Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie, I think you'll enjoy this.

Not really. Why would you think I'd enjoy observing someone displaying their ignorance and stupidity?

Why not? We enjoy observing you here.

Two cheap shots are more enjoyable for you than one?

You both are hilarious.

its like watching two snakes eat each other.

Kurieuo wrote:It is because ToE is never actually defined in any fixed sense, that there is such confusion.
To just say ToE and leave it at that without the details is just so impractical and unfruitful to any discussion re: such.

What is fuzzy about biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent? Understanding the argument requires only a small effort with simple concepts and data. You don't need to know about "fine tuning" arguments, theistic evolution vs. ID distinctions, atheism vs. theism, or any number of other red herrings.

Kurieuo wrote:For example, the enormous amount of symbiotic relationship and even biological features, organs, on the cellular level and the like.
The fact we see many similar biological systems, but different... one my wife was talking about this morning to me, mothers lactating milk whether humans, cows, cats or dogs are all systems very similar in purpose and function, and yet these systems are otherwise quite different and unique to each.

You're over-thinking. For example, for the mammal grouping, the common descent argument from biological traits uses just the existence of mammary glands, not which variety. Other groupings throughout the nested hierarchy use similar objective yes/no traits. Another example grouping (at a different level in the hierarchy) might require the trait of a bony vertebrae: Squid->no. Fish->yes. Human->yes.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is because ToE is never actually defined in any fixed sense, that there is such confusion.
To just say ToE and leave it at that without the details is just so impractical and unfruitful to any discussion re: such.

What is fuzzy about biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent? Understanding the argument requires only a small effort with simple concepts and data. You don't need to know about "fine tuning" arguments, theistic evolution vs. ID distinctions, atheism vs. theism, or any number of other red herrings.

Kurieuo wrote:For example, the enormous amount of symbiotic relationship and even biological features, organs, on the cellular level and the like.
The fact we see many similar biological systems, but different... one my wife was talking about this morning to me, mothers lactating milk whether humans, cows, cats or dogs are all systems very similar in purpose and function, and yet these systems are otherwise quite different and unique to each.

You're over-thinking. For example, for the mammal grouping, the common descent argument from biological traits uses just the existence of mammary glands, not which variety. Other groupings throughout the nested hierarchy use similar objective yes/no traits. Another example grouping (at a different level in the hierarchy) might require the trait of a bony vertebrae: Squid->no. Fish->yes. Human->yes.

I think you're under thinking.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, which is "evolution/ToE" are used but rarely defined.
People just launch into discussion falling on one side or the other.

See, you appear to associate "evolution" with biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent...
Nested hierarchies / common descent is not what I'd classify as "evolution" or ToE. Such is simply circumstantial evidence.
And this evidence can also equally support non-evolutionary scenarios that accommodate such. So this can't be called "evolution".
Rather, in any discussion of "evolution" I'm personally concerned to understand how the natural "evolving" works.

So I think your response actually shows the issue with just saying "evolution" or "ToE". (and I equally took this up with ACB in another thread)
People have all these concepts that you attach to the word "evolution" which are more/less relevant. So they always talk past each other.
Again, when I talk of evolution I'm more interested in the "evolving". What mechanisms?
And for me I'm very interested in information theory. Perhaps because I started out in Information Technology.
So now we know about biological information, how did it all get written and come to be?

As an aside, specific theories of common descent have been largely built up around common features.
It is rather easy to look at two species and hypothesize that this feature or that feature looks similar and so must have had a common ancestor, even perhaps be within the same species.
This is somewhat superficial in my opinion, and much better to go by biological information (e.g., DNA). Otherwise biologists are really just determining species and lineages by their cover.
Thanks to more contemporary scientific work, we are more and more opening the covers of a particular creature to read their biological information.
As this happens, many species classified as one based upon similarities in their looks are increasingly being seen as distinct species.
So unless a good amount of research has been done at the "information" level, then the pathways we see are likely superficial at best.
It doesn't disprove common descent, but does start spinning it on its head in all different directions.

Anyway, when I talk "evolution" I'm not meaning common descent or all those pathways and hierarchies you commonly see.
Rather, I'm interested in the "evolving" and what mechanisms are involved. Information theory being applied to biology creates a lot of difficulty.
Because now, we're not just seeing talking in terms of "biological features" and a mutation here and there, natural selection, etc.
The terms are actually describing a biological language that needs to have arisen on its own, and its information content increasing (not just evolving or morphing).

If you will, to me, it is like the evolutionary equivalent to the "Origin of Life" problem
-- how did the initial life come into being (OoL) vs. how did this new information increasingly come into being (biological diversity).
Now if life began complex, with an enormous amount of coded information, then certainly all life evolving from such a rich pool information seems more plausible.
But we're talking very simple life (little to no information) developing into very complex information with reptiles, amphibians, plants, mammals and the like.

So, the information that has been uncovered in biology really causes some headaches I think.
Especially once one understands a bit about information theory and starts to apply this in biology.

Maybe I am just over thinking... but, better then under thinking right?

Kurieuo wrote:I think you're under thinking.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, which is "evolution/ToE" are used but rarely defined.
People just launch into discussion falling on one side or the other.
[...]

I agree! And thanks for the response.

But my statements are about a much more narrow and well-defined issue than general and vague references to evolution/creation.

Hypothesize a common ancestor, along with variation and bifurcating descent. (Everyone can provisionally accept a hypothesis, even those who disagree with what a hypothesis says, e.g., "Hypothesize a tooth fairy", ...)

Then, catalog objective biological traits for living organisms. "Objective" means that sensible people can agree whether or not a specific organism has a specific trait, e.g., 3 chambered heart, opposable thumbs, bilateral symmetry. (You might call this circumstantial evidence, which is OK, but seems redundant.)

Then, ask whether organism groupings by traits form a single objective nested hierarchy. If the answer is yes, then the hypothesis is supported. If the answer is no, then the hypothesis is falsified.

OK, so what isn't clearly defined?!

The above argument framework is so foundational that disagreements make discussing any other issue that you mentioned futile, e.g., evolution (general), mechanisms, information theory, ultimate origins, natural selection, and abiogenesis.

(Actually, my "foundational" argument is radioactive dating, but few posters here seem confused about the age of the Earth.)

I'm not sure that I'm following... we seem to be talking about different things.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is because ToE is never actually defined in any fixed sense, that there is such confusion.
To just say ToE and leave it at that without the details is just so impractical and unfruitful to any discussion re: such.

What is fuzzy about biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent? Understanding the argument requires only a small effort with simple concepts and data. You don't need to know about "fine tuning" arguments, theistic evolution vs. ID distinctions, atheism vs. theism, or any number of other red herrings.

Kurieuo wrote:For example, the enormous amount of symbiotic relationship and even biological features, organs, on the cellular level and the like.
The fact we see many similar biological systems, but different... one my wife was talking about this morning to me, mothers lactating milk whether humans, cows, cats or dogs are all systems very similar in purpose and function, and yet these systems are otherwise quite different and unique to each.

You're over-thinking. For example, for the mammal grouping, the common descent argument from biological traits uses just the existence of mammary glands, not which variety. Other groupings throughout the nested hierarchy use similar objective yes/no traits. Another example grouping (at a different level in the hierarchy) might require the trait of a bony vertebrae: Squid->no. Fish->yes. Human->yes.

I think you're under thinking.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, which is "evolution/ToE" are used but rarely defined.
People just launch into discussion falling on one side or the other.

See, you appear to associate "evolution" with biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent...
Nested hierarchies / common descent is not what I'd classify as "evolution" or ToE. Such is simply circumstantial evidence.
And this evidence can also equally support non-evolutionary scenarios that accommodate such. So this can't be called "evolution".
Rather, in any discussion of "evolution" I'm personally concerned to understand how the natural "evolving" works.

So I think your response actually shows the issue with just saying "evolution" or "ToE". (and I equally took this up with ACB in another thread)
People have all these concepts that you attach to the word "evolution" which are more/less relevant. So they always talk past each other.
Again, when I talk of evolution I'm more interested in the "evolving". What mechanisms?
And for me I'm very interested in information theory. Perhaps because I started out in Information Technology.
So now we know about biological information, how did it all get written and come to be?

As an aside, specific theories of common descent have been largely built up around common features.
It is rather easy to look at two species and hypothesize that this feature or that feature looks similar and so must have had a common ancestor, even perhaps be within the same species.
This is somewhat superficial in my opinion, and much better to go by biological information (e.g., DNA). Otherwise biologists are really just determining species and lineages by their cover.
Thanks to more contemporary scientific work, we are more and more opening the covers of a particular creature to read their biological information.
As this happens, many species classified as one based upon similarities in their looks are increasingly being seen as distinct species.
So unless a good amount of research has been done at the "information" level, then the pathways we see are likely superficial at best.
It doesn't disprove common descent, but does start spinning it on its head in all different directions.

Anyway, when I talk "evolution" I'm not meaning common descent or all those pathways and hierarchies you commonly see.
Rather, I'm interested in the "evolving" and what mechanisms are involved. Information theory being applied to biology creates a lot of difficulty.
Because now, we're not just seeing talking in terms of "biological features" and a mutation here and there, natural selection, etc.
The terms are actually describing a biological language that needs to have arisen on its own, and its information content increasing (not just evolving or morphing).

If you will, to me, it is like the evolutionary equivalent to the "Origin of Life" problem
-- how did the initial life come into being (OoL) vs. how did this new information increasingly come into being (biological diversity).
Now if life began complex, with an enormous amount of coded information, then certainly all life evolving from such a rich pool information seems more plausible.
But we're talking very simple life (little to no information) developing into very complex information with reptiles, amphibians, plants, mammals and the like.

So, the information that has been uncovered in biology really causes some headaches I think.
Especially once one understands a bit about information theory and starts to apply this in biology.

Maybe I am just over thinking... but, better then under thinking right?

A fav. Creoline is that "this evidence can equally support..."

If you like to overthink things, then swing your beam onto that one.

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure that I'm following... we seem to be talking about different things.

Correct!

I'm talking about a straightforward, but non-trivial, example relating to this topic of how evidence can support a hypothesis, a.k.a. the scientific method.

A trivial example is someone tells you, "All ravens are black." (the hypothesis)
So you hike into a bird-rich forest with your binoculars. You see a black cowbird. (evidence) Does that evidence support the hypothesis? No, but doesn't falsify the hypothesis either.

Then you spot a black raven. (more evidence) Does that evidence support the hypothesis? Yes. Do you stop looking? No, of course not. You spot another black raven. The hypothesis is looking even better. Then you spot a red raven. (even more evidence) Do you stop? Yes, because you've falsified the hypothesis. (Ahh, science in action! Gives me goosebumps!)

Are you with me so far?

No, you're entirely loosing me now. Sounds like you're trying to get away from specific issues I raised.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is because ToE is never actually defined in any fixed sense, that there is such confusion.
To just say ToE and leave it at that without the details is just so impractical and unfruitful to any discussion re: such.

What is fuzzy about biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent? Understanding the argument requires only a small effort with simple concepts and data. You don't need to know about "fine tuning" arguments, theistic evolution vs. ID distinctions, atheism vs. theism, or any number of other red herrings.

Kurieuo wrote:For example, the enormous amount of symbiotic relationship and even biological features, organs, on the cellular level and the like.
The fact we see many similar biological systems, but different... one my wife was talking about this morning to me, mothers lactating milk whether humans, cows, cats or dogs are all systems very similar in purpose and function, and yet these systems are otherwise quite different and unique to each.

You're over-thinking. For example, for the mammal grouping, the common descent argument from biological traits uses just the existence of mammary glands, not which variety. Other groupings throughout the nested hierarchy use similar objective yes/no traits. Another example grouping (at a different level in the hierarchy) might require the trait of a bony vertebrae: Squid->no. Fish->yes. Human->yes.

I think you're under thinking.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, which is "evolution/ToE" are used but rarely defined.
People just launch into discussion falling on one side or the other.

See, you appear to associate "evolution" with biological traits forming a nested hierarchy that supports the hypothesis of common descent...
Nested hierarchies / common descent is not what I'd classify as "evolution" or ToE. Such is simply circumstantial evidence.
And this evidence can also equally support non-evolutionary scenarios that accommodate such. So this can't be called "evolution".
Rather, in any discussion of "evolution" I'm personally concerned to understand how the natural "evolving" works.

So I think your response actually shows the issue with just saying "evolution" or "ToE". (and I equally took this up with ACB in another thread)
People have all these concepts that you attach to the word "evolution" which are more/less relevant. So they always talk past each other.
Again, when I talk of evolution I'm more interested in the "evolving". What mechanisms?
And for me I'm very interested in information theory. Perhaps because I started out in Information Technology.
So now we know about biological information, how did it all get written and come to be?

As an aside, specific theories of common descent have been largely built up around common features.
It is rather easy to look at two species and hypothesize that this feature or that feature looks similar and so must have had a common ancestor, even perhaps be within the same species.
This is somewhat superficial in my opinion, and much better to go by biological information (e.g., DNA). Otherwise biologists are really just determining species and lineages by their cover.
Thanks to more contemporary scientific work, we are more and more opening the covers of a particular creature to read their biological information.
As this happens, many species classified as one based upon similarities in their looks are increasingly being seen as distinct species.
So unless a good amount of research has been done at the "information" level, then the pathways we see are likely superficial at best.
It doesn't disprove common descent, but does start spinning it on its head in all different directions.

Anyway, when I talk "evolution" I'm not meaning common descent or all those pathways and hierarchies you commonly see.
Rather, I'm interested in the "evolving" and what mechanisms are involved. Information theory being applied to biology creates a lot of difficulty.
Because now, we're not just seeing talking in terms of "biological features" and a mutation here and there, natural selection, etc.
The terms are actually describing a biological language that needs to have arisen on its own, and its information content increasing (not just evolving or morphing).

If you will, to me, it is like the evolutionary equivalent to the "Origin of Life" problem
-- how did the initial life come into being (OoL) vs. how did this new information increasingly come into being (biological diversity).
Now if life began complex, with an enormous amount of coded information, then certainly all life evolving from such a rich pool information seems more plausible.
But we're talking very simple life (little to no information) developing into very complex information with reptiles, amphibians, plants, mammals and the like.

So, the information that has been uncovered in biology really causes some headaches I think.
Especially once one understands a bit about information theory and starts to apply this in biology.

Maybe I am just over thinking... but, better then under thinking right?

A fav. Creoline is that "this evidence can equally support..."

If you like to overthink things, then swing your beam onto that one.

Ahh yes, I'd expect nothing less from a limp atheist.
It's not my fault what logic allows or doesn't. So don't take it up with me.

It is your fault that you think something lame like your "equally supports" does anything but illuminate and elucidate your lack of logic.

You are found guilty of GIN, Gross Intellectual Negligence. Fine to be set at a later date; and you are, further, enjoined from the use of the plagiarized use of the term "limp" except as rightly applied.

Kurieuo wrote:No, you're entirely loosing me now. Sounds like you're trying to get away from specific issues I raised.

As I said in the post above, the issues that you mention, e.g., evolution (general), mechanisms, information theory, ultimate origins, natural selection, abiogenesis, are not the simplest forums for building a common basis for discussion.

My last posts lay out a simple but concrete common framework for discussion, viz., what evidence and hypothesis testing for common descent even means. If we cannot have a common understanding about that, I guarantee we won't on any of the items you mentioned. But if we can, we'll be able to productively discuss your somewhat more complicated topics.

I cannot emphasize enough how important building that common frame of reference is. For example, I presume that you might witness to someone by starting with something like the basics about the nature of God/Christ, before diving into the details about the Trinity.

Audie wrote:It is your fault that you think something lame like your "equally supports" does anything but illuminate and elucidate your lack of logic.

You are found guilty of GIN, Gross Intellectual Negligence. Fine to be set at a later date; and you are, further, enjoined from the use of the plagiarized use of the term "limp" except as rightly applied.

Looks like someone is feeling better.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:It is your fault that you think something lame like your "equally supports" does anything but illuminate and elucidate your lack of logic.

You are found guilty of GIN, Gross Intellectual Negligence. Fine to be set at a later date; and you are, further, enjoined from the use of the plagiarized use of the term "limp" except as rightly applied.

Looks like someone is feeling better.

Not that it is safe to be around me.