Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

Not at all. You're wrong, and if you think I am wrong, provide backup for your claims, please. Thanks!

Your waisting your time....he wont support his claim.

 

[leroy]

You cited one study by experts, and then misinterpreted what they meant.

Added to your list of unsupported claims

But you also cited some folks advocating for fine tuning. Not exactly experts in science.

Added to the list of unsupported claims.

 

[blü 2]

You missed the point, I made damning claims against fake theories. I backed my claims with science, and nobody has been able to defend the fake theories. I'm not going to take the kool aid and use your subjective circular reason to discredit the fake theory. I refuse to use fake means to expose the truth, it doesn't work like that

Curious. Which fake scientific theories are we talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your waisting your time....he wont support his claim.

Are you still mad that because you don't accept correction that you are cut off from making demands of others? You are now blaming others for your own bad behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea on what you are talking about……….cause and effect?.........and I wont look through old post.

Well, biology is in part about cause and effect. But you did know that, didn't you?
And yes, there is more. But I am taking it one step at the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again you where cornered and once again you are just hand waving

Why not simply admitting that you where wrong?.........

LOL!! Why don't you admit that you don't understand how you are wrong? People can only help you to a limited extent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster

This will be fun………………can you please give me an example of a prediction that follows logically from the theory of evolution?

The closer species are related, the more ERV's they should share.

This follows logically because ERV's are inherited by ancestors that had the initial infection. This is unrelated to evolution as it is just what ERV's are: infections that get inserted in the genome and then inherited by offspring.

So, if evolution is true, it follows logically that:

The younger the common ancestor of 2 species, the more ERV's should be shared.
The older the common ancestor, the less ERV's should be shared.

My suggestion, please learn what “follow logically” means before answering

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok thanks for clarifying everything to me…………… if you are not willing (or are to mentally capable of) accepting trivial and obvious mistakes……… you are obviously not in a position to have a dialog with me.

lol

A brief summary of absurdities that you have said in this thread:

This should be good.

1 your claim that you are a father, is not evidence that you really are a father

Indeed, claims are not evidence. How is that absurd?

2 words and sentences written in the sky would not be evidnece for design

Not what your silly hypothetical actually said. So not so much "absurd" on my part as it is dishonest on your part.

3 predictions have to follow logically form the model/hypothesis/theory etc.

Off course they do. Not clear why think this is absurd.
If a prediction of a model doesn't follow logically from the model, then how on earth can it be a prediction from the model?

see @McBell Unlike @F1fan the fanatic atheist I can provide a list………….

"fanatic" atheist.

Talking about absurdities....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An example of follow logically would be “I am married………...therefore(prediction) I am not a bachelor”

Please learn what predictions in context of models actually are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mistake is that “logically follows” is a very strong word ……………. This means that there is no logical way in which the prediction doesn’t follow from the model/theory/hypothesis etc.

Yes. That's what in fact makes the predictions useful as tests of the model in question....

If a "prediction" doesn't confirm nor disprove a model, then as a "prediction" it is totally useless to test said model.
If X could be the case AND could also not be the case if model A is true, then X is completely useless to test model A.

For example it is logically possible that the pollination of trumpet shaped flowers where just hallucinations created by the Matrix , in which case the long-billed pollinators wounpt excist.

Not to mention that evolution theory would then also be incorrect and / or incomplete.


I also find it quite hilarious that you had to resort to positing something like the friggin' Matrix to make your silly point.
Maybe that should serve as a hint to the absurdity of your "argument"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My point is that a prediction could be valid even if it doesn’t follow logically

I've explained that I don't understand what that means. I would understand saying that a prediction might be correct even if it were a guess. Following logically means deduced, and as already stated, if one's premises are true and one's reasoning is fallacy-free, then one's conclusion is a logical deduction, and it will be correct. If that's not the process you used to predict, then your prediction becomes much less meaningful, approaching a guess.

If you would write plainly like that, I could understand you. Also, you still haven't explained why you want to make whatever point you're trying to make here. Knowing that would help me understand your words, what they probably mean.

You buying dog food doesn’t follow logically from the hypothesis “you have a dog”

What does that mean? That dog food in my cart doesn't mean I have a dog. If so, agreed.

Please try plain speaking rather than using words and phrases like valid and logically follows. Words like implies and likely will be better understood.

Logical possibility and logically follows are related in that if a prediction logically follows from a theory, then it is not logically possible for the theory to be correct if the prediction is wrong.

OK. Why did you want to make that point? Do you have a particular theory or prediction in mind? It's hard to believe that you have expended this much effort to make that point if it isn't part of a larger point you want to make.

from the fact that you have a dog (hypothesis) it doesn’t follow logically that you would buy dog food…… but that would still be a valid prediction.

Please rewrite that sentence without using the words follow logically or valid. I can't tell what you mean - really. To me, it does follow logically that if I have a dog, I am likelier to have dog food in my cart, and contrariwise, if I have dog food in my cart, I am more likely to have a dog waiting at home. Also, nothing that doesn't follow logically from a model, that is, is not a sound deduction, should be called a valid prediction whatever that means to you. If your prediction is not a sound deduction, it is a guess.

ok
Prediction must follow logically from the theory hypothesis/theory/model

I say NO

I'm still lost. Prediction must follow logically from the theory hypothesis/theory/model or what? It shouldn't be regarded as valuable? If so, that a debate resolution I can agree with.

But go ahead and make your argument for why predictions don't need to be logical consequences of one's working model or hypothesis. And also, why you want to make that point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok but logically follows means that there is no other possible alternative. Agree?

Yes, that is the whole point. That is why it makes testing predictions useful in checking to see if a model is accurate.

If closely related species share less ERV's and not closely related species, then the prediction that logically follows from evolution fails.
Then we KNOW there is either something wrong with the model (the theory) OR with our understanding of ERV's.

Given what we know about ERV's and the model of evolution is accurate, THEN closely related species SHOULD share more ERV's then not closely related species.
This is the prediction that logically follows. If we test that prediction and it turns out to not be the case, THEN we KNOW that either our understanding of ERV's OR of evolution is incorrect at worst or incomplete at best.

If the prediction DOES check out however, then we have a successful test of both our understand of ERV's and of evolution, resulting in confirmation of our models. This then makes the distribution of ERV's evidence in support of evolution and our understanding of ERV's.


This is not hard to understand leroy. Think about it for a few minutes.

For example if the hypothesis is that you have a dog………..I would predict that to see dog food in your shopping kart everyone in a while………

Then again you have very low standards and rarely think anything through.
I'ld prefer predictions that are a tad more conclusive...... But I guess that makes me a "fanatic atheist" ha?

.. But this prediction (even if valid) it doesn’t follow logically from the hypothesis

Then perhaps you should ask yourself why you are making it....

……….. There are many other possible reasons for why you would buy dog food..

Or why you wouldn't while having a dog anyway.
IOW: as a "prediction", it is completely useless at worst and not conclusive at best. So perhaps you'ld be better off thinking of predictions that are more conclusive instead of wasting valuable resources on chasing data that wouldn't tell you all that much to begin with.

But hey, why listen to me, right.... I'm just a "fanatic atheist" with higher standards of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The key word is “logically” ……. Yes predictions are expected to follow from the hypothesis but they are not expected to follow LOGICALLY……..do you see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference.
More importantly, I'm starting to understand also why you seem to take such bizar positions on plenty of topics. Positions that don't seem to follow logically

To follow logically means that there can´t be other alternatives

Which would mean that they can be used as rather conclusive tests of the models in question.
As in: if they are wrong, we can be sure they are wrong if those conclusive tests fail.
In my world, that makes such predictions rather valuable and very usefull.

In your world, that makes me a "fanatic atheist".

(even if these other alternatives are unlikely or even impossible according to the laws of nature)…………..few if any predictions in science could ever rich such a high level.

Actually, that is mostly the standard for scientific predictions.
Testing predictions in science usually is a pretty costly affair. People usually aren't very keen on wasting hard earned money on experiments when it is already known in advance that the result won't make much, if any, difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is still true that predictions in science don’t have to follow logically I order to be valid

Give me an example of a prediction of a scientific model that doesn't follow logically from the model.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 You (well your friends) are claiming that predictions follow logically from the hypothesis/theory/model..

Yes. Every person with minimum level of understanding of scientific models knows this to be the case.

2 this would mean that the prediction of finding tikaalik is “logically necessary” for evolution to be true

No. The prediction is that such a creature would have existed and IF it fossilized, such and such location would be a good place to look for it.
When it comes to actually finding the fossil, other knowledge / predictions come into play as well. Like the understanding that most species never fossilized as fossilization is a very hard / rare process. Not finding the fossil doesn't mean the species didn't exist. The prediction of the species having existed would still remain. It would still follow logically from the model of evolution and all the scientific fields involved. Sadly, we don't have time machines and finding fossils is the only way we have to test such predictions. And sadly fossilization is rare and we KNOW most species never fossilized.

Nevertheless, they DID find the fossil. In the exact prediction location with the exact features it was predicted to have.

Nobody in the thread ever said otherwise. Nobody ever said that not finding such fossils would therefor mean that evolution is false.
That's just you and the imaginary conversations in your head again.

3 therefore you are saying that evolution would be wrong if tiktaalik would have not been found

Nope. See above.

Here is an other preduction

You will indirectly claim/imply that I am wrong, but you will not explicitly deny any of these 3 points…(because you know they are true)

Your prediction fails as I have just explicitly denied point 2 and 3 and explained why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To say that the prediction follows logically for the hypothesis/theory/model………means that there is no other possibility. (Literally no other possibility,)

Yep.

Again, that's what makes such predictions useful to test a model on its accuracy.
If your silly shopping cart with dog food "predictions" was in fact indeed the ONLY possibility of the model of "you have a dog", then not having shopping carts with dog food would be conclusive evidence of the claim of you having a dog being false.
That would make the prediction actually useful to test the claim.

But as it turns out, having dog food or not having dog food in the shopping cart, in fact makes no difference at all to conclusively validate the claim of you having a dog in your silly example. So why even mention it? Why even bother checking the shopping carts? It's a waste of time.

To say that the discovery of tiktaalik follows logically from the theory of evolution would mean that it is impossible (literally impossible) for evolution to be true if we didn’t find the fossil.

No.
You keep getting this wrong.
You keep ignoring the fact that it is known that fossilization is rare and that we aren't guaranteed any fossil at all.
The prediction is: IF this species fossilized, THEN it will be found in such and such location and have such and such features.

What is actually predicted, is the existence of the species all those millions of years ago. And as already explained: we have no time machines. So the only way to test the prediction is by finding a fossil of it. And as also already explained: fossilization is not guaranteed. We can only say IF it fossilized, then these are predicted locations of where we could find it. Luckily, it DID fossilize. And we DID find it.

All that other mumbo jumbo is just stuff that comes from your own imagination. Nobody ever said any such thing.

For example, from the fact that I am married it follows logically that I am not a bachelor

That's by definition.
Just like from the fact that a shape is a circle, we can exclude that it is a square.
Yes, it logically follows. But it's not really a prediction.

The word "fact" in your sentence, makes it a "by definition" instead of "by prediction".
Facts aren't models.

Models explain facts.

This is the normal standard definition of logically follows.

That seems to only be the case in leroy-world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No you haven't explained it at all.

Ow, I certainly did. Multiple times.
Go back and read.

you're supposed to be teaching me about it.

Clearly that is an exercise in futility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, now you admit that evolution is a fake theory.

I said nothing of the sort.
Why do you insist on telling lies?

Doesn't your dear religion say something about not bearing false witness?

You clearly stated that you don't believe in it above. End of debate goodbye

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are kidding, of course, when you say people here will gladly help him? hmmm, where's the evidence that they or you will?

The evidence is in all the posts made to you guys where people go through great effort to explain things to you only to have those posts dismissed with handwaves, strawmen and sheer almost deliberate dishonesty.


For example, how many times have I explained to you the mistake you make when you say silly things like "...but they remain gorillas".
The first time I explained it to you was well over a year ago.
And you still repeat this nonsense every other day.


The problem is not people not trying to help you understand.
The problem is you rejecting that help and doubling down on willful ignorance.