alt.education

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:28:14 -0500, Larry Hewitt wrote:

> "racqueteer" wrote in message
> news:47cb7841$0$17366$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:25:19 -0500, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>
>>> "racqueteer" wrote in message
>>> news:47cac9b2$0$22837$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> The point I continue to try to make is that all theories are not
>> equal, and that because something has become "theory" does not
>> automatically mean it is "right", "correct", or "true" in the sense
>> that the layman understands these terms.
>>
> Only because the definition of "theory" has been made fuzzy.

That's simply not correct. The appellations "theory", "law", etc have
nothing whatever to do with whether something is "right", "correct", or
"true" in the sense that the layman understands these terms.

> String "theories" do not meet the rigorous scientific definition of
> "theory", while the others listed do,.
>
> They are "right", "correct", or "true" to the limit of our ability to
> ascertain,

I'll buy that, but "right", "correct", or "true" in the sense that the
layman understands these terms, is not relative. You don't get to be
relatively right or correct, nor can statements be relatively true. They
are or they are not.

> and the fact that "civilians" have problems understanding
> this is not a valid indictment of the theories.

Quite the contrary; while not understanding the terminology of science is
a problem for which "civilians" are responsible, failing to understand
the terminology of "civilians", or applying that terminology incorrectly,
is a problem for those who would speak for science. The definitions of
the terms I've used are absolutely clear and "relatively" doesn't enter
into them.
>
>>>> If you want to be technical, then the Theory of Evolution didn't
>>>> really address macroevolution, and while there is increasing evidence
>>>> and DIRECT testing that implies that it, too, approaches the surety
>>>> that we have in evolution as a process, no such equivalent evidence
>>>> has been forthcoming with regard to oogenesis (and may NEVER be).
>>>>
>>> And this is an example of sloppy terminology.
>>>
>>> The definition of "macroevolution" is, in fact, vague with different
>>> camps imposing different conditions on what describes macroevolution.
>>
>> Just as the term "evolution" is similarly vague.
>
> No, it is not. There is a rigorous scientific definition of he process
> detailed as part of the theory.

It is absolutely NOT clear, as people use the term to mean a variety of
things. Most scientists will tell you that the term refers only to the
process of evolution (microevolution). Others, like yourself, extend it
to macroevolution (in your case insisting there is no difference). When
someone attacks "evolution", proponents (like yourself) quickly point out
how obviously stupid they are, since anyone with an ounce of brains knows
that germs adapt to antibiotics, etc. The problem with that is that the
argument was with macroevolution, not microevolution, and the proponent
has claimed that an example of microevolution covers the argument.
Whether or not YOU consider them to be the same is nonresponsive, since
they are quite obviously NOT the same.
>
> A scientific theory _requires_ rigorous definition of all terms in use.

I agree. You do not get to redefine laymen's terms, nor do you get to
call two different things by the same term.

>> The process of
>> evolution is directly observable, and has moved from theory to fact
>> (anything that is directly observable becomes data and is, imo,
>> factual). Some are content to mean process when they use the term.
>
> The term, as all such terms, loses rigor as it becomes used by the
> public. But never in the scientific community.

Bull. It gets confused all the time. YOU confuse it by refusing to
accept the distinction between micro and macroevolution.

>> Scientists generally will claim that this is THEIR usage. Still,
>> others, like yourself, consider that linking observable changes over
>> time together and concluding that everything comes from a single,
>> single- celled organism in a primordial pool to be an equally valid
>> aspect of evolution.
>
> Actually, the theory of evolution _does not_ say this. It makes no
> sttement on the beginnings of life nor on the forms that the first
> living things took.

My point entirely; thank you. Macroevolution leads inevitably to the one
ancestor (presumeably the simplest possible organism) result. That's
precisely why there has to be a distinction between micro and
macroevolution.

>>Thus they claim that this stitching together deserves no
>> distinction in terminology (there is no "macroevolution", it's all an
>> invention of Creationists).
>
> AS the links provided to you indicate, it has been seized upon by the
> creationist community as a tool to refute evolution.

That's unfortunate, but also irrelevant. The process of evolution is
irrefutable (imo) on a scientific basis. Macroevolution has not risen to
that level of surety.

> Thus, at best, one
> has to be very, very careful when using "macroevolution" arguments, and
> more rigorously, perhaps even avoiding hte term and specifiying the
> phenomenon being discussed.

I understand your point; I can even sympathize with it, but I'm not
willing to let political thinking cause me to do sloppy science. Imo, we
are STUCK with dealing with macroevolution, so it makes sense to me to
embrace the term. Look, we want to teach evolution, right? Fine, let's
teach microevolution as FACT. Let's acknowledge that macroevolution
seems the best explanation/model for the rest, based on the scientific
process (which we'd do well to explain better, and stop confusing models
with "truth"). It seems to me that EVERYONE will better understand
science and evolution, and only the most hardcore Creationists will have
any reason for attacking science and evolution. There is absolutely NO
reason, or justification scientifically, to alienate everyone who happens
to be Christian, by doing sloppy science (part of which is how we use
terminology - You don't get to misuse terms like "correct", and you don't
get to make absolute claims of surety).

> I'm sorry, but I don't accept that there is
>> no distinction between the direct observation of selection for a trait
>> for a single organism and the assumption that this means that
>> everything came from a single organism at some point in the far distant
>> past.
>
> Again, this is an argument not made by evolution,. but an argument made
> by those wanting to refute evolution.

YOU are making the claim that there is NO difference between micro and
macroevolution. You're wrong. SCIENTIFICALLY, you're wrong. Claiming
that these are the same is disingenuous, imo, IF you have scientific
training. If you fail to make a distinction, then a perfectly legitimate
argument is trivialized by claiming that something that is established
FACT, refutes an argument about something that most certainly is NOT
established fact.

> I
>> think these are sufficiently different as to preclude them being lumped
>> together as if they were precisely the same.
>>
>>> And to dispute your assertioin, most biologists consider
>>> macroevolution to be either an artificail construct of creationists,
>>> or a description of microevolution over time.
>>
>> If they don't see that there is a difference in the degree of
>> confidence one is entitled to have in each, then I would have to
>> question their logic.
>>
> But they are the experts. With respect, I don't think you have the
> gravitas to overrule them.

Anyone who claims an expertise is science has GOT to recognize the
difference between something that is directly observable FACT, and
something that is an extrapolation of fact to theory. I readily concede
that macroevolution is the best scientific model to explain what we
observe, but it most certainly is not FACT, nor is it likely that it ever
WILL be. If a "biologist" was unwilling to acknowledge this when pressed
(if you happen to know any, ask them), then they're poor scientists.
This is not a matter of expertise, this is a fundamental issue related to
the nature of science.

>>> Thus it is either nonsense or a part of the theory of evolution.
>>
>> We disagree.
>>
> Again, with respect, you choose a definition rejected by the
scientificIt is acknowedged that a scientific theory may not be complete
or fully
> accurate --- that is why scientists continue to observe.

> community because it supports your preconceived decisions.

So your preconceived notion of my motivation negates my proper
application of the scientific process? Why? I'm willing to bet that any
scientist that I properly present my argument to will have to concede my
point. That has already happened in previous discussions. Once it's
established that I'm not simply an anti-evolution nut, and they actually
listen to what I'm saying, they usually grudgingly concede. Most, like
yourself, prefer to duck the distinction because you fear it being seized
upon as an argument against "evolution", NOT because it is wrong. And
since I am a PART of the scientific community, your statement is, on its
face, incorrect.

>>>> Science is not FACT; it is instead a set of models that attempt to
>>>
>>> Science is indeed fact. Observable, repeatable, predictable fact.
>>
>> And I submit that MOST scientists would disagree with you on this
>> point. The only facts are data. EXPLAINING the data is another kettle
>> of fish entirely. Observations are repeatable, hopefully, but
>> observations are not explanations, and explanations are not "fact", but
>> models that vary in how well they fit reality. The GOAL is for the
>> model to so closely approximate reality as to be indiscernible, but
>> there is NEVER the presumption that the explanation is, in fact,
>> "fact". Facts cannot be falsified, but the models scientists create
>> must be CONTINUALLY tested for falsification - Something that would not
>> be be necessary if science were "fact".
>>
> Fact
> A statement or assertion of verifiable information.
> doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/science/docs/2005/Overview/glossary.doc

But science does not "verify"; it attempts to falsify. There are ample
instances of science that seemed to be "verified" that were, in fact,
later falsified. The definition given is fine on its face, but you are
misusing the term "verified" to allow for temporary conditions, and I
would maintain that "verified" in this context should be a permanent
condition.

> Facts are not data, but data processed to provide information.

From your definition, a fact requires verifiability; ie, observations.
Observations yield data. SOME observations produce data that establishes
facts. Some suggest trends, relationships, etc. It is a FACT that
organisms change over time. The direct observations that have been made,
and the data collected, clearly establish this. Do you disagree? If
not, then you're arguing semantics and not content.

> Experimental data can be no more than a list of figures or a binary
> result (yes or no), meaningless until processed.

It's always nice to have numbers, of course, but I don't consider that
all data must be numerical. If you DO, then I'll concede your point. To
use a common argument, we have observed that germs become resistant to
antibiotics. I don't think you require numbers to establish this fact,
but they are nice to have.

> Again, science is the set of facts, modelling is a tool of science
>
> This is the same mistake people make by calling math a science.

But I don't, so this is totally irrelevant.

>>> Models are not science, they are theories, a tool of science.
>>>
>>> They are not the same thing.
>>
>> Now who is being sloppy about terminology? Science is not monolithic,
>> it is a PROCESS by which observations are made and an attempt is made
>> to explain those observations. The attempt at explanation IS the
>> model, so it is most certainly a part of "science". As a matter of
>> fact, the formation of models to explain observations is the ESSENCE of
>> what science is.
>>
> You describe the scientific process, not science.

Excuse me? I guess we're being sloppy about defining "science". Please
give me YOUR definition of "science". Me, I find it difficult to define
"science" without referencing the scientific process as an integral
part. Maybe your definition of "science" is sufficiently proscribed to
equate science with fact, but that isn't any science definition that I
recognize.

>>>> describe the world around us. Those models are subject to change,
>>>> and have routinely done so in the past. Some of our models are very
>>>> good, and may, in fact, approach being "true". Our model for the
>>>> evolutionary process is one of these, as is germ theory. Other
>>>> models have been incomplete or even flawed. Science demands that
>>>> models be continually tested,
>>>
>>> And as you note here, science is not modelling, but testing the
>>> models.
>>
>> Please. The whole point of science is to develop explanations/models.
>
> True. They are a product of science, not science itself, just like a
> hamburger is a product of MacDonalds, but not the company itself.

Once again, I require your definition.

>> Testing those models in an attempt to falsify them is a part of the
>> process, but it certainly not the whole of "science" with model
>> construction somehow absent. So science most certainly IS modeling,
>> AND testing, AND observing, AND the collection of data, but the entire
>> purpose is for the creation of models that approach reality.
>>
> Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which
> attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science
> refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific
> method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through
> such research. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So "science" is a system of knowledge which attempts to model objective
reality? So where is your claim of "fact" incorporated? And how does,
"system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality" not
include models? And of course, science in a more restricted sense (still
legitimate) is exactly what I've been saying? So I see nothing that
validates the position you've been taking, but complete agreement with
what I've been saying - Thanks, I guess, for making my point for me.

> It is far more than a system of models

Not based on your own quote...

>>>>the presumption being that they may NOT be completely correct,
>>>> and modified where required, in an effort to make the models USEFUL.
>>>> This is not an indictment of science, it is the NATURE of science.
>>>>
>>>> One then looks at the evidence, looks at the model, and mentally, if
>>>> not formally, ascribes some level of confidence to the model. We
>>>> don't all agree as to that level of confidence, obviously, since
>>>> scientists routinely disagree with one another. As the model is
>>>> tested, and remains nonfalsified, our level of confidence in the
>>>> model rises.
>>>>
>>>> I have great confidence in the evolution model of change of organisms
>>>> over time. I have less confidence in the extrapolation of that model
>>>> to include the development of every organism that has ever lived from
>>>> a single, single-celled organism in a primordial pool. I personally
>>>> think that this is a considerable stretch, and is nowhere NEAR at the
>>>> same
>>>
>>> But it is a far greater stretch to imagine that multiple simultaneous,
>>> or nearly simultaneous, apperances of basic life forms occurred, each
>>> giving rise to life forms similar in structure and biochemistry.
>>
>> Each scientist looks at the evidence and makes a decision as to the
>> degree of confidence he has in this or that explanation/model.
>
> Well, kinda sorta.

No, kinda actually.

> He actually makes adecision about how well the data supports the theory,
> and whether the methods used to analyze that data are valid and
> consistent.

Uh huh; and this is different from what I wrote... How?

> A subtle difference.

Virtually undetectable, in fact.

> But you inject too much of the scientists beliefs and biases, which true
> scientists try to ignore. Not always successfully, but they try.\

I'm following the letter of the process. Nothing I've written is based
on "beliefs" and/or "biases", and your attempt to argue based upon
misrepresenting my position is an indictment of your inability to
(successfully) refute what I've written. Stick to the points I'm making,
or concede that you can't respond to them effectively. Don't stoop to
loaded terms.

>> Scientists don't always agree. Imo, it isn't unreasonable to be
>> skeptical about explanations.
>
> yes. That is part of the scientific method, perr eviews, scepticism, an
> the like.

Finally we find a point of agreement; an excellent beginning!

>>You are skeptical of explanations other
>> than the full range of implications inherent in evolutionary theory.
>
> I am skeptical of _all_ explanations_.

Yet you would call them FACT?

> Explanations are not part of the scentific method.

I gotta tell you, you have the oddest conception of what scientific
terminology means than anyone I've ever talked to. Bob, who disagrees
with me on a lot of things related to this issue, LONG ago conceded that
my position on what science is is in agreement with his own. Regardless,
our attempt to explain observations leads to models, and you, yourself,
indicated above that modeling is part of the scientific process. Am I
now to infer that you consider the scientific process to be somehow
different from the scientific method? If so, I fear that our
understanding of scientific terminology is SO different as to be akin to
foreign languages, and maybe there's no point in my trying to explain my
thinking to you.

> My teens had "explanations" for why they were late.

Were they scientific? If so, they would be models.

> The guy on Judge Judy riight now has an "axplanation" for why the
> accident was not his fault and why he doesn't owe the money.

Ditto.

> Politicians have expanations why they should be reelected despite a
> tryst in an airport bathroom.

Ditto. Look, this is getting ridiculous. Explaining data by creating
models (which is what science attempts to do) is not the same thing as
offering excuses (and calling them explanations in the hope that someone
will be dumb enough to get confused).

> I rely on facts and theories.

That's swell. Me too. I just don't confuse the two.

>> You
>> have your reasons. That's fine. If you purport, otoh, that what you
>> believe to be correct is, in fact, indisputably correct, then I have to
>> take issue with you.
>>
> It is not what I believe to be correct, it is what the scientific
> community, the experts purport to be correct.

So now you speak for the entire scientific community? Including both Bob
and myself? I'll repeat myself: when pressed, most of the scientific
community will acknowledge that the models created during the scientific
process cannot be reasonably taken as fact, though the goal is to get as
close as possible. Any scientist would have to acknowledge that ANY
theory, regardless of how "correct" it may seem, could be disproved
tomorrow. That's not what "correct" means. Not to me anyway.

> I unabashedly admit that I have not been in a biologuy lab for 30 years.

Nearly 40 for me. Physics and chem about 20. Irrelevant for either of
us since this is not an argument about any specific scientific findings.
This is in contrast with my discussion with Bob which dealt with
specifics.

> But I have read the reports of those on both sdes of the "evolution
> debate", and I find that the arguments of one side are, at best,
> disingenuous, and at worst, deliberately misleading.

That's as may be; it has, or should have, nothing to do with THIS
discussion.

> Case in point, the insistence that the begininings of life be included
> in the debate while that _is not_ a part of the theory.
>
>>> Unless, of course, one subscribes to an LGM theory
>>
>> Or GOD theory.
>
> Well, I've learned to use LGM instead because I've been vilified by
> religious extremeists for using that word.
>
>> I agree that there is no clear evidence for either.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever for LGM theories

Well, if I were ignore Occam's Razor, which is after all only a
guideline, I COULD look at the evidence and decide that I find it
unlikely to be properly explained by multiple instances of
microevolution, and instead requires some kind of intelligent
intervention. I personally don't think that's a justified position to
take, but what one considers to be "evidence for" is sometimes in the eye
of the beholder. The fact of the matter is that alternative models are
not unusual in science. To discard one requires falsification. To
PREFER one does not. Science uses Occam's Razor; therefore those who
espouse "Creation Science" are misguided. That does not mean such a
model is necessarily "wrong", only that it would not be scientifically
superior or preferable to prevailing theory.

>> This comes into ones decision-making process in evaluating
>> the competing models.
>
> No, it by0passes the decision making process and introduces belief.

So when scientists embrace different models, or fail to embrace a
specific model, as they often do, they are wrong to do so? They should
somehow ascertain which model should be preferred and jump on the
bandwagon? Einstein was wrong for believing that the statistical nature
of Quantum Mechanics couldn't be correct? Or that everyone had to accept
Bohr's model of the atom as "correct" despite the fact that it was
OBVIOUSLY flawed from the outset? Or that everyone should have jumped on
the "luminiferous ether" bandwagon as "correct" since it was patently
obvious that light was a wave? Belief has no part?

>> Based upon the scientific process, and applying Occam's Razor, the best
>> model is the one you you suggest. That doesn't mean that it is
>> literally correct, only that it is likely - imo, of course.
>>
> It is acknowedged that a scientific theory may not be complete or fully
> accurate --- that is why scientists continue to observe.

Ah, we agree again, and it appears that you may be willing to back off of
your insistence that science is necessarily "fact"? I fail to see how
you can do otherwise given what you wrote above!

> However, it is complete and accurate far beyond "likely"

Depends on the theory. I would say that some may, in fact, BE correct,
but we have no way of determining that for a certainty.

> and is correct within the bounds of the theory

I cannot accept your use of "correct" in this context. A proper
scientific statement would be something like this: "To a high degree of
certainty, the evidence suggests that the best explanation for the
observations is ...." Using a layman's term, which has a specific
meaning, in this context is misleading and unjustified.

> For, in fact, if an
> observation were made that is not "correct" within the bounds of a
> scientific theory it is hten negated and ceases to be a scientific
> theory.

Which, of course, means that it was never "correct", hence my concern
about misusing the term in a context in which it should never have been
applied.

>>> And to be fully accurate, the theory of evolutoin does not address the
>>> beginnings of life, but what happened once life began.
>>
>> Yet it commonly comes up as an extension.
>>
> Primarily by those who want to destroy it, otr those who do not
> understand it.

Actually, not exclusively. It's relatively common for such to come up in
"scientific" programs on such venues as the Discover Channel, PBS, etc.
We also occasionally see the same kind of certainty you've displayed in
education. Now scientific types are quick to say, "That's not scientists
saying this", but you also don't see them correcting the errors. That
makes them culpable.

> The theory says absolutely nothing about the beginnings of life, so no
> discussion of this cna be made within the context of the theory.
>
> Who knows, a LGM may be behind the beginnings of life on earth. Even so,
> this does _nothing_ to effect the thery of evolution.

Other than to acknowledge that despite ones personal feelings as to the
"correctness" of the theory, it can never (probably) be accorded the
status of FACT. I don't see that as a problem; not just with regard to
evolutionary theory, but with regard to ANY scientific theory. Science
loses absolutely nothing by acknowledging the reality: that theories or
even laws are subject to adjustment. A theory can be useful without
demanding that it be 100% correct... FOREVER.

> It is the beginnings of life that raises the hackles of a certain sector
> of the citizenry (plus a small group tht believes the earth is only 6000
> yrs old).

Absolutely correct, and from their point of view, absolutely
understandable. There is no reason, however, to make EVERY Christian an
enemy when that is absolutely not necessary. You cannot avoid the
attacks of Literalists, because ANY part of evolutionary theory
contradicts their beliefs, but they are a TINY minority of Christians.
What needs to be avoided, imo, is pushing every one of the millions of
Christians into their camp. If THAT happens, then you're going to see a
lot more animosity between people of faith and science, and I, for one,
do not want to see that happen. You'll forgive me, I hope, but people
who insist, as you have, that everything in science is FACT cannot fail
but to bring on that animosity.

Most Christians do not believe that the world is 5000 years old. Most (I
would think all) believe that GOD created the universe. Most are
perfectly willing to accept that what GOD created has changed over time.
There is NO conflict there. Most, however, believe that GOD created man
in HIS image.. If their kids are constantly bombarded with claims that
man was never created, but developed from simpler organisms, and this
claim is made as irrefutable FACT, then all these millions of people are
going to respond to what they view as an unacceptable attack. This would
NOT be a good thing, and I am not keen on finding out how it would turn
out! Is it SO bad to admit that there is a little wiggle room? So that
people can embrace BOTH science and their religious beliefs? It's not as
if I'm advocating anything that isn't already the case; I'm simply
suggesting that since the scientific process is not equipped to establish
what is unequivocally TRUE, but instead what is likely, sometimes VERY
likely to be true, just admit that. Where's the harm? No one is being
asked to lie; on the contrary, they're being asked to tell the truth!

>>>> level of confidence (or shouldn't be anyway). Going one step further
>>>> to assert that this single, single-celled organism developed
>>>> spontaneously from non-living material is even more of a stretch,
>>>> imo, of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Again, the only alternative is a belief in an LGM theory, which
>>> creates a conundrum --- how did the LGM get their start?
>>
>> Conundrums are not unknown in the history of science.
>
> And conundrums invalidate theories, where only one possible
> interpretation of the data is a requirement.

I'm sorry? Since when is an unanswered question (conundrum) grounds for
invalidation? Questions have ALWAYS existed with regard to scientific
theories. Their existence is not an invalidation of the theory;
invalidation requires contrary evidence. Questions, last I looked, were
not necessarily evidence.

> The fact that we
>> are unable to answer questions is not sufficient to falsify a model.
>
> Actually, ity does, for several reasons.

Ok... Quantum theory came as an explanation for why stitching together
two disparate, and apparently unrelated, equations produced correct
solutions for the behavior of blackbody radiation. If there were no
questions, then presumably every scientist in the world immediately
agreed with the premise? Or maybe you want to argue that it wasn't yet a
theory - Ok, Einstein uses the theory to explain the photoelectric
effect; most scientist signed on at that point. No questions? Then why
did Einstein spend so much time trying to DISPROVE the statistical nature
of the Quantum theory? Did his questions invalidate Quantum theory? Did
his personal belief that the theory HAD to be wrong make him a bad
scientist?

> At least enough to deny it theory status.

Nope. Not necessarily. Depends on the question(s).

>> Only if the questions stem from direct observation and contradict the
>> model is the model falsified.
>
> No.

Yes. This is the ONLY way to falsify a model.

> If the model is not observable,

A model is an explanation for observations. Observations are observable;
subsequent observations determine whether or not the model fits the
observations. The model/explanation itself is not directly observable.

> deniable, predictable, repeatable or
> unique it is a fable, not a theory.

But once it is accorded the status of theory, there is only ONE way to
falsify it, and that is by observations which contradict the model or for
which the model does not accurately account. Your claim is equivalent to
saying that any scientific theory that was subsequently falsified was
never a theory. That's patently absurd.

>> It does go to a determination of the
>> degree of confidence one has in the model, however.
>>
> A model that is not observable,

I'm not sure what you think you gain by repeating this, but it is
completely meaningless or reflects a lack of understanding as to what a
model is. Observations are necessary to the formation of a model.

>>>> Again, imo, I believe science requires some testable way of
>>>> attempting to falsify the model, and I'm not sure how one does that
>>>> for macroevolution or oogenesis.
>>>
>>> Well, considering that macroevolution is , at best microevolution over
>>> time, its testing and negatability is moot.
>>
>> We disagree. Taking the directly observable and extrapolating, indeed
>> extrapolating from data in general, is fraught with danger.
>
> No, that is a fundamental part of the scientific process

That it is a fundamental part of the scientific process is irrelevant
with regard to the point I'm making. I'm not claiming it isn't done, or
that doing so is unscientific. My claim is that you cannot accord it the
same level of confidence. If I SEE A directly, then A is TRUE; if I
infer that B is true, because A is true, I'm on somewhat shaky ground
unless I can also directly SEE B. Fairly straightforward.

> making predictions based on the theiory.

Which, if I knew they were FACT, would require no testing. Theory is NOT
fact, so any predictions HAVE to be tested. Again, straightforward.

> That is one way a theory is negated,
> by making predictions that fail.

Of course they fail because an observation was made that either
contradicted the theory or for which the theory could not account.
Precisely what I said above. Again, we agree (though you seem not to be
aware of it).

>> A trivial
>> example can be seen if we plot weight vs age for a newborn over, say, a
>> year. We get a fairly linear relationship with a positive slope.
>> Would we be correct in extrapolating that data, taken over a small time
>> slice, to the life of the child?
>
> Tens of thousands, certainly.

Huh?

> And when reality intrudes to show that
> growth isn't linear, the hypothesis fails and does not graduate to
> theory hood.

Well, you dodged the issue of confidence level in extrapolated data, so I
assume you can't refute the logic there. Instead you attempt to make a
different argument by suggesting that there's no issue with extrapolated
data, resulting in conclusions that cannot be directly observed, if the
result is part of something that is accorded the status of "theory"?

So your position is apparently that the process of evolution, directly
observable and a fact, and what I am calling macroevolution, are both a
part of the theory of evolution (I think I am representing your position
correctly)? And that in your opinion, they are "the same thing" (no need
to make any distinction)? The implication, then, is that the theory of
evolution is, then, ALSO fact (as you stated previously, and which is the
case for the process of evolution)? That you are as confident in what I
am calling macroevolution as you are in the process of evolution (which
we know to be a fact)? Yet you write, "It is acknowedged that a
scientific theory may not be complete or fully accurate --- that is why
scientists continue to observe." Your statements seem contradictory. If
you acknowledge that scientific theory may not be complete or fully
accurate, then scientific theory can NEVER safely be considered as fact.
This the theory of evolution cannot safely be considered as fact, and
since the process of evolution IS fact, then any issue of unreliability,
small though it may be, resides in that part of the theory I'm calling
macroevolution, and it follows that the two things CANNOT be "the same",
nor can one safely have the same degree of confidence in both. If
there's a flaw in my logic, feel free to point it out to me.

> Certainly not, because that apparent direct
>> linear relationship later becomes unrelated. The data doesn't really
>> show a direct causal relationship, but instead represents a
>> juxtaposition of variables that coincidentally appear to be related.
>> There is ALWAYS a danger in extrapolation!
>>
> Not when properly done.

Please define how one "properly" extrapolates without any chance that the
extrapolation is invalid. I know of NO way to do this. Subsequent
testing may make you either more or less confident in the extrapolation
AFTER THE FACT, but extrapolating ALWAYS involves a leap in faith (or
assumptions, ALSO taken on faith) initially.

> You must have a sufficiently large set of data as a basis --- not the
> few data points in your infant example.

Begs the question of how large is large enough. If I took a reading a
couple times a day, I could get maybe a thousand readings. If 100 other
researchers did the same thing, then we'd have 101,000 readings. Seems
like a pretty large data set, but the extrapolation would be no less
invalid. Take 6 billion data points (or 6 billion, or 6 trillion) for
linear motion for speeds from zero to 1x10^8 m/s, and extrapolate those
to speeds approaching the speed of light (only a tripling). Certainly
you have a large enough set of data points, yet the extrapolation won't
be valid. You can never know if your data set is large enough. And a
lot depends on how far out you're extrapolating. In your case here
(macroevolution), you are taking data points within a lifetime (or even a
couple lifetimes), and attempting to extrapolate them to things that may,
or may not, have happened millions of years ago (a multiple of maybe 5000
just to get to 1 million years). Surely there is no way your data set is
large enough to justify ANY confidence in this extrapolation!?

> You must have a rigourous algorithm for predictions,

The predictions come AFTER the theory. If the theory involves
extrapolation, then this is also AFTER the extrapolation, not prior.

> usually one used to
> interpolate data, and you must have a reason to expect the data outside
> the range already observed will behave in the same manner.

Interpolating is far more likely to be valid in nature. Most phenomena
are systematic, so a reasonably large data set WOULD give you a
justifiable confidence in an INTERpolation. Not so with an EXTRApolation.

> For exanple, you observe the temperature increase iron from a few
> degrees above absolute below zero to 1500C, noting that the input of a
> certain amount of energy always results in a 1 degree increase in temp.
> So you predict that that will occur all the way wo 10000C And low and
> behold at 1535C enrgy goes in and no temp increase is seen until finally
> the iron melts.

So your extrapolation is proven to be invalid? I'm confused; was this
supposed to be refuting my point or exemplifying it?

> Now, Knowing that iron will melt

And why would you know this if you're extrapolating (which, in case
you're unaware, means extending KNOWN data to generate UNKNOWN data)?

> _should_ be a signal that soemthing
> strange will happen, and even if it doesn;t the new data does not negae
> the theory, but odifies it to include heat of fusion.

You keep trying to change the arguments around in the hope that you can
get to something you can succeed with. Why is that? You've just made my
point for me: an extrapolation of data is ALWAYS questionable. Oh, you
might get lucky with it, but you're just as likely to come up with
something that is invalid. So in your example, your extrapolation was
totally invalid, as it failed at the melting point of iron. That, in
turn, requires you to revise the model you developed (with your
extrapolation). Your testing of the model/theory you created by
extrapolation was proven false by your subsequent testing, so any
confidence you foolishly placed in your extrapolation was misplaced.
Extrapolation of data is ALWAYS dangerous, and one CANNOT have complete
confidence in the results.

>>>>There is a fundamental problem that, again imo, must be
>>>> resolved. While mutation of EXISTING genes (or turning them on or
>>>> off) seems, based on recent evidence, to be capable of producing
>>>> morphological change sufficient to result in "new organisms", doesn't
>>>> that mean that our original single-celled organism had to possess all
>>>> the dna and gene structure of present-day organisms (you can't mutate
>>>> what isn't there)?
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> Well, you certainly can't mutate what isn't there, so there must be
>> some other mechanism you are going to describe?
>>
>>> In fact, the evolution of DNA, RNA and, in fact, all aspects of cell
>>> structure, is part of the theory.
>>>
>>> Only creationists assume that life appeared miraculously in its modern
>>> form.
>>
>> Actually, I think the more accurate statement would be Literal
>> Interpreters (Fundamentalists?). I don't see Creationists as
>> necessarily requiring such a stance. All Creationists are not
>> interchangeable.
>>
> Whatever you want to call them.

It's an important distinction to make, imo. Important because the
Literalists are a very small group.

>>> Look into rna viruses and prions, for ex. Very simple forms of life
>>> based on entirely different modes of reproduction than dna.
>>
>> Ok, but how did they get into that primordial pool?
>
> We don;t know and no reputable biologist is doing more than speculating.
> The question is irrelevant when discussing evolution.

It's not irrelevant to me if I want to try to understand the process (and
evaluate the theory), and as a scientist, that is my nature. And I don't
mind speculation; it's a part of science also. Just be clear about what
you know versus what you're speculating about.

> I am sayign that we now observe ways for geneitc material to grwo, and
> that it is unreasoonable to assume that this is strictly a recent
> phenomenon.

I'm of two minds on this, and either way it is speculative. Is there
truly nothing new under the sun? It seems as if whichever way I go on
this I'm making a guess. Nothing wrong with that, scientifically of
course, but I'm certainly not sure about my choice.

> Did you know, for ex, that theere is a protein that can correct amny
> errors of DNA transcription, but not for rna? And that it is thought
> that this protein is a fairly recent development in life, allowing far
> greater mutation rates in early life than today?

No, I didn't, but it strikes me that here is, indeed, something "new
under the sun". ;-)

>>>> If not, then one needs to demonstrate a case where NEW genetic
>>>> information is generated from one generation to another.
>>>
>>> In fact, this has been done and it occurs daily.
>>>
>>> It is extremely common, for ex., for viral dna or rna to invade and
>>> merge with cell dna and alter the function of a cell, causing various
>>> diseases or even permanent changes leading to cancer.
>>
>> Not nearly the same thing. First of all, you are involving multiple
>> organisms, some of which are hard to class as "living".
>
> Why do you oppose the idea that disease is a recent pehnomena? Why do
> you oppose the idea that two different organisms could fuse now but not
> then?

I'm not "opposing" it, nor am I "embracing" it. I don't KNOW! Sure,
they COULD. Did they? Who the heck knows? Want me to take an educated
guess? Fine, I can do that, just don't expect me to defend my guess as
being "correct". If we did, in fact, start with a single organism, this
mechanism is irrelevant anyway.

> If you read what
>> I wrote, I am asking about a more or less spontaneous creation of new
>> genetic information within a single organism.
>
> But that restriction _is not_ a part of evolution theory.

But to me it is an inevitable consequence of the set of assumptions and
extrapolations that led to the theory. Organisms change over time. This
process led to gradual development of all of the organisms that lived or
are living, correct? Observations, made in light of the theory, show a
gradual increase in complexity of (some) organisms, correct? If we
accept all of that, and applying Occam's Razor, is it reasonable to
assume that there WASN'T ultimately a FIRST organism that gave rise to
everything? Or let's go WAY out on a limb, and hypothesize a couple?
Very simple, of course? Is that not an inevitable consequence?

Or would you prefer a larger subset of organisms, some more complicated,
all coming into being at the same time, gradually evolving and generating
additional forms? Whoops, that begins to sound suspiciously
"unscientific". 8^}

> If you are proposing a different theory, then say so.

A different theory of what? Evolution? Origin? I have no problem with
the EXISTING theory, even the unauthorized extensions, so long as people
don't go around claiming that they're FACTS! They may be, in fact,
FACTS, but there's no way we're ever going to know (at least I can't
envision it). But it really doesn't matter if they're FACTS or not, only
that they are useful explanations based on logic and observations/data.
That's all science demands, and it's the best science can do.

>>> It is not unreasonable to extrapolate this to conclude that some of
>>> these "mergers" were viable and reproducible --- it is in fact done
>>> routinely in the lab.
>>
>> That's not the argument, however.
>>
> Yes, it is.

Not mine. Single organism. Something, it seems to me, had to be FIRST
if the theory is literally and completely correct.

> SO you are restricting hte discussion to bradne new, never seen before,
> created out of whole cloth dna?

I don't see any alternative if we want to claim that we know what
happened.

> The theory does not require this.

If you're going to claim that the theory is fact, then I can't see any
other conclusion to draw.

> So you are requiring that each and every genitc shange is solely the
> result of of a "virgin" creation of new gentic material.

No, and I never suggested any such thing. Always a good debating
approach, however. Change a specific argument into a global one that you
can more easily dispose of.

My question is simple: I think the theory requires that there is
ultimately a single, very simple, organism that developed somehow.
Whether or not you think the theory "includes" this or not, I don't see
how it can be avoided if you embrace the theory. This then raises two
questions for me. The first is: how did life begin and can we reproduce
it (that would do wonders for my degree of confidence in the theory).

And the second is: Given this single, simple organism, I have to assume
that it did not contain all the genetic information necessary for all
subsequent life (requiring only mutations of existing genes), so it, and
its descendants, had to somehow generate new genetic information (how to
make legs, eyes, etc). How did this occur, and can we reproduce THAT
(again, this would increase my degree of confidence in the theory)? Bob
has addressed some of this in the other discussion, and I have to do some
research. I have to say that, personally, I find it exceedingly
difficult to imagine that an algae (for example), even given huge amounts
of time, could develop eyes - I mean, why would that happen? Ah well,
philosophical question, I guess. Just seems so... unlikely.