A Testable Evolutionary Hypothesis? Is there such a thing?
-
Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.
IOW it appears the theory of evolution cannot even muster a hypothesis that is exclusive. Not only that there still isn't any evidence that demonstrates the proposed mechanisms can construct a functional multi-part system.
Are there any evoltionists out there who are up to the task of producing a testable hypothesis for your position? One that excludes other alternatives?
Or is the best you can do is to attack ID and all alternatives- IOW do you really think your negative attacks amount to positive evidence?
Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.
IOW it appears the theory of evolution cannot even muster a hypothesis that is exclusive. Not only that there still isn't any evidence that demonstrates the proposed mechanisms can construct a functional multi-part system.
Are there any evoltionists out there who are up to the task of producing a testable hypothesis for your position? One that excludes other alternatives?
Or is the best you can do is to attack ID and all alternatives- IOW do you really think your negative attacks amount to positive evidence?
posted by Joe G @ 9:14 AM
63 Comments:
At 1:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"One that excludes other alternatives" - whenever evolution does something, you simply say "it was designed to do that", so it can never be exclusive of your parasitic conjecture that adds nothing but seeks to piggyback on the toil of others.
At 8:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
whenever evolution does something,
Evolution has several meanings. So why do you equivocate?
Rich:
you simply say "it was designed to do that",
That is nonsense. You're just making shit up again to try to wiggle out of actually providing positive evidence for your position.
Thank you for proving beyond a doubt that you are an intellectual coward. "Oh gee whiz guys I can't produce any positive evidence nor a testable hypothesis because I say Joe won't accept it".
No Rich you won't produce it because you can't.
At 12:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
Evolution has several meanings*:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
With the above in mind it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is really a theory of equivocation. That is any and all evidences for evolution 1-5 are always used as evidence for evolution #6.
For example- the varying beak of the finch, anti-biotic resistance in bacteria, and genetic similarities (including alleged shared mistakes but regardless of the physiological & anatomical differences), are all used as evidence for evolution #6.
It should also be noted that evolution #6, ie culled genetic accidents, does not produce any predictions beyond perhaps change and/ or stasis, nor is it objectively testable.
* page 136-37 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
At 12:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Another positive case for design
At 9:24 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios."
That is a problem. Observe in the abstracts below just how general, and unconnected with proposed mechanisms, research in evolutionary biology can be:
Nonlinear selection and the evolution of variances and covariances for continuous characters in an anole
REVELL, L. J.1; MAHLER, D. L.2; SWEENEY, J. R.3; SOBOTKA, M.4; FANCHER, V. E.4; LOSOS, J.B.2
The pattern of genetic variances and covariances among characters, summarized in the additive genetic variance-covariance matrix, G, determines how a population will respond to linear natural selection. However, G itself also evolves in response to selection. In particular, we expect that, over time, G will evolve correspondence with the pattern of multivariate nonlinear natural selection. In this study, we substitute the phenotypic variance-covariance matrix (P) for G to determine if the pattern of multivariate nonlinear selection in a natural population of Anolis cristatellus, an arboreal lizard from Puerto Rico, has influenced the evolution of genetic variances and covariances in this species. Although results varied among our estimates of P and fitness, and among our analytic techniques, we find significant evidence for congruence between nonlinear selection and P, suggesting that natural selection may have influenced the evolution of genetic constraint in this species.
Linking divergent selection on vegetative traits to environmental variation and phenotypic diversification in the Iberian columbines ( Aquilegia)
ALCÁNTARA, J. M.; BASTIDA, J. M.; REY, P. J.
Divergent selection is a key in the ecological theory of adaptive radiation. Most evidence on its causes and consequences relies on studies of pairs of populations or closely related taxa. However, adaptive radiation involves multiple taxa adapted to different environmental factors. We propose an operational definition of divergent selection to explore the continuum between divergent and convergent selection in multiple populations and taxa, and its links with environmental variation and phenotypic and taxonomic differentiation. We apply this approach to explore phenotypic differentiation of vegetative traits between 15 populations of four taxa of Iberian columbines (Gen. Aquilegia). Differences in soil rockiness impose divergent selection on inflorescence height and the number of flowers per inflorescence, likely affecting the processes of phenotypic and, in the case of inflorescence height, taxonomic diversification between taxa. Elevational variation imposes divergent selection on the number of leaves; however, the current pattern of divergent selection on this trait seems related to ecotypic differentiation within taxa but not to their taxonomic diversification.
(continued…)
At 9:27 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios."
That is a problem. Observe in the abstract below just how general, and unconnected with proposed mechanisms, research in evolutionary biology can be:
Nonlinear selection and the evolution of variances and covariances for continuous characters in an anole
REVELL, L. J.1; MAHLER, D. L.2; SWEENEY, J. R.3; SOBOTKA, M.4; FANCHER, V. E.4; LOSOS, J.B.2
The pattern of genetic variances and covariances among characters, summarized in the additive genetic variance-covariance matrix, G, determines how a population will respond to linear natural selection. However, G itself also evolves in response to selection. In particular, we expect that, over time, G will evolve correspondence with the pattern of multivariate nonlinear natural selection. In this study, we substitute the phenotypic variance-covariance matrix (P) for G to determine if the pattern of multivariate nonlinear selection in a natural population of Anolis cristatellus, an arboreal lizard from Puerto Rico, has influenced the evolution of genetic variances and covariances in this species. Although results varied among our estimates of P and fitness, and among our analytic techniques, we find significant evidence for congruence between nonlinear selection and P, suggesting that natural selection may have influenced the evolution of genetic constraint in this species.
(continued...)
At 9:28 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
Linking divergent selection on vegetative traits to environmental variation and phenotypic diversification in the Iberian columbines ( Aquilegia)
ALCÁNTARA, J. M.; BASTIDA, J. M.; REY, P. J.
Divergent selection is a key in the ecological theory of adaptive radiation. Most evidence on its causes and consequences relies on studies of pairs of populations or closely related taxa. However, adaptive radiation involves multiple taxa adapted to different environmental factors. We propose an operational definition of divergent selection to explore the continuum between divergent and convergent selection in multiple populations and taxa, and its links with environmental variation and phenotypic and taxonomic differentiation. We apply this approach to explore phenotypic differentiation of vegetative traits between 15 populations of four taxa of Iberian columbines (Gen. Aquilegia). Differences in soil rockiness impose divergent selection on inflorescence height and the number of flowers per inflorescence, likely affecting the processes of phenotypic and, in the case of inflorescence height, taxonomic diversification between taxa. Elevational variation imposes divergent selection on the number of leaves; however, the current pattern of divergent selection on this trait seems related to ecotypic differentiation within taxa but not to their taxonomic diversification.
(continued…)
At 9:29 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
Detecting positive selection in the budding yeast genome
LI, Y.-D.1; LIANG, H.2; GU, Z.3; LIN, Z.2; GUAN, W.1; ZHOU, L.1; LI, Y.-Q.1; LI, W.-H.2
Available abundant genomic data allows us to study the evolution of the yeast genome at a fine scale. In this study, we examined the adaptive evolution of coding and promoter regions in three Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. First, using a maximum-likelihood approach, we identified 76 positively selected genes (PSG) whose coding regions likely have undergone positive selection in the recent past. These genes show significant bias in terms of biological function and they show over-representation of charged amino acids at positively selected sites. Next, using recent data on yeast transcription-start sites to define core-promoter regions, we identified 31 positively selected promoters, and their corresponding genes are significantly enriched in transmembrane transporter function. We found PSG show no correlation with promoter adaption or expression variation, suggesting that positive selection on coding regions and positive selection on promoter regions are not coupled. Together, our study provides insights into the evolution of S. cerevisiae strains from different environments.
At 9:29 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
Adaptive Evolution of Genes Duplicated from the Drosophila pseudoobscura neo-X Chromosome
Meisel, Richard P.1; Hilldorfer, Benedict B.2; Koch, Jessica L.3; Lockton, Steven4; Schaeffer, Stephen W.5
Drosophila X chromosomes are disproportionate sources of duplicated genes, and these duplications are usually the result of retrotransposition of X-linked genes to the autosomes. The excess duplication is thought to be driven by natural selection for two reasons: X chromosomes are inactivated during spermatogenesis, and the derived copies of retroposed duplications tend to be testis expressed. Therefore, autosomal derived copies of retroposed genes provide a mechanism for their X-linked paralogs to “escape” X inactivation. Once these duplications have fixed, they may then be selected for male-specific functions. Throughout the evolution of the Drosophila genus, autosomes have fused with X chromosomes along multiple lineages giving rise to neo-X chromosomes. There has also been excess duplication from the two independent neo-X chromosomes that have been examined—one that occurred prior to the common ancestor of the willistoni species group and another that occurred along the lineage leading to Drosophila pseudoobscura. To determine what role natural selection plays in the evolution of genes duplicated from the D. pseudoobscura neo-X chromosome, we analyzed DNA sequence divergence between paralogs, polymorphism within each copy, and the expression profiles of these duplicated genes. We found that the derived copies of all duplicated genes have elevated nonsynonymous polymorphism, suggesting that they are under relaxed selective constraints. The derived copies also tend to have testis- or male-biased expression profiles regardless of their chromosome of origin. Genes duplicated from the neo-X chromosome appear to be under less constraints than those duplicated from other chromosome arms. We also find more evidence for historical adaptive evolution in genes duplicated from the neo-X chromosome, suggesting that they are under a unique selection regime in which elevated nonsynonymous polymorphism provides a large reservoir of functional variants, some of which are fixed by natural selection.
At 9:30 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
Genome-Wide Evidence for Efficient Positive and Purifying Selection in Capsella grandiflora, a Plant Species with a Large Effective Population Size
Slotte, Tanja1; Foxe, John Paul2; Hazzouri, Khaled Michel3; Wright, Stephen I.1
Recent studies comparing genome-wide polymorphism and divergence in Drosophila have found evidence for a surprisingly high proportion of adaptive amino acid fixations, but results for other taxa are mixed. In particular, few studies have found convincing evidence for adaptive amino acid substitution in plants. To assess the generality of this finding, we have sequenced 257 loci in the outcrossing crucifer Capsella grandiflora, which has a large effective population size and low population structure. Using a new method that jointly infers selective and demographic effects, we estimate that 40% of amino acid substitutions were fixed by positive selection in this species, and we also infer a low proportion of slightly deleterious amino acid mutations. We contrast these estimates with those for a similar data set from the closely related Arabidopsis thaliana and find significantly higher rates of adaptive evolution and fewer nearly neutral mutations in C. grandiflora. In agreement with results for other taxa, genes involved in reproduction show the strongest evidence for positive selection in C. grandiflora. Taken together, these results imply that both positive and purifying selection are more effective in C. grandiflora than in A. thaliana, consistent with the contrasting demographic history and effective population sizes of these species.
At 9:31 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
Selection on life-history traits and genetic population divergence in rotifers
A combination of founder effects and local adaptation – the Monopolization hypothesis – has been proposed to reconcile the strong population differentiation of zooplankton dwelling in ponds and lakes and their high dispersal abilities. The role genetic drift plays in genetic differentiation of zooplankton is well documented, but the impact of natural selection has received less attention. Here, we compare differentiation in neutral genetic markers ( FST) and in quantitative traits ( QST) in six natural populations of the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis to assess the importance of natural selection in explaining genetic differentiation of life-history traits. Five life-history traits were measured in four temperature × salinity combinations in common-garden experiments. Population differentiation for neutral genetic markers – 11 microsatellite loci – was very high ( FST = 0.482). Differentiation in life-history traits was higher in traits related to sexual reproduction than in those related to asexual reproduction. QST values for diapausing egg production (a trait related to sexual reproduction) were higher than their corresponding FST in some pairs of populations. Our results indicate the importance of divergent natural selection in these populations and suggest local adaptation to the unpredictability of B. plicatilis habitats.
At 9:31 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
An Integrated View of Molecular Coevolution in Protein–Protein Interactions
Lovell, Simon C.1; Robertson, David L.1 Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, United Kingdom
Protein–protein interactions effectively mediate molecular function. They are the result of specific interactions between protein interfaces and are maintained by the action of evolutionary pressure on the regions of the interacting proteins that contribute to binding. For the most part, selection restricts amino acid replacements, accounting for the conservation of binding interfaces. However, in some cases, change in one protein will be mitigated by compensatory change in its binding partner, maintaining function in the face of evolutionary change. There have been several attempts to use correlations in sequence evolution to predict interactions of proteins. Most commonly, these approaches use the entire sequence to identify correlations and so infer probable binding. However, other factors such as shared evolutionary history and similarities in the rates of evolution confound these whole-sequence–based approaches. Here, we discuss recent work on this topic and argue that both site-specific coevolutionary change and whole-sequence evolution contribute to evolutionary signals in sets of interacting proteins. We discuss the relative effects of both types of selection and how they might be identified. This permits an integrated view of protein–protein interactions, their evolution, and coevolution.
At 9:31 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
And this one:
Evolutionary Origin and Phylogeny of the Modern Holocephalans (Chondrichthyes: Chimaeriformes): A Mitogenomic Perspective
Inoue, Jun G.1; Miya, Masaki2; Lam, Kevin3; Tay, Boon-Hui4; Danks, Janine A.5; Bell, Justin1; Walker, Terrence I.1; Venkatesh, Byrappa1
With our increasing ability for generating whole-genome sequences, comparative analysis of whole genomes has become a powerful tool for understanding the structure, function, and evolutionary history of human and other vertebrate genomes. By virtue of their position basal to bony vertebrates, cartilaginous fishes (class Chondrichthyes) are a valuable outgroup in comparative studies of vertebrates. Recently, a holocephalan cartilaginous fish, the elephant shark, Callorhinchus milii (Subclass Holocephali: Order Chimaeriformes), has been proposed as a model genome, and low-coverage sequence of its genome has been generated. Despite such an increasing interest, the evolutionary history of the modern holocephalans—a previously successful and diverse group but represented by only 39 extant species—and their relationship with elasmobranchs and other jawed vertebrates has been poorly documented largely owing to a lack of well-preserved fossil materials after the end-Permian about 250 Ma. In this study, we assembled the whole mitogenome sequences for eight representatives from all the three families of the modern holocephalans and investigated their phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history. Unambiguously aligned sequences from these holocephalans together with 17 other vertebrates (9,409 nt positions excluding entire third codon positions) were subjected to partitioned maximum likelihood analysis. The resulting tree strongly supported a single origin of the modern holocephalans and their sister-group relationship with elasmobranchs. The mitogenomic tree recovered the most basal callorhinchids within the chimaeriforms, which is sister to a clade comprising the remaining two families (rhinochimaerids and chimaerids). The timetree derived from a relaxed molecular clock Bayesian method suggests that the holocephalans originated in the Silurian about 420 Ma, having survived from the end-Permian (250 Ma) mass extinction and undergoing familial diversifications during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous (170–120 Ma). This postulated evolutionary scenario agrees well with that based on the paleontological observations.
At 9:32 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Selection for thermostability can lead to the emergence of mutational robustness in an RNA virus
DOMINGO-CALAP, P.1; PEREIRA-GÓMEZ, M.2; SANJUÁN, R.1
Mutational robustness has important evolutionary implications, yet the mechanisms leading to its emergence remain poorly understood. One possibility is selection acting on a correlated trait, as for instance thermostability (plastogenetic congruence). Here, we examine the correlation between mutational robustness and thermostability in experimental populations of the RNA bacteriophage Qβ. Thermostable viruses evolved after only six serial passages in the presence of heat shocks, and genome sequencing suggested that thermostability can be conferred by several alternative mutations. To test whether thermostable viruses have increased mutational robustness, we performed additional passages in the presence of nitrous acid. Whereas in control lines this treatment produced the expected reduction in growth rate caused by the accumulation of deleterious mutations, thermostable viruses showed no such reduction, indicating that they are more resistant to mutagenesis. Our results suggest that selection for thermostability can lead to the emergence of mutational robustness driven by plastogenetic congruence. As temperature is a widespread selective pressure in nature, the mechanism described here may be relevant to the evolution of mutational robustness."
At 9:41 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Nonlinear selection and the evolution of variances and covariances for continuous characters in an anole
That fits in with baraminology and ID.
R Bill:
Linking divergent selection on vegetative traits to environmental variation and phenotypic diversification in the Iberian columbines ( Aquilegia)
Fits in with baraminology and ID.
IOW Bill thanks for the equivocation.
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Detecting positive selection in the budding yeast genome
Fits in with baraminology and ID.
Geez Bill evolution is not being debated.
What I am asking for is more specific.
I am asking, for example, how can we test the theory of evolution's main premise- that an accumulation of genetic accidents was the mechanism.
How do we test if the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
What is the testable hypothesis for that?
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Adaptive Evolution of Genes Duplicated from the Drosophila pseudoobscura neo-X Chromosome
Fruit flies "evolving" into fruit flies doesn't help you Bill.
R Bill:
Genome-Wide Evidence for Efficient Positive and Purifying Selection in Capsella grandiflora, a Plant Species with a Large Effective Population Size
Again what is it in that paper that is helps your case?
At 9:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Too funny R Bill thinks he can baldly post papers about "evolution" and think that solves the problem.
Too bad all of your papers support baraminology and say nothing about either an accumulation of genetic accidents nor blind, undirected chemical processes.
They may as well be ID papers of creation papers.
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that nec=ver had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.
At 11:12 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G.:
"R Bill thinks he can baldly post papers about "evolution" and think that solves the problem."
They do, to the extent that the "problem" is the following false assertion:
"All alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms."
The hypotheses are quite specific, have everything to do with the proposed mechanisms, and are put to empirical test. That makes the activity a science. Your statement is shown to be flat wrong.
Moreover, the fact that ANY research finding can be made to "fit with baramology and ID" isn't good for your position. Rather, it underscores the fact baramology and ID are not, and cannot be made to be, sciences, because no finding can disconfirm them.
In contrast, these studies describe the investigation of specific hypotheses such that had the experimental outcomes differed, the hypotheses would have been challenged and/or disconfirmed.
At 8:16 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
The hypotheses are quite specific,
Not one of them address what I am saying- so they are specifically bullshit.
R Bill:
Moreover, the fact that ANY research finding can be made to "fit with baramology and ID" isn't good for your position.
Except that ain't the facts assface. IDists and Creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims.
It's all about parsimony- removing the requirement for a designer, ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it.
Yet you don't have anything demonstrating such processes can construct a functioning multi-part system.
Also the Creation model was out before Darwin- so it is you guys who are taking any research and making it fit your model.
All of that underscores your ignorance.
At 8:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Now how about answering the questions:
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that nec=ver had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.
At 5:17 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
"Not one of them address what I am saying."
It doesn't follow that the above hypotheses are general, don't address mechanisms, or are not science, as you falsely claim above. The opposite is manifestly true, as illustrated in the above (and thousands of similar studies published every year.) It is your false claim to which these illustrations speak.
"IDists and creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims."
As illustrated in your remark that follows, most proposed refutations are actually tests of the rival theory, not of Creationism and ID:
"ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it."
This fails as a test of ID for several reasons. First, it does not logically follow from successes within evolutionary biology that ID false. Both mechanisms could be operating. Moreover, it does not follow logically from the failure of contemporary evolutionary theory that ID is true. Both could be incorrect.
Additionally, as YOU define the above test, all empirical research with bearing the correctness of ID would be conceived within from within the framework of evolutionary biology and flow from entailments of evolutionary theory, without the slightest contribution from ID. Because ID contributes exactly zero to the process even as you define it, researchers are right to ignore it.
At 5:33 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
It doesn't follow that the above hypotheses are general, don't address mechanisms, or are not science, as you falsely claim above.
There still isn't any evidence that demonstrates the proposed mechanisms can construct a functional multi-part system.
Not one paper even deals with what I am saying.
R Bill:
As illustrated in your remark that follows, most proposed refutations are actually tests of the rival theory, not of Creationism and ID:
You asked what would falsify them not how to test them- the two are linked but not the same.
For the design inference we need to eliminate blind, undirected chemical processes PLUS find some specification.
But anyways we have always said- ALWAYS- that all you have to do is start producing positive evidence for your position and ID would fade away.
ALL leaders of ID have made this very clear.
R Bill:
First, it does not logically follow from successes within evolutionary biology that ID false.
It depends on what success- if it success with abiogenesis then ID falls. That is because living organisms are the epitome of CSI and IC. And if blind, undirected processes can construct a living organism using nothing but non-living matter ID falls.
R Bill:
Moreover, it does not follow logically from the failure of contemporary evolutionary theory that ID is true.
No shit but your failures have been huge. Evo-devo has been a bust. You've got nothing but slight oscillating changes.
R Bill:
Additionally, as YOU define the above test, all empirical research with bearing the correctness of ID would be conceived within from within the framework of evolutionary biology and flow from entailments of evolutionary theory, without the slightest contribution from ID.
Why is that? But anyway, yes R Bill. If IDists did the testing and came up empty would you listen to those results? Or would they have more weight if evotards were the ones who figured out, for themselves, that their position was total bullshit?
At 8:13 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
"Not one paper even deals with what I am saying."
What the papers address is your false statement in the OP that all hypotheses in evolutionary biology are general, fail to deal with specific mechanisms, and therefore are not components of a scientific theory. That was the intent of my illustrations, and they dispatch your false claim quite nicely.
"You asked what would falsify them not how to test them- the two are linked but not the same."
Read again. I've used the terms "disconfirm," "test," and "empirical test" in this discussion. That said, pray tell, what is your take on the distinction?
"If IDists did the testing and came up empty would you listen to those results?"
Were ID advocates to generate testable hypotheses that arise as necessary entailments of ID theory I'd sit up and take notice. Were they to actually put something on the line and meaningfully test those hypotheses I'd be quite impressed, whether or not their hypotheses survived those test.
Alas, these things never seem to occur. Lots of hot air, though.
BTW, a theory that was never here, in a scientific sense, can't fade away.
At 8:35 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
What the papers address is your false statement in the OP that all hypotheses in evolutionary biology are general, fail to deal with specific mechanisms, and therefore are not components of a scientific theory.
They confirm my statement taht the theory of evolution doesn't have anything exclusive- nothing it can call all its own.
Also not one paper talks about blind, undirected chemical processes.
IOW they do not address my claims.
"You asked what would falsify them not how to test them- the two are linked but not the same."
R Bill:
Read again. I've used the terms "disconfirm," "test," and "empirical test" in this discussion. That said, pray tell, what is your take on the distinction?
No YOU read again- the following is what I said:
IDists and Creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims.
And then I told you.
R Bill:
Were ID advocates to generate testable hypotheses that arise as necessary entailments of ID theory I'd sit up and take notice.
We have and you have just ignored them.
R Bill:
Were they to actually put something on the line and meaningfully test those hypotheses I'd be quite impressed, whether or not their hypotheses survived those test.
Done that too.
Your ignorance runs deep.
And your intellectual cowardice is showing:
Now how about answering the questions:
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that nec=ver had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.
Chicken-shit...
At 8:55 PM,
Joe G said…
"IDists and creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims."
R Bill:
As illustrated in your remark that follows, most proposed refutations are actually tests of the rival theory, not of Creationism and ID:
"ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it."
R Bill:
This fails as a test of ID for several reasons.
It's not a test of ID. It is how one can refute the design inference.
And that is evidenced by the explanatory filter. The same explanatory filter which mandates the design inference pass two criteria 1) eliminating nature, operating freely and 2) finding some specification
At 9:21 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
What the papers address is your false statement in the OP that all hypotheses in evolutionary biology are general, fail to deal with specific mechanisms, and therefore are not components of a scientific theory.
What I said:
Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.
Not qute what RB is supposed to have refuted.
At 10:09 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
Joe G:
"and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios."
Designers for whom/which you specify no characteristics, dispositions or limitations can be said (and are said) to do anything. Hence such an "alternative scenario" can claim any finding for itself - a lazy and meaningless armchair exercise with no empirical traction. Welcome to ID.
"Not quite what RB is supposed to have refuted."
I said essentially the same above.
"No YOU read again- the following is what I said"
You stated that I used "falsify" rather than "test."* I manifestly did not, as any reader over the age of six can see above. Deal with it.
*A mealy mouthed distinction without a difference, in any event.
At 7:18 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Designers for whom/which you specify no characteristics, dispositions or limitations can be said (and are said) to do anything.
Ummm that fits your position with your magical mystery mutations.
Those mutations can be said to do anything, yet you don't have any evidence to support that claim.
"Not quite what RB is supposed to have refuted."
R Bill:
I said essentially the same above.
Except what you said was not essentially the same.
R Bill:
You stated that I used "falsify" rather than "test."* I manifestly did not, as any reader over the age of six can see above. Deal with it.
You obtuse freak I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO REFUTE ID AND CREATION. The following is how the discussion went:
"IDists and creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims."
R Bill:
As illustrated in your remark that follows, most proposed refutations are actually tests of the rival theory, not of Creationism and ID:
"ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it."
R Bill:
This fails as a test of ID for several reasons.
It's not a test of ID. It is how one can refute the design inference.
And that is evidenced by the explanatory filter. The same explanatory filter which mandates the design inference pass two criteria 1) eliminating nature, operating freely and 2) finding some specification.
Geez asswipe I even posted that and you ignored it because you are ignorant, apparently willfully so.
R Bill:
A mealy mouthed distinction without a difference, in any event.
There is a HUGE difference and I posted what that is.
At 7:18 AM,
Joe G said…
And your intellectual cowardice is showing:
Now how about answering the questions:
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that nec=ver had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.
Chicken-shit...
At 8:11 AM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
RB, as quoted by JoeG:
"As illustrated in your remark that follows, most proposed refutations are actually tests of the rival theory, not of Creationism and ID:"
"This fails as a test of ID for several reasons."
The above obviously refer to "tests."
Joe G:
"You asked what would falsify them not how to test them- the two are linked but not the same."
RB:
"You stated that I used "falsify" rather than "test."* I manifestly did not, as any reader over the age of six can see above. Deal with it."
Joe G: "You obtuse freak NOW I"M GOING TO SHOUT AND SPIT."
I did indicate that nothing can "disconfirm" ID and baraminology. There is no meaningful "test" of a hypothesis that does not include the possibility of disconfirming that hypothesis.
At 8:26 AM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
The above obviously refer to "tests."
Yet I was talking aout how to refute our claims:
"IDists and creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims."
R Bill:
I did indicate that nothing can "disconfirm" ID and baraminology.
And I refuted that nonsensical claim. Deal with it.
Ya see ID maks specific claims- as I have posted- and one of those clams is that blind, undirected (chemical) processes cannot produce CSI nor IC.
So it is obvious if one demonstrates that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can do that then ID would be refuted.
And all ID leaders say that.
At 8:28 AM,
Joe G said…
"IDists and creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims."
R Bill:
As illustrated in your remark that follows, most proposed refutations are actually tests of the rival theory, not of Creationism and ID:
"ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it."
R Bill:
This fails as a test of ID for several reasons.
It's not a test of ID. It is how one can refute the design inference.
And that is evidenced by the explanatory filter. The same explanatory filter which mandates the design inference pass two criteria 1) eliminating nature, operating freely and 2) finding some specification
Geez Bill the way you ignore my posts tells me that you think ignorance is some sort of refutation.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
To recap- RB made the ignorant statement:
R Bill:
Moreover, the fact that ANY research finding can be made to "fit with baramology and ID" isn't good for your position.
Except that ain't the facts assface. IDists and Creationsts have said what it would take to refute our claims.
It's all about parsimony- removing the requirement for a designer, ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it.
Then RB prattles on about that not being a test- so I told him it is a refutation, not a (positive) test.
RB prattles on mindlessly anyway...
All that and still not one exclusive testable hypothesis for his position.
Go figure...
At 10:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Old news RB:
More thoughts on falsifying ID
At 11:06 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"It's all about parsimony- removing the requirement for a designer, ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it."
Do you understand what parsimony means, Joe?
At 11:43 AM,
Joe G said…
"It's all about parsimony- removing the requirement for a designer, ie showing that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it."
Rich:
Do you understand what parsimony means, Joe?
Yes I do.
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
You chumps do realize that when this goes to Court again you will be asked the following questions:
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those plus thousands of others- and you will have to answer, avoiding them will count against you.
At 2:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Never mind- the evotards aren't that stupid nor desperate to actually call either of you morons in to testify.
So no worries you can keep avoiding those questions because you obviously don't care that you are intellectual cowards.
At 2:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
When's the trail? You should just start things up now, Joe.
At 3:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm I have started things up Richie.
That is what Intelligent Design Awareness Day is all about.
By the time the trial comes around I will have hundreds if not thousands of witnesses to the effect that ID has nothing to do with religion.
OTOH you and your band of intellectual cowards will still have nothing.
The only thing that may happen to me is that I get booted from Court for laughing at the evotards struggle with those questions.
Yeah baby...
At 7:26 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
I think we are making progress here.
I referred to "tests" or "empirical tests" of specific hypotheses. I intend this in the sense of a procedure that may be followed by a researcher that has the potential to disconfirm one's hypothesis. Such tests are possible when one's hypothesis (and the theory within which it is framed) is constructed in such a way that it has specific entailments. By modus tolens, observations that fail to conform to those entailments may challenge or even disconfirm the hypotheses. Those that conform to the entailments increase one's confidence in the fidelity of one's theoretical model. When an hypothesis can be tested in this way, it can be said to be a scientific hypothesis.
I take it from the above that Joe would also call this sort of procedure a "test" or a "positive test." The hypotheses articulated in the abstracts I posted above are indeed tested in this manner. And it is certainly in this sense that I stated that ID offers no empirical tests of its thesis. It cannot, because its mechanism is devoid of content.
Joe responds that there is, nevertheless, at least one potential refutation of ID - taking care to insist that a "refutation" is not the same as a "test." His candidate for a "refutation" is that ID would be refuted were biology to attain a naturalistic account of the complex and adapted systems that characterize living organisms (expressed in the idiosyncratic language of ID, namely "IC" and "CSI"). As Joe says, "ID makes specific claims- as I have posted- and one of those clams is that blind, undirected (chemical) processes cannot produce CSI nor IC…if one demonstrates that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can do that then ID would be refuted."
Not tested. Refuted.
The "procedure" for obtaining this refutation is to continue to pursue research with in the framework of evolutionary biology, just as it is being pursued today, indefinitely, perhaps for centuries. At such time that natural, unguided pathways to the complex structures Joe characterizes as displaying "IC" or "CSI" are fully articulated, ID is "refuted" and should be abandoned.
Now, as I note above, Joe takes pains to argue that this event would not be a "test" or a "positive test" of ID, and upon reflection I am inclined to agree. This isn't a procedure that a researcher or researchers can run, such that observations gathered thereby have bearing upon the truth value of ID by means of modus tolens. There are no such procedures, as I argue above, a deficit traceable to the assiduously sustained emptiness of ID's "mechanism." Nor is this a procedure to which ID can make the slightest contribution, as this refutation refers only to research conducted from within a framework that excludes teleological causation, and indeed it would proceed absolutely unchanged even were ID never conceived. So even as we allow that this would "refute" ID, it remains true that ID remains impotent as a guide to empirical research efforts.
So I accept Joe's distinction. There is a possible "refutation" of ID, although that refutation is not an empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure that a researcher or researchers can implement to test an hypothesis (and its enclosing theoretical framework) by modus tolens. As such, ID remains scientifically flacid, useless and incapable of empirical test, although it may indeed one day be "refuted." A
Of course, for the vast majority of scientists this happened 150 years ago.
At 7:29 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
I think we are making progress here.
I referred to "tests" or "empirical tests" of specific hypotheses. I intend this in the sense of a procedure that may be followed by a researcher that has the potential to disconfirm one's hypothesis. Such tests are possible when one's hypothesis (and the theory within which it is framed) is constructed in such a way that it has specific entailments. By modus tolens, observations that fail to conform to those entailments may challenge or even disconfirm the hypotheses. Those that conform to the entailments increase one's confidence in the fidelity of one's theoretical model. When an hypothesis can be tested in this way, it can be said to be a scientific hypothesis.
I take it from the above that Joe would also call this sort of procedure a "test" or a "positive test." The hypotheses articulated in the abstracts I posted above are indeed tested in this manner. And it is certainly in this sense that I stated that ID offers no empirical tests of its thesis. It cannot, because its mechanism is devoid of content.
Joe responds that there is, nevertheless, at least one potential refutation of ID - taking care to insist that a "refutation" is not the same as a "test." His candidate for a "refutation" is that ID would be refuted were biology to attain a naturalistic account of the complex and adapted systems that characterize living organisms (expressed in the idiosyncratic language of ID, namely "IC" and "CSI"). As Joe says, "ID makes specific claims- as I have posted- and one of those clams is that blind, undirected (chemical) processes cannot produce CSI nor IC…if one demonstrates that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can do that then ID would be refuted."
(continued…)
At 7:29 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
(Continued from previous post)
Not tested. Refuted.
The "procedure" for obtaining this refutation is to continue to pursue research with in the framework of evolutionary biology, just as it is being pursued today, indefinitely, perhaps for centuries. At such time that natural, unguided pathways to the complex structures Joe characterizes as displaying "IC" or "CSI" are fully articulated, ID is "refuted" and should be abandoned.
Now, as I note above, Joe takes pains to argue that this event would not be a "test" or a "positive test" of ID, and upon reflection I am inclined to agree. This isn't a procedure that a researcher or researchers can run, such that observations gathered thereby have bearing upon the truth value of ID by means of modus tolens. There are no such procedures, as I argue above, a deficit traceable to the assiduously sustained emptiness of ID's "mechanism." Nor is this a procedure to which ID can make the slightest contribution, as this refutation refers only to research conducted from within a framework that excludes teleological causation, and indeed it would proceed absolutely unchanged even were ID never conceived. So even as we allow that this would "refute" ID, it remains true that ID remains impotent as a guide to empirical research efforts.
So I accept Joe's distinction. There is a possible "refutation" of ID, although that refutation is not an empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure that a researcher or researchers can implement to test an hypothesis (and its enclosing theoretical framework) by modus tolens. As such, ID remains scientifically flacid, useless and incapable of empirical test, although it may indeed one day be "refuted." A
Of course, for the vast majority of scientists this happened 150 years ago.
At 9:01 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
I think we are making progress here.
That is your opinion. One I don't happen to share unless if what you mean by "making progress" is your just going ahead with shit that oesn't even address wha I am saying.
R Bill:
The hypotheses articulated in the abstracts I posted above are indeed tested in this manner.
Not one of those papers addresses my claims.
I have made that abundantly clear and yet you carry on.
R Bill:
And it is certainly in this sense that I stated that ID offers no empirical tests of its thesis.
Not one of those papers offers a test of the proposed evolutionary thesis.
R Bill:
It cannot, because its mechanism is devoid of content.
It is a game chamger and therefor cannot be devoid of content.
Howver so far everything you have sai is devoid of content. Perhaps that is what you are talking about.
R Bill:
Joe responds that there is, nevertheless, at least one potential refutation of ID - taking care to insist that a "refutation" is not the same as a "test."
Not just Joe, all IDists all the time. And ys most educated people know the difference between what will rfute something and what would count as positive evidence for something.
To test ID- ie a POSITIVE test- and I have been over and over this many times RB- is that, and this is according to the EF, not only do chance and necessity need to be eliminated but also some specification has to be present- "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr Behe in DBB
At 9:06 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
The "procedure" for obtaining this refutation is to continue to pursue research with in the framework of evolutionary biology,
Right having you clowns actually start producing positive evidence for your position- and you take offense to this?
R Bill:
just as it is being pursued today, indefinitely, perhaps for centuries.
And still nothing to show for it.
Are you proud of that? LoL!
R Bill:
There is a possible "refutation" of ID, although that refutation is not an empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure that a researcher or researchers can implement to test an hypothesis (and its enclosing theoretical framework) by modus tolens.
You just admitted your positin is unscientific there chief. You just said your position is not subject to "empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure".
Nicely done!
Geez I knew if you buttheads rambled on enough you wuld admit your position is for shit.
Thanks RB.
At 9:08 PM,
Joe G said…
R Bill:
Of course, for the vast majority of scientists this happened 150 years ago.
Right but obviously without any evidence.
Strange that you have time to write a big poist full of bullshit yet you avoid the main questions and the topic of this post like the plague.
Too bad you won't be testifying at any Court case about ID
At 10:04 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"That is what Intelligent Design Awareness Day is all about."
The one that you wont tell anyone about. I think you're making it up.
At 10:10 PM,
Reciprocating Bill said…
"Not one of those papers addresses my claims."
Nor need they to exemplify specific hypotheses within evolutionary biology that speak to specific mechanisms. They do exactly that, and therefore show that the premise of your OP - "Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanism" - to be false. That was all I intended for them.
"Not one of those papers offers a test of the proposed evolutionary thesis."
They test the highly specific hypotheses and associated mechanisms (generally, forms of selection) that they test. In so doing they refute the premise of your OP, quoted above. I didn't offer them as exemplars of "a test of the proposed evolutionary thesis."
"You just admitted your positin is unscientific"
No, I just stated that the pursuit of evolutionary biology, however thoroughly it may refute ID, is not itself an empirical test of ID.
"It is a game chamger and therefor cannot be devoid of content."
Biological science takes no notice whatsoever of ID. No game has been changed. No content.
At 7:12 AM,
Joe G said…
"That is what Intelligent Design Awareness Day is all about."
Rich:
The one that you wont tell anyone about.
Thousands of people know about it Rich.
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
"Not one of those papers addresses my claims."
R Bil:
Nor need they to exemplify specific hypotheses within evolutionary biology that speak to specific mechanisms.
They need to address my claims in order to refute them.
R Bill:
They do exactly that, and therefore show that the premise of your OP -Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.-to be false.
No they don't for the reasons provided. And just because you keep saying they do does not make it so.
"Not one of those papers offers a test of the proposed evolutionary thesis."
R ill:
They test the highly specific hypotheses and associated mechanisms (generally, forms of selection) that they test.
They support baraminology RB. IOW they support my OP.
RB:
In so doing they refute the premise of your OP, quoted above.
The quote you selectively chopped up?
No RB they support my OP.
"You just admitted your positin is unscientific"
R Bill:
No,
Yes, you did.
R Bill:
I just stated that the pursuit of evolutionary biology, however thoroughly it may refute ID, is not itself an empirical test of ID.
I already said that however you said that your position is not scientific.
"It is a game chamger and therefor cannot be devoid of content."
R Bill:
Biological science takes no notice whatsoever of ID.
Sure it does- but that i irrelevantto whatI ai. volutionary biologists can ignore reality all they want it does not change the fact that the desgn inferenc and therefor themechanism of design is a game changer.
At 7:31 AM,
Joe G said…
To recap- R Bill posts some papers that supprt baraminology and he sez tht thy refute my cliam in the OP:
Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.
That is evotard "logic" fer ya- post papers tat support my OP and try to argue that they reute it.
Thanks for proviing evotards are mentl midgets- as if we needed more evience fo that.
But not only that RB has demonstrated that hos position is devoid of contnt = empty by rfusng to produce a testable hypothesis for hi position- one that entails the following:
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
IOW RB hs proven tht he is an intellectual coward- as if we needed more evidence...
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios.
The papers R Bill posted have nothing to do with blind, undirected chemical processes and they can be used to support baraminology. The papers support my caim.
Yet RB prattles on saying they refute my claim.
That's evotard "logic" fer ya...
At 8:48 AM,
Joe G said…
"Well I keep hearing that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory yet all alleged hypotheses are just general, ie have nothing to do with any of the theories proposed mechanisms, and as such can be used to support alternative scenarios."
R Bill:
That is a problem. Observe in the abstracts below just how general, and unconnected with proposed mechanisms, research in evolutionary biology can be:
Each paper can be used to support baraminology and ID. And not onepaper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes.
So you are correct, that is a problem- FOR YOU.
At 7:43 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Each paper can be used to support baraminology and ID.
The only people who even bother to talk about baraminology are YECs.
Are you a YEC Joe?
And if all those papers listed can support ID then what differentiates ID from "my position"? They appear to be one and the same....
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
The only people who even bother to talk about baraminology are YECs.
Evidence please. And also tell me how that is relevant.
OM:
And if all those papers listed can support ID then what differentiates ID from "my position"?
I have already said that.
Look if all you have is to an ignorant fuck then fuck off.
At 8:20 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Evidence please. And also tell me how that is relevant.
So evidence to support claims is now important to you? Perhaps you should try and remember that.
Go here: http://tinyurl.com/2urflak
Search for "baraminology".
This search on google scholar: http://tinyurl.com/37ajc37
Only shows papers from creationists. All bible, all the time.
That's called "evidence" Joe.
Or perhaps you can cite a paper talking about baraminology that is nothing to do with creationists or the bible?
If you can't, I win.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
OM:
The only people who even bother to talk about baraminology are YECs.
Nothing you have presented says that only YECs bother to talk about baraminology.
Sure YECs write about it. Butn that doesn't mean non-YECs don't talk about it.
No doubt people who understand the subject talk about it- and that would include people trying to refute the concept.
But anyway your moving of the goalposts is duly noted- we went from talking about baraminology to citing a paper.
Fuck you asshole...
At 10:03 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Butn that doesn't mean non-YECs don't talk about it.
No, but only YECs take it seriously.
As I have already proven.
At 10:04 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
So I take it that you can't cite a paper talking about baraminology that is nothing to do with creationists or the bible?
IOW it's another round to me....
At 11:46 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
IOW it's another round to me....
And you are going to keep buying them- I'll take another double captain on the rocks...
At 1:40 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
And you are going to keep buying them- I'll take another double captain on the rocks...
Thanks for conceding defeat so graciously.
Post a Comment
<< Home