“In his book, Professor Dawkins compares the relation of Intelligent Design to science with that of Holocaust denial to history. The analogy is deliberately inflammatory and entirely correct. The objection to Holocaust denial is not, as many believe, that it is offensive and xenophobic (though it is, of course, both). It is, rather, that Holocaust denial is false. It is impossible to argue consistently that the Holocaust never happened except by ignoring or faking the historical evidence. Creationism and Intelligent Design are like that. They are not even wrong; they are just bad ideas.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6805826.ece

“Do you mean if there’s no alternative TOE = the truth? So if I say Obama is a woman, if no alternative then it’s true that he’s a woman?”

Your analogy is disingenuous.
There is an alternative, that Obama’s a man. That alternative is supported by independent lines of evidence, and has predictive power. For example, I’ll be able to predict that Obama will have no ovaries and high levels of testosterone.

Similarly, the theory of evolution is supported by evidence from multiple, independent fields of study, and has great predictive power. Given the environment, the characteristics of the organisms living there can be predicted.

“please read the context, this is the context that we are talking about. Mathematical probability.”

You can only calculate probability if you have an understanding of how the event occurs.

Simply taking the number of differences in DNA sequence between two organisms and calculating the probability of these differences arising by chance is the classic misunderstanding of how evolution occurs.

This method assumes a jump from one organism to another. Evolution is about the gradual change and non-random survival of organisms.

“Can I know what you are trying to bring out?”

Well, alternative hypotheses for the diversity of life we see around us. Since you’re arguing so hard against evolution, I assume you have an alternative explanation, with predictive power, that is backed by evidence?

The prevailing worldview before Darwin was the Aristotelian view that species are immutable. What’s your explanation? Or are you gonna wave your hands and say that it’s a mystery?

“These are mainly speculation/hypothesis there’s no formal methods to show.”

Simple empirical comparisons are speculation? What are your grounds for saying that? What are your formal methods then?

“Even real evolutionist agree that the real mechanisms is largely known and its far too complex.”

I assume you meant unknown.

As said before, the basic mechanisms are largely known. What researchers are arguing about are the nitty-gritty details of how important each mechanism is and how each mechanism applies to different scenarios.

Go check out any basic biology textbook. Or this site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14

Or any other credible site run by accredited universities.

“well if the 2 books contains more than a millions differences do you think they are from the same source?”

Again, your argument misses the point. What matters is whether there are shared similarities that are highly unlikely to have arisen by chance.

Jkp: Do you mean if there’s no alternative TOE = the truth? So if I say Obama is a woman, if no alternative then it’s true that he’s a woman? That’s bad logic.

“The proposer and originator have the onus to come out with support facts and figures.”
Well, yes, we do have evidence. 150 years worth of evidence. It’s a little challenging to summarize 150 years’ worth of work by hundreds of thousands of people into a thread with 500 word limits for posts.

Eterna2: ““Show me ur calculations that it is impossible. Note that in mathematics, impossibility requires probability of less than 10^50. And contrary to your “belief”, it is mathematically possible. And simulations indicate similarly. Note that rate of mutation is observable. “

Jkp: please read the context, this is the context that we are talking about. Mathematical probability. Do you have any figures yourself?

Of course it’s not unreasonable to think that. But the hypothesis that a human arranged the cards can be tested. As can the hypothesis that species were individually created.

Jkp: Can I know what you are trying to bring out?

Yj: “1. Anatomy that is more similar to each other than other organisms.
2.Genetic similarities not seen in other organisms.
E.g. shared pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and mutations in non-coding regions. One particularly striking bit of evidence is that human chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of two ape chromosomes.
3. Embryology: The development of ape and human embryos is far more similar as compared to, say, the development of ape and horse embryos.”

Jkp: These are mainly speculation/hypothesis there’s no formal methods to show. Do you know of how many differences are there?

Yj: “As for the mechanism?
Evolution by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift. There’s a large chance that genetic drift might have played a large role, since humans seem to have gone thru a bottlenecking event, where the total human population was reduced to a few thousand.”

Jkp: Even real evolutionist agree that the real mechanisms is largely known and its far too complex.

Jkp: “Your argument will be that you don’t see this happening in real time. Well, yes you don’t. So what? If you see two books that contain exactly the same mistake, the logical inference to make is that these two books came from the same source. The same logic applies here. And if humans and chimps came from a common ancestor, speciation must have occurred.”

It is not just MY argument it is the stringent requirements of science, well if the 2 books contains more than a millions differences do you think they are from the same source?

As for the mechanism?
Evolution by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift. There’s a large chance that genetic drift might have played a large role, since humans seem to have gone thru a bottlenecking event, where the total human population was reduced to a few thousand.

Your argument will be that you don’t see this happening in real time. Well, yes you don’t. So what? If you see two books that contain exactly the same mistake, the logical inference to make is that these two books came from the same source. The same logic applies here. And if humans and chimps came from a common ancestor, speciation must have occurred.

To JKP: What explanation do you propose for the similarities between chimpanzees and humans?

And take note, this is just one example. The evidence for the common descent of all known organisms today is overwhelming. If there is common descent, there must have been speciation somewhere along the line.

To JKP: If you think the theory of evolution can’t explain how we see such a wide variety of life today, what explanation do you propose for how such a wide variety of life arose from a common ancestor?

”Evolution is mathematically random”

So what? We’re dealing with biology and not math here.

Here’s what the guy said:
”To summarize, while evolution could reasonably be considered and described as biologically or practically non-random, it is technically, mathematically random.”

4 posts by jkp. Not a single word on what might be a credible alternative for evolution.

Let me give you a challenge: What explanation do you propose for the diversity of life we see around us today?

Anyway, you said:
“The proposer and originator have the onus to come out with support facts and figures.”

Well, yes, we do have evidence. 150 years worth of evidence. It’s a little challenging to summarize 150 years’ worth of work by hundreds of thousands of people into a thread with 500 word limits for posts.

“Referring to my fan and cards analogy, it is not unreasonable to think that the fan may not have caused the order of cards, it is more likely that a human had arranged them.”

Of course it’s not unreasonable to think that. But the hypothesis that a human arranged the cards can be tested. As can the hypothesis that species were individually created.

“I was asking for macro evolution, what you quoted is micro evolution?”

Do you take macroevolution to mean speciation?

“My e.g. of speciation is apes to human (higher form organisms/mammals)”

1. A significant subset of modern Homo sapiens do not want to believe in evolution because they do not want to believe that that we are apes, and are descended from apes. Hairless apes with overgrown brains, to be sure, but still apes.

I wonder if that’s the case here.

2. The term to use here is not speciation. ”Ape” is the common term for two families of hominoids. Humans, chimps, gorillas and orang utans are genera that belong to the family Hominidae.

But let’s assume that you’re talking about, say, chimpanzees and humans.

First off, eterna2 has already mentioned that humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor. However, you will not see chimpanzees becoming humans today because the selection pressures and the variation present in the chimp population are different from that of our common ancestors.

But how do we know that they came from common ancestors? There’s a whole host of evidence:

1. Anatomy that is more similar to each other than other organisms.

2.Genetic similarities not seen in other organisms.
E.g. shared pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and mutations in non-coding regions. One particularly striking bit of evidence is that human chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of two ape chromosomes.

3. Embryology: The development of ape and human embryos is far more similar as compared to, say, the development of ape and horse embryos.

Part 4

http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

“However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA:
A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.”

Evolution is mathematically random

http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm

Other then GA do you have other references? (Probably with experiments and good explain of the deterministic mechanisms)

“As I said over and over again. Actual observation of speciation. Particularly for e.coli. Bacteria are ideal for investigation of evolution because of it fast generation time. 500 e.coli generation is only 75 days. In contrast, to a 20 years cycle for a human generation. “

I was asking for macro evolution, what you quoted is micro evolution? My e.g. of speciation is apes to human (higher form organisms/mammals)

“The mere presence of this statement is sufficient evidence to show that u lack understanding in evolution. ToE is random mutation + natural selection, and influenced by gene drift. For a sufficiently large population size, where founder’s effect is less significant, evolution is deterministic. “

“Genetic algorithm is one of the application of ToE in numerical analysis. And unlike layman like you would like to believe, it is deterministic. It is fallacy of composition to believe that evolution is random just from the mere fact that mutation is random. And yes, it is mathematically proven. I would suggest u go and educate yourself on ToE before making fallacious statements about ToE.”

Its true that I’m a layman, I suppose you are an expert or scientist. You must have know that in Science one need to compare ‘apples to apples’ and the control environment should be as close as possible in order to draw good conclusions.

There a lot of qualitative difference between GA and macro TOE. E.g.

con’t

Part I

“2. Note the word you think. Just thinking that it is impossible is argument from incredulity. An invalid argument. “

I don’t have the maths, that’s why I ‘think’, like wise TOE supporters don’t have the math to show exact/rough probability figure. That’s why they ‘think’ that TOE should be certain.

“Show me ur calculations that it is impossible. Note that in mathematics, impossibility requires probability of less than 10^50. And contrary to your “belief”, it is mathematically possible. And simulations indicate similarly. Note that rate of mutation is observable. “

I assume you know how scientific propositions works. The proposer and originator have the onus to come out with support facts and figures. They should expect others to do the job for them.

“impossibility requires probability of less than 10^50” are you referring to the reciprocal of this number?

According to your own statement, if reciprocal of 10^50 (let it be X) infers mathematical impossibility then 1 – X infers mathematical probability?

Please show the workings how it can be derived at that figure.

Referring to my fan and cards analogy, it is not unreasonable to think that the fan may not have caused the order of cards, it is more likely that a human had arranged them.

“1. True. It is not able to explain fully how did this “macro-evolution” occur. But is this proof that macro-evolution did not occur? Nope. There are sufficient evidences that “macro-evolution” happened, but how exactly is still been investigated. “

Let the complexity of ME(macro-evolution) be xME.

Current evidences be eME.

Therefore eME is a subset if the set xME. While the ‘total size/total’ set xME is unknown. We can’t be sure of relativity of eME to xME.

Alternatively it may be interpreted as eME/xME.

You said that the evidences are sufficient based on the above method of quantification, how do you quantify the eME as sufficient?

I think it’s highly unlikely as the number of permutations the DNA has to go through and even billions of years time may not be enough and the criteria that after each permutation the organism have to survive.
[unQuote]

1. Chimp do not become Human. But I will assume u meant the common ape ancestor.

2. Note the word you think. Just thinking that it is impossible is argument from incredulity. An invalid argument.

Show me ur calculations that it is impossible. Note that in mathematics, impossibility requires probability of less than 10^50. And contrary to your “belief”, it is mathematically possible. And simulations indicate similarly. Note that rate of mutation is observable.

[Quote]
Also the mechanism is highly complex, current understanding of it is far not enough to explain.
[unQuote]

1. True. It is not able to explain fully how did this “macro-evolution” occur. But is this proof that macro-evolution did not occur? Nope. There are sufficient evidences that “macro-evolution” happened, but how exactly is still been investigated.

[Quote]
Can you tell us how is your definition of speciation observable?
[unQuote]

1. What is ur definition of species? Ernst Mayr’s definition of a species as “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups”. And speciation is observable in numerous life. One of the best example is the Hawthorn fly.

Berlocher SH, Feder JL (2002). “Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: moving beyond controversy?”. Annu Rev Entomol. 47: 773–815.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ento.47.091201.145312

[Quote]
This is a very good scientific method. But how can macro TOE be repeatedly tested?
[unQuote]

As I said over and over again. Actual observation of speciation. Particularly for e.coli. Bacteria are ideal for investigation of evolution because of it fast generation time. 500 e.coli generation is only 75 days. In contrast, to a 20 years cycle for a human generation.

[Quote]
think you may want to read more on TOE, one of the basic tenets of TOE is random mutations of DNA. There are plenty of resources for you to read. I’d stated in point form the basic requirements of TOE before in this thread.
[unQuote]

The mere presence of this statement is sufficient evidence to show that u lack understanding in evolution. ToE is random mutation + natural selection, and influenced by gene drift. For a sufficiently large population size, where founder’s effect is less significant, evolution is deterministic.

Genetic algorithm is one of the application of ToE in numerical analysis. And unlike layman like you would like to believe, it is deterministic. It is fallacy of composition to believe that evolution is random just from the mere fact that mutation is random. And yes, it is mathematically proven. I would suggest u go and educate yourself on ToE before making fallacious statements about ToE.

[Quote]
Can you elaborate on what are the predictions?
[unQuote]

Numerous. I will give some examples.

1. ToE predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients.

Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253.

2. ToE predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982)

Penny, David, L. R. Foulds, and M. D. Hendy. 1982. Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature 297: 197-200.

3. Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

Hagner-Holler, Silke et al. 2004. A respiratory hemocyanin from an insect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 101: 871-874.

[Quote]
So far I like your style of debating which consists mainly on the topic itself. Hope that we can keep to something that we could use evidences and reasoning to argue. The above statement is not one of them.
[unQuote]

Incorrect. As I stated. Science unlike Mathematics, cannot be proven. And whether a scientific theory is accepted or rejected, depends on the level of skepticism.

To demand an unrealistic high level of evidences (like I will only accept if I see it happening in my eyes) is considered unreasonable from a scientific and pragmatic point of view. Such level of skepticism render nearly all sciences to be unacceptable. As such, such level of skepticism is considered cynicism. And the insistence of such high level of skepticism is dogmatism – I dogmatically desire ToE to be false, and hence u demand such unrealistic requirements for evidences.

eterna2

“1. Speciation is a PHYSICAL process. It is observable. But of course, that is dependent on the scientific definition of species. So please do define your definition of speciation and why do you think that it is not possible?”

Example of speciation by macro TOE, chimps transform to Humans, amphibians transform to birds.

I think it’s highly unlikely as the number of permutations the DNA has to go through and even billions of years time may not be enough and the criteria that after each permutation the organism have to survive.

Also the mechanism is highly complex, current understanding of it is far not enough to explain.

Can you tell us how is your definition of speciation observable?

“It is observable that the fan is able to rearrange other cards in a similar manner. And thus, it is reasonable to deduce that the fan had also rearranged the existing cards.”

My analogy is meant to be similar with TOE. I stated in the analogy that nobody has witnessed or observed any process. Just like nobody had witnessed the process of macro TOE/speciation (refer to above)

“However, at this stage, this is still an hypothesis. And to falsify the hypothesis, one would investigate is there any other viable sources of change? One would also test if the fan is able to repeatably create this change. The hypothesis is invalidated the moment we can find evidences that there are alternative sources of change, (e.g. a human). Similarly, it can also be invalidated if we find that the fan always create random patterns, as such, it is a true chaos.”

“One would also test if the fan is able to repeatably create this change.” This is a very good scientific method. But how can macro TOE be repeatedly tested?

“The fact is, there is no evidences of any valid alternatives. And the behavior of evolution is non-random as shown by chaos theory. The problem most people have with evolution is that they fail to truly comprehend that evolutionary process is NOT random. As validated by genetic algorithms and numerous simulations. You also get the SAME results if the conditions remain the same. Evolution is deterministic. “

I think you may want to read more on TOE, one of the basic tenets of TOE is random mutations of DNA. There are plenty of resources for you to read. I’d stated in point form the basic requirements of TOE before in this thread.

“However, our predictions are limited by our ability to control or understand all the factors. But nevertheless, we are still able to give some accurate predictions using ToE. “

Can you elaborate on what are the predictions?

“Skepticism is a noteworthy characteristic. However, extreme skepticism become cynicism. And rejection of useful and pragmatic theories because of this cynicism is dogmatism. “

So far I like your style of debating which consists mainly on the topic itself. Hope that we can keep to something that we could use evidences and reasoning to argue. The above statement is not one of them.

1. Speciation is a PHYSICAL process. It is observable. But of course, that is dependent on the scientific definition of species. So please do define your definition of speciation and why do you think that it is not possible?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7235/full/458162a.html

2. Your analogy is not necessarily wrong, but neither does it accurately reflect the theory of evolution. It is true that the actual evolution of ancient life is not observed. However, the ongoing process of evolution can be observed presently. As such, using the same analogy as yours,

It is observable that the fan is able to rearrange other cards in a similar manner. And thus, it is reasonable to deduce that the fan had also rearranged the existing cards. However, at this stage, this is still an hypothesis. And to falsify the hypothesis, one would investigate is there any other viable sources of change? One would also test if the fan is able to repeatably create this change. The hypothesis is invalidated the moment we can find evidences that there are alternative sources of change, (e.g. a human). Similarly, it can also be invalidated if we find that the fan always create random patterns, as such, it is a true chaos.

The fact is, there is no evidences of any valid alternatives. And the behavior of evolution is non-random as shown by chaos theory. The problem most people have with evolution is that they fail to truly comprehend that evolutionary process is NOT random. As validated by genetic algorithms and numerous simulations. You also get the SAME results if the conditions remain the same. Evolution is deterministic.

However, our predictions are limited by our ability to control or understand all the factors. But nevertheless, we are still able to give some accurate predictions using ToE.

Skepticism is a noteworthy characteristic. However, extreme skepticism become cynicism. And rejection of useful and pragmatic theories because of this cynicism is dogmatism.

Fact 1 – ToE is able to explain the changes in life, at which it allows us to do accurate predictions for the betterment of humanity.

Fact 2 – There is no other scientifically valid model that can explain this changes in life, and allows us to do accurate predictions for the betterment of humanity. Please do show me how can Creationism or Intelligent design contributes to the betterment of humanity? What sort of predictions on the future changes in life? And how does this information help in the betterment of humanity? Can it help in the development of vaccines against mutating virus strains? Can they predict how these virus will mutate?

Fact 3 – There is no evidences that directly contradict ToE. Show me 1 single evidence that contradict ToE.

The fact is, it is unsound to argue against ToE based on the fact that the theory is falsifiable (can be wrong). Instead, one should argue, why should we not accept ToE as a valid and useful theory?

The theory of gravitation is known to be incomplete and wrong. All serious physicists know the fact. However, until a better hypothesis comes along, pragmatism suggest that we should continue using the current theory to make our predictions.

The only reason why the theory should not be use is when the predictions are proven to be significantly inaccurate, as such, its predictions add no value to the research.

The fact is ToE is able to provide accurate predictions that are useful. And NOTHING has suggested that it is wrong in its entirety.

I ask again. SHOW ME 1 EVIDENCE that ToE is WRONG in its ENTIRETY. And I repeat again, science is NOT “PROVEN”. Science is validated by attempts to falsify.

Error. The article actually does mention gravitation, in passing, exactly once. But that was used as an example to argue against Popper’s posivitism.

Science doesn’t deal in the ridiculous quantification of truth. 1%, 2% or 99% true?!?! What the heck do you mean by that?

Since you don’t think speciation is possible, how do you propose to explain the diversity of life we see around us today?
_________________________________________________________

From post #670:
Care to explain or reference the actual observation?

Define your understanding of species, and then we can start talking about speciation.

You guys may want to read more on scientific methods (philosophy of sciences, please also read up on different method that apply to different sciences i.e. hard science (math, physics) and natural sciences)

Ergh. Dude. You’re asking science geeks to read up on the philosophy of science?! I’ve read my fair share, thank you very much, and am reading more.

Also it will be good to read more in-depth on falsification, in real life it can be more complex then one might think.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

This article summarizes developments in the philosophy of science, goes on to explain why the theory of evolution is falsifiable, then ends with a summary of why the philosophy of science doesn’t dictate how scientists work.

How exactly does an article that does not mention gravity at all support your point that the theory of evolution isn’t as solid as the theory of gravitation?

“1. I can see a glass of water. I can interact with a glass of water. I have no idea how did this glass of water come about.

So I cannot be absolutely sure that this glass of water existed?”

No offence, I think you are making a unsuitable analogy.

Let me give you an example. (I’d used this before)

A stack of complete poker cards are place sequential (in order) on the floor, all cards faced upwards.

There’s a very powerful ceiling fan above the cards.

An investigator wants to find a way to explain why the cards are stacked nicely in order. No witnesses are available.

The Facts and observations:

The cards are indeed there and observed to be placed in order.

The investigator comes out with a theory which explains the phenomena (orderly cards) which he thinks that is highly possible:

The cards are placed in order by the blowing of the ceiling fan.

What is NOT observed (the process):

Nobody had seen the fan blew on the cards and actually see the cards are stacked properly by the blowing.

Speciation/macro TOE is a hypothesized process, they are NOT physical matters. You glass of water analogy is not appropriate as you said that what is observed is the water in the glass. Maybe a better way to phrase your analogy is the say that the process of how the water gets into the glass.

Yes, fossils and current living organisms are facts and can be observed.

“The fact is speciation is OBSERVABLE”

Care to explain or reference the actual observation? I’d not read this part before, I did read quite number of pro-evolution articles (in case I’m being accused of not reading at all)

Before I continue on the subsequent parts of my replies.

You guys may want to read more on scientific methods (philosophy of sciences, please also read up on different method that apply to different sciences i.e. hard science (math, physics) and natural sciences)

Also it will be good to read more in-depth on falsification, in real life it can be more complex then one might think.

Please read this super pro-TOE site, it talked about different scientific approaches. This is exactly opposite from what inferno had said the TOE is similarly solid as theory of gravitation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

it’s easier to read and refer on more professional articles, then to explain everything on our own and from scratch.

to be cont’

1. Do you agree that micro-evolution is true? That there are changes of life with time.

2. Do you agree that mutations exist and happen relatively frequently that small variation of life can be observed?

3. Do you agree that variations or changes are cumulative? And inheritable?

4. Do agree that if the deviation is sufficiently large, a species can become another species?

5. Is there any reasons to believe that mutations cannot achieve this level of deviation? Note that absence of proof is not proof of impossibility. Like in Newton’s 1st law, it is both logical and scientific to assume there is no limits unless there are evidences of one. So are there any evidences that mutations are limited? Instead, evidences indicate that there are no such limits.

To falsify common descent. Show me 1 evidence that there is a mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating when a certain limit is reached.

1. I can see a glass of water. I can interact with a glass of water. I have no idea how did this glass of water come about.

So I cannot be absolutely sure that this glass of water existed?

The fact is speciation is OBSERVABLE, and has been observed. The precise mechanisms may be in doubt, but the fact of speciation is never in doubt. YES, we are absolutely sure that speciation can and have occurred. This is a FACT.

Whether the model is viable or otherwise DO NOT change the fact that speciation HAD OCCURRED.

2. Please do define to me the “the basic tenets of TOE”. And please do show me how does this invalidate ToE? You still do not appreciate the scientific methods.

A fish net comprises of more empty spaces than matter, so is it real or not? Tell that to the fish.

The fact is, you CANNOT invalidate a theory by saying it cannot explain something. You can only invalidate a theory by showing that it is WRONG. Its explanation contradicts the evidences!

A theory do not need to explain everything. It just need to explain something. And even if it is unable to explain something completely, it does not mean is not true. The fact is, if the theory is able to provide accurate and useful predictions. It is a valid theory.

And I repeat again. In science, one do not PROVE a theory. Only mathematics do we do “proving”. In science, we attempt to falsify the theory or hypothesis. And that means attempting to find evidences that contradict the explanations. And if we are unable to find contradicting evidences after a reasonable amount of experiments, then the theory is considered valid, until something new comes along.

So instead of asking us how sure are we are about speciation, show me your argument that speciation is impossible. And the speciations that we observed are false.

Pro-TOE scientists? Sounds like the opposition exists in real science. Model? Look, they are even writing up on the AGE of the event. Get in touch with the material.

Also, asking to quantify exactly how knowable something is? I am 97.3654% sure the sun will rise tomorrow. Not 92.426% or 98.9991%, exactly 97.3654%.

Even more ridiculous is quantifying how much of something you don’t know. How much do you not understand science? 99.5321734%.

“Mechanism of speciation is still subjected to debate. But does it means that speciation DO NOT exists? OR did not, or cannot happen?”

Agree! It does NOT mean that is it absolutely TRUE, current knowledge and pro-TOE scientists still not able to even dare to say that theoretical they can come out with a model based on the mechanisms. It is possible that theoretical may NOT be feasible.

“ There is zero debate on whether if speciation occurs – it is observable. It is only some of the mechanisms that are still being investigated.”

Yj: “The mechanism of speciation is pretty well known. What’s being debated are the nerdy, teensy, weensy details of speciation. ”

‘some of the mechanisms’ , ‘speciation is pretty well known’. Can both of you be more specific in terms of percentage or absolute amount of factors.

e.g. 1%, 10%,50%,70%,99% know?

Or how many factors unknown can be: 1, 10, 100k, 1m, 100m, 1b etc factors unknown.

This is very important to ascertain the ‘certainty of the basic tenets of TOE