/b/artleby wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scientific Methodology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To answer your question it is first necessary to explain the basic methodology of science. It has long been known to man that our senses can deceive us, and it is for this primary reason that science as a discipline developed.
There are two forms of reasoning which a man may employ, deductive, or inductive. Deductive reasoning consists of reasoning with regard only to the manipulation of symbols, and in a sense, is the only absolute form of reason. But what can be known deductively is very little, and what can be known about the world is less. Since it is often necessary for human beings to make judgements regarding the real world, regardless of absolute certainty, it is therefore necessary to employ another kind of reasoning, inductive reasoning, in order to accomplish this. Inductive reasoning refers to reasoning with regard to probability. For example, should I see a sparrow fly past my window at 9:00 Am every morning for a month, I may conclude with reasonable certainty that it shall do so again the next day. Of course, I could be wrong, but nonetheless, our very existence requires that we make judgements regarding the world around us, and we cannot survive without it.
Contained within the realm of inductive reasoning is a certain heuristic which we call "the scientific method". The primary purpose of the scientific method is to try to avert the many pitfalls of individual human perception through group collaboration. This requires transparency, honesty, and clarity greater than almost any other collective effort. So within the realm of science, any data is collected an organized in a very rigid fashion, against the greatest possible scepticism, with the full intent of obtaining the maximum possible degree of certainty.
Within the construct of the scientific method, a fact is a single piece of datum of a sufficient level of certainty. Facts alone however are not sufficient to understand our universe, we do not only want to know what has been seen, but we also want to know how it works, and what it will do in the future. So, to achieve this end, around a set number of facts, we construct a hypothesis to explain a) why they are the way they are, and b) how it will react in the future. For a set number of facts however, almost an infinite number of contradictory hypotheses can be created, so it is up to the scientific method to sift through them and find which is the correct one. Some hypotheses are discarded easily, all that is required is that one find additional facts and compare them against the predictions that the hypotheses provides. If a hypothesis has withstood sufficient scrutiny, and has held true for the addition of a sufficient number of facts not originally within its domain, it can then be elevated to the level of a theory. So to answer your question, a theory is a hypothesis with regard to a set number of facts which has withstood the test of time, the scrutiny of other scientists, and the addition of new facts not part of its original set.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution, as theory, and fact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is often called the "theory of evolution" is in fact a collective banner for several different theories and observation, and I will do my best to explain the differences among them. Evolution is first of all a mathematical construct, and a statistical fact. Any system which reproduces itself with random variations and that experiences selective pressure undergoes "Evolution". Those features which aid in its survival are "selected" for by the environmental pressures. Note, that I have avoiding mentioning biological organisms, as Evolution is a phenomena who's existence is independent of the biological sciences. Evolution in this sense is not a theory, as a scientific theory is a product of inductive reasoning, while the evolution of systems is a matter of deductive reasoning. Evolution in this sense can be proven mathematically, and is the basis for many technologies we now enjoy, and are successfully employed in computer science with "Genetic algorithms"
What is commonly referred to as "The theory of evolution" as a biological body is broken up further still into several components. The first is that which is officially known as theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory which states that biological organisms are systems which fall into the mathematical category of evolving systems, and predicts their change over time using the logical formalism of evolutionary systems. The second is what is often called the theory of descent with modification, and that refers to the specific theory as to how modern biological organisms have evolved in accordance with the theory of evolution from one ancestral species.
Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold.
Likewise, the theory of descent with modification is dependent upon the theory of evolution, but a disproof of the one is not a disproof of the other. The theory of evolution could still hold if every species on earth suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as it does not make any solid claims as to what organisms have developed. At the same time however, it would still predict how those species would change over time, and would show how those species which were poofed into existence would evolve when set free in an environment where they must compete for limited resources. Also, it is important to note that descent with modification makes no claim as to the origination of the primal ancestor, but only how life on earth has been derived from it. The actual theory as to the origination of the first living organism is called Abiogenesis, and at this point nothing is entirely certain regarding it. At the same time, scientists have recently created the first synthetic cell, so it seems that our knowledge is progressing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ( scientific ) Theory of Evolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my original explanation of the scientific method, I mentioned how one of the key factors in the promotion of a hypothesis to the level of theory is that it withstand the addition of new facts. Let us look briefly at evolution's promotion. Charles Darwin observed that species change over time. He noticed that this change corresponded roughly with the change of Evolutionary systems(a classification he simultaneously created), and hypothesized that biological organisms were in fact evolutionary systems. This hypothesis was later supported by the discovery of DNA and the science of genetics, something which did not exist in Darwin's time. It also explained a very large body of facts in the form of the fossil record. Since that time, we have observed the speciation of a several species, and been able to use evolutionary theory to predict the genetic change in bacterium under controlled conditions, which you have erroneously decried as unnatural. As such, evolution is a successful scientific theory, as it has met all of the requirements outlined above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "addition of information" in a gene
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As stated before, in order for a system to be evolutionary, it must be a)capable of replication b) be prone to random changes in the process and c) it must be subject to selective pressures. In biological organisms, DNA is the driving force of self reproduction, and mutations in DNA are the source of the random changes. Mutations in DNA are all one of an additional types
an insertion occurs when a single nucleotide is inserted accidentally into the gene. Thus, a gene which orginally read
TAGTAGTAGTAGTAG could read
TTAGTAGTAGTAGTAG, Note, the total "information" has now technically increased, even if it has no effect on the organism.
a deletion occurs when a single nucleotide is subtracted from the gene. Thus,
TAGTAGTAGTAGTAG beomes
AGTAGTAGTAGTAG Note, "information" has been lost
Mutations can happen on an entire gene, or they can happen on a single nucleotide. As the total amount of genetic material of an organism increases through random insertions, you effectively get blank regions of DNA which do absolutely nothing. Now, you must realize that although nonsense may not seem to possess as much information as something meaningful, practically, it takes the same amount of information to store the word CHAIR as it does to store ARGHE. And since the organism already possesses junk information, the information can slowly be changed over time to be something meaningful. So in short, Insertions add junk information, selective pressure slowly changes junk information to useful information. One gene's junk is another gene's treasure.
~~~~~~~
Evidence
~~~~~~~
Note, I will accept you conditions about "Natural" vs Unnatural environments, but I will expect you to explain that distinction further in your reply. Considering the above information, all that is necessary to provide you with your information is to provide you with 10 examples of frame shift mutations, as it has been demonstrated that all frame shift mutations add information to genes by definition. I cannot provide actual links, as I am using a medical textbook, but if you would like I can provide you with the title and ISBN if you are interested. It is important to note that what you consider information is not what information in the scientific sense. To you, the bible contains more information than the complete Harry Potter series, but to a computer, this is the other way around. You must remember that there is no distinction in this fashion between useful and un-useful information. Information is information in this sense. There are a number of diseases caused by frameshift mutations in a particular gene, and everyone of them adds information to the overal genetic code of the individual.
Your 10 examples...
Tay-Sachs disease
Chron's disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Huntington's disease
Zellweger syndrome
Haemophilia
Color blindness
Phenylketonuria
Sickle-cell disease
Turner syndrome
All of these result in additional "information" of some sort, but let me provide you with something more concrete that you can actually consider the "increase" in the information of a patient in a far more tangible sense. Consider XYY syndrome. Now, the average person has 46 chromosomes, which I am sure you are aware. There is a genetic disease however, which is the result of the duplication of an entire chromosome (the y chromosome) so that any individual with the disease has 47 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. This means they have an entire chromosome worth of extra material. This constitutes a clear addition to the total amount of genetic information, and is produced in entirely natural conditions.
I do not have links for these diseases, but even a small amount of searching on your behalf could find you all of the information you need on any one of these diseases, and any medical textbook will have the information you need. I am pretty sure medical textbooks count as a reliable source...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions for You
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have addressed every issue you requested, now if you would please explain what exactly the distinction is between artificial and natural conditions, and why you will not accept mutations within "artificial" settings. There is no difference between a frameshift mutation in the wild ans a frameshift mutation in a laboratory, the only difference is that one can be observed empirically while the other can't. Once you realize this I can provide you with plentiful examples of beneficial mutations where information is added, but on short notice and with the restrictions provided I can only dip into my knowledge of medicine. Please explain why mutations in a lab are different from mutations in the wild (from a genetic perspective) and why evolution in a test tube is different form evolution in the wild.
Woo, took a lot of work, but I addressed all of your points. Now, can you please not ask for arbitrary numbers of examples in the future? I spent forever hunting down those genetic disorders in my medical textbook, and there was honestly no logical reason why I should have provided 10 instead of three. Still, I humored your request, but in the future, please limit your requests for examples to 3 per issue, and I will grant you the same courtesy. But still, I have a request now...
Can you please provide me with three instances of confirmed cases where the nature of genetic mutations of some organism have been shown to be different strictly due to the fact of their being in a natural/artificial environment?
And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...
"There are two forms of reasoning which a man may employ, deductive, or inductive. Deductive reasoning consists of reasoning with regard only to the manipulation of symbols, and in a sense, is the only absolute form of reason. But what can be known deductively is very little, and what can be known about the world is less. Since it is often necessary for human beings to make judgements regarding the real world, regardless of absolute certainty, it is therefore necessary to employ another kind of reasoning, inductive reasoning, in order to accomplish this. Inductive reasoning refers to reasoning with regard to probability. For example, should I see a sparrow fly past my window at 9:00 Am every morning for a month, I may conclude with reasonable certainty that it shall do so again the next day. Of course, I could be wrong, but nonetheless, our very existence requires that we make judgements regarding the world around us, and we cannot survive without it."
Sorry I thought this was a debate regarding Evolution? Stop playing with word-games and riddles and get to the main subject. So far, all you've done up to this point is state the obvious. Let's keep moving.
And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...
"Contained within the realm of inductive reasoning is a certain heuristic which we call "the scientific method". The primary purpose of the scientific method is to try to avert the many pitfalls of individual human perception through group collaboration. This requires transparency, honesty, and clarity greater than almost any other collective effort. So within the realm of science, any data is collected an organized in a very rigid fashion, against the greatest possible scepticism, with the full intent of obtaining the maximum possible degree of certainty."
Oh really? Galloping around in circles stating the obvious again? The primary purpose of the scientific method? No. You are being extremely vague and you are not going into much detail regarding the scientific method. Any sensationalist extremist liberalist naturalist can do this type of thing that you do. Let's take a look at the Journal of Science edited by James D. and Edward S. Dana.
American Journal of Science
Dr G.K Gilbert - Inculcation of Scientific Method
"It is the province of research to discover the antecendents of phenomena. This is done by the aid of hypothesis. A phenomenom having been observed, or a group of phenomena having been established by empiric classification, the investigator invents an hypothesis in explanation. He then devises and applies a test of the validity of the hypothesis. If it does not stand the test he discards it and invents a new one. If it survives the test, he proceeds at once ato devise a second test. And thus continues until he finds an hypothesis that remains unscathed after all the test his imagination can suggest."
How about you stop misquoting the real scientists out there and putting it in your own words. The only way you can quote them without misquoting them is looking up the definitions of the words and hopefully rearranging them in a careful manner that is elaborate and still makes sense. You might as well quote the entire thing because your ignorance is too great that you fail to even present your OWN SCIENTIFIC METHOD correctly. But let's continue on with this debunkage.
And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...
"Within the construct of the scientific method, a
fact is a single piece of datum of a sufficient level of certainty. Facts alone however are not sufficient to understand our universe, we do not only want to know what has been seen, but we also want to know how it works, and what it will do in the future. So, to achieve this end, around a set number of
facts, we construct a hypothesis to explain a) why they are the way they are, and b) how it will react in the future. For a set number of facts however, almost an infinite number of contradictory hypotheses can be created, so it is up to the scientific method to sift through them and find which is the correct one. Some hypotheses are discarded easily, all that is required is that one find additional facts and compare them against the predictions that the hypotheses provides. If a hypothesis has withstood sufficient scrutiny, and has held true for the addition of a sufficient number of facts not originally within its domain, it can then be elevated to the level of a
theory. So to answer your question, a
theory is a hypothesis with regard to a set number of
facts which has withstood the test of time, the scrutiny of other scientists, and the addition of new
facts not part of its original set. "
Facts are not sufficient to understand our universe? Let's take a look at several definition websites to first declare what the real definition of the word 'fact' is.
"1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact." -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact"1. a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is." -
http://www.yourdictionary.com/fact"1. Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. For example, fact may be argued under authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts . Rhetorical assertion of fact is often forwarded without an implied or express basis of authority.
Etymology and usage
The word fact derives from the Latin Factum , and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.
The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century. Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality , as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found for instance in the phrase Matter of fact , and in "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").
Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.
Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation , including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").
Fact in philosophy
In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs reported by a true proposition.
Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. For example, the statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is made true by the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.
Correspondence and the slingshot argument
Some versions of the correspondence theory of truth hold that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact. This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.
The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value true . If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth".
Compound facts
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations. For example, the fact described by the true statement " Paris is the capital city of France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, that there is such a place as France, that there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a "place" or a "government", etc.. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France.
Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts.
The fact-value distinction
Moral philosophers since David Hume have debated whether values are objective, and thus factual. In A Treatise of Human Nature Hume pointed out that there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ought to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what is the case. Those who insist that there is a logical gulf between facts and values, such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values from facts, include G. E. Moore, who called attempting to do so the Naturalistic fallacy.
The factual-counterfactual distinction
Factuality , what has occurred , can also be contrasted with counterfactuality , what might have occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or subjunctive conditional is a conditional (or "if-then") statement indicating what would be the case if events had been other than they actually are. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome". This is to be contrasted with an indicative conditional, which indicates what is (in fact) the case if its antecedent is (in fact) true , for example, "if you drink this, it will make you well".
Such sentences are important to Modal logic, especially since the development of Possible world semantics.
Fact in science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.
Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:
the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;
whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;
to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation; and
to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
Fact and the scientific method
Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method. Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.
Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.
In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.
Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."
Fact in History
A common rhetorical cliche states, "History is written by the winners." This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.
E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History? , argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean," that we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different bias of fact finding - all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past - and, that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that).
Others have argued that an approach to facts such as Carr's is relativism and they lament the loss of a transcendent or fixed moral framework. However, his views together with the popular rise of historiographical narratives and meta-narratives may comprise a consensual view.
Fact in law
In most common law jurisdictions, the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of Jurisprudence, and is supported by several well-established standards. Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.
These include:
an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a cause of action;
the determinations of the finder of fact after evaluating admissible evidence produced in a trial or hearing;
a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an appellate court; and
any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.
Legal pleadings
A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading. In this situation, a party may plead separate facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts." -
http://www.reference.com/browse/factA fact is something that is true no matter how complex it is
And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...
"What is often called the "theory of evolution" is in fact a collective banner for several different
theories and observation, and I will do my best to explain the differences among them. Evolution is first of all a mathematical construct, and a statistical fact. Any system which reproduces itself with random variations and that experiences selective pressure undergoes "Evolution". Those features which aid in its survival are "selected" for by the environmental pressures. Note, that I have avoiding mentioning biological organisms, as Evolution is a phenomena who's existence is independent of the biological sciences. Evolution in this sense is not a theory, as a scientific theory is a product of inductive reasoning, while the evolution of systems is a matter of deductive reasoning. Evolution in this sense can be proven mathematically, and is the basis for many technologies we now enjoy, and are successfully employed in computer science with "Genetic algorithms"
What is commonly referred to as "The theory of evolution" as a biological body is broken up further still into several components. The first is that which is officially known as theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory which states that biological organisms are systems which fall into the mathematical category of evolving systems, and predicts their change over time using the logical formalism of evolutionary systems. The second is what is often called the theory of descent with modification, and that refers to the specific theory as to how modern biological organisms have evolved in accordance with the theory of evolution from one ancestral species.
Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold."
Wrong again. Evolution is a (I quote) 'a collective banner for several different observation...'? No. Your definition of Evolution is a statement, but all the observations in the past have failed to prove Evolution, instead, they show different traits emerging and variation with the species such as different hair colour, skin colour, etc. This genetic information has been proven by famous biologists like Richard Dawkins to not add new genetic information, but rather change it. You can't say that it is just a matter of deductive reasoning, please do in depth a bit more becuase one can come up with several false and/or fallacious arguments to construct a false dichotomy argument. Evolution cannot be proven mathematically and the vast technology that has been emerging since the industrial revolution has nothing to do with Darwin's Biological Theory of Evolution. All the technology was created by human intelligence which connects to many different branchers of science. Genetic algorithms has not helped socieity in one bit - it has not contributed to our technology in any significant way that has improved the lifestyle of people. Descent with modification? You are being very vague - and if this is your style of debating, it is logically flawed in so many areas. You haven't explained what type of modification. Yes -- there are different traits such as hair and skin colour throughout the human race, but once again, you have failed to demonstrate how this is proof of Evolution.
Your last paragraph so far talks about astronomy. Why would you be talking about astronomy? Are you trying to drift the subject? Here's an analogy. Let's say there is a debate about America's Education System. Some person starts talking about how metals conduct. This is what you're doing. You're saying that astronomy is not relevant to the subject and you are writing a paragraph on it. Please explain why you are doing this as I did not come here to talk about astronomy. We agreed to talk about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. My source is the League of Reason Forums where you can find the agreed upon debate conditions in the 'Religion and Irreligion' section. Proclaiming something as a fact is a very unscientific thing to do. You can state that it's an observation that has been confirmed, but you cannot say it is a fact. Science demands things to be falsifyable. Once again, I ask you to not play around with words and get your definitions straight before you but heads with someone who has years of knowledge ahead of you.
And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...
"Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold.
Likewise, the theory of descent with modification is dependent upon the theory of evolution, but a disproof of the one is not a disproof of the other. The theory of evolution could still hold if every species on earth suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as it does not make any solid claims as to what organisms
have developed. At the same time however, it would still predict how those species would change over time, and would show how those species which were poofed into existence would evolve when set free in an environment where they must compete for limited resources. Also, it is important to note that descent with modification makes no claim as to the origination of the primal ancestor, but only how life on earth has been derived from it. The actual theory as to the origination of the first living organism is called Abiogenesis, and at this point nothing is entirely certain regarding it. At the same time, scientists have recently created the first synthetic cell, so it seems that our knowledge is progressing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The (
scientific ) Theory of Evolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my original explanation of the scientific method, I mentioned how one of the key factors in the promotion of a hypothesis to the level of theory is that it withstand the addition of new
facts. Let us look briefly at evolution's promotion. Charles Darwin observed that species change over time. He noticed that this change corresponded roughly with the change of Evolutionary systems(a classification he simultaneously created), and hypothesized that biological organisms were in fact evolutionary systems. This hypothesis was later supported by the discovery of DNA and the science of genetics, something which did not exist in Darwin's time. It also explained a very large body of facts in the form of the fossil record. Since that time, we have observed the speciation of a several species, and been able to use evolutionary theory to predict the genetic change in bacterium under controlled conditions, which you have erroneously decried as unnatural. As such, evolution is a successful scientific theory, as it has met all of the requirements outlined above."
Classic Richard Dawkins argument there. Science is working on it? We barely have any knowledge at all in abiogenesis and you're talking about something that relies on the connection of abiogenesis. Disregarding it and saying that science is working on it is a horrible argument. Anyway - Evolution does not rely on descent with modification. What MODIFICATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? If two parents, male and female and a child would that be proof of Evolution? Since the child is 'modified'?
"1. the state of being modified; partial alteration." -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modification%20Be more specific. You are setting up yet again, another vague false dichotomy argument.
X = Y (Assumption)
Therefore Y -> A
Or/and Y -> B
Your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs are nothing but ramblings inspired by a sensationalist media outlet. Be more specific - what do you mean by modification? And you have failed to provide evidence/proof/supporting links that have connected with your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs. I'd like you to do this before you create false analogies and make assertions which your further text is based on.
Here are the assumptions that we know are currently true.
1. The Gene Pool has a finite amount of genetic information.
Yet again, I ask you to provide evidence that new genetic information is arising and not changing and rearranging the DNA code. You haven't done so -- you've posted assumptions and 'examples' with no raw evidence such as video footage. How do you know it's an addition of DNA code?
Debate: Evolution is a scientific theory