been a war between imperialistic nations, but, when the proletariats of different nations were to be fighting against themsenves ( under different flags ), they would realize the stupidity of proletariats of different nations fighting for a war promoted by the capitalists, and that would lead to a global victory of the proletariat.
Easy to see that things did not go that way.
However, the Communist and Socialist intellectuals managed to fit Marxists theories in order to match recent history.
This is what Popper meant.

[Undesired Walrus]

Evolution is a science.

Why? Because it is a theory that can be tested and supported with evidence.

Gravity is a science.

Why? Because it is a theory that can be tested and supported with evidence.

[Henners]

This is the first reference I have found to show you that there are, indeed, unexpected findings in paleontology, almost continously.

However, you were supposed to be providing evidence that there were loads of discoveries that have necessitated changes to the Theory of Evolution.

And you haven't been able to come up with a single one.

Perhaps you were wrong and there aren't any.

[Lonewulf]

:confused:

No guru here. I think for myself.
Yeah, you might want to work on the "think" part.

To ignore the realities of science and accept blindly the current explanations would be placing trust in gurus.

To ignore the realities of science? Like you're doing?

[Matteo Martini]

Brilliant.

You guys are just great at handling out rope until there's enough for a complete noose.

??
Seems that there are guys here that are more fanatics than fanatics about intelligent design.

Right.

Coelacanths and horseshoe crabs have been around, largely unchanged, for hundreds of millions of years. That homo neanderthalensis survived 6,000 years beyond what we originally thought is only of interest because they were so closely related to us. It certainly doesn't raise any questions for evolutionary theory.

My point was to show that unexpected findings in paleontology happen every day.
The theory of evolution can be perfected from new findings, but that is not, for some, too different from what has been called " retro fact fitting "
The point is not how long have crabs been living, but if it is easy to think to a ( realistic ) example of new discovery that can completely blow up the theory of evolution.
Falsifiability, it is all about it.

[Lonewulf]

However, you were supposed to be providing evidence that there were loads of discoveries that have necessitated changes to the Theory of Evolution.

And you haven't been able to come up with a single one.

Perhaps you were wrong and there aren't any.

I don't quite the argument that there shouldn't be changes made when new evidence comes in, though. Any theory is like that.

Do people really think that all theories, like the Theory of Relativity, have had no modifications as new data came in? Do people think that theories spring fully formed, and never can accept changes?

[Lonewulf]

My point was to show that unexpected findings in paleontology happen every day.
The theory of evolution can be perfected from new findings, but that is not, for some, too different from what has been called " retro fact fitting "
The point is not how long have crabs been living, but if it is easy to think to a ( realistic ) example of new discovery that can completely blow up the theory of evolution.
Falsifiability, it is all about it.

Hm.

I guess that you could say the same thing aobut the Theory of Relativity.

What single thing could disprove the entire Theory of Relativity? One tiny discovery.

It's all about falsifiability. If you can't come up with one, then you must be a fanatical believer in the heretical belief of Relativity.

What about Big Bang Theory? There's background radiation everywhere... what falsifiable thing can we discover now that would demonstrate the Big Bang Theory is hokum? C'mon, if you can't think of any, then you're a fanatical believer.

Anyways, this is fun and all, but you guys really need to read up in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88911) thread. Go ahead and post in it, too. I'm sure you can prove those evil fanatical evolutionists wrong.

[Matteo Martini]

However, you were supposed to be providing evidence that there were loads of discoveries that have necessitated changes to the Theory of Evolution.

And you haven't been able to come up with a single one.

Perhaps you were wrong and there aren't any.

That is my ( well, not mine, the first Popper` s ) point.
Theory of Evolution does not make predictions precise enough to be falsifiable by new findings, at least, this was ( is ) the point.
There fore, it can maybe be said that it is impossible to have a new discovery that necessitate a dramatic change / to trash the ToE.

[Matteo Martini]

Hm.

I guess that you could say the same thing aobut the Theory of Relativity.

What single thing could disprove the entire Theory of Relativity? One tiny discovery.

It's all about falsifiability. If you can't come up with one, then you must be a fanatical believer in the heretical belief of Relativity.

Anyways, this is fun and all, but you guys really need to read up in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88911) thread. Go ahead and post in it, too. I'm sure you can prove those evil evolutionists wrong.

Nope.
The theory of relativity does:
1) make predictions extremely accurate about outcomes of experiments which can be currently performed;
2) the predictions made by the ToR are in contrast with predictions by classical mechanics

[PixyMisa]

My point was to show that unexpected findings in paleontology happen every day.
The theory of evolution can be perfected from new findings, but that is not, for some, too different from what has been called " retro fact fitting "
It is completely different.

Astrophysics tells us how stars behave. It doesn't tell us what stars are out there; for that, you have to actually go and look. But it tells us what properties those stars will have. If you find a star that is producing hydrogen from helium rather than vice-versa, astrophysics has a problem.

The point is not how long have crabs been living, but if it is easy to think to a ( realistic ) example of new discovery that can completely blow up the theory of evolution.
Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. That's perfectly realistic; all you need to do is dig through Precambrian strata until you find them.

Falsifiability, it is all about it.
Got yer falsifiability right here.

[Undesired Walrus]

It's sad to see people dig themselves into the pool of idiocy after being blinded by their love of Ron Paul.

[Kerberos]

:confused:

No guru here. I think for myself. To ignore the realities of science and accept blindly the current explanations would be placing trust in gurus.

Yet you refuse to answer the question. Don't worry, your lack of answer is most informative. Unfortunatly it doesn't match your protestations about not having gurus to well.

[Lonewulf]

That is my ( well, not mine, the first Popper` s ) point.
Theory of Evolution does not make predictions precise enough to be falsifiable by new findings, at least, this was ( is ) the point.
There fore, it can maybe be said that it is impossible to have a new discovery that necessitate a dramatic change / to trash the ToE.

Okay, since you keep arguing this, I'm seriously going to have to nip this in the bud.

Here's a tip. As more data comes in, it becomes very hard to bring in more data. There's not an infinite amount of data in the universe. I can name almost all properties of water thanks to chemistry. Thus, it becomes hard to falsify, say, the properties of water as more and more data comes in. Does that mean that water no longer exists? That it no longer effects the world it's in?

Falsifiability does not apply after all the evidence comes pouring in, but before. If something is unfalsifiable, then there is no evidence that will support it or not support it. Here's why Evolution is Falsifiable... here's the things you'd need to not have to falsify it:

*No existance of fossils.
*Entirely huge gaps between fossils with no signs of evolution from one generation to the next.

Etc.

As it is, there's a plethora of evidence. The bulk of it is major evidence. What you're doing now is claiming that one minor thing can't throw the entire Theory out of whack... which means what, exactly? I don't get the point here. There's one tiny minor thing that has to deal with evolution that we didn't get pinpoint accuracy on... and supposedly this throws out genetics, mutations, beneficial mutations, and short-term evolutionary changes (which are proven. Tip: Moths).

Seriously, is this really a serious argument?

[Lonewulf]

Nope.
The theory of relativity does:
1) make predictions extremely accurate about outcomes of experiments which can be currently performed;
2) the predictions made by the ToR are in contrast with predictions by classical mechanics

So it's falsifiable? What can falsify it? It's either falsifiable or it's not. If it's not, you're a fanatical believer.

C'mon, name one tiny thing that would ENTIRELY throw out the ENTIRE theory of relativity out the window, plz. Thanx.

[PixyMisa]

That is my ( well, not mine, the first Popper` s ) point.
Popper admitted he was wrong on this.
Theory of Evolution does not make predictions precise enough to be falsifiable by new findings, at least, this was ( is ) the point.
It predicts that you won't find species without precursors. There are gaps in the fossil record due to the exigencies of geology itself, but we have not ever found things that could not plausibly have evolved from earlier forms.

There fore, it can maybe be said that it is impossible to have a new discovery that necessitate a dramatic change / to trash the ToE.
Antecambriensis bunnii.

[Matteo Martini]

It is completely different.

Astrophysics tells us how stars behave. It doesn't tell us what stars are out there; for that, you have to actually go and look. But it tells us what properties those stars will have. If you find a star that is producing hydrogen from helium rather than vice-versa, astrophysics has a problem.


As I said, Popper later changed his stance, understanding that, if the criteria of being able to make predictions, would have left out too many branches of what is now considered as official science


Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. That's perfectly realistic; all you need to do is dig through Precambrian strata until you find them.


You do not get my point.
If the theory of evolution did make predictions, such as:

in the North part of Congo, where, until now we have only found fossil of mammals, we will find a fossil of a bird of 2,5 meters, which has the head of a falcon, and the wings of an eagle

that would mean that the theory of evolution does make predictions.

Unfortunately, it does not.

[Lonewulf]

When we find a chimera or a gryphon, maybe that would throw things into whack.

I find it "interesting" that there no completely arbitrary animals we've dug up; things that couldn't possibly have evolved from anything else. Hmm... wonder why?

[Matteo Martini]

So it's falsifiable? What can falsify it? It's either falsifiable or it's not. If it's not, you're a fanatical believer.

C'mon, name one tiny thing that would ENTIRELY throw out the ENTIRE theory of relativity out the window, plz. Thanx.

It is as you can make an experiment with the goal of falsify the theory of relativity.
Can you make an experiment with the goal of falsify the theory of evolution?

I am really surprised about how many people here do not get this simple concept

[Matteo Martini]

Popper admitted he was wrong on this.


It is not a question of right or wrong
It is a criteria


It predicts that you won't find species without precursors.

But you can change names to species, and how you call species


There are gaps in the fossil record due to the exigencies of geology itself, but we have not ever found things that could not plausibly have evolved from earlier forms.


Depends on how you define " earlier form " and ( I assume ) " later form "

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is as you can make an experiment with the goal of falsify the theory of relativity.
Can you