The meaning of evidence

[Sherlock Holmes]

This thread is to discuss the meaning of the term "evidence" particularly with respect to claims made by evolution advocates.

The reason I started this thread is that I often see - what I regard as - a conflation of consistent with and evidence for. If we are to make reasonable inferences and maintain objectivity and avoid making assumption unwittingly then the more precisely we define "evidence" the better I think.

The biggest risk here is to imply that some observation P is evidence for X and only X, rather than evidence for X and Y or Z. Unless we are on our guard we can informally exclude reasonable possibilities Y and Z and so on. Now the observation P might well be evidence for X and only X, but unless that is soundly established we simply can't assume that.

If we mistakenly regard P as evidence for X and only X then we fall into the trap of believing that P can only be observed if X was the cause.

This is exemplified by an analogy I recently put together that I think warrants its own thread, so here it is:

Consider this jigsaw

None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we already believed for some reason or other, that they must overlap and we only had twenty random pieces and never see the rest, we could make up a jigsaw (theory) where we "fill in the blanks" so to speak and "show" that we sometimes have overlapping circles.

We'd be absolutely right too in saying the twenty pieces were consistent with an image that has overlapping circles, but we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles, because as we know, none of the circles actually do overlap.

So do you agree or not, there's a difference between observations that are evidence for some hypothesis vs consistent with some hypothesis and we should always be careful and make this distinction clear in our arguments?

[Tcg]

Your biased opinion changes nothing, my reasons for participating in the forum are none of your business, absolutely irrelevant.

Okay. Like I said, I'm here to engage in debates. But that doesn't seem to be the case for you, which is fine.

You of course being on the back foot often when arguing with me, want these things to matter, you want my reasons for being here to matter, you want my religious views to matter, you want the books I read to matter.

It is a diversionary tactic for you, attack me on the basis of these factors because you cannot sustain polite discourse with me.

It is classic ad-hominem, arguing about the person themselves rather than the subject.

No, it was more about the disconnect between my purposes for being here, my assumptions about why you're here, and your actual reasons for being here. I'm here to debate, and since this is specifically a debate forum I assumed you were here for the same reason. Obviously I was mistaken, which led to some issues.

If you ever feel like engaging in a debate, I'm willing to do so. In the meantime, I will stop assuming you are here to debate.

Moderator Comment

A debate involves discussing the issues, not other posters. Please return to the issues.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Whenever I hear about "gaps in the fossil record", I (having first learned biology in the early 1960s) immediately consider what was in evidence then, and what is in evidence now. When I started out, we lacked transitional forms for:

dinosaurs/birds
early hominids/modern humans
early anasids/turtles
wasps/ants
roaches/termites
ungulates/whales
fish/tetrapods
salamanders/frogs
reptiles/mammals
primitive plants/flowering plants
basal carnivores/canids
primitive procaviids/elephants

Today, we have all of those and many more. Basing one's argument on what is not yet known, is very faulty thinking.

So getting back on track...

The discontinuity is best exemplified IMHO by the Cambrian explosion, of course this is ultimately subjective, each of us can look at the data and make a judgement call, there's no formal definition after all of what constitutes evidence of continuity.

People who are invested in evolution naturally find the fossil record to be in accord with overall expectations and those like me who are not, do not.

I think we'd all do well - including me - to ease back and accept that this is subjective, one man's meat is another man's poison so to speak.

So to that end it is my opinion based on the data I've seen and material I've read that the record as it stands with the Cambrian explosion lacks a credible continuity and that itself lacks a credible explanation - this is my opinion and I share that with the like of Meyer's and Berlinski and many others.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The fossil record is everywhere discontinuous, how can you use that to insist that the process that led to the fossils was continuous?

The fossil record is consistent with a continuous process but equally consistent with a discontinuous process; in the same way the twenty jigsaw pieces is consistent with an overlapping model and a non overlapping model, you simply cannot prove from the samples which model is correct.

This is the hill you've chosen to stand on, but you've also steadfastly refused to engage with molecular data. By their very nature, both methods produce a series of snapshots. Metazoan fossils generally produce a series of snapshots that could be likened to a storyboard. Even a storyboard, however, can be seen as evidence of a continuous process when viewed together with cladistic evidence that points toward a particular mechanism of change. If we instead allow for an ephemeral, yet somehow real designer, it's possible to view the "snapshot" and "storyboard" analogies as not being illusory, but artifacts of a process of divine snapshots. The mechanism you've proposed (God periodically deigning to create a new snapshot) amounts to little more than handwaving, but as you've pointed out, the storyboard effect of the fossil record of certain kinds of organisms would be consistent with your mechanism.

You are quite wrong to say "you've also steadfastly refused to engage with molecular data" as this post proves beyond doubt, here's my remarks from that post made exactly one month ago (Feb 28) discussing the Cambrian fossil record:

I see, so we have no actual genetic material from the Cambrian at all.

Genetic similarities are not evidence of common ancestry either, they are consistent with common ancestry if we assume evolution occurs but can't serve as evidence for evolution when evolution is predicated upon it. I've seen people make this logical error before, its understandable too because the incessant "evolution is a fact" has been drummed into all of since we were knee high to a grasshopper.

Does that really look to you as me "steadfastly refusing to engage"?

Molecular evidence, though, is different. Every living and recently dead individual organism in existence becomes a potential snapshot. We no longer have to content ourselves with storyboards, but have graduated to motion pictures. Every frame of a motion picture is a snapshot, but when the snapshots are close enough together, it becomes vanishingly unlikely that each frame is independent of the ones before it and after it. As more frames are added, the overall picture becomes less and less consistent with a discontinuous process where each frame is the result of a discrete creative act by an ephemeral divine agency.

So are you admitting here that the fossil record is too discontinuous as it stands to serve as "evidence for" evolution of the Cambrians? and that we must bolster it with additional arguments, like observations about DNA?

The puzzle that you offered in the OP really is a very good analogy for the evidence and the different ways of looking at it, but it's not just the circles and their relationships that are the point of contention, but whether the pieces actually fit together in a single picture or not. Analysis of the fossil record can be seen as beginning a puzzle and finding areas where the pieces fit together, but that are yet unconnected to each other.

Very well.

The molecular data have brought us to the end stage of puzzle building, though, where we begin to connect smaller areas together into larger ones. We correct some of the mistaken guesses we made along the way, but as we do, we're realizing that we were right all along about what the overall picture looked like even as we fill in more details that we hadn't guessed at.

By "we" you mean those scientific investigators who believe in evolution?

It's the creationists, even the ones that you insist are scientists by some definition, that continue to insist that each puzzle piece is actually independent of its obvious neighbors and that the apparent picture as a whole is illusory. Your argument is that even as the puzzle is being assembled before your eyes, the pieces are still "consistent" with a discrete process that didn't actually start with a combined picture, but that God created each piece as a separate, independent action and it's effectively coincidence that they just happen to fit so perfectly together in a way that's "consistent" with a massive jigsaw puzzle with hundreds of thousands of pieces.

I've said before that I have no idea how the Cambrian animals arose, to what degree God "participated", I have not speculated on that, only that the event represented by the Cambrian fossil record is truly extraordinary and - IMHO - incompatible with claims of gradualism.

Now with respect to molecular data, I do not see how that can help reduce the magnitude of the Cambrian event, it is as if you are saying "yes the Cambrian is crazy, a lot did happen in a short space of time, but that doesn't matter because we have this indirect molecular evidence".

You see IF the Cambrian was "supernaturally" induced in some way THEN any purported molecular evidence is irrelevant, that too might also have a supernatural explanation, for example using tried and test molecular mechanisms to design and construct different organisms.

The prevalence of common traits in molecular data across diverse species does not prove that that commonality is due to the long term consequences of inheritance, yes it is consistent with that, but that's the very thing were differentiating here.

[Jose Fly]

The discontinuity is best exemplified IMHO by the Cambrian explosion, of course this is ultimately subjective, each of us can look at the data and make a judgement call, there's no formal definition after all of what constitutes evidence of continuity.

What do you mean when you use the term "continuity"?

People who are invested in evolution naturally find the fossil record to be in accord with overall expectations and those like me who are not, do not.

I think we'd all do well - including me - to ease back and accept that this is subjective, one man's meat is another man's poison so to speak.

This is another area where you and I differ. I'm coming at this from a scientific perspective, which is not a process where two people have opinions, they "agree to disagree", and leave it at that.

In my time in science, when people disagree over something like the interpretation of a data set, we develop a means by which we can test which view is most likely to be correct. Then we go about the process of conducting those tests, examining the results, and drawing conclusions.

But then I think it's important to remember that it very much seems your position/opinion isn't necessarily scientific. It's at it's most basic "God did it" (i.e., the Christian God created the organisms that appear at the beginning of the Cambrian), which isn't scientifically testable (gods can do absolutely anything, thereby eliminating any possibility of falsification).

And that leads to the obvious question....so how do we tell which of the two interpretations/opinions is most likely correct?

So to that end it is my opinion based on the data I've seen and material I've read that the record as it stands with the Cambrian explosion lacks a credible continuity and that itself lacks a credible explanation - this is my opinion and I share that with the like of Meyer's and Berlinski and many others.

That's quite the scenario you've set up, where you're apparently free to make vague references to "the data I've seen and material I've read", but if anyone asks "So what have you read" you suddenly decide that's irrelevant and a personal attack.

Quite transparent IMO.

[Jose Fly]

Genetic similarities are not evidence of common ancestry either

Yes they are...or more precisely, specific types of genetic similarities are. The same concepts and types of similarities (broadly, shared genetic errors) that are used to establish relatedness in courts can be used to show common ancestry between taxa.

they are consistent with common ancestry if we assume evolution occurs but can't serve as evidence for evolution when evolution is predicated upon it.

Evolution occurs. We directly observe it happening all the time. Since the basis for your objection is fundamentally flawed and demonstrably wrong, your objection has no merit.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The discontinuity is best exemplified IMHO by the Cambrian explosion, of course this is ultimately subjective, each of us can look at the data and make a judgement call, there's no formal definition after all of what constitutes evidence of continuity.

What do you mean when you use the term "continuity"?

Two obviously different morphologies with a number of intermediate cases where each case differs almost imperfectly from its neighbors, that's a working definition that should do for now.

People who are invested in evolution naturally find the fossil record to be in accord with overall expectations and those like me who are not, do not.

I think we'd all do well - including me - to ease back and accept that this is subjective, one man's meat is another man's poison so to speak.

This is another area where you and I differ. I'm coming at this from a scientific perspective, which is not a process where two people have opinions, they "agree to disagree", and leave it at that.

In my time in science, when people disagree over something like the interpretation of a data set, we develop a means by which we can test which view is most likely to be correct. Then we go about the process of conducting those tests, examining the results, and drawing conclusions.

Scientists disagree all the time and those disagreements often persist for years and years, for example Prof. Max Tegmark and Prof. Roger Penrose on the nature of consciousness, I can give you more examples too if you'd like.

But then I think it's important to remember that it very much seems your position/opinion isn't necessarily scientific.

I know that's your opinion, you've said this before.

It's at it's most basic "God did it" (i.e., the Christian God created the organisms that appear at the beginning of the Cambrian), which isn't scientifically testable (gods can do absolutely anything, thereby eliminating any possibility of falsification).

I'm not here speculating on the mechanisms underlying the Cambrian explosion, only the efficacy of the fossil record as evidence they evolved, this thread is about the potential to confuse "consistent with" with "evidence for".

And that leads to the obvious question....so how do we tell which of the two interpretations/opinions is most likely correct?

Well that's what the OP is trying to discuss, when we see what looks like evidence but might not be, with the jigsaw picture we can't prove from the twenty pieces we have that there are overlaps but nor can we prove there aren't, there is ambiguity and I think there's also ambiguity in the fossil record and that the claims of absolute certainty that the Cambrian animals are - IMHO - unjustified.

So to that end it is my opinion based on the data I've seen and material I've read that the record as it stands with the Cambrian explosion lacks a credible continuity and that itself lacks a credible explanation - this is my opinion and I share that with the like of Meyer's and Berlinski and many others.

That's quite the scenario you've set up, where you're apparently free to make vague references to "the data I've seen and material I've read", but if anyone asks "So what have you read" you suddenly decide that's irrelevant and a personal attack.

Quite transparent IMO.

What question are you asking exactly, it's not clear, you want some references to material I've studied that casts doubt on the evolution of the Cambrian? of course:

Darwin's Doubt,
Signature in the Cell,
Debating Darwin's Doubt,
Return of the God Hypothesis,
The Crucible of Creation,

[Sherlock Holmes]

Genetic similarities are not evidence of common ancestry either

Yes they are...or more precisely, specific types of genetic similarities are. The same concepts and types of similarities (broadly, shared genetic errors) that are used to establish relatedness in courts can be used to show common ancestry between taxa.

You're overlooking genetic engineering:

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms.

See? no common ancestry there.

they are consistent with common ancestry if we assume evolution occurs but can't serve as evidence for evolution when evolution is predicated upon it.

Evolution occurs. We directly observe it happening all the time. Since the basis for your objection is fundamentally flawed and demonstrably wrong, your objection has no merit.

In the narrow sense that changes take place to the genome yes I agree, but the broader more expansive claims that the same process can and did lead to huge diversity and macroscopic changes isn't really observable given that this requires huge timeframes.

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean when you use the term "continuity"?

Two obviously different morphologies with a number of intermediate cases where each case differs almost imperfectly from its neighbors, that's a working definition that should do for now.

How different would the morphologies have to be? Are there taxonomic factors involved? If so, what are they?

Scientists disagree all the time and those disagreements often persist for years and years, for example Prof. Max Tegmark and Prof. Roger Penrose on the nature of consciousness, I can give you more examples too if you'd like.

No need. I deal with disagreements among scientists almost every day, and as I described, when the disagreement involves interpretation of a data set, we typically resolve it by developing ways to test the differing interpretations.

I think the issue here is that you haven't offered a different interpretation and instead are just arguing that the existing one from science is wrong, which obviously means we can't do the sort of test I described.

I'm not sure where that leaves us. If your intent here is to simply ensure everyone here knows that you disagree with the conclusions (regarding the Cambrian fossil record) from paleontologists and evolutionary biologists, then I'd say you've done that.

I'm not here speculating on the mechanisms underlying the Cambrian explosion, only the efficacy of the fossil record as evidence they evolved, this thread is about the potential to confuse "consistent with" with "evidence for".

Okay.

when we see what looks like evidence but might not be, with the jigsaw picture we can't prove from the twenty pieces we have that there are overlaps but nor can we prove there aren't, there is ambiguity and I think there's also ambiguity in the fossil record and that the claims of absolute certainty that the Cambrian animals are - IMHO - unjustified.

Yes, I believe we all know that quite well...you don't agree with the conclusions reached by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. But if you're not interested in actually debating the subject, I'm not sure where else to go with that other than to say "So noted".

What question are you asking exactly, it's not clear, you want some references to material I've studied that casts doubt on the evolution of the Cambrian? of course:

Darwin's Doubt,
Signature in the Cell,
Debating Darwin's Doubt,
Return of the God Hypothesis,
The Crucible of Creation,

Well I asked before if you'd read anything from the "evolution side" (so to speak) and you saw that as a personal attack, so I'll just note that it seems to me that you've read some creationist material and found it compelling, but you don't want to debate it.

So noted.

[Jose Fly]

You're overlooking genetic engineering:

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms.

See? no common ancestry there.

Except, as that excerpt describes, genetic engineering involves the transfer of functional sequences, whereas the genetic testing that is used to establish relatedness relies on comparison of genetic errors.

Also, genetic engineering is something human beings do and humans have only existed for the last ~250,000-300,000 years, while life has existed on earth for ~4 billion years.

In the narrow sense that changes take place to the genome yes I agree, but the broader more expansive claims that the same process can and did lead to huge diversity and macroscopic changes isn't really observable given that this requires huge timeframes.

As I showed by posting multiple examples of observed speciation events, we know that evolution occurs to the point where it generates new species. Thus when we look at the fossil record and see the appearance of new species, it's rational to infer that they too came about via evolution.

It's no different than geologists inferring that specific ash layers they uncover were produced by volcanic eruptions, just as they see volcanoes today produce the same types of ash layers.

And yes, I'm fully aware that your position is that uniformitarianism is an unwarranted and erroneous framework in the earth and life sciences. I'm also aware that you do not have a better alternative, nor are you interested in developing one and demonstrating its superiority. So once again.....so noted.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What do you mean when you use the term "continuity"?

Two obviously different morphologies with a number of intermediate cases where each case differs almost imperfectly from its neighbors, that's a working definition that should do for now.

How different would the morphologies have to be? Are there taxonomic factors involved? If so, what are they?

During the Cambrian some 30+ phyla appeared for the first time, clearly these are all sufficiently distinct from each other to be classified as phyla, so what fossil evidence is there these shared common ancestry? each phylum - in principle - represents the end of some branch and these branches (30+ branches) must meet at some point in the past, some ancestor or other. There's no fossil evidence of this to my knowledge, there's no fossil evidence showing gradual ever so small changes between any two forms that eventually culminates in some common ancestor.

Scientists disagree all the time and those disagreements often persist for years and years, for example Prof. Max Tegmark and Prof. Roger Penrose on the nature of consciousness, I can give you more examples too if you'd like.

No need. I deal with disagreements among scientists almost every day, and as I described, when the disagreement involves interpretation of a data set, we typically resolve it by developing ways to test the differing interpretations.

Right and until you can resolve it, it remains unresolved, as for example Tegmark and Penrose for example.

I think the issue here is that you haven't offered a different interpretation and instead are just arguing that the existing one from science is wrong, which obviously means we can't do the sort of test I described.

I'm not sure where that leaves us. If your intent here is to simply ensure everyone here knows that you disagree with the conclusions (regarding the Cambrian fossil record) from paleontologists and evolutionary biologists, then I'd say you've done that.

Well I do think the fossil record with respect to the Cambrian is so punctuated that one is justified in questioning if the diverse phyla really are the result of evolution, that's my position.

I'm not here speculating on the mechanisms underlying the Cambrian explosion, only the efficacy of the fossil record as evidence they evolved, this thread is about the potential to confuse "consistent with" with "evidence for".

Okay.

when we see what looks like evidence but might not be, with the jigsaw picture we can't prove from the twenty pieces we have that there are overlaps but nor can we prove there aren't, there is ambiguity and I think there's also ambiguity in the fossil record and that the claims of absolute certainty that the Cambrian animals are - IMHO - unjustified.

Yes, I believe we all know that quite well...you don't agree with the conclusions reached by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. But if you're not interested in actually debating the subject, I'm not sure where else to go with that other than to say "So noted".

Well of course my position won't match that of evolutionary biologists!

What question are you asking exactly, it's not clear, you want some references to material I've studied that casts doubt on the evolution of the Cambrian? of course:

Darwin's Doubt,
Signature in the Cell,
Debating Darwin's Doubt,
Return of the God Hypothesis,
The Crucible of Creation,

Well I asked before if you'd read anything from the "evolution side" so to speak and you saw that as a personal attack, so I'll just note that it seems to me that you've read some creationist material and found it compelling, but you don't want to debate it.

So noted.

OK.