Scientifically Observed?

[Emilio Primo]

And there are scientists who think relativity is wrong. But they do not have evidence to back them up, and that's what counts. "I don't believe it's possible" is argument from incredulity, not evidence, and is not anywhere near saying that it violates an established physical law.

 

Some scientist say life from non life, or evolution is mathematically improbable, they're argument is based on the evidence of mathematics, or probability, does that count as evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation? This is news to me. I'll bet it involved electronic instrumentation rather than direct observation.

 

The point still stands... It HAS been observed, correct?

 

What does "observed" even mean?

 

To observe a table, light from that table enters my eyes. Right? If it's a table, I'd expect a certain pattern of light to enter my eyes (showing legs, a flat surface, and so on), and my sensory apparatus would compare what does enter to what I know about tables.

 

To observe a black hole, light (and x-rays, and radio waves, and so on) enters my telescope. Right? If it's a black hole, I'd expect a certain pattern of light to enter my telescope (showing matter being ingested, an accretion disk, and so on), and my computers would compare what does enter to what I know about black holes.

 

What's the difference?

 

Don't say "observed," because I don't know how you define it. What is the substantive difference between the two scenarios above?

 

I explained this to you already, and if you do not know what observed means, I suggest you grab a dictionary. I'll supply my two links again to give you an idea:

 

 

You can't see a black hole directly, of course, since light can't get past the horizon. That means that we have to rely on indirect evidence that black holes exist.

 

Suppose you have found a region of space where you think there might be a black hole. How can you check whether there is one or not? The first thing you'd like to do is measure how much mass there is in that region. If you've found a large mass concentrated in a small volume, and if the mass is dark, then it's a good guess that there's a black hole there. There are two kinds of systems in which astronomers have found such compact, massive, dark objects: the centers of galaxies (including perhaps our own Milky Way Galaxy), and X-ray-emitting binary systems in our own Galaxy.

 

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7

 

How do you find a black hole if you can't see it? Scientists have found a way out of this dilemma. Black holes exert enormous gravity on nearby objects. Although scientists can't see a black hole, they can see its effects on the surrounding matter.

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/long11.shtml

 

They are not the same species. If they were the same species they would not be reproductively isolated from one another. The fact that the different populations are reproductively isolated means that evolution/speciation has occurred and new species have been formed.

 

BTW, infertility is a type of post-zygotic reproductive isolation.

 

 

There is a herds of elephants. AT some point in time these elephants branch off into two different directions and become isolated from each other, some go this way and some go that way.

 

Days turn into months, months turn into years, years turn into tens of years, tens into hundreds, generations past for these elephants. Then one day a momma elephant has a baby, but behold, this baby is not like the rest, it's quite different, it's not like the rest of the elephants at all, it's not remarkable different than the other elephants, but one thing is for sure it's certainly NOT an elephant, but it's lineage is traced through the elephant species, though it is now a new and different species, and this new species in turn then begins the start of this new and different species.

 

 

THIS, is how scientist predict evolution occurred in nature, though this has never been observed in nature nor in a laboratory.

 

Emilio, the occurrence (or not) of speciation is not dependent on your approval.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

 

 

Never said it was...

 

So Emilio, when did you see God?

 

Let me know we you see evolution, and I'll let you know when I saw God.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[DJBruce]

The point still stands... It HAS been observed, correct?

No, until you provide evidence of your claim with a citation your point is worthless.

 

There is a herds of elephants. AT some point in time these elephants branch off into two different directions and become isolated from each other, some go this way and some go that way.

 

Days turn into months, months turn into years, years turn into tens of years, tens into hundreds, generations past for these elephants. Then one day a momma elephant has a baby, but behold, this baby is not like the rest, it's quite different, it's not like the rest of the elephants at all, it's not remarkable different than the other elephants, but one thing is for sure it's certainly NOT an elephant, but it's lineage is traced through the elephant species, though it is now a new and different species, and this new species in turn then begins the start of this new and different species.

 

 

THIS, is how scientist predict evolution occurred in nature, though this has never been observed in nature nor in a laboratory.

 

I have given you examples of one population becoming a new species. Where do you find scientific problems with them. You keep making this universal statement that evolution/speciation has never been occurred, but I have shown numerous different examples that prove you wrong. Why don't you read up on what evolution is, what examples of speciation have been observed and then refute my points. You cannot win an argument by simply ignoring evidence and repeating the same thing over and over again. No matter how many times you say something it does not make it correct.

[Ophiolite]

Let me know we you see evolution, and I'll let you know when I saw God.

My point is that you believe in God without having seen him.

In contrast I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the diversity of life on this planet based upon evidence.

You use faith, I use observation.

[swansont]

Some scientist say life from non life, or evolution is mathematically improbable, they're argument is based on the evidence of mathematics, or probability, does that count as evidence?

 

Probability calculations are meaningless when based on incorrect premises, not the least of which is that the processes aren't random, so the calculations don't apply. Also, the probability of a past event occurring is 1 — you cannot then argue that it did not occur because it was unlikely.

 

 

 

 

The point still stands... It HAS been observed, correct?

 

 

You contended that it has, but have not presented any evidence to back it up, and the burden of proof is upon you to do so. As far as I know, no it hasn't, and I don't expect there to be any evidence for it because it would violate physical law (in this case, Rayleigh's criterion).

[Sisyphus]

Some scientist say life from non life, or evolution is mathematically improbable, they're argument is based on the evidence of mathematics, or probability, does that count as evidence?

 

Some think that is valid evidence, but most think it is not, due to flawed methodology.

 

I explained this to you already, and if you do not know what observed means, I suggest you grab a dictionary.

 

Capn' makes a good argument that it is observed. If you say it isn't, then you must be using a different definition. You're saying that it isn't "observed" unless you intercept a photon that is traveling directly from the object, right? Why is that the standard?

 

There is a herds of elephants. AT some point in time these elephants branch off into two different directions and become isolated from each other, some go this way and some go that way.

 

Days turn into months, months turn into years, years turn into tens of years, tens into hundreds, generations past for these elephants. Then one day a momma elephant has a baby, but behold, this baby is not like the rest, it's quite different, it's not like the rest of the elephants at all, it's not remarkable different than the other elephants, but one thing is for sure it's certainly NOT an elephant, but it's lineage is traced through the elephant species, though it is now a new and different species, and this new species in turn then begins the start of this new and different species.

 

 

THIS, is how scientist predict evolution occurred in nature,

 

That is not how evolution is predicted to occur. A new species does not appear all of a sudden like that, in one generation. Parents and offspring are never going to be a different species. If that's what you think evolution theory predicts, then I'm not surprised you find it implausible.

 

though this has never been observed in nature nor in a laboratory.

 

...however speciation as predicted has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory. Examples have been given already.

 

Let me know we you see evolution, and I'll let you know when I saw God.

 

Ok. We see evolution.

[Emilio Primo]

Some think that is valid evidence, but most think it is not, due to flawed methodology.

 

So, because most think it is not does that make it wrong?

 

 

 

Capn' makes a good argument that it is observed. If you say it isn't, then you must be using a different definition. You're saying that it isn't "observed" unless you intercept a photon that is traveling directly from the object, right? Why is that the standard?

 

That what is observed? What I am stating is that black holes, dark matter, macro evolution have not been observed.

 

 

 

That is not how evolution is predicted to occur. A new species does not appear all of a sudden like that, in one generation. Parents and offspring are never going to be a different species. If that's what you think evolution theory predicts, then I'm not surprised you find it implausible.

 

 

This is EXACTLY how macro evolution is predicted to occur, and if you read my post thoroughly I never said this would occur in ONE generation.

 

...however speciation as predicted has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory. Examples have been given already.

 

OK, now provide one of macro evolution....

 

 

 

Ok. We see evolution.

 

You saw this?:

 

 

 

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what

 

Show me, where?

 

My point is that you believe in God without having seen him.

In contrast I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the diversity of life on this planet based upon evidence.

You use faith, I use observation.

 

 

Have you observed macro evolution? Have you observed dark matter? Have you observed the birth of the universe, but I assume you believe the big bang theory, correct? Have you observed life from non life?

 

But you DO believe, correct? But none of these have been proven through observation.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Ophiolite]

Have you observed macro evolution?

I have observed the evidence for macro evolution. I have gathered evidence that supports macro evolution. I have considered scores of detailed studies that confrim macroevolution. I have seen no explanation for the evidence and observations that explains them better than macroevolution.

 

Have you observed dark matter?

I have not yet been convinced of the existence of dark matter. I am convinced that there are anomalies that need to be explained that dark matter can apparently address. But I am not yet satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for dark matter, thought it remains a better alternative at present to any of the other options.

 

but I assume you believe the big bang theory, correct?

That would be a faulty assumption. I find the Big Bang hypothesis unacceptable on philosophical grounds. However, I know of no other theory that provides such a good explanation for our observations of the universe. I hope, rather than expect, that a better explanation will emerge before I die, but until that time I shall adhere to the Big Bang explanation because it is the best available explanation.

 

Have Have you observed life from non life? .

No. But I haven't observed life from life either. My children were, allegedly, born by cesaerian section without me present. I don't garden. I've never seen a live birth of anything. As far as I know, based on what I have observed, life forms just sort of appear. So, based on observation alone I should believe that God is continuously creating new life all over the place. If I am going to restrict myself to direct observation, then that is the only logical conclusion I can reach.

 

You will not be surprised to hear that is not the conclusion I have reached. I am willing to accept indirect observation and inference based upon various forms of indirect observation. As a consequence I am quite comfortable with the notion of life from non life, and reasonably comfortable with that of life from life.

 

 

But you DO believe, correct? But none of these have been proven through observation.

No. I very clearly did not state that I believe. I stated that "I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the diversity of life on this planet based upon evidence."

That means that if a better explanation turns up, or further evidence changes the balance, then I would likely move from acceptance of evolution to that better explanation. I doubt this is going to happen, but my philosophy has me prepared not only for that eventuality, but to be alert to is possibility.

[Mr Skeptic]

Have you observed macro evolution?

 

Have you observed macroerosion? If you've never observed erosion digging even half a mile how can you believe it can dig all the way to 1 mile like in the Grand Canyon?

 

Have you observed life from non life?

 

Yes. Put a petri dish with 1 bacterium in it, wait a day or two. A significant portion of the non-living matter making up the petri dish will have become living matter. You can remove the original bacterium if you can find it.

[Emilio Primo]

I have observed the evidence for macro evolution. I have gathered evidence that supports macro evolution. I have considered scores of detailed studies that confrim macroevolution. I have seen no explanation for the evidence and observations that explains them better than macroevolution.

 

Yes, but the evidence is not the actual occurrence, the evidence is what lead to this conclusion, though the conclusion has never been observed in nature or in a laboratory.

 

I have no gripe at the conclusion you come to based on the evidence, but if someone looks at this same evidence and the conclusion they reach is that of a I.D. why would that be considered unscientific?

 

I have not yet been convinced of the existence of dark matter. I am convinced that there are anomalies that need to be explained that dark matter can apparently address. But I am not yet satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for dark matter, thought it remains a better alternative at present to any of the other options.

 

I agree with this, but even still dark matter is an accepted science with little evidence backing it's existence.

 

 

That would be a faulty assumption. I find the Big Bang hypothesis unacceptable on philosophical grounds. However, I know of no other theory that provides such a good explanation for our observations of the universe. I hope, rather than expect, that a better explanation will emerge before I die, but until that time I shall adhere to the Big Bang explanation because it is the best available explanation.

 

The big bang theory is considered scientific, but in reality there really is no difference in this theory, or by someone saying God created the universe.

 

 

No. But I haven't observed life from life either. My children were, allegedly, born by cesaerian section without me present. I don't garden. I've never seen a live birth of anything. As far as I know, based on what I have observed, life forms just sort of appear. So, based on observation alone I should believe that God is continuously creating new life all over the place. If I am going to restrict myself to direct observation, then that is the only logical conclusion I can reach.

 

You will not be surprised to hear that is not the conclusion I have reached. I am willing to accept indirect observation and inference based upon various forms of indirect observation. As a consequence I am quite comfortable with the notion of life from non life, and reasonably comfortable with that of life from life.

 

If you know your family lineage that you have evidence of life from life, though there remains no evidence of the alternative, directly or indirectly. Evidence makes this notion, of life from non life to be highly improbable, particular math, as I was stating in a prior post.

 

To me, to accept the validity of life from non life is accepting a supernatural occurrence.

 

 

No. I very clearly did not state that I believe. I stated that "I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the diversity of life on this planet based upon evidence."

That means that if a better explanation turns up, or further evidence changes the balance, then I would likely move from acceptance of evolution to that better explanation. I doubt this is going to happen, but my philosophy has me prepared not only for that eventuality, but to be alert to is possibility.

 

I see, you seem very open minded. But as the saying goes, time will tell.

[Sayonara]

Never said it was...

You didn't need to say it.

 

You're playing exactly the same game we have seen a hundred times before.

Nobody who has started that game on SFN has ever won it.

[Emilio Primo]

Have you observed macroerosion? If you've never observed erosion digging even half a mile how can you believe it can dig all the way to 1 mile like in the Grand Canyon?

 

Macro erosion has been observed.

 

 

Yes. Put a petri dish with 1 bacterium in it, wait a day or two. A significant portion of the non-living matter making up the petri dish will have become living matter. You can remove the original bacterium if you can find it.

 

This is not life from non life, here is the definition:

 

biopoiesis The development of living matter from complex organic molecules that are themselves nonliving but self-replicating. It is the process by which life is assumed to have begun.

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O6-biopoiesis.html

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I explained this to you already, and if you do not know what observed means, I suggest you grab a dictionary. I'll supply my two links again to give you an idea:

And why does bouncing light off something count as "observed"? We similarly make a prediction about our observation ("the light will make a rectangular shape, like a table"), and the prediction comes true. I don't see why light has to be a privileged method here; in every case of us observing something, we predict what data we will receive and then verify that we are seeing The Real Thing.

 

There is a herds of elephants. AT some point in time these elephants branch off into two different directions and become isolated from each other, some go this way and some go that way.

 

Days turn into months, months turn into years, years turn into tens of years, tens into hundreds, generations past for these elephants. Then one day a momma elephant has a baby, but behold, this baby is not like the rest, it's quite different, it's not like the rest of the elephants at all, it's not remarkable different than the other elephants, but one thing is for sure it's certainly NOT an elephant, but it's lineage is traced through the elephant species, though it is now a new and different species, and this new species in turn then begins the start of this new and different species.

 

 

THIS, is how scientist predict evolution occurred in nature,

No, it isn't.

 

You might find this useful:

 

http://talkorigins.o...to-biology.html

[Emilio Primo]

You didn't need to say it.

 

You're playing exactly the same game we have seen a hundred times before.

Nobody who has started that game on SFN has ever won it.

 

 

I play no game, I have stated my stance for the beginning. I recently have stated the effects of macro evolution have not been observed to be more precise.

 

And why does bouncing light off something count as "observed"? We similarly make a prediction about our observation ("the light will make a rectangular shape, like a table"), and the prediction comes true. I don't see why light has to be a privileged method here; in every case of us observing something, we predict what data we will receive and then verify that we are seeing The Real Thing.

 

Something you can study directly.

 

 

No, it isn't.

 

You might find this useful:

 

http://talkorigins.o...to-biology.html

 

I have read that many times, could you please provide anything in that link that disagrees with the method I explained. Macro evolution takes place precisely as I have explained it.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Sisyphus]

So, because most think it is not does that make it wrong?

 

No, it's the other way around. There are various reasons it is wrong, which is why most think it is not valid.

 

That what is observed? What I am stating is that black holes, dark matter, macro evolution have not been observed.

 

Do you not understand Capn's argument?

 

This is EXACTLY how macro evolution is predicted to occur, and if you read my post thoroughly I never said this would occur in ONE generation.

 

No, it is not how it is predicted and observed to occur. You said, one day, one will be born that isn't an elephant. That isn't how it works.

 

OK, now provide one of macro evolution....

 

Speciation is "macro evolution." It means the descent of two species from one species.

 

You saw this?:

 

Yup.

 

Show me, where?

 

Several examples have already been given in this thread.

[swansont]

Macro erosion has been observed.

 

 

You need to get into the habit of backing up such claims with a supporting citation or two.

 

——

 

I can pass electrons through a material and observe an interference pattern on a phosphor. I never see the electrons themselves, and can't peer into the material at all, and yet the information from this experiment will allow me to calculate the lattice spacing of the material. This doesn't seem to fall under the definition of observation that you are using, but you would be hard-pressed to find a scientist that disagreed that it was science, or argued that we can't inherently trust the result.

 

Most of science is inference from models. But most models have been tested to the point that we can exclude competing explanations. That's what science does. There is absolutely no caveat that the phenomenon be anything that can be directly observed. There are even times that the absence of a signal tells you a lot.

[Emilio Primo]

No, it's the other way around. There are various reasons it is wrong, which is why most think it is not valid.

 

What are these reasons?

 

 

 

Do you not understand Capn's argument?

 

Yes

 

 

No, it is not how it is predicted and observed to occur. You said, one day, one will be born that isn't an elephant. That isn't how it works.

 

Yes, evolutionary theory predicts that one day this will take place, with the passing of many, many generations.

 

 

 

Speciation is "macro evolution." It means the descent of two species from one species.

 

Macro evolution that I am specifically referring to is the branching off of one species into a separate and new species, families, phyla or genera, like I explained in my example:

 

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what

 

Several examples have already been given in this thread.

 

Not quite.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Something you can study directly.

Bouncing light off something requires the intermediary of light to convey information to me. I use mental models to turn that light image to knowledge of the actual object.

 

Receiving light from the surroundings of a black hole requires the intermediary of light (or x-rays, or radio waves) to convey information to me. I use mathematical models to turn that image to knowledge of the actual object.

 

These are slightly different. Which difference, exactly, results in one being "direct" and the other "indirect"?

[Emilio Primo]

Bouncing light off something requires the intermediary of light to convey information to me. I use mental models to turn that light image to knowledge of the actual object.

 

Receiving light from the surroundings of a black hole requires the intermediary of light (or x-rays, or radio waves) to convey information to me. I use mathematical models to turn that image to knowledge of the actual object.

 

These are slightly different. Which difference, exactly, results in one being "direct" and the other "indirect"?

 

 

You are observing, studying the actual 'light' what it's effects are how it works, how/why it reflects.

 

You cannot do this with a black hole, you can only study, observe the effects around what you THINK or assume is a black hole, not the black hole in of itself. That's the difference.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You ought to read the beginning of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, then get back to me.

[swansont]

You are observing, studying the actual 'light' what it's effects are how it works, how/why it reflects.

 

You cannot do this with a black hole, you can only study, observe the effects around what you THINK or assume is a black hole, not the black hole in of itself. That's the difference.

 

And you contend that this does not constitute science. You are wrong. You are excluding a huge amount of what does constitute science, including much of what made the computer you are using possible.

[Sayonara]

I play no game, I have stated my stance for the beginning. I recently have stated the effects of macro evolution have not been observed to be more precise.

Yes, you are playing a game. The game you are playing is "let's be speciously selective", and Swanson just gave a perfectly adequate example of how you are doing it.

 

Whether or not you would personally characterise this strategy as a game doesn't really have any bearing on how game theory works.

[Emilio Primo]

You need to get into the habit of backing up such claims with a supporting citation or two.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion

 

——

 

I can pass electrons through a material and observe an interference pattern on a phosphor. I never see the electrons themselves, and can't peer into the material at all, and yet the information from this experiment will allow me to calculate the lattice spacing of the material. This doesn't seem to fall under the definition of observation that you are using, but you would be hard-pressed to find a scientist that disagreed that it was science, or argued that we can't inherently trust the result.

 

Most of science is inference from models. But most models have been tested to the point that we can exclude competing explanations. That's what science does. There is absolutely no caveat that the phenomenon be anything that can be directly observed. There are even times that the absence of a signal tells you a lot.

 

 

Electrons existence are not based on indirect evidence.

 

And you contend that this does not constitute science. You are wrong. You are excluding a huge amount of what does constitute science, including much of what made the computer you are using possible.

 

Excuse me what are you talking about? What did I say does not constitute science?

[Sayonara]

Electrons existence are not based on indirect evidence.

Nobody has ever observed an electron in the same way that you considered the table to be directly observed.

 

Excuse me what are you talking about? What did I say does not constitute science?

You don't actually need to use the exact words in order to make the proposal.

 

If you want reliable answers to your questions, then this necessitates that your questions are built on reliable assertions and premises. At the moment several of the more qualified members of the forum are pointing out why this is not currently the case. It might be beneficial to examine those assertions and premises carefully.

[Emilio Primo]

Yes, you are playing a game. The game you are playing is "let's be speciously selective", and Swanson just gave a perfectly adequate example of how you are doing it.

 

Whether or not you would personally characterise this strategy as a game doesn't really have any bearing on how game theory works.

 

Sorry you feel this way but I play no game. I do not think this a strategy, but a debate. The questions I propose I feel are valid, and deserve to be engaged. I feel that science, at times(Some of are the questions I already proposed) does not hold up to it's own scrutiny. The restrictions it places on other venues to supplying evidence or sufficient evidence, or it's views cannot be considered "scientific" sometime science itself fails in this regard, but is never called on the carpet for it.

 

This is the "game" I play, if you wish to call it that.

[Sayonara]

Suit yourself. See my later post for a constructive suggestion.