Jorge's questions

[technomage]

Jorge: until you retract your false accusation of me, your participation in this thread is bootless and will be ignored.

However, you asked a series of questions: I will provide the answers now.

Show us the method for falsifying that a one-celled organism is the ancestor of every living thing on planet Earth.

Show us the method for observing that a one-celled organism became a T-Rex, a fern, an eagle, and an Albert Einstein.

Show us the method for testing that a one-celled organism became a T-Rex, a fern, an eagle, and an Albert Einstein.

Show us the method for confirming that a one-celled organism became a T-Rex, a fern, an eagle, and an Albert Einstein.

Show us the method for repeating the process that caused a one-celled organism to become a T-Rex and an Albert Einstein.

The process, as a whole, that you describe is multifaceted (in that it requires several transitional steps), and complex (in that it involves several branchings). To examine the entire series of events as a single unit requires a degree of complexity too great for any scientific discipline to study in detail, therefore scientists do not look at the entire process: they look at individual steps, from which the entire series of events can be extrapolated. However, the general principles of falsification, observation, testing, confirming, and repeating can be identified and explained.

* Falsification: Any step along the chain can be hypothesized before observation: the proposed hypothesis would be along the lines of "If A is true, we would expect to see evidence B, C, D, and E," with A, B, C, D, and E being different and specific to that particular step. The existence or absence of B, C, D, and E in the available evidence is the "test" for A--therefore, hypothesis A is falsifiable.

In this specific case, A would be a hypothesis regarding any single step in the process--let's say, the transition of dinosaur to bird. A would be "If birds evolved from dinosaurs, there should be multiple transitional examples that have the attributes of both birds and dinosaurs." The existence of archaeopterix and various dromeosaurs has long been accepted as examples of transitional forms, but the recent discovery of quill knobs on velociraptor provides yet another example of an animal with attributes of both reptile and bird.

* Observation: Of course, without a time machine (and some really rugged environmental protection), direct observation of the sequence is impossible--but by the same token, direct observation of fusion in the core of the sun is also impossible. Instead, indirect observation is used in both cases: for fusion, we observe the emission spectra; for those aspects of evolution that occurred before or outside of our range of observation, we observe the fossil record (among other things).

* Testing: Testing is based in falsifiability--a proposition must be falsifiable to be considered a hypothesis. Scientists then examine the available evidence and see if it matches the pattern suggested in the hypothesis. If the available evidence does match the conditions proposed in the hypothesis, then the hypothesis has been tested and has passed (pending further tests)--if not, it has been tested and has failed.

* Confirmation: Once ahypothesis has been tested and passed, it is published: other scientists have the ability to repeat the tests, confirming that the original analysisis correct.

This is not only an important step in the process, it's a fun one: there are few things that scientists love more than saying "Ha! Publication X says A is true, but I found additional evidence that calls the hypothesis into question." (Scientists are an argumentative bunch, but then so are humans in general.)

* Repetition: Repetition and confirmation are analogous: the repetition of the tests applied to hypothesis A is how the hypothesis is confirmed. (Jorge's insistance that the entire process be repeated is disingenuous.)

I ask that any scientists--actual scientists--read through the above and offer clarifications, correct errors, or amplify as neccesary. Thank you.

[wattsr1]

Jorge: until you retract your false accusation of me, your participation in this thread is bootless and will be ignored.

However, you asked a series of questions: I will provide the answers now.



The process, as a whole, that you describe is multifaceted (in that it requires several transitional steps), and complex (in that it involves several branchings). [/COLOR]To examine the entire series of events as a single unit requires a degree of complexity too great for any scientific discipline to study in detail, therefore scientists do not look at the entire process: they look at individual steps, from which the entire series of events can be extrapolated. However, the general principles of falsification, observation, testing, confirming, and repeating can be identified and explained.

* Falsification: Any step along the chain can be hypothesized before observation: the proposed hypothesis would be along the lines of "If A is true, we would expect to see evidence B, C, D, and E," with A, B, C, D, and E being different and specific to that particular step. The existence or absence of B, C, D, and E in the available evidence is the "test" for A--therefore, hypothesis A is falsifiable.

In this specific case, A would be a hypothesis regarding any single step in the process--let's say, the transition of dinosaur to bird. A would be "If birds evolved from dinosaurs, there should be multiple transitional examples that have the attributes of both birds and dinosaurs." The existence of archaeopterix and various dromeosaurs has long been accepted as examples of transitional forms, but the recent discovery of quill knobs on velociraptor provides yet another example of an animal with attributes of both reptile and bird.

* Observation: Of course, without a time machine (and some really rugged environmental protection), direct observation of the sequence is impossible--but by the same token, direct observation of fusion in the core of the sun is also impossible. Instead, indirect observation is used in both cases: for fusion, we observe the emission spectra; for those aspects of evolution that occurred before or outside of our range of observation, we observe the fossil record (among other things).

* Testing: Testing is based in falsifiability--a proposition must be falsifiable to be considered a hypothesis. Scientists then examine the available evidence and see if it matches the pattern suggested in the hypothesis. If the available evidence does match the conditions proposed in the hypothesis, then the hypothesis has been tested and has passed (pending further tests)--if not, it has been tested and has failed.

* Confirmation: Once ahypothesis has been tested and passed, it is published: other scientists have the ability to repeat the tests, confirming that the original analysisis correct.

This is not only an important step in the process, it's a fun one: there are few things that scientists love more than saying "Ha! Publication X says A is true, but I found additional evidence that calls the hypothesis into question." (Scientists are an argumentative bunch, but then so are humans in general.)

* Repetition: Repetition and confirmation are analogous: the repetition of the tests applied to hypothesis A is how the hypothesis is confirmed. (Jorge's insistance that the entire process be repeated is disingenuous.)

I ask that any scientists--actual scientists--read through the above and offer clarifications, correct errors, or amplify as neccesary. Thank you.

Neat post Justin.

[Roy]

Yup, that works. But:

To examine the entire series of events as a single unit requires a degree of complexity too great for any scientific discipline to study in detail, therefore scientists do not look at the entire process

I'm not sure this is correct - scientists do indeed look on common descent as a whole, and make predictions (such as universality of genetic code, nature of reproductive processes, similarity of basic biochemistry) about life as a whole based on the theory of common descent. These can be and are tested whenever any organism's genetics/biochemistry is examined.

Roy

[technomage]

Yup, that works. But:

I'm not sure this is correct - scientists do indeed look on common descent as a whole, and make predictions (such as universality of genetic code, nature of reproductive processes, similarity of basic biochemistry) about life as a whole based on the theory of common descent. These can be and are tested whenever any organism's genetics/biochemistry is examined.

Hmmm ... they do look at the concept of common descent a unit--but I was referring to the specific sequence(s) Jorge was referring to. But it is a good reminder that general principles are extrapolated from the details, and the general principles can also be examined scientifically.