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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

By "ever accumulating novelty" I mean that bacteria + billions of years = people. Novelty means eyes, ears, a heart, lungs, digestive system, finger nails, teeth, immune system, all of the things that have supposedly gradually accumulated in our genome over billions of years.

If we trace back any living human we could in principle arrive at some bacterium or something, well all of the accumulated and rich characteristics that were once not present but now are, well these are an accumulation are they not?

Ah, so you're basically asking how we know that humans are descended from ancient organisms via evolutionary processes. We know that via a pretty vast array of evidences....genetic, fossil, anatomical, embryological, etc.

No, I'm not "basically asking" what you think I'm asking! I'm asking what I actually asked, here's one quote that carries that general question:

I stated my case, my opinion and that's that. Tell me how can you prove that behavior of a complex state based system (i.e. a colony of bacteria) observed over a period of a few years will not exhibit additional unanticipated emergent behavior over a period of say a few thousand years?

As for "accumulating novelty", that's exactly what the fossil record shows....a history of new species and traits appearing (and disappearing) over time. And what process do we see generating new species and traits today? Evolution.

Good Lord! Jose, the fossil record can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution once we've established that evolution (i.e. "ever accumulating novelty") is actually possible. This is the same logic error I've seen a hundred times when debating evolutionists. You claim the fossil record is evidence for evolution then claim we know that it was evolution because we have the fossil record!

By self limiting I mean the genome might get into some state that it can't really deviate much from, where any mutation yields no real benefit and so the accumulation ceases.

And your evidence that this occurred is.........?

The first 1,700,000,000 years of life on earth, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes...not for a thousand years, not for a million years but for 1,700 million years, that's an awfully long time for nothing much to happen, and it is consistent with what I've been arguing.

Why do you think this accumulation can continue unabated?

I don't. There are limits to evolution you know. For example, as Barbarian has pointed out to you before, horses are not going to sprout wings and start flying, which is why it's not just the transitions we do see in the fossil record that are so compelling, it's the transitions we don't see as well.

Well you're now stating a contradictory position, because if humans did evolve from prokaryotes then clearly the accumulation in this case, has continued unabated up to this time has it not? The only way to argue that humans evolved from prokaryotes is if evolution continued unabated in this case. Therefore I stand by that phraseology.

the only lab evidence we have is of small adaptations, how can you extrapolate that and ignore the fact that complex systems like this can exhibit certain behaviors only after they've reached some state that might take millions of years to actually observe?

It is all assumption nothing more.

Ah, I see. This is standard creationist black/white thinking coupled with an ignorance of basic science. The black/white thinking is evident in arguing that scientists either know everything, or are just engaging in "assumption, nothing more", and the ignorance of basic science is arguing that if scientists don't directly witness an event, they can't conclude that it occurred.

One of the things I realized a while ago is that just as I struggle to understand the religious way of thinking, some religious folks also struggle to understand the scientific way of thinking. IMO, that's part of what's going on here.

Losing the logic argument so start attacking on the basis of contrived "religious" arguments, accusations of "ignorance" and "struggle to understand", why is it that someone disagreeing with you always elicits the claim that the other party lacks understanding? did it never cross your mind there might be another reason?

At no point have I said "if scientists don't directly witness an event, they can't conclude that it occurred", misquote, misquote, paraphrase, paraphrase, this is a much over used weapon in your repertoire Jose.

Of course we can argue that something occurred without directly observing it, do you understand how we can do that in science Jose? BY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, BY USING INDUCTIVE REASONING. In these cases the conclusions are only as true as the assumptions.

[Jose Fly]

No, I'm not "basically asking" what you think I'm asking! I'm asking what I actually asked, here's one quote that carries that general question:

I stated my case, my opinion and that's that. Tell me how can you prove that behavior of a complex state based system (i.e. a colony of bacteria) observed over a period of a few years will not exhibit additional unanticipated emergent behavior over a period of say a few thousand years?

As I explained earlier, that's a faulty question. It assumes expectations/goals/desires that evolution is supposed to meet, which is a strawman. It's also the fallacy of false analogy.

Good Lord! Jose, the fossil record can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution once we've established that evolution (i.e. "ever accumulating novelty") is actually possible.

Good thing we see evolution occurring and generating novelty all the time then.

The first 1,700,000,000 years of life on earth, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes...not for a thousand years, not for a million years but for 1,700 million years, that's an awfully long time for nothing much to happen, and it is consistent with what I've been arguing.

Why do you think "nothing much" happened during that time?

Well you're now stating a contradictory position, because if humans did evolve from prokaryotes then clearly the accumulation in this case, has continued unabated up to this time has it not?

If you mean "unabated" as in a process with no limits, that's a strawman (as several folks have tried to get you to understand, evolution has limits). If you mean "unabated" as in the process has continued to occur without stopping....well yeah. The only way populations don't evolve is if every replication event occurs perfectly and without a single error (e.g., no mutations at all).

You may as well be arguing that erosion or tectonics didn't happen at some point in the past.

The only way to argue that humans evolved from prokaryotes is if evolution continued unabated in this case. Therefore I stand by that phraseology.

Sure, if you think yourself the ultimate expert in evolutionary biology and refuse to learn anything.

why is it that someone disagreeing with you always elicits the claim that the other party lacks understanding?

It's not that you disagree that makes me conclude you lack understanding of the subject, it's the content of your posts.

Of course we can argue that something occurred without directly observing it, do you understand how we can do that in science Jose? BY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, BY USING INDUCTIVE REASONING. In these cases the conclusions are only as true as the assumptions.

And in science we test our assumptions.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #171]

The first 1,700,000,000 years of life on earth, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes...not for a thousand years, not for a million years but for 1,700 million years, that's an awfully long time for nothing much to happen, and it is consistent with what I've been arguing.

And for some 200 million years now we've had mammals, mammals, mammals. Does that mean stasis for 200 million years for mammals? This came up before (can't be bothered to find the thread right now), but how do you know that the genetic variation between the first prokaryotes and those 1,700 million years later did not show at least as much variation as the variation in mammals since their first appearance?

From the earlier thread, someone commented that they had studied prokaryotes and their variation was actually more than in, say, mammals over a similar time frame. You're describing all prokaryotes over the 1,700 million years as being essentially the same ("long time for nothing much to happen) but that evidently is not the case.

What is it about eventually becoming larger, multicellular animals (first sponges, or whatever those populations were), and from there development of skeletal structures, more internal organs, different body structures, etc. that is not consistent with evolutionary change via the mechanisms that we do know happen and observe easily today (mutations, insertions, deletions, drift, etc., shepherded along by natural selection)?

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, I'm not "basically asking" what you think I'm asking! I'm asking what I actually asked, here's one quote that carries that general question:

I stated my case, my opinion and that's that. Tell me how can you prove that behavior of a complex state based system (i.e. a colony of bacteria) observed over a period of a few years will not exhibit additional unanticipated emergent behavior over a period of say a few thousand years?

As I explained earlier, that's a faulty question. It assumes expectations/goals/desires that evolution is supposed to meet, which is a strawman. It's also the fallacy of false analogy.

Good Lord! Jose, the fossil record can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution once we've established that evolution (i.e. "ever accumulating novelty") is actually possible.

Good thing we see evolution occurring and generating novelty all the time then.

The first 1,700,000,000 years of life on earth, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes...not for a thousand years, not for a million years but for 1,700 million years, that's an awfully long time for nothing much to happen, and it is consistent with what I've been arguing.

Why do you think "nothing much" happened during that time?

Well you're now stating a contradictory position, because if humans did evolve from prokaryotes then clearly the accumulation in this case, has continued unabated up to this time has it not?

If you mean "unabated" as in a process with no limits, that's a strawman (as several folks have tried to get you to understand, evolution has limits). If you mean "unabated" as in the process has continued to occur without stopping....well yeah. The only way populations don't evolve is if every replication event occurs perfectly and without a single error (e.g., no mutations at all).

You may as well be arguing that erosion or tectonics didn't happen at some point in the past.

The only way to argue that humans evolved from prokaryotes is if evolution continued unabated in this case. Therefore I stand by that phraseology.

Sure, if you think yourself the ultimate expert in evolutionary biology and refuse to learn anything.

why is it that someone disagreeing with you always elicits the claim that the other party lacks understanding?

It's not that you disagree that makes me conclude you lack understanding of the subject, it's the content of your posts.

Of course we can argue that something occurred without directly observing it, do you understand how we can do that in science Jose? BY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, BY USING INDUCTIVE REASONING. In these cases the conclusions are only as true as the assumptions.

And in science we test our assumptions.

Well clearly we disagree on many fronts, so that's pretty much that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, I'm not "basically asking" what you think I'm asking! I'm asking what I actually asked, here's one quote that carries that general question:

I stated my case, my opinion and that's that. Tell me how can you prove that behavior of a complex state based system (i.e. a colony of bacteria) observed over a period of a few years will not exhibit additional unanticipated emergent behavior over a period of say a few thousand years?

As I explained earlier, that's a faulty question. It assumes expectations/goals/desires that evolution is supposed to meet, which is a strawman. It's also the fallacy of false analogy.

Good Lord! Jose, the fossil record can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution once we've established that evolution (i.e. "ever accumulating novelty") is actually possible.

Good thing we see evolution occurring and generating novelty all the time then.

The first 1,700,000,000 years of life on earth, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes, prokaryotes...not for a thousand years, not for a million years but for 1,700 million years, that's an awfully long time for nothing much to happen, and it is consistent with what I've been arguing.

Why do you think "nothing much" happened during that time?

Well you're now stating a contradictory position, because if humans did evolve from prokaryotes then clearly the accumulation in this case, has continued unabated up to this time has it not?

If you mean "unabated" as in a process with no limits, that's a strawman (as several folks have tried to get you to understand, evolution has limits). If you mean "unabated" as in the process has continued to occur without stopping....well yeah. The only way populations don't evolve is if every replication event occurs perfectly and without a single error (e.g., no mutations at all).

You may as well be arguing that erosion or tectonics didn't happen at some point in the past.

The only way to argue that humans evolved from prokaryotes is if evolution continued unabated in this case. Therefore I stand by that phraseology.

Sure, if you think yourself the ultimate expert in evolutionary biology and refuse to learn anything.

why is it that someone disagreeing with you always elicits the claim that the other party lacks understanding?

It's not that you disagree that makes me conclude you lack understanding of the subject, it's the content of your posts.

Of course we can argue that something occurred without directly observing it, do you understand how we can do that in science Jose? BY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, BY USING INDUCTIVE REASONING. In these cases the conclusions are only as true as the assumptions.

And in science we test our assumptions.

Well clearly we disagree on many fronts, so that's pretty much that.

[Jose Fly]

Well clearly we disagree on many fronts, so that's pretty much that.

Not exactly the sort of reply one expects in a debate forum, especially one in which threads are moved because they are insufficiently debatable.

Quite the.....um....interesting....forum y'all got here.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well clearly we disagree on many fronts, so that's pretty much that.

Not exactly the sort of reply one expects in a debate forum, especially one in which threads are moved because they are insufficiently debatable.

Quite the.....um....interesting....forum y'all got here.

Sorry, but that's my reply.

[JoeyKnothead]

Well clearly we disagree on many fronts, so that's pretty much that.

I find these kinda 'pat' responses problematic.

They seem to imply a difference of opinion's equal, when clearly they ain't.

It's like how when the pretty thing sets to fussing in on me, and all I can do is to plot me out how to see me her nekkid at the end of it.

[Jose Fly]

I find these kinda 'pat' responses problematic.

I find them to be very, very revealing. People usually don't say things like that for no reason.

They seem to imply a difference of opinion's equal, when clearly they ain't.

That's a good observation and probably accurate.

One of the things I used to point out to creationists when debating them in forums like this is how, regardless of how the debate goes, evolutionary theory will still be the unifying explanatory framework for all the life sciences, as it has been around the world for the last 150+ years. It's not like scientists the world over would ditch evolution and start using creationism as their framework because of how a debate went on some Christian message board.

So really, if creationists want to use cheap tactics to try and paint some sort of equivalency when none exists......meh.

IOW, the reality is creationists can do whatever they want in places like this...it won't affect real-world science one iota anyways.

It's like how when the pretty thing sets to fussing in on me, and all I can do is to plot me out how to see me her nekkid at the end of it.

Hey, we all have priorities!

[Sherlock Holmes]

I find these kinda 'pat' responses problematic.

I find them to be very, very revealing. People usually don't say things like that for no reason.

They seem to imply a difference of opinion's equal, when clearly they ain't.

That's a good observation and probably accurate.

One of the things I used to point out to creationists when debating them in forums like this is how, regardless of how the debate goes, evolutionary theory will still be the unifying explanatory framework for all the life sciences, as it has been around the world for the last 150+ years. It's not like scientists the world over would ditch evolution and start using creationism as their framework because of how a debate went on some Christian message board.

So really, if creationists want to use cheap tactics to try and paint some sort of equivalency when none exists......meh.

IOW, the reality is creationists can do whatever they want in places like this...it won't affect real-world science one iota anyways.

It's like how when the pretty thing sets to fussing in on me, and all I can do is to plot me out how to see me her nekkid at the end of it.

Hey, we all have priorities!

You hold fundamentally different beliefs to me, you seem to misunderstand what I say (despite me going to lengths to write clearly and unambiguously - I try anyway) because when you paraphrase me it is often very different to what I actually wrote. You are convinced that evolution is the explanation for modern organisms and so you argue and reason from that basis.

We disagree and it is far better to recognize that than engage in endless "but you said...no I didn't I meant...but what about...no that's not the case here because...why do you assume that...I don't this is evident because of..." can you really not see? we disagree not on evolution, but at a deeper epistemological level and while that disagreement is present arguing about evolution is a waste of time.

Our disagreement on evolution is a symptom of a much deeper disagreement, I can see that, perhaps you cannot.