tas8831
Well-Known Member
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced
Not as often as we hear people say "1 billion Christians cannot be wrong!"How oft do people hear a response like...
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
This is a semantical argument.
Now days only Peers get a vote and the general public and every individual in it are ignored.
Then we get appeals to the "consensus" of the Peers.
How does it occur in an individual?"Sudden" simply means in a brief period of time. Of course this depends on perspective. From the perspective of the individual it occurs in moments or seconds and from that of species it means less than two generations.
No. "Evolution" is a word with only connotations and no definitions.
What is "survival of the fittest" in your fantasy?Change in Species is not driven by "survival of the fittest".
He did in the first edition.Secondly, Darwin never said that populations are stable over the long term - just that they CAN be stable.
And if "peers" 'getting a vote' is bad, whom do you suggest should 'get a vote'?
And in "less than" two generations - how does that produce a new species?
The self-taught suffer doubly, both by having a crummy instructor and by getting a sub-par education.
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
People who bash science are people that are generally too egotistical, ignorant and unwilling to learn what it takes to actually engage in scientific pursuits.
Do you or do you not understand that "evolution" is the word we give to the process of allele frequency changes over time in living populations, and that this is an observed, proven phenomenon?
Okay. So can you provide evidence that dramatic evolutionary changes only occur over periods of less than two generations?
True, but this process also occurs in nature - just not normally as quickly. A natural, selective process results in less favourable (for survival) traits being gradually removed from the gene pool, and more favourable traits pervading.
Now you're just rambling. Do you or do you not accept that there are aspects of our biology that don't affect behaviour but may affect our likelihood to survive and/or pass on our genes?
Or when you wrote about neuroanatomy and it came across like a 5th grader, complete with incorrect spellings and the notion that creatures can just up and decide to grow a part of their brain. Or when you are asked for evidence and you write 5 paragraphs of unsupported assertions.
Without commenting on your "two generations" assertion, I'd still like to see your definition of "species". No Google cut and pastes.
As I said, there's really not such a thing as "species" and there are merely collections of similar individuals. No two individuals have exactly the same genes. It is this individuality of life and consciousness which leads to change in "species". The concept of origin of species is an absurdity since individuals have origins and are never exactly like their parents and can be so different as to not even really constitute the same "species". New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior.
I seriously doubt that any "definition" of "species" can account for the complexity of the reality of the groupings of life that exist.
I define a "generation" as the length of time required from conception to the average age of reproduction of an individual for that specific "species". Changes require more than a single generation because mating naturally occurs between younger and older individuals. ie- survivors of bottlenecks will typically be of various generations and they'll continue to reproduce for a couple of generations.
"Species" is just a word because every member of a "species" is an individual and has a different (though similar) consciousness. Each has distinctive patterns of behavior which is based on its genes and knowledge.
Yep, many people say....God is truth. The problem is that all these people believe in different versions of God or even different gods. So, they can't all be truth, can they?
many facets to a precious stone
No. Not many facets of a precious stone. Many different cubic zirconias with many different people all proclaiming: "Mine is the real diamond!"
seems you have a gem of your own
and you think no one else has a better one
What scientists discovered, in some cases, was already known.
What scientists think is right is usually more right than what scientists/lay people thought was right 100 years ago.What scientists think is right, is not necessarily right, in many cases.
In fact, imagine being incredibly accurate, only to realize you were incredibly wrong.
That's a rather bold statement coming from someone who cannot define "species".As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR.
Since you are the expert here, why don't you tell me a bit more about Chromosome 2.... Like what functions these 2 pairs of Chromosome carried out before they fused, and whether any functions were hindered / obstructed / otherwise.You do with it what you want off course.
It just seems to me that if you are going to make arguments concerning the idea of scientific consensus, it would be wise to inform you properly on what that is exactly - something you clearly didn't do.
Upto you off course.... If you don't mind making arguments based on strawmen, honest misunderstandings and ignorance, that is off course your choice.
Then why are you complaining that people are giving you a diverse set of examples of such evidence?
If there is that much evidence, wouldn't you in fact expect multiple people to mention more then just one piece of evidence?
What are you complaining about the, really?
Is it?
Tell me... what is speculative about a chromosome with telomeres in the middle (instead of at the ends) and when that chromosome is split at the fusion site (= the middle telomeres), we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing"?
Sorry, but no.... established theories like evolution aren't based on "speculation and assumptions". They are based on facts and verifiable and testable evidence, matching the predictions of the theory.
Just like all other scientific theories......
No matter how many times you repeat that, and how good it sounds to you, I know I am right, and I proved it.No. The reason multiple people will bring up multiple different examples of evidence, is because there is a ginormous mountain of examples to choose from.
Opinion noted.It is the case. No reasonable scientist rejects evolution theory.
The only ones who reject evolution theory are fundamentalist creationists belonging to an organization that makes them sign a "statement of faith".
Well thank you, at least, for acknowledging that getting rid of the fossil record is a wise choice for believers in evolution, since it's against the theory... every time we turn around.No, it doesn't.
Multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same answer.
Genetics, paleontology, comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc etc.
You can remove every fossil from existance and still all other lines of evidence would be MORE THEN ENOUGH to demonstrate evolution theory beyond any reasonable doubt.
Let's see... what exactly did I say...It is EXACTLY what you said in the OP, since you claimed that pointing to scientific consensus is engaging in an "argumentum ad populum" - which is a fallacy which literally refers to popular opinion / beliefs.
The argumentum ad populum, literally means "this is true because many people believe it". That's literally appealing to "popular opinion".
So, when you state that pointing out scientific consensus is engaging in the ad populum fallacy, you are LITERALLY stating that scientific consensus is no more or less then popular opinion.
So yes, it is exactly what you said.
You really should be ashamed of yourself for this post. Now perhaps you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Creationists are terribly afraid to understand that concept. You are more than bright enough to understand it, would you care to discuss it? You are running out of plausible deniability, right now it does appear that you are lying on purpose.Since you are the expert here, why don't you tell me a bit more about Chromosome 2.... Like what functions these 2 pairs of Chromosome carried out before they fused, and whether any functions were hindered / obstructed / otherwise.
Speaking of expert, you are the first person I ever heard with the Chromosome 2 argument (Hmm.. I wonder why...), and your words do sound expertly formulated.
I don't just take words as Gospel though, especially on debate forums. They usually are mere claims that can be spouted at whim. So...
Where is your supporting evidence that "we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing""
I won't hold my breath.
No matter how many times you repeat that, and how good it sounds to you, I know I am right, and I proved it.
You just confirmed it, and you can't deny what is written in the science journals.
The beauty about that, is that that information is just a few mouse clicks away.
Opinion noted.
Well thank you, at least, for acknowledging that getting rid of the fossil record is a wise choice for believers in evolution, since it's against the theory... every time we turn around.
So basically the evolution has no supporting evidence, when we look at every one of those you mentioned.
Let's see... what exactly did I say...
I suggest you are either lying, or confused. Do you know which it is?
First you say, I implied what you said...
It's about you showing your ignorance by implying that "popular opinion" is somehow the same as "scientific consensus".
Now you say, it is exactly what I said.
When you make up you mind let me know.
I won't wait for you though.
Searching the OP....
Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.
Yup. You're lying... or confused.
Unless you are saying that consensus is just 'popular opinion'.
Here is another expertly formulated speech.You really should be ashamed of yourself for this post. Now perhaps you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Creationists are terribly afraid to understand that concept. You are more than bright enough to understand it, would you care to discuss it? You are running out of plausible deniability, right now it does appear that you are lying on purpose.
my God is better than your god....because....We were discussing people's beliefs in gods. So, no I don't have a gem of my own. I'm not one of those people who believe that "my god is better than your god". I'm just one of many people who would point out that that cannot be true.
I did. Maybe not clear enough to you, but I stated the reason for that.But again you failed to state clearly what you mean by 'truth', what test will tell us whether any statement about reality is true or not.
Maybe you did not understand that.I said:I believe there is objective reality to the one(s) in the absolute position to know and determine it.
So objective reality is, but man knows very little about those realities.
In case you don't understand what the above is saying...I said:For me, the reason I believe with 99.99% certainty that I have the truth, is based on many reasons, but one is mentioned here...
1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15, 16
Don't know what you mean by that.Are you actually proceeding here without clear ideas on the subject?
You actually did time travel?The demonstration is easy. Truth is not absolute, merely retrospective. Thus if you place yourself in, say, Babylon at the time of the captivity, and you ask the leading sages of the day whether the earth is flat, they'll reply, Yes, of course it is ─ use your eyes! So the statement 'The earth is flat' was true back then (and a flat earth, shaped either like a rectangle or a circle, is the only model used in the bible).
Or when you ask an Atheist and unbeliever, "Is there a God?" and they say, "Nope."Or go back to 1887 when Michelson and Morley are about to conduct their experiment, and ask the leading physicists of the day, 'Does light propagate in the lumeniferous ether?' and they'd reply, Yes.
I don't understand the above two statements. They are making no sense to me.Or take 2019. We walk through the physics department of our local university, and we say, 'Is the Higgs boson real?' and they say, 'Yes' ─ and they might add that we know it's real because in 2012 it satisfied the test used by scientists that the odds were less than a million to one that the LHC results on which the conclusion was based were instead due to chance. (That is, it wasn't true till 2012.)
Truth is the best opinion of the best informed people from time to time.
And when I say a statement is true, I mean it accurately corresponds with / reflects reality.
Then how can something that is wrong, be reality? Does reality come and go, according to hat man thinks he knows?On the exact contrary, science is always a work in progress; or as Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified. Since science examines reality using empiricism and induction, nothing protects its conclusions from new information we may discover tomorrow ─ or never discover.
Oh, I see. So your truth is opinions that are taken by a community, as the best.We're talking about the best informed opinions.
No, the map is not the territory, but the best opinion available to us from time to time is the standard for truth. We're not talking about 'mere' opinions, and there are no absolute statements, so what's the option?
Yes. We can definitely make absolute statements about reality, and if one can accept the crazy idea that reality is the best opinion, they might as well accept this one. Hebrews 3:4Do you say we can instead make absolute statements about reality? I don't. Science doesn't. If you do, give me an example of an absolute statement relevant to what we're talking about.
What argument did you present that I ignored? What question of yours did I ignore?
Please don't forget to provide the test you use to determine whether statements about reality are true or not.
well......in the scheme of superlatives
I see no need to argue right and wrong here.Yes, of course. But that doens't mean we will suddenly discover that the Sun orbits the Earth.
I am certainly NOT talking about the views before the scientists came along. For the most part, those were just completely wrong. Folk ideas tend to be a bizarre mix of imagination, a few insights, and mythology.
I am talking about how scientific ideas are changed over time. So, we have an initial scientific thoery A and it gets changed to a new scientific theory B.
When this happens theory A gives a good approximation to what we observe for a certain range of phenomena. But, we have found a situation where A doesn't give an accurate description. The theory B is proposed and adopted because it explains everything that A got right and *also* explains what A got wrong. Furthermore, B typically even explains what A got right to a better approximation.
OK, and science does this in every area it studies.
Usually false.
Well, in those things where you were incredibly accurate, that accuracy won't change. If we have 5 decimal places of accuracy, then any new thoery will be expected to have at least 6 decimal places of accuracy. That is an improvement.