We are well aware of the difference, and there are numerous textbooks on the subject of âexperimental designâ. The difference is usually described in terms of observational and prospective data/experiments. Prospective data is the Gold Standard when you can get it, and thatâs why we do clinical trials for new medical treatments (and new treatment donât have any history to observe). You CAN do experiment using historical/observational data too, but it looks different.
The discovery of Tiktaalik, is one such example. Iâve think Iâve shown you this before so I we be brief: Neil Shubin and his team noted a gap is the fossil record between fish and land walking tetrapods (four-legged critters). They hypothesized that such a creature should have existed, and that fossils showing transitional features might be found (prediction). They consulted geological record (independent data) for locations where such fossils could exist (ancient tidal marches), and organized an expedition to go fossil hunting. He found the fossil Tiktaalik we now know as Tiktaalik, confirming the prediction.
This is an example of abductive inference in Paleontology. The experiment is repeatable, looking for similar fossils in other locations. So no, no one is denying a difference, the objection is to the claim that you cannot do real science with historical data.
Not familiar with this concept. Where was it published? How would you test it, and has anyone tried to?
Many, many questions arise. Now, if there were âmother formsâ, wouldnât we be able to see them and recognize them? Wouldnât they be spitting out new species regularly, and wouldnât their genomes show up as ancestral to all their descendant species? (On a tree this would result in a zero-length branch for the mother form and a star phylogeny among all its descendants.) Why has no such species been found out of all those studied? And why are so many known species present in the fossil record, lasting for millions of years in most cases? Finally, how would mother forms be protected from GE? (For that matter, what makes you think that stem cells have a lower mutation rate than other somatic cells?)
The creationist response to that paper (the published version with Baum as the lead author, anyway) via Rob Stadler and separately via Sal Cordova is âno extant pattern of similarity precludes separate ancestry because God could have made things look any which wayâ. WhichâŠfine, but now weâre playing Calvinball and your model, if it could be called that, is unfalsifiable and certainly canât be called a âmodelâ in any sense at that point.
That they reproduce (where?) (or are they immortal)?
Per your final sentence, that for some completely unexplained, yet also ludicrously convenient âreasonâ they, out of all living things, are not subject to GE?
But by some inexplicable contradiction to (4), they are meant to simultaneously be the progenitors of variant (i.e. mutated) forms that are subject to GE.
It would seem that we should only see "mother form"s â as, by (4), they are incapable of mutating into something else (and particularly something imperfect). That all we see is these âsomething elsesâ would seem to demonstrate that this hypothesis is ludicrously internally inconsistent.
This would in fact seem to be a perfect exemplar of the absurdity at the heart of all Creationist theorising.
@Giltil,
While I suspect this idea isnât going to work out, I appreciate that Grasse has attempted to write down a plausible alternative. Itâs the right way to go about presenting ideas. Thanks for sharing.
Simple answer: no. Itâs a distinction used solely by creationists to avoid dealing with any study of the past.
Calling that a journal article is a stretch, as is calling the âJournal of Creationâ a journal. Also, while âhistorical scienceâ is a term long in common use, âoperational scienceâ is not. And the only distinction between historical and other science is in the questions asked of the data, not in methods.
If I can tag-on here - Is the âprospective and observational dataâ as I described just above different from âhistorical and operational scienceâ?
From what I can tell, âoperationalâ means nearly the same thing as âprospectiveâ. And as far as âhistoricalâ goes, there are textbooks on the analysis of observational data, so itâs pretty hard to make the claim that scientists âdo not see the difference.â
I can see how someone not working in science might not understand how the scientific method applies to both.
Evidence is not neutral and interpreted according to oneâs presuppositions as YEC likes to assert. Presuppositions do not interpret evidence, the evidence adjudicates the presuppositions. As creationists subscribe to articles of faith such as âno apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretationâ, it is clear that YEC is concerned with theology and not the weight of evidence. YEC are evidence-deniers, broadly dismissing scientific data both operational and historical.
All science, including research into the past, is characterized by careful measurement, often with instrumentation of incredible precision. Science cannot be self-contradictory, the picture of the past must be coherent with the data as a whole. Science, including in regards to the past, is generalized from principles and data established by experimentation and direct observation. YEC wave away the value of operational science for understanding the past by invoking the anachronistic term uniformitarianism, and then nonchalantly substitute fabrications which are completely devoid of experimental support. So do not tell that creationists actually value operational science. There is no real curiosity, it is all about denying the ancient earth.
There are innumerable theists who agree with the ânaturalistsâ here. The basic methods of science all depend on inference and comparing observed data to model predictions.
The distinction you should be making here isnât between naturalists and non-naturalists, but YEC vs everyone else. The only people who obsess about the âhistoricalâ vs âoperationalâ science distinction are YEC who desire to undermine confidence in inferences supporting deep time.
Itâs also blatantly hypocritical since YEC havenât seen any of the things they believe and none of it can be tested or repeated. The great flood, the divine creation of the universe, life on Earth, man and woman. None of it can be tested operationally or observed.
