I have had pro-undirected-evolution biologists tell me in this very forum that any biological change whatsoever happening in a single generation would be unproblematic for his notion of evolution.

Therefore, from that perspective, a Cambrian-era creature reproducing and a modern rabbit emerging, would not be an issue. Neither would generating a modern eye in -one generational step-. Where's your line of demarcation between mutations (or clusters of mutations) that are reasonable versus unreasonable? Because without that, this isn't falsifiability. Whatever happens, just call it "evolution" and done.

Ah, the causality-reversing "Anthropic Principle", which is nonsense. Winning the lottery 5 times is a row is not "explained" by "Well, if I didn't win the lottery 5 times in a row, I would be here wondering how I won it 5 times in a row". The probabilities involved are still notable, and still need to be addressed.

And yes, the main reason to believe there was only one try is that's what the evidence indicates. If you have evidence for a different model, feel free to present it. Yes, I know other models exist, and yes, I know they are conjectural, and you have an odd stance if you feel you have superior evidence of that than fine-tuning.

My position actually isn't "special creation" of independent species, but rather directed evolution, but, yeah, it is not uncommon at all for when I design code to use a DLL that both includes functionality relevant to my desired end application, and functionality that is not relevant and remains inactive. Given the similarity of DNA sections across vastly different organisms, a similar scenario does not strike me as implausible.

Say...repeating multiple times the peer-reviewed study (and it's contained test cases) here:

http://www.thelancet.com/journ....
http://profezie3m.altervista.o...

--and persistently finding a lack of reported empirical verification of the predictive accuracy of the mainline hypothesis of the "designer", rather than consistently finding empirical (i.e. "eyewitness sense data derived") verification of its predictions. The latter being the actual case we see per reality.

There's one. Additional and/or better ones in no way excluded by providing this one.

It isn't invalidated by any given species failing to adapt. It isn't invalidated by "bad" mutations or slow change or fast change or no change (for any given genetic line over any given time period). It is well understood that mutations don't always (or even often) happen in a way that enhances survival, especially in a limited time frame (like dinosaurs needing to adapt to changes from a meteoroid impact overnight).

In other words, it can be invalidated by no means whatsoever, merely because of how it is defined. Therefore, it is unfalsifiable. Falsifiability matters. If your notion is that what you are presenting is somehow distinct from theorizing mere reproduction, it isn't.

"Evolution" is only coherent as a theory insofar as it prescribes -particular- mechanisms for genetic change that are distinct from some other conjectural model. Saying it is caused by selection pressure, but maybe not, happens gradually over a long period of time, but maybe not, etc., etc., is not giving "evolution" any particular attributes that can be said to characterize it. It's the scientific equivalent of the guy at the restaurant looking at the menu and saying "okay".

Despite your assertion, I understand he mainline mechanisms quite well. I'm just looking for you to understand that in their totality, as they are rendered in TFS and increasingly commonly elsewhere, no actual specific assertions are being made, i.e., the conceptualization lacks both specific content and falsifiability. These are not good attributes for any scientific theory. I am not against "evolution" per se, but this definitely needs to be cleaned up. You say "evolution", I say "reproduction". What does your term entail in terms of content that mine does not, given the admission of literally every possible scenario of genes being altered by reproduction (hardly notable) into the model? This really can't be handwaved. Phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium is, and has been, important entirely as an internal scientific debate. For good reason. If the answer now is "eh, screw it, maybe the brain evolved over millions of years for this species, maybe it was one super-compound set of mutations happening in a single generation, we'll just call them both evolution" I don't even know what is being proposed that "evolution" means here. And yes, I -know- fully as much about evolution as I need to, to make the determination that this aggregation is not useful. It is not a question of the scope of my knowledge, it is a question of the validity of certain renderings of it.

As was previously stated, "relatively optimal" would have been a better way to have put it. And it is "relatively optimal" by the criteria of survival.

The rest reminds me of that old joke of God to the dismissive genetic engineer asserting he can create life: "No. Get your own dirt."

"Totally random" presuming a fine-tuned planet capable of producing it, within a fine-tuned solar system capable of sustaining that environment on the Earth, within a fine-tuned universe within which the odds that intelligent life, rather than "spacetime goo" would be produced on the first-and-only "try" are vanishingly small.

And, of course, presuming that "random" is scientifically meaningful explanation. It isn't. And, that you have any idea what "better" would be, other than as a subjective floating abstraction. You don't.

...when the observed facts don't require one, then it's on you to prove your claim.

Not in any way.

Try that with the Interpretations of QM.

I'm talking about science here, not Judge Judy.

And, to state it up front, it is your claim that is "extraordinary". Mine's the ordinary one, by sizable statistical preponderance.

... but if you wanna make it scientific, you do have to show me how you know this happened.

Well, no. Nobody knows which of the Interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, etc.) of QM "happen". They are all science. The are science by virtue of strong plausible inference from knowns.

Mainly, this one is winnable simply by observing actual scientists (or anyone working in a domain related to the sciences), and noting that nobody actually applies the same criteria to any other scientific arena that they apply specifically to anything reminding them of religion. Untested, and untestable premises abound in every field. The hypocrisy part of that fact isn't scientifically central, the fact "science" would be an unrecognizable hatchet job of itself, if the claimed criteria were actually applied to science in general, is. I prefer my scientific criteria to be such that science as we know it would still be possible if we accept it.

The problem is, you can't hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution without first establishing that aliens exist.

Watch me. I hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution. I have not yet established they exist. Similarly, I hypothesize that dark matter participates in the expansion of the universe. We have not yet established it exists. There you go. Fait accompli.

You have to establish the physical properties and nature of aliens empirically before you can actually do any inferences with them, otherwise they could do anything, they could have the power to rewrite your brain to make you think they created us when they didn't.

Er, no. That they might have such a conjectural power in no way means they don't have the power to do genetic design. In reality, though, you're making another argument that is shown unrealistic in light of current human-implemented design. You are doing the equivalent of saying, "But... you haven't established which geneticist. You haven't specified which tools he used. Which exact ones on the shelf. At what time, exactly. You haven't proven which room the genetic modification occurred in... how he was dressed...".

No, the geneticists have the assumed ability to perform the design, and you would not ask these questions in -that- case. It would be seen, even by you, as nonsensical blocking of the hypothesis that "the geneticists designed the animal". Same case here. Again, I demonstrate my point regarding your premise via that -you- don't believe your premise, for any circumstance or context other than when talking about something reminding you of a religious notion.

Here's the question though. What are the empirical knowns pertaining to alien or trans-dimensional beings, or their interference in evolution?

Biological structures that appear to be Irreducibly Complex, and are not yet specifically explained. One can argue as well that periods of history where massive unaccounted-for increases in genetic diversity occurred, such as the Cambrian Explosion, are also evidence, though in a less precisely-detailed way. There's two. N others may follow, presuming we maintain a degree of intellectual and scientific integrity and don't dismiss them before they're ever analyzed, because we don't like the potential implications.

Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving trans-dimensional beings, or ETs, or something else, and Earth's natural history? Or any hypothesis of any kind?

Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving -human- design, bearing in mind that present-day design is -fact-? You are given an animal, say, midway between the town's biggest farm and the town's genetic research facility. Form a testable hypothesis showing either of these is involved in explaining the animal's biological characteristics. You have the DNA available to you. Neither the farmer nor the research facility's staff recalls this animal specifically.

If you couldn't do it -presently-, with such an empirical immediacy available to you, how reasonable is that as a criterion for the distant past?

Rather, I suggest, we would address it inferentially, as this is a case, like the QM Interpretations, where there isn't a differentiating test. The inference that over billions of years some alien civilization has visited is not implausible. That another kind of being could have as well, is not implausible. Yes, I expect you to say it is implausible. As you are saying it, it will be perfectly clear in your own mind it is plausible, as you type otherwise.

People believed atoms existed for thousands of years. But atoms weren't actually science until people in the 19th century devised experiments to observe them; until then there was "Atomism," a branch of philosophy, and atoms were mystical, pseudoscientific entities.

Well, wholly wrong. Then, as now, inferential support for entities from empirical knowns is science. Witness the Higgs boson. This was most definitely science long before empirical observation was possible. Same with neutrinos. Same with quarks. It may not meet your scientific criteria, but that's because your scientific criteria is wrong.

Should the King of France have spent millions of francs trying to invent Leibniz's bomb?

Well, probably. That's why we had the Manhattan Project. And it was science.

Your position is pseudoscience.

No. Your scoping of science is pseudoscience.

You're original contention was that people say "only evolution happens," and I asked for a quote that gave it as "the only explanation," neither of your quotes actually say this.

The requested quote was given. Dawkins says it is doubtful that atheism is logically tenable without Darwin.

So you're not really saying anything about evolution, you're only beef is with how some people talk about evolution? It's just a rhetorical argument?

It's an argument that in the interests of science, we need to make scientifically-valid statements. That includes valid definitions, valid scoping, and valid inferences.

If you wanted to propose some kind of non-evolutionary mechanism that didn't involve people, that would actually make your argument make sense, otherwise it seems completely semantic.

Well, no, it doesn't seems completely semantic, even to you. But sure.

1. A superlatively knowledgable and capable trans-dimensional being
2. Extraterrestrial life


Which are not exclusive possibilities. Both would be scientifically interesting, and the possibility of further scientific evidence should not be discounted a priori. I say further, because apparently-IC structures are evidence. When you bring up that they aren't "proof" or because there's an alternate scenario, they aren't evidence at all rather than in fact evidence for both, they will remain exactly the evidence they are.

I've asked this like three times now and you demur every time, I don't think you're being completely honest about your position.

I have stated my position many times. I'm an advocate of directed evolution, overlapping in content with "ID" as it is known and politically smeared. There is no "sniping" or "smokescreens" going on, I want a falsifiable working definition of "evolution", or agreement that it is not falsifiable. As I said at the outset, that's essential for clarity of consideration of it within a scientific context. The rest of the content of the thread has resulted from sniping at my question.

Then surely producing one would be easy. How is a belief in atheism consistent with a belief that neo-Darwinian evolution is the only explanation for the origin of species? I don't think these are bound by logical inference.

"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

--Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

He seems to be binding them pretty directly here.

My position is that we know the influence of evolutionary processes directly to the degree we actually know them on the basis of evidence for their determination of the actual transition for which the evidence applies, and that saying more is contrary to science, for example, "all biological characteristics are due to evolutionary processes" or truly unscientific statements like "evolution is proven" are unscientific. Those statements are easily commonplace in direct statement and implication to justify a response to.

Who says they can be? Who thinks they must be? Nobody here would claim these are evolutionary. Did Dawkins?

Actually, I've directly had people here make precisely that torturous argument, that direct genetic manipulation is artificial selection. It didn't go well for them.

As for Dawkins:

"I suspect the reason is that most people ... have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution."

So yes, he here directly says Darwinian evolution is causally sufficient to explain everything about life. But, it obviously isn't, and the notion is directly contradicted by scientific fact, in particular our own genetic engineering. That it is false across the scope of the topic isn't in question. The only thing in question is if there's a time window in which we can say it isn't false. I invite you to give an end date for that time window. Seriously. Month and year will do.

Ok... when did Dawkins say this? Or Sam Harris? Or Darwin, for that matter? I must say I find this point of contention completely unproductive and querulous, you've beaten this strawman to death!

Every assertion any of them has ever made connecting evolution with an argument for atheism is saying this. There would be thousands of such statements.

What exactly is "explicit genetic design"?

Fluorescent cats, spider-silk producing cows, to name a couple of popularized examples. They cannot be explained by evolutionary processes. They are explained by design. We know this for a fact because we did the designing. At what date in the past would you assert this becomes no longer the case, and by what means limited to the DNA at hand would you determine this?

Is the existence of design falsifiable? It seems like you probably should have lead with your belief that this exists, and then your justifications for it, because this is your actual positive claim, instead of just trying to bait everyone into discrediting an unrelated negative claim.

Why? I lead with the question that was my question, which I'm asking to solidify my view of the science of the matter. As for "negative claims" (IMHO a dubious kind of semantic classification), I am, as stated, precisely against the "negative claim" that causal factors not enumerated by mainline evolutionary theory are not causal factors. All -scientifically valid- claims that address particular evidence for particular cases of evolutionary processes occurring, and are not the non-sequitur "often, therefore always" (again, required for Dawkins et al, not for me) I have no issue with.

Fine, if you prefer, "relatively optimal".

The "absolute optimal" is the thing that doesn't biologically exist, that the person I was replying to is proposing to use as his baseline.

Who has made this assertion? Sure not TFA or really anyone else here. Or is this just your thing?

It has become the default assertion, mainly because it is required for the worldview stance of atheism, particularly as popularized by Dawkins et al. The only problem is that this non-sequitur to what is absolutely needed by them on a personal level, is wholly invalid logically and scientifically.

Fortunately, I don't have that constraint. I'm happy to acknowledge the evolutionary formation of particular biological species and structures to the actual degree science has actually supported it for that actual species or structure. That's valid science. Any evolutionary stance is compatible with my worldview. Only one, overextended, stance is compatible with certain others'.

As for your statement that you've provided criteria for falsification of evolution, again, I don't see how you're providing anything more specific than falsification of reproduction occurring per se. But that's the core of my question. How are we defining "evolution"? If it's simply "any change that happens by any means over time" then that is not falsifiable, and such a notion is hardly explicable only in terms of evolution.

You seem to be switching focus here, in a way that doesn't change the question at hand. I'm not contending reproduction doesn't happen, I'm contending that you have no way of differentiating morphological changes and similarities as a result of "evolutionary" processes from those of explicit genetic design. You provably can't do it today by reference to the DNA alone, when we're doing it ourselves, and there is no logical reason for that fact to change as we extend into the past with less and less direct data. I'm not contending that any particular proposed evolutionary process is relevant, I'm contending that by the time we enumerate all of them, absolutely anything that can happen is equally "evolution". That isn't validating "evolution" by evidence (or scoping it usefully), it's validating it by construction of a definition that includes everything that could possibly occur, in a way that doesn't really differentiate it from any other possible model.

So, yeah, in short, I am not "against" evolution. I am against unscientific overextensions and apparent misuse of the term, both for the sake of science and my own worldview.

Ask me that again in 150 years.

In short, though...

Methodological Naturalism: Good
Philosophical Naturalism: Bad

Good enough for a model where you're explicitly not identifying all the causal factors.

You can't, however, have it both ways.