The meaning of evidence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Sherlock Holmes

The meaning of evidence

Post #1

Post by 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

Image


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?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #2

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:24 pm ...

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?
I looked at that picture pretty good, and don't see a single piece that'd indicate overlapping circles.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #3

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:24 pm 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.
Scientific Evidence defined

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."
Source: Wikipedia


.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #4

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:53 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:24 pm ...

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?
I looked at that picture pretty good, and don't see a single piece that'd indicate overlapping circles.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
Good point, this reminds me of the fragmentary and discontinuous nature of world's fossil record, in that it doesn't seem to have a single example of gradual evolutionary change, very much like the jigsaw analogy I think.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #5

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:43 am Good point, this reminds me of the fragmentary and discontinuous nature of world's fossil record, in that it doesn't seem to have a single example of gradual evolutionary change, very much like the jigsaw analogy I think.
I respect that the fossil record, taken by itself, might not support a conclusion that evolution's it a thing.

But when combined with the rest of what we know, it sure don't refute it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #6

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:43 am this reminds me of the fragmentary and discontinuous nature of world's fossil record, in that it doesn't seem to have a single example of gradual evolutionary change, very much like the jigsaw analogy I think.
Yes there is.

EVOLUTION AT SEA COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."...

...Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work....

...But in the near-perfect record exhibited by the forams studied at FSU, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work. The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.
Or....

Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #7

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Jose Fly wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:46 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:43 am this reminds me of the fragmentary and discontinuous nature of world's fossil record, in that it doesn't seem to have a single example of gradual evolutionary change, very much like the jigsaw analogy I think.
Yes there is.

EVOLUTION AT SEA COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."...

...Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work....

...But in the near-perfect record exhibited by the forams studied at FSU, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work. The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.
Or....

Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites
I retract any bit of my previous comment that doesn't fit with this new to me data.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #8

Post by The Barbarian »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:53 pm I looked at that picture pretty good, and don't see a single piece that'd indicate overlapping circles.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
Think from an AIG perspective. Scissors are your friends. It's actually a rather enlightening analogy. Scientists would take the evidence and try to fit the pieces into a coherent whole. Creationists would get out their scissors and make it fit.
Last edited by The Barbarian on Sun Mar 27, 2022 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #9

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:43 am Good point, this reminds me of the fragmentary and discontinuous nature of world's fossil record, in that it doesn't seem to have a single example of gradual evolutionary change, very much like the jigsaw analogy I think.
Well, let's see what an honest and knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms (my emphasis)

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #10

Post by The Barbarian »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 12:01 am
Jose Fly wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:46 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:43 am this reminds me of the fragmentary and discontinuous nature of world's fossil record, in that it doesn't seem to have a single example of gradual evolutionary change, very much like the jigsaw analogy I think.
Yes there is.

EVOLUTION AT SEA COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."...

...Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work....

...But in the near-perfect record exhibited by the forams studied at FSU, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work. The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.
Or....

Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites
I retract any bit of my previous comment that doesn't fit with this new to me data.
Gould himself cites forams, horses, and ammonites as examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Gould and Eldredge wrote that punctuated equilibrium is the norm, not the exclusive mode of evolution.

Locked