Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
biologists conclude that <i>co-occurrence</i> must be the cause. Co-occurrence states
that the gene for the identified difference is close to a hard-selected gene on the same DNA strand.
Such 'gene linking' results in its more likely propagation by successful individuals. It's
not considered particularly important how long it will take to design gene maps for all cited cases
of co-occurrence. Estimates of the necessary gene sequencing of all documented characteristics with
no known selection force are in the range of 20,000 years.
Regardless how long it would take, biologists create gene maps by measuring the probability of
two variations both occurring in the same individual. As gene co-occurrence is measured statistically,
rather than deduced from microbiological chemistry, there is no necessary correlation
between the resulting gene maps and what the DNA is actually doing.
As evolution positions genes on DNA strands to produce observed results, the theory makes its own definition
of how DNA strands must be working. That makes genetic theory impervious to falsification. <p>
<p>To illustrate the problem, let's hypothesize that animals choose mates based on their own concept
of 'beauty' or 'aesthetics.' That would alter the observed statistical probability
of genetic propagation. But the gene maps are simply based on statistical likelihoods
of different genes occurring together in a new individual. That means the genes could actually be in different
places on the DNA strands. The method used to produce the gene maps assumes there are no other
influences on the observed statistical relationships.
But there are many possible influences, called 'teleological explanations,' which hold there is some purpose,
such as animal consciousness, or even divine influence, causing the genes to appear
to be in different places than any actual microbiological mechanisms
derived from DNA strands that cause the physical variations. That somewhat dilutes
the significance of evolution as a complete explanation of species origination. There could be other teleological
forces at work, but the gene maps have included their selection pressure already. Thus alternate explanations
have been 'explained away,' with a liberal application of Occam's razor hiding how the gene maps could
be wrong.
That said, science does not as yet provide a way to isolate any teleological forces from natural selection.
And whatever other teleological forces might be at work, there is no denial that evolution is AT LEAST
ONE process in operation, even if knowledge of whether it is the ONLY process in operation might be unattainable,
there being about 20,000 years before even complete statistical gene maps are possible.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
'NATURAL SELECTION' VS 'SELECTION PRESSURE:'
THE UNAVOIDABLE DISCONTINUITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
~ Ive been amazed how many scientists are unaware of this discontinuity in the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the premise that all selection pressure is due to natural selection only, but when findings are produced based on the premise, such as gene maps for example, they are invariably cited as 'evidence' of the theory. In one sentence, CO-OCCURRENCE presumes natural selection as the only selection pressure, and therefore, any explanations based it are fallible, yet unprovably wrong. Unfalsifiabiilty doesn't mean the conclusions are infallible, it means they are based on a premise that might be wrong, which is why evolution is only a theory. The extent ive had to repeat long, tedious explanations of the discontinuity in different ways to people claiming to be experts in evolution is truly depressing. Following is the most effective explanation Ive written so far. Some people actually understand it even if not trained in philosophy of science.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
Yes, it indeed could be wrong. The most obvious problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't include the first species, ex nihilo. Remember, Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures. Then of course, you have a whole host of problems relative to self-conscious creatures, the Will, the relationships between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, and all the other why's of existence, etc. etc..ernestm wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:54 am I found I had to add a prefatory paragraph:
'NATURAL SELECTION' VS 'SELECTION PRESSURE:'
THE UNAVOIDABLE DISCONTINUITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
~ Ive been amazed how many scientists are unaware of this discontinuity in the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the premise that all selection pressure is due to natural selection only, but when findings are produced based on the premise, such as gene maps for example, they are invariably cited as 'evidence' of the theory. In one sentence, CO-OCCURRENCE presumes natural selection as the only selection pressure, and therefore, any explanations based it are fallible, yet unprovably wrong. Unfalsifiabiilty doesn't mean the conclusions are infallible, it means they are based on a premise that might be wrong, which is why evolution is only a theory. The extent ive had to repeat long, tedious explanations of the discontinuity in different ways to people claiming to be experts in evolution is truly depressing. Following is the most effective explanation Ive written so far. Some people actually understand it even if not trained in philosophy of science.
Then there's the obvious gaps. The appreciation of music theory and mathematical theories, in themselves, confers no biological survival advantages. and leads to many other quality-of-life stuff that transcends mere instinct...
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
Im not aware of anything in evolution that tries to explain the origin of life, but if there is, Id like to learn about it )3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 10:13 amYes, it indeed could be wrong. The most obvious problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't include the first species, ex nihilo. Remember, Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures. Then of course, you have a whole host of problems relative to self-conscious creatures, the Will, the relationships between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, and all the other why's of existence, etc. etc..ernestm wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:54 am I found I had to add a prefatory paragraph:
'NATURAL SELECTION' VS 'SELECTION PRESSURE:'
THE UNAVOIDABLE DISCONTINUITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
~ Ive been amazed how many scientists are unaware of this discontinuity in the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the premise that all selection pressure is due to natural selection only, but when findings are produced based on the premise, such as gene maps for example, they are invariably cited as 'evidence' of the theory. In one sentence, CO-OCCURRENCE presumes natural selection as the only selection pressure, and therefore, any explanations based it are fallible, yet unprovably wrong. Unfalsifiabiilty doesn't mean the conclusions are infallible, it means they are based on a premise that might be wrong, which is why evolution is only a theory. The extent ive had to repeat long, tedious explanations of the discontinuity in different ways to people claiming to be experts in evolution is truly depressing. Following is the most effective explanation Ive written so far. Some people actually understand it even if not trained in philosophy of science.
Then there's the obvious gaps. The appreciation of music theory and mathematical theories, in themselves, confers no biological survival advantages. and leads to many other quality-of-life stuff that transcends mere instinct...
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
I think at best, evolution teaches us about the concepts of emergence, experience, information and instruction (biological life forms requiring genetically coded information for self-organization, propagation, etc.) and all other tenets of process philosophy (trying to reconcile being and becoming) as it relates to the true nature of human existence. Remember, being is a state, becoming is a process. Living life is both static and dynamic respectively.ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:39 pmIm not aware of anything in evolution that tries to explain the origin of life, but if there is, Id like to learn about it )3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 10:13 amYes, it indeed could be wrong. The most obvious problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't include the first species, ex nihilo. Remember, Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures. Then of course, you have a whole host of problems relative to self-conscious creatures, the Will, the relationships between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, and all the other why's of existence, etc. etc..ernestm wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:54 am I found I had to add a prefatory paragraph:
'NATURAL SELECTION' VS 'SELECTION PRESSURE:'
THE UNAVOIDABLE DISCONTINUITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
~ Ive been amazed how many scientists are unaware of this discontinuity in the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the premise that all selection pressure is due to natural selection only, but when findings are produced based on the premise, such as gene maps for example, they are invariably cited as 'evidence' of the theory. In one sentence, CO-OCCURRENCE presumes natural selection as the only selection pressure, and therefore, any explanations based it are fallible, yet unprovably wrong. Unfalsifiabiilty doesn't mean the conclusions are infallible, it means they are based on a premise that might be wrong, which is why evolution is only a theory. The extent ive had to repeat long, tedious explanations of the discontinuity in different ways to people claiming to be experts in evolution is truly depressing. Following is the most effective explanation Ive written so far. Some people actually understand it even if not trained in philosophy of science.
Then there's the obvious gaps. The appreciation of music theory and mathematical theories, in themselves, confers no biological survival advantages. and leads to many other quality-of-life stuff that transcends mere instinct...
The Darwin of gaps leaves a lot on the table.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
Thats funny, I was just looking at pterodactyls. Considering what Ive heard about them, there are 30 fossils, and the whole thing about birds evolving from them is completely without any scientific evidence at all. Its just mind boggling the amount of presumptions there are.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:32 pmI think at best, evolution teaches us about the concepts of emergence, experience, information and instruction (biological life forms requiring genetically coded information for self-organization, propagation, etc.) and all other tenets of process philosophy (trying to reconcile being and becoming) as it relates to the true nature of human existence. Remember, being is a state, becoming is a process. Living life is both static and dynamic respectively.ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:39 pmIm not aware of anything in evolution that tries to explain the origin of life, but if there is, Id like to learn about it )3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 10:13 amYes, it indeed could be wrong. The most obvious problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't include the first species, ex nihilo. Remember, Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures. Then of course, you have a whole host of problems relative to self-conscious creatures, the Will, the relationships between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, and all the other why's of existence, etc. etc..ernestm wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 2:54 am I found I had to add a prefatory paragraph:
'NATURAL SELECTION' VS 'SELECTION PRESSURE:'
THE UNAVOIDABLE DISCONTINUITY IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
~ Ive been amazed how many scientists are unaware of this discontinuity in the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the premise that all selection pressure is due to natural selection only, but when findings are produced based on the premise, such as gene maps for example, they are invariably cited as 'evidence' of the theory. In one sentence, CO-OCCURRENCE presumes natural selection as the only selection pressure, and therefore, any explanations based it are fallible, yet unprovably wrong. Unfalsifiabiilty doesn't mean the conclusions are infallible, it means they are based on a premise that might be wrong, which is why evolution is only a theory. The extent ive had to repeat long, tedious explanations of the discontinuity in different ways to people claiming to be experts in evolution is truly depressing. Following is the most effective explanation Ive written so far. Some people actually understand it even if not trained in philosophy of science.
Then there's the obvious gaps. The appreciation of music theory and mathematical theories, in themselves, confers no biological survival advantages. and leads to many other quality-of-life stuff that transcends mere instinct...
The Darwin of gaps leaves a lot on the table.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
I heard that. Too, it's mind boggling that fossils don't contain encoded information necessary for all life ex nihilo. Kind of another half-theory. Don't you just hate incomplete theories!?ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 6:28 pmThats funny, I was just looking at pterodactyls. Considering what Ive heard about them, there are 30 fossils, and the whole thing about birds evolving from them is completely without any scientific evidence at all. Its just mind boggling the amount of presumptions there are.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:32 pmI think at best, evolution teaches us about the concepts of emergence, experience, information and instruction (biological life forms requiring genetically coded information for self-organization, propagation, etc.) and all other tenets of process philosophy (trying to reconcile being and becoming) as it relates to the true nature of human existence. Remember, being is a state, becoming is a process. Living life is both static and dynamic respectively.ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:39 pmIm not aware of anything in evolution that tries to explain the origin of life, but if there is, Id like to learn about it )3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 10:13 am
Yes, it indeed could be wrong. The most obvious problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't include the first species, ex nihilo. Remember, Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures. Then of course, you have a whole host of problems relative to self-conscious creatures, the Will, the relationships between mind and matter, the purpose of the universe, and all the other why's of existence, etc. etc..
Then there's the obvious gaps. The appreciation of music theory and mathematical theories, in themselves, confers no biological survival advantages. and leads to many other quality-of-life stuff that transcends mere instinct...
The Darwin of gaps leaves a lot on the table.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: November 19th, 2022, 11:39 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
If I understand correctly, I would say it's nonsense. Evolution took place over MILLIONS of years. You're talking incomprehensible time. Progressive generations and slow adaptive changes.
Pure natural selection, clearly. Strength, survivability, speed, general athleticism, intelligence, and beauty are clearly consistently selected in breeding over a long period of time. That's the only mechanism that which evolution operates under. There is no other force.
If you really want to question evolution, consider whether or not "it's all a hypnotic deception, like a trail of robotics going backwards".
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Evolution could be wrong but is unfalsifiable
Indeed! All is subjective. You know, kind of like Subjective Idealism, a metaphysical theory of course!d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2022, 12:27 pm Are you suggesting some sort of possible "guiding hand" in evolution? Am I not understanding?
If I understand correctly, I would say it's nonsense. Evolution took place over MILLIONS of years. You're talking incomprehensible time. Progressive generations and slow adaptive changes.
Pure natural selection, clearly. Strength, survivability, speed, general athleticism, intelligence, and beauty are clearly consistently selected in breeding over a long period of time. That's the only mechanism that which evolution operates under. There is no other force.
If you really want to question evolution, consider whether or not "it's all a hypnotic deception, like a trail of robotics going backwards".
― Albert Einstein
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023