Evolutionary Tree

[SteveII]

Except that evolutionary theory has not predicted things dead on the money (the fossil record and the tree of life are examples that come to mind).

I didn't say it predicted everything correctly, but here we come back to your own ridiculous double standard and lack of understanding of science: probabilities are what science deals in, not certainties, and you'd be falling back into the "99%= 0%" fallacy if you kept to this specific argument. Science learns and improves itself over time- what corrected the tree of life and so on, for example, was more evolutionary science, not religion- and I'd like to point out two things: the first is that the reason you know about those things that evolutionary theory got wrong at all is because that same field advanced and corrected itself. Being wrong was a stepping stone on the way to being more correct, and yet for some strange reason you're happy to focus in on the incorrect prediction, while somehow ignoring the correction that follows.

The second thing is that the predictions and knowledge that evolution makes and provides have stood up to over a century of inquiry and investigation, including by means of technologies that literally did not exist at the time that the theory was invented. Over that time period, the basis of the theory has remained a cornerstone principle of all biological sciences, and has been confirmed by the data pulled from every single new technology we've invented, every one of which had the potential to challenge it.

Think about why that might be. And no, "they're just biased!" is not an acceptable answer.

I don't disagree with you on the value of science and it's self-correcting nature. I don't think there is anything wrong with the theory or pursuing it and I am not arguing against it. My point is that there are gaps in our knowledge that would have significant impact on the whole Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis) if they turn out to be incorrect or irreconcilable to some other fact. 

Additionally, as we understand more about the cell factory and complex biological systems, it begins to strain the idea of the mechanism of evolutionary change. The larger Theory of Evolution is a network of other theories and facts that all must tell the same story. They don't as of yet. 

So you're relying on a hypocritical position on evolutionary predictions, and an argument from ignorance here (straining your credulity is not an argument). Nothing I particularly need to respond to further.

Since I am not trying to abolish the theory, I am not being hypocritical. I am trying to discuss the the topic that the Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis) is less 'fact' than people believe. 

You are making a category mistake (and introducing a different subject). We are talking about a scientific theory on one hand that can very much be examined in great detail with repeated testing and observations. On the other hand when talking about religion, we are discussing supernatural entities, limited interaction in the natural world (one time events), metaphysical concepts, and questions of the mind--none of which are subject to any scientific method. It is therefore entirely appropriate to consider the two categories differently--as long as you keep the distinction in mind. 

And if you want to define the supernatural as something that resists scientific inquiry, then not only is any complaint about biases against the supernatural in science completely invalid, but you've also set up a scenario in which your supernatural claims cannot be demonstrated, and hence cannot be taken seriously.

My point, though, is that you're observing a phenomenon in gravity, inferring a cause for it, and then somehow placing that inference into a higher category over evolution when in reality it's on the same level. How can you rule out the invisible pixies hypothesis with regards to gravity, and if you can't, then doesn't your same line of argument apply to it too?

We can experiment with gravity to test hypothesis and measure results--our inferences are stronger because we are controlling cause and observing effect. With the Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis) we are severely limited in controlling a cause to see its effect because (especially the kind of changes that take time to effect). 

I am not opposed to methodological naturalism. Just pointing out that the Theory of Evolution is somewhat unique in that it has to be true for those who's philosophical position is naturalism and therefore the confidence in the whole theory is higher than if just methodological naturalism is employed. 

No, you're wrong. Evolution doesn't have to be true at all; please don't bring your preconceived notions of some war between evolution and religion into this. Evolution could be proved false tomorrow and it wouldn't alter my position regarding the supernatural one bit; it wouldn't do that to anyone who won't be taken in by arguments from ignorance. Evolution not being true doesn't lend an iota more credence to supernatural explanations.

The Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis) is currently the most viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of biological diversity. Again, why do you keep bringing religion into this? I am not trying to prove evolution wrong to make some sort of argument for the existence of God.

[Esquilax]

Let me ask you;  is what qualifies as "Science" determined by the conclusion or the method used?

The two are linked: a conclusion reached through an ineffective method is no more scientific than a solid method being used to reach an untenable conclusion. What qualifies as science is a demonstrable, falsifiable conclusion, reached via a fact-based and repeatable methodology.

Ineffective methods and untenable conclusions are the hallmarks of the intelligent design movement, though, so I see where you might be having trouble. Your side hasn't yet figured out that you need both, you can't just use one as a veneer of respectability over your lack of the other.

[SteveII]

It is definitely not a component in the sense (universal common descent) you're implying. An organism could be found tomorrow completely unrelated to other life on earth, and it wouldn't affect the theory of evolution in the slightest. It would just mean life began more than once. It would mean there are two trees of life. Universal common descent is merely a probabilistic conclusion supported by the fact that we've yet to find life that is not genetically related to all other life.

It would be a wonderful find, even though it would almost certainly be unicellular, that would shed much light on the science of evolution and the origin of life.

Sorry, it is very much a component. It is assumed in just about every evolutionary experiment and conclusion every reached. Show me one area it is not assumed and would therefore not be detrimental to the theory if it were found to be incorrect.

[The Grand Nudger]

There you go again.  It's not like correcting you will stop you...but here we go..again.

Common descent is not -assumed- by, or required in, current evolutionary theory, it's a -conclusion- of current evolutionary theory which is overwhelmingly in-evidence.

[SteveII]

There are three ways the word 'evolution' is used when talking about biology: 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") 

A citation would be useful. A 'descent' one.

 . I read that Francisco Ayala referred to these. However, I have had these written in my notes for some time because it is a useful thing to cut and paste from time to time. 

[Cyberman]

I like things I can click. Please make me a happy Stimbo.

[SteveII]

There you go again.  It's not like correcting you will stop you...but here we go..again.

Common descent is not -assumed- by, or required in, current evolutionary theory, it's a -conclusion- of current evolutionary theory which is overwhelmingly in-evidence.

It is not just a conclusion, it is a necessary conclusion that has wrapped within it many threads that if pulled away will unravel much of the general theory--or at least have to rethink vast stretches of it. So we have a necessary conclusion that is used to as a foundation for ancillary theories that support the conclusion. Would that make it more like an assumption or just circular reasoning. 

And so the link I posted earlier from Sean Carroll, the one that illustrates the difficulties that genetics have introduced to establishing a phylogenetic tree, has no bearing why? Because common decent is a conclusion from overwhelming evidence so we don't have to worry about some facts that don't seem to support the theory right now. (did I use those words correctly this time?)

[SteveII]

I like things I can click. Please make me a happy Stimbo.

I remember it was in a podcast or debate between WLC and Ayala. I don't remember if this was the one but I found a version of it here.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is not just a conclusion, it is a necessary conclusion that has wrapped within it many threads that if pulled away will unravel much of the general theory--or at least have to rethink vast stretches of it. So we have a necessary conclusion that is used to as a foundation for ancillary theories that support the conclusion. Would that make it more like an assumption or just circular reasoning. 

Well, remember..these were your words, not mine...if common descent is a necessary conclusion of the most well evidenced theory in all of science....a theory itself being a mountain of facts.....why, again, do you doubt it?
(it's not, ofc, it is...for the umpteenth time, yet another observation -firstly- a fact...we share genetic code... which is explicable within the framework of the theory, not necessary or fundamental to it.)

[Faith No More]

I generally agree with what you said here (about the role and nature of scientific inquiry).

Let me ask you;  is what qualifies as "Science" determined by the conclusion or the method used?

It's determined by the whole process. From the methodology used to the falsifiable conclusion to the repeatability of experiment to the peer-review. Every step has to be followed properly for it to be science.