Arguing from negative proof

[4gold]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

And then there are logical inferences we all make from the absence of evidence, or else we couldn't have arguments, such as:

[center]"Mathematics is consistent, even though its consistency cannot be proven."

"The scientific method is reliable, even though its reliability cannot be proven."

"The laws of logic are rational, even though its rationality cannot be proven."

"The rules of morality are the same for you and me, even though the rules cannot be agreed upon."[/center]

My questions are:

How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?

Is there any way, other than Bayesian inference, to interpret the validity of arguments made by negative evidence?

[QED]

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others).

Linnaeus was classifying what he saw on the basis of an assumption about creation AND the assumption that all creatures were created together and had not changed significantly throughout the history of the Earth. Creationists seem to ignore the fact that they're doing their own extrapolation by continuing the current data-points of "kinds" back to the dawn of time.

The data points for evolution consist of a couple of orders of magnitude more extinct creatures from the various geologic periods than there are alive today:

Vendian/Ediacaran (multi-celled animals and sponges)
Cambrian (first marine invertebrates with mineralized shells)
Ordovician (first plants on land, first corals, first primitive fish)
Silurian (first insects)
Devonian (first tetrapods and amphibians)
Carboniferous (first reptiles and winged insects)
Permian (atmospheric oxygen close to today's levels)
Triassic (first dinosaurs, first mammals)
Jurassic (first birds, first flowering plants)
Cretaceous (first snakes)
Tertiary (first primates)

It's impossible to escape the fact that each period is marked by the addition of some new species (notably not in the order depicted in genesis). this is not dependent on any particular absolute chronology either -- with the most generous of concessions to the young-earth brigade, we still have definite phases of serial development rather than one almighty act of parallel creation.

Evolution explains this sequencing perfectly. If the bible spoke of a continuous act of creation you might stand a tiny chance of squeezing god into that explanation -- but not while scripture is so adamant about it all being over with in the first six days.

[MrWhy]

Evolution is responsible for speciation. This is accepted as fact by almost all biologist, physicist, and the scientific community in general. It has been elevated above theory status because of the quality and quantity of evidence. Those that are not aware of this evidence need to do some reading. And not just "opposition to" reading.

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others).

Look into "ring speciation". It's about new species evolving from existing ones. I do agree on the point that the evidence is not (yet) clear enough to eliminate the creation-evolution controversy. This is true of other points of debate on the "does god exist" issue.

When comparing the origin of species via evolution to origin via a creator entity, which is the most complex answer?

1. Origin of new species through isolation and a very long series of small accumulated changes. No intelligence required.

or

2. Origin via design and placement by an intelligent universe creating entity.

Which method of origination has the most complexity at its source? Which is the biggest mystery?


There is a way to reduce this morass of protracted arguments. Decompose the whole down to one or two points that makes areas like evolution, origin of morality, etc., subordinate and deferable. I will post a new thread that describes this process. See "Decomposing the Big Question".

[ST_JB]

Well, b.. yes, evolution has been observed. There are observed cases of speciation. We have seen the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, just as the TOE predicted. To say that evolution has not been observed is to be ignorant.
I suspect it is 'willfully ignorant'.

I just hope that you have enough knowledge on the subject... to call me ignorant

I wonder why no one in this forum is calling the attention of Mr. Goat for his blatant stand on the subject...

Do you really believe that antibiotic (harmless bacteria) undergone biological evolution???

Yes, I do. It is the very definition of evoluton. The change of alleles over time. In this case, the gene for antibiotic resistance is selected for. If you do not understand that, why, then you are building straw man arguments against evolution.

Nice Try!!!

I believed you've got the definition of the word "evolution" in the dictionary. I can see the limitation of your understanding on the subject, lest on "biologcal evolution." Do you ever have an idea how antibiotic was accidentally discovered???

If you really want to indulge more on the subject "biological evolution," i suggest you read first the The Peppered Moth study, an example of natural selection. A news article in Science, America’s leading journal, called it an infamous study that’s been attacked by both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. The study is currently being re-done by a scientist in Cambridge, to try to overcome its problems.

Artificial selection, used in this text as an analagous process to natural selection, reveals clear limits to how much a species can change, and shows that most ‘improvements’ involve trade-offs which reduce the fitness of the organism in natural conditions.

Most types of antibiotic resistance were already in existence before antibiotics were discovered and used extensively to treat infectious diseases. In these cases the resistance has not occurred since antibiotics became common but rather the resistance genes that were already present have been selected for, and have therefore become more common. Similarly mutations that modify the target sites arise at a low frequency and in the presence of antibiotics, bacteria carrying these mutations can become more common. The same is true for warfarin resistance. There are always a few rare individuals who are resistant and these are selected for and become more common if warfarin is used. This is natural selection and shows that populations can adapt to changing conditions because of the nature of genetic information systems.

These changes in frequency of certain genes in a population have not resulted in the production of new species, even though enough time has elapsed for quite dramatic changes to be observed in bacteria. Assuming a conservative estimate of one hour for each “generation” of bacteria then, since the introduction of antibiotics, 500 000 generations have been produced. This is equivalent to about 10 million years for humans, during which time people have supposedly evolved from primate ancestors. Yet the antibiotic resistant bacteria are still the same species.

If you can observed this for 10 million years (guess it will require more), then you may have your proof on evolution. But that will not guarantee either that you will get the right result to support your theory.

[ST_JB]

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others).

Linnaeus was classifying what he saw on the basis of an assumption about creation AND the assumption that all creatures were created together and had not changed significantly throughout the history of the Earth. Creationists seem to ignore the fact that they're doing their own extrapolation by continuing the current data-points of "kinds" back to the dawn of time.

The data points for evolution consist of a couple of orders of magnitude more extinct creatures from the various geologic periods than there are alive today:

Vendian/Ediacaran (multi-celled animals and sponges)
Cambrian (first marine invertebrates with mineralized shells)
Ordovician (first plants on land, first corals, first primitive fish)
Silurian (first insects)
Devonian (first tetrapods and amphibians)
Carboniferous (first reptiles and winged insects)
Permian (atmospheric oxygen close to today's levels)
Triassic (first dinosaurs, first mammals)
Jurassic (first birds, first flowering plants)
Cretaceous (first snakes)
Tertiary (first primates)

It's impossible to escape the fact that each period is marked by the addition of some new species (notably not in the order depicted in genesis). this is not dependent on any particular absolute chronology either -- with the most generous of concessions to the young-earth brigade, we still have definite phases of serial development rather than one almighty act of parallel creation. [/b]

GRANTING that these claims are no doubt true. There is no proof that natural selection can produce new species... it is a "theory" with no convincing explanation to support the claim. Experiments show the failure of this theory to create new species out from bacteria alone... a less complicated compared to human or animals..

Evolution explains this sequencing perfectly. If the bible spoke of a continuous act of creation you might stand a tiny chance of squeezing god into that explanation -- but not while scripture is so adamant about it all being over with in the first six days.

Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

This you must understand...



Concerning human evolution, It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but I insists on the special creation of his soul. My belief does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter— but my faith hold that souls are immediately created by God. So whether the human body was specially created or developed, I hold as a matter of faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While my belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

[ST_JB]

Look into "ring speciation". It's about new species evolving from existing ones. I do agree on the point that the evidence is not (yet) clear enough to eliminate the creation-evolution controversy. This is true of other points of debate on the "does god exist" issue.

Please explain further and present the scientific evidence or studies conducted to this claim.

i shall wait...

When comparing the origin of species via evolution to origin via a creator entity, which is the most complex answer?

1. Origin of new species through isolation and a very long series of small accumulated changes. No intelligence required.

or

2. Origin via design and placement by an intelligent universe creating entity.

Which method of origination has the most complexity at its source? Which is the biggest mystery?


There is a way to reduce this morass of protracted arguments. Decompose the whole down to one or two points that makes areas like evolution, origin of morality, etc., subordinate and deferable. I will post a new thread that describes this process. See "Decomposing the Big Question".

I shall be happy to be with you in that thread.

[MrWhy]

Look into "ring speciation". It's about new species evolving from existing ones. I do agree on the point that the evidence is not (yet) clear enough to eliminate the creation-evolution controversy. This is true of other points of debate on the "does god exist" issue.

Please explain further and present the scientific evidence or studies conducted to this claim.

i shall wait...

A Google on "ring speciation" will get about 400K hits, so it's been studied some. Here's one example.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 52_05.html
Evolution and most other points of debate are endless because regardless of evidence, at some point a theist can just say it's the way god works or god is something other than a creator entity. There is one particular point that supersedes all of these minor arguments.

When comparing the origin of species via evolution to origin via a creator entity, which is the most complex answer?

1. Origin of new species through isolation and a very long series of small accumulated changes. No intelligence required.

or

2. Origin via design and placement by an intelligent universe creating entity.

Which method of origination has the most complexity at its source? Which is the biggest mystery?


There is a way to reduce this morass of protracted arguments. Decompose the whole down to one or two points that makes areas like evolution, origin of morality, etc., subordinate and deferable. I will post a new thread that describes this process. See "Decomposing the Big Question".

I shall be happy to be with you in that thread.

New thread has been posted.

[ST_JB]

We could say that (the existence of) God has a very low probability because the only evidence we have is inconclusive and is better understood as arising from other natural causes.

This particular statement i was refering to as wrong. I was just too technical about the logical structure of your argument. That's all!

Of course we have -- there are more extinct species than there are living. That alone amounts to evolution in common language. The question is what caused the changes we've seen in the varieties of flora and fauna.

I've got NO problem with evolution, but to atheistic evolution.
That remains a question about the changes. This could not be righfully attributed to natural selection. If there is really evolution of species, that is because of Intelligent design. no one can produce a so complicated structure of cell evolving to a much higher complicated system of cell only by means of "natural selection". Scientists could not even produce a single protein out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and/or sulfur to form the very basic component of human cell which is the protein. To think that this is already aided by the most advance "knowledge" ever human can attain in the said field. It is absurd to believe that natural selection can play part of this very complicated process.

I'm puzzled by the way you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying "if this will be taken as a scientific evidence, then this could be false" -- which I would agree with entirely, but then straight after you say "For it is not possible to use scientific techniques to verify this claim... this is unverifiable."

There was no contradiction in my statement.

let's take a look once again on your statement.

We could say that Evolution has a high probability of being true, because the theory explains the evidence, suggests a mechanism that's know to exist and can be modeled and shown to generate the appearance of intelligent design.

How come a theory explains the evidence when in fact it is only a theory that try to suggest what happened or try to explain the process? Theory is not synonymous to evidence.

There is no single known evolution ever "observed" either in controlled or in free/uncontrolled environment. Therefore, if evolution will be considered as evidence of sicience, this could not be unless evolution is observed and verified.

Well, evolution by natural selection as a scientific theory is readily falsifiable, which is what gives it it's explanatory value. In other words, if it's the wrong explanation, then there are plenty of ways that we can find out. If you mean that it cannot be verified to the standards of absolute truth then no, you are right -- this is a standard that transcends all practical standards. I think it's fair to say though that this level of validation is of no practical benefit to us as it can never be attained in the real-world. Of course it's routinely attained in the spiritual world where it remains in a free-floating rationale largely immune from contact with physical reality.

That takes a brave soul to accept the limitation of science in its own field. I have nothing to add.

[ST_JB]

The existence of God had been demonstrated and can be demonstrated actually through reason.

I think that I missed the post. Can you please point me to where that demonstration was done?

You've missed nothing. It was only a reply to the previous comment. What i meant is that the existence of God can be demonstrated or had been demonstrated but not necessarily in this thread.

You believe in gravity but scientist can never have a physical proof of the source of this gravity nor an explanation as to how this gravity is produced or processed or whatever that produces such effects. We can only know its existence as to the its effects. Newton failed to provide us the physical evidence of gravity and how it works. The reality of gravity can only be proven to its effects.

This is the same with the existence of GOD.

No it is not. What we know about gravity can be quantified, measured and predicted with remarkable accuracy. What we know about God is entirely supposition.

You are able to quantify and measure gravity only through its effects. but to say that you have observed gravity itself, its source and process to produce gravity that is a lie.

Everything we know about gravity is through its effects only.

Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Intervening objects, whatever their make-up, have no effect whatsoever on the attraction between two separated objects. This means that no antigravity chamber can be built in the laboratory. Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight (the force of gravity on something is its weight — the greater the mass, the greater the force or weight.) Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation.

In many ways, gravity remains a profound mystery. Gravity provides a stunning example of the limits of current scientific knowledge.

[ST_JB]

A Google on "ring speciation" will get about 400K hits, so it's been studied some. Here's one example.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 52_05.html
Evolution and most other points of debate are endless because regardless of evidence, at some point a theist can just say it's the way god works or god is something other than a creator entity. There is one particular point that supersedes all of these minor arguments.

I suggest you read first the whole report... and understand the result of the study...

Please read excerpt...

They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina eschscholtzii.

[QED]

I've got NO problem with evolution, but to atheistic evolution.
That remains a question about the changes. This could not be righfully attributed to natural selection. If there is really evolution of species, that is because of Intelligent design. no one can produce a so complicated structure of cell evolving to a much higher complicated system of cell only by means of "natural selection".

What principle is there that prevents it? Your incredulity is not an understandable principle (like evolution by natural selection is).

Scientists could not even produce a single protein out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and/or sulfur to form the very basic component of human cell which is the protein. To think that this is already aided by the most advance "knowledge" ever human can attain in the said field. It is absurd to believe that natural selection can play part of this very complicated process.

What has out inability to tie our shoelaces in the dark got to do with it? I'm reminded of what philosopher Daniel Dennnet calls Leslie Orgel's Second Law: "Evolution is smarter than you are".

I'm rather impressed by the fact that the principle of natural selection is freely modelable in computer algorithms and can be seen there to generate novel and patentable designs that never occurred to the intelligent programmer of the algorithm. The take-home message here is surely that the algorithm can become smarter than its instigator -- and nobody can see a limit to the size of the intellectual differential. So the appearance of design in things is not necessarily an indicator of the amount of intelligence that goes in on the input side. It's a wonderfully democratic principle: something as dumb as a computer program can get to learn more about the world than its programmer knows.

Now you seem to be putting your foot down here and effectively insisting on your incredulity as a reason for saying the same thing can't apply to biological evolution. If it's not just because it conflicts with your faith then I'm interested to know what facts your incredulity is based upon. As it happens I'm not actually committed to any apriori reason for rejecting God as the intelligence that drives evolution. If you can explain why the principle of evolution by natural selection is an unworthy candidate for the explanation of the apparent design seen in living things (bearing in mind that evolution can be smarter than all of us) then I'm all ears.

How come a theory explains the evidence when in fact it is only a theory that try to suggest what happened or try to explain the process? Theory is not synonymous to evidence.

I don't know if something's getting lost in the translation here, but you've asked "how come" to my line that "we have a theory that can explain some evidence". No, I agree, a theory is not the same thing as evidence. My point is that a theory may account for some evidence -- and the theory of evolution by natural selection describes a mechanism that has the potential to make apparently intelligent looking design selections when realised on a whole array of different physical or logical systems. Your argument seems to amount to "it couldn't be clever enough", mine is that we know of no limits to how clever it could be. I've asked for something more substantial than rhetoric from you and offered examples of Genetic Algorithms which demonstrate the capacity of the principle of natural selection to generate the appearance of intelligently designed products.

There is no single known evolution ever "observed" either in controlled or in free/uncontrolled environment. Therefore, if evolution will be considered as evidence of sicience, this could not be unless evolution is observed and verified.

Well it's already been verified in mainstream science. And I'm rather glad. Apart from virus evolution, bacterial resistance and pesticide resistance in insects, the long-term effects involved in the speciation of animal are pretty much of academic interest only. When it comes to life and death, I'd rather be in safe hands.