Is science being divided?

[Walker]

Here is someone friendly to ask: https://io9.gizmodo.com/ask-biologist-m ... -508314397

Marlene, who are we, where do we come from, and where are we going?

Why change the questions now?

Just ask about evidence for evolution. Surely it makes sense to ask a person who has studied the subject rather than online randoms.

I've also studied evolution.
But in case there are one or two adults left on the planet who haven't, your link will come in handy.

Why amplify the question?

- To add some colorful and interesting perspective so that the limitations of science don't get a pass.
- Because my question is more important.
- Besides, with free access to an authority of your recommendation, I thought I’d skip all the in-between and go for the gold.
- I'm still listening, and Marlene's answer may even reveal in an unexpected way if conditions are right. Anything can manifest if the conditions are right. Then it's simply a matter of acceptance so that it's not invisible. Keep your eyes peeled.

Why are you so hot to shut down this thread under the guise that it evolved?

[-1-]

Why? I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief. Which part of my belief do you want me to show you?

So we are agreeing that there is no empirical evidence for one species becoming another and it is just a question of belief which has no scientific basis. This is great. Thank you for your honesty.

Whoa. Hold on. I did not say that. You said that.

There is plenty of evidence, from DNA structures to chemical changes to DNA structures between generations, to visible and other discernible differences between offspring and parent, to fossil evidence, to logical follow-through.

I am saying that I believe the evidence, and you, the religious folks, do not believe the evidence.

This is what I believe. Not that there is no evidence. Sure there is evidence. Plenty. It's your business not to believe it, and it's my business to believe it.

[-1-]

Averro, I just read in this thread that you are a Muslim. You practice the Islamic faith.

Is that true?

[Greta]

Marlene, who are we, where do we come from, and where are we going?

Why change the questions now?

Just ask about evidence for evolution. Surely it makes sense to ask a person who has studied the subject rather than online randoms.

I've also studied evolution.
But in case there are one or two adults left on the planet who haven't, your link will come in handy.

Stop telling BS. Your comments make clear that you have not studied it. All you need do is ask an evolutionary biologist - as I've said three times now. Why are you afraid to do so? If you were genuinely curious or interested, you would do that.

The OP has made clear his intent - do you dispute that too with your special mind reading powers?

Why are you trying to derail a thread about divisions WITHIN science with divisions between scientists and creationists. The latter are not involved in science, but religion, mythology. Hence researchers don't study the phenomena of people spontaneously turning into pillars of salt or conduct searches for the Medusa. It's a different domain.

[Walker]

Of course I've studied evolution, like I said. (How many ways do I slander thee? Let me count the ways.)
Good grief, it's not rocket science, which is a good thing for you.

You're of the strange persuasion that everything is a belief.

Belief leads to faith, and faith leads to violence that defends the faith.

Violence has many forms, and you're so eager to dump belief on others.

Your tone is evidence enough.

The question is, are you ever going to rise to philosophy?

[uwot]

Well, I believe that organisms which are better adapted to their environment are more likely to reproduce than less advantaged competitors. What do you believe?

Well, I would say here for me that that statement is analytically true.

Congratulations, you're a Darwinian.

[-1-]

Well, I believe that organisms which are better adapted to their environment are more likely to reproduce than less advantaged competitors. What do you believe?

Well, I would say here for me that that statement is analytically true.

Congratulations, you're a Darwinian.

I can't post pictures. No, it is not forbidden to me; it is I lack the knowledge how.

In the nineteen-seventies there was a cartoonist named Jim Unger. His creation was Herman. It was a one-panel cartoon joke in the papers.

A teacher is pinned down on his desk, face down, with his one arm twisted into a painful position, and ready to be snapped by an irate and very strong father of a pupil. The father is half-leaning on the teacher, and his son, the pupil is standing next to them, impassionately watching, while the teacher holds on to the edge of the desk with his free arm, as a means of survival tactic. Ineffective, but very emotion-driven.

The father of the pupil asks the teacher: "Did you or did you not tell my son that I was a Homo Sapiens?"

[Averroes]

Why? I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief. Which part of my belief do you want me to show you?

So we are agreeing that there is no empirical evidence for one species becoming another and it is just a question of belief which has no scientific basis. This is great. Thank you for your honesty.

Whoa. Hold on. I did not say that. You said that.

Yes you said that and wholeheartedly on top of that! It's too late to hold on now! You already made unambiguous statements wholeheartedly agreeing with me that Darwinism is a question of belief and hence that there is no proof of Darwinism.

From the Oxford dictionaries, we have the following entries:

Belief:
1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief

Wholeheartedly:
With complete sincerity and commitment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... eheartedly

You repeatedly unambiguously asserted and moreover wholeheartedly agreeing with me that Darwinism is a subject of belief. I quote:

Actually, Darwinian Evolution is a question of several beliefs, not just of one belief.

The beliefs:
(...)
5. A series of mutations that help the individuals survive better and have more offspring gives rise to new species.
(...)
------------------

These are all beliefs that sustain a healthy belief in Darwinian evolution.

I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief.

Are you now taking all that back? Remark, you have the right to do that. Anyway, you will be remembered as someone who in a lucid moment accepted wholeheartedly that Darwinism has no evidential support. So I still maintain my thanks to your honesty, even if it lasted for some hours! In my humble opinion the best hours of your philosophical life! At least it shows that you are definitely capable of seeing the truth about the unscientific nature of Darwinism. It was very interesting to have exchanged with you. Good job!

[Averroes]

Well, I believe that organisms which are better adapted to their environment are more likely to reproduce than less advantaged competitors. What do you believe?

Well, I would say here for me that that statement is analytically true.

Congratulations, you're a Darwinian.

That was really very funny. Thanks but no thanks, I cannot accept the proposition to be a Darwinian. Because I love science and logic too much to endorse the illogical and unscientific Darwinian theory. Logic, maths, philosophy and science has always been good to me and served me well all my life. I cannot now betray them by endorsing the illogical and unscientific Darwinian theory. It would not be fair, and it would not be possible for me to intellectually commit to something which does not make sense. So, respectfully, I decline your proposition.

But I have to reiterate my statement that I find you to be a sensible and civilized person, at least as far as our exchange has gone so far. I have appreciated your style, even though I do not share your beliefs. And I think there is a misunderstanding between us. You had made the following statement previously:

I believe that organisms which are better adapted to their environment are more likely to reproduce than less advantaged competitors.

You made use of the concept of adaptation in the quoted statement above. But that word is an ambiguous term nowadays.

It can have three different meanings. For Britannica we have the following listing:

• The word adaptation does not stem from its current usage in evolutionary biology but rather dates back to the early 17th century, when it was used to indicate a relation between design and function or how something fits into something else. In biology this general idea has been coopted so that adaptation has three meanings.
  
  First, in a physiological sense, an animal or plant can adapt by adjusting to its immediate environment-for instance, by changing its temperature or metabolism with an increase in altitude.
  
  Second, and more commonly, the word adaptation refers either to the process of becoming adapted or to features of organisms that promote reproductive success relative to other possible features. Here the process of adaptation is driven by genetic variations among individuals that become adapted to- that is, have greater success in-a specific environmental context. A classic example is shown by the melanistic(dark) phenotype of the peppered moth(Biston betularia), which increased numbers in Britain following the Industrial Revolution as dark coloured moths appeared cryptic against soot-darkened trees and escaped predation by birds. The process of adaptation occurs through an eventual change in the gene frequency relative to advantages conferred by a particular characteristic, as with the coloration of the wings in the moths.
  
  The third and more popular view of adaptation is in regard to the form of a feature that has evolved by natural selection for a specific function.

https://www.britannica.com/science/adap ... physiology

The first two meanings of adaptation are backed by empirical evidence. Concerning the third meaning of adaptation, namely the theory of evolution by natural selection (i.e. Darwinism), there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

As I said, the original meaning of adaptation (i.e. the first two meanings) make the statement you made into a trivial analytic statement for me and I have no problem to accept that statement under that interpretation. Moreover given the original meaning of adaptation that statement is also backed by abundant scientific evidence. I accept wholeheartedly adaptation within the same species as being scientifically established. This has never been challenged by me. Adaptation within the same species was a recognized scientific fact centuries before Darwin's controversial theory of evolution, i.e. in the early 17th century according to Britannica.

But adaptation used in the third sense which expresses Darwinism, has never been observed by the scientists. Darwinism extrapolates unwarrantedly beyond what the scientific evidence establishes and makes claims which scientific evidence not only does not back but also can never back! For example Prof Alan H Linton an expert in bacteriology wrote:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/bo ... ioncode=31

That is my problem with Darwinism. It is unscientific. If you let such type of practice go through uncritisized then it brings disrepute to the whole useful field of scientific inquiry. Someone who understands and respects the value of true scientific inquiry cannot endorse Darwinism.

[Averroes]

A few members posting on this thread have expressed concern that the discussion of Darwinism on this thread may be off topic and have thus refrained from contributing positively. But the majority of members have made some interesting contributions to this topic. And I thank all these contributors, even though we disagree on the subject. And this in itself prove that addressing Darwinism on this thread was spot on topic!

Nevertheless, to be fair to the few members who have refrained from contributing by reason of an unjustified ethical concern that it might be off-topic, I have an intention of importing the principal subject matter of this thread to another thread of the forum in which the off-topic issue would not at all arise. The content will be nearly the same again. The purpose will be to give these refraining members an opportunity to express themselves on this very interesting topic. I will let this thread run its course and in a couple of weeks or so I have intention of coming back and go through this all over again. By that time, hopefully new members would have join the forum and thus we can get other new perspectives on this interesting subject.

[-1-]

Averro, you are 1. misquoting me (by leaving out several points in my belief system in Darwinism) and focussing only on one point.

And 2. you are totally misunderstanding the nature of scientific enquiry.

Science does not prove anything. It has theories, and you can believe those theories or not believe them. Science can only disprove theories, but not prove them to be true.

This is where you went wrong with stating that since evolution is a system of belief of disbelief, it has no evidence.

Sure it has evidence. But it has no proof.

I believe the evidence is good enough to believe in Darwinism.

You don't.

But don't please make snide remarks before understanding your opponent's view fully.

------------------------------

The pertinent points in your reply to show where you misunderstand me:

"Belief:
1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

"Anyway, you will be remembered as someone who in a lucid moment accepted wholeheartedly that Darwinism has no evidential support. "

You see, this is where I assumed you would have the pertinent knowledge of scientific enquiry.

You erroneously equated the lack of proof with lack of evidence.

That is wrong. Evidence is not equal to proof.

I have not accepted wholeheartedly that Darwinism has no evidential support. That is your interpretation, and it's the wrong interpretation of my view. (As per above.)

You wrote,

"Are you now taking all that back? Remark, you have the right to do that. "

My answer: NO, I am not taking any of it back. I am instead trying to illustrate to you that you went wrong in several spots in your logical assessment of my view.

[Averroes]

You erroneously equated the lack of proof with lack of evidence.

That is wrong. Evidence is not equal to proof.

I do not think so, and neither do the English dictionaries that I use to interpret English words that are used in current discourse!

From the Oxford dictionaries:
Proof: Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof

From the Collins dictionary:
Proof: Proof is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence which shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... sh/proof_1

Moreover, the Thesaurus lists "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof

"Are you now taking all that back? Remark, you have the right to do that. "

My answer: NO, I am not taking any of it back.

That is even better then! Always a great pleasure to exchange with you.

[Eodnhoj7]

Averro, you are 1. misquoting me (by leaving out several points in my belief system in Darwinism) and focussing only on one point.

And 2. you are totally misunderstanding the nature of scientific enquiry.

Science does not prove anything. It has theories, and you can believe those theories or not believe them. Science can only disprove theories, but not prove them to be true.

This is where you went wrong with stating that since evolution is a system of belief of disbelief, it has no evidence.

Sure it has evidence. But it has no proof.

I believe the evidence is good enough to believe in Darwinism.

You don't.

But don't please make snide remarks before understanding your opponent's view fully.

------------------------------

The pertinent points in your reply to show where you misunderstand me:

"Belief:
1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

"Anyway, you will be remembered as someone who in a lucid moment accepted wholeheartedly that Darwinism has no evidential support. "

You see, this is where I assumed you would have the pertinent knowledge of scientific enquiry.

You erroneously equated the lack of proof with lack of evidence.

That is wrong. Evidence is not equal to proof.

I have not accepted wholeheartedly that Darwinism has no evidential support. That is your interpretation, and it's the wrong interpretation of my view. (As per above.)

You wrote,

"Are you now taking all that back? Remark, you have the right to do that. "

My answer: NO, I am not taking any of it back. I am instead trying to illustrate to you that you went wrong in several spots in your logical assessment of my view.

Evidence (or proof) is merely an observation of symmetry between certain standards. If I argue something is "evident" what I am saying is that it has a proportional nature to other specific axioms and has specific qualities which are equal to certain qualities or are repeated in these qualities. In this manner evidence observes a relation of axioms. Considering this as a prerequisite for "evidence" science will be inherently divided because of certain subjective axioms that some people observe as congruent to objective evidence...while other's will not. This subjective nature of evidence will inevitably result in a division.

So yes science does not provide proof for some, because of the subjective nature of certain truths, it inevitably will provide proof for others. Science, under these terms can be viewed as a standard of measurement and nothing more or less. However as a standard of measurement, its application inevitably causes certain truths to form considering the process of measurement is a process of construction. So whether science discovers or invents truth becomes fundamentally irrelevant considering it synthesizes truth's none the less.

And for the record, I do not believe evolution has enough proof to sustain it either logically or from empirical evidence.

[-1-]

You erroneously equated the lack of proof with lack of evidence.

That is wrong. Evidence is not equal to proof.

I do not think so, and neither do the English dictionaries that I use to interpret English words that are used in current discourse!

From the Oxford dictionaries:
Proof: Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof


From the Collins dictionary:
Proof: Proof is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence which shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... sh/proof_1

Moreover, the Thesaurus lists "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof

"Are you now taking all that back? Remark, you have the right to do that. "

My answer: NO, I am not taking any of it back.

That is even better then! Always a great pleasure to exchange with you.

I can't teach you the language. If you haven't acquired the ability to separate the meanings of words by nuances, then there is nobody who can teach you that.

Since you are now arguing a hopeless argument that rests on your ability to convince the English-speaking world that we can dispense with the word "proof" and just use "evidence" in its place (after all, you insist they mean the same thing), I think it's best to leave you alone and slowly walk away.

Language is not tricky. But if you mix up the word "proof" and "evidence", and claim they are synonyms, then I have nothing more to say to you.

I rest my case.

FYI:

Peter is taller than Mike.
Mike is taller then John.
Therefore Peter is taller than John.

There is a proof, with no evidence.

-------------------------------

We found some evidence on the murder scene: a footprint of MIke's shoe.
But it's not proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

There is an evidence without proof.

-------------------------------

Would it help you if I clarified it even more, by saying that the dictionaries you quoted used colloquial meanings of the words? In mathematics, in logic, in philosophy there exist proofs, that are not supported by evidence. In physics, and in all sciences, there are evidences that don't yield a proof. This is a slightly different meaning of "proof" and "evidence" from how your sources used these words.

I can't believe I have to teach you this grade seven stuff about the language.

If you clicked on the link "definition of proof" in the SAME website you quoted, you would have found this:

Proof: noun:
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
anything serving as such evidence:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

What you need to observe is that "evidence" is only "proof" if it meets certain criteria, and in some cases the evidence does not meet those criteria.

In science, specifically, evidence never satisfies the criteria of serving as proof of a theory, evidence can only be proof of the failing of a theory.



And this is where we started.

Now let's examine the Collins dictionary quote by you:
From the Collins dictionary:
Proof: Proof is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence which shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists.

Here, if you watch carefully, the connective "which" will single out those cases, in which evidence is proof. But in not every case is evidence proof. Only in those cases, in which evidence shows that something is definitely true. But it is not the case in every case.

Again: In science, there is no evidence that proves a theory. The right evidence can always disprove a theory.

Again, you showed that you misunderstand the nature of scientific enquiry. You proved that with your thesis beautifully.

I did not get this out of thin air. It is taught in higher educational institutes.

----------------------------------

The problem with deeply religious thinkers when they attack scientific theories, such as Darwinism, is that they argue about the lack of proof. There can never be found a definite proof to prove Darwinism works. It is reasonable to think it works, it only goes to show that it works, it is intuitive knowledge that it works, but it can never be proven that it works. However, that is the nature of science.

[-1-]

Moreover, Averro, please consider this:

There are such things as:
- sufficient evidence to prove something
- insufficient evidence to prove something
- necessary but insufficient evidence in the proof of something
- necessary and sufficient evidence in the proof of something

If "evidence" and "proof" were synonyms, like you claim, then these four different types would not exist for the qualification of evidence with respect to proof.

Therefore I reject your claim of calling "evidence" and "proof" synonyms.

Yes, there are cases when they are equal, such as when evidence is sufficient. But that requires some characteristics of evidence to present. It is a special case of evidence.