Argumentum ad populum

[Polymath257]

So you are objecting to the fact that several independent lines of investigation lead to the same conclusion?

Consider..What's the alternative? Now you tell me.

Well, either accept the conclusion or show what's wrong with the multiple lines of evidence.

It seems to me that having several different lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion increases the likelihood it is correct.

 

[tas8831]

"Mother nature never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations."

Evidence please.

ACTUAL evidence - not your usual dodgy meandering assertion-laden nonsense.

Really!?!??? You do realize "mother nature" doesn't "really" exist except as a metaphor?

Golly, yes, I DO understand that. But that does not mean you get to make grand assertions like this:

"Mother nature never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations"

And weasel out of supporting it by hiding behind 'Mother nature is a METAPHOR!!!!"

Can you provide any evidence that "nature" never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations?

And keep in mind - your meandering anecdotes and assertions are NOT evidence:

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More

verb

1. be or show evidence of.
   "that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"

Do you even accept the concept that it was complex language that gave rise to humanity?

No.

If you disagree or don't understand these things then showing "proof" is an impossibility.

Right, I forgot - you think people can only see what they already believe. Because that is the only way you are the hero.

Funny thing about reason is that it only works where definitions and premises are shared.

Yes - like the definition of EVIDENCE, which you, contrary to all others, seem to think means 'my stories.'

It only works if people aren't playing semantical games.

Projection.

Still waiting:

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[tas8831]

No. "Evolution" is a word with only connotations and no definitions.

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.

There is no evidence for or experiment that shows gradual evolution. All observed changes in life at every level and type is sudden.

Irrelevant.

You claimed there was no definition. I provided one. Rather than admit error, you shift the goal posts.

How typical of those employing ancient superstitious thinking...

 

[tas8831]

Here you go - prove it. Because, golly, when I did a keyword search, neither "stable" nor "population" shows up...

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Weird that cladking totally ignored this. He does tend to ignore the things that refute his assertions.

 

[cladking]

Can you provide any evidence that "nature" never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations?

You do realize there are an infinite number of ways to deconstruct that sentence? Every word in it has many meanings and even more connotations.

What you don't seem to realize is that you are intentionally deconstructing every sentence so it is illogical.

Let me ask you this; how many species in the entire universe do we know have a complex language through which they can accumulate knowledge over the generations? Of course you believe the answer is "1" but nevermind you are wrong. Just ask yourself why animals aren't even smart enough for us to sit down and have a good heart to heart. Houseflies probably feel especially persecuted but not one has ever expressed this to you has it? If we want to communicate with animals our only solution is to teach them English because nobody really understands or speaks Chimpanzee. Why do you think this is? I keep answering this question for you but it doesn't fit your beliefs that only humans are "intelligent", "conscious", "conversant or whatever soup of the day science calls it. You follow this hook line and sinker so you can't see even insects try to communicate with us. We just aren't "intelligent" enough to pick up a little Wasp. Meanwhile life goes on all around us but we can't see it because we see species instead. We don't see individuals we see chimps and wasps. We don't see consciousness, we see behavior. We can't even see each individual has distinct behavior. Most of the time we don't really see behavior either, we see instinct. We don't see the experience that guides a fox through his daily routines because we can't even ascribe consciousness to "them".

So if one species is OBVIOUSLY the "odd man out" out of all the millions of species that inhabit or have inhabited the earth don't you "believe" that it's justified saying that nature never really intended to create a species that could accumulate complex knowledge over thousands of generations? Certainly there is an accumulation of knowledge needed to create termite cities with air conditioning and agriculture. Humans didn't reach this level of progress until 20,000 BC probably. So what do you think allowed us to move far beyond termites and lose the ability to communicate with the rest of nature? I keep answering these questions but you just hand wave the answers. You hand wave the logic and evidence that supports an argument that uses the same EVIDENCE you use but looks at it all from a different perspective.

You think I care about my theory of species change but I care very little whether I'm right or wrong. I arrived at this independently of ancient man but it very much duplicates their understanding as well. My primary concern is to merely highlight that it's impossible to understand anything about ANY LIFE AT ALL without some understanding of consciousness. This understanding comes naturally to chimps and wasps but is opaque to us because we hold all the wrong beliefs. Science works only because of its metaphysics but its chief weakness is that it can only see reality in bits and pieces one experiment at a time. We're missing the bigger picture.

In another irony of Biblical proportions the Bible and other holy books were attempts at preserving this "big picture" that was made by ancient science.

It's not up to me to judge or rate how well religion preserves it because it will require far more understanding of ancient science and religion than I possess or will possess in my lifetime. Frankly while the attempt was certainly grand it seems to me that it would be very easy for any Homo Omnisciencis to miss the point of religion entirely. It was just transformed over many generations until the original concept of human relationship to the divine being Knowledge > Creation > Understanding having been hidden under countless layers of interpretation and doctrine. I don't fault any religious scholars past or present because we all see what we believe. I doubt the confusion was the result of intention or was self serving but rather the fault of language which is exceedingly poor at communication no matter how many injunctions there are about changing a single word.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, either accept the conclusion or show what's wrong with the multiple lines of evidence.

It seems to me that having several different lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion increases the likelihood it is correct.

1) The Cambrian Explosion, having no obvious precursors.

2) These “multiple lines of evidence” only reveal similarity. (Which is to be expected, if there is only 1 Creator.) No Darwinian mechanism is evidence of building complexity, without losing some functionality.

3) The sheer diversity of species.

4) Empirical evidence of complex systems always reveal intelligence.... but the complexity found in biology are viewed differently. But these discoveries continue to stun scientists, making unguided and mindless processes more and more unlikely.

 

[tas8831]

1) The Cambrian Explosion, having no obvious precursors.

Well, except for the Precambrian fossils...

Precambrian Fossils

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, except for the Precambrian fossils...

Precambrian Fossils

Like I said, “no obvious precursors.”

 

[tas8831]

You do realize there are an infinite number of ways to deconstruct that sentence?

Then maybe you should be more judicious and straightforward when making such broad unsupported proclamations.

Every word in it has many meanings and even more connotations.

Then why did you write it? What meaning did you mean to convey, if you knew that your sentence was so poorly thought out and written that there would be an infinite number of ways to deconstruct?

Were you being purposefully obtuse and disingenuous?

Or is all this just your way of weaseling out of supporting a claim yet again?

 

[tas8831]

Like I said, “no obvious precursors.”

On what grounds do you consider them 'not obvious'? You had but a couple of minutes to look at the page, my goodness, how did you so quickly dismiss them?

Will you refer to some website's dismissal of them as authoritative? And if so, on what grounds do you accept THEIR dismissal?

 

[tas8831]

2) These “multiple lines of evidence” only reveal similarity.

How so? Why would fossils and geology and DNA analyses all point ot mere "similarity"? Is that what you think molecular phylogenetic analyses do - just look for 'similarity'?

(Which is to be expected, if there is only 1 Creator.)

So you would constrain your Creator to only being able to make "similar" things?

No Darwinian mechanism is evidence of building complexity, without losing some functionality.

Not sure I understand that.

3) The sheer diversity of species.

You should rethink that, especially given your other thread on the flood.
You are going to sink your ark.

4) Empirical evidence of complex systems always reveal intelligence.

Complex human-contrived systems, yes.
Are you saying that your Creator is a mere human?

... but the complexity found in biology are viewed differently.

Yes, because they are only how we describe them.

But these discoveries continue to stun scientists, making unguided and mindless processes more and more unlikely.

Why? Because someone is "stunned" about something? Non sequitur.

 

[Jose Fly]

Like I said, “no obvious precursors.”

So who decides what is and isn't "obvious"? You? Given that you're a Jehovah's Witness and the extreme level of bias that brings to this particular subject, why would anyone rely on you for evaluations of fossils?

 

[Polymath257]

1) The Cambrian Explosion, having no obvious precursors.

Well, except for the Burgess Shale deposits.

2) These “multiple lines of evidence” only reveal similarity. (Which is to be expected, if there is only 1 Creator.) No Darwinian mechanism is evidence of building complexity, without losing some functionality.

Except that the *patterns* of similarity fall into a tree-like diagram at all levels of analysis (morphology, genetics, etc). This is natural from an evolutionary viewpoint, but very unlikely under other assumptions.

3) The sheer diversity of species.

Which is expected under an evolutionary scenario.

4) Empirical evidence of complex systems always reveal intelligence.... but the complexity found in biology are viewed differently. But these discoveries continue to stun scientists, making unguided and mindless processes more and more unlikely.

Not intelligent, adaptation. And we know that mutation and selection can produce close-to-optimal solutions on many types of problems. This process is even used in engineering now.

So this in no way counters the evolutionary scenario.

Now, on the flip side, are there any specific predictions that 'Creation' can make that 'Evolution' cannot that we can actually observe? What *test* can you make to decide whether intelligence of natural selection is the operative process? One good one is that tree-like pattern of similarity. That is predicted by the evolutionary scenarios, but would not be specifically predicted by the creation scenario. That makes it evidence for evolution as opposed to creation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So who decides what is and isn't "obvious"? You? Given that you're a Jehovah's Witness and the extreme level of bias that brings to this particular subject, why would anyone rely on you for evaluations of fossils?

Then please enlighten us.....show some from the Precambrian.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then please enlighten us.....show some from the Precambrian.

You dodged the question. Try again....

So who decides what is and isn't "obvious"? You? Given that you're a Jehovah's Witness and the extreme level of bias that brings to this particular subject, why would anyone rely on you for evaluations of fossils?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You dodged the question. Try again....

So who decides what is and isn't "obvious"? You? Given that you're a Jehovah's Witness and the extreme level of bias that brings to this particular subject, why would anyone rely on you for evaluations of fossils?

Because I try to be honest and reasonable to others who act the same.

Now please post some Ediacaran fossils that are obvious precursors to the Precambrian and then the Cambrian biota.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because I try to be honest and reasonable to others who act the same.

You honestly think you, a Jehovah's Witness, can be "honest and reasonable" when it comes to evolutionary biology? Really?

Now please post some Ediacaran fossils that are obvious precursors to the Precambrian and then the Cambrian biota.

@tas8831 already gave you examples and all you could do was make the empty assertion that they weren't "obvious". But of course you won't see them as "obvious precursors"....you can't!

Do you appreciate how absurd this is? A Jehovah's Witness saying "Provide me with examples of fossils that are obvious precursors to Cambrian organisms. But if I say they're not obvious, then they don't count!"

How is that any different than a Satanist saying "Show me obvious evidence that the Bible is The Word of God. But if I say the evidence isn't obvious, then it doesn't count"?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No one gave me any examples, @Jose Fly !
Polymath mentioned the Burgess Shale...that was it!


EDIT: OK, I see his reply. Sorry, I did overlook it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Tas’s posted link apparently isn’t profound...
From cambrian evolutionary explosion: Topics by Science.gov ...

1. The Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion: Novel Evidence from Fossils Studied by X-ray Tomography
   
   SciTech Connect
   
   Chen, Jun-Yuan
   
   
   
   The Cambrian explosion (from 542 million years to 488 million years ago) is one of the greatest mysteries in evolutionary biology. It wasn't until this period that complex organisms became common and diverse. the magnitude of the event can be understood based on the contrast between the biota and the degree of diversity of the fossils from both sides. great advances have been made in Cambrian palaeontology over the past century, especially the discovery of the well-preserved soft-bodied fauna from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale and the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale deposits. The Cambrian side of the "Cambrian explosion" ismore » richly illustrated and contrasts greatly with the Precambrian side. The study of these extraordinarily preserved fossil biota is extremely difficult. A major challenge is 3-D reconstruction and determining the patter of the cell organization in Weng'an embryos and their buried structures in Maotianshan Shale fossils. This talk will show that two recent technological approaches, propagation phase contrast synchrotron x-ray microtomography and microtomography, provide unique analytical tools that permit the nondestructive computational examination and visualization of the internal and buried characters in virtual sections in any plane, and virtual 3-D depictions of internal structures.« less
   

The next paragraph is even more intriguing!
It’s coming....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again from the above science.gov site:

Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?

PubMed

Steele, Edward J; Al-Mufti, Shirwan; Augustyn, Kenneth A; Chandrajith, Rohana; Coghlan, John P; Coulson, S G; Ghosh, Sudipto; Gillman, Mark; Gorczynski, Reginald M; Klyce, Brig; Louis, Godfrey; Mahanama, Kithsiri; Oliver, Keith R; Padron, Julio; Qu, Jiangwen; Schuster, John A; Smith, W E; Snyder, Duane P; Steele, Julian A; Stewart, Brent J; Temple, Robert; Tokoro, Gensuke; Tout, Christopher A; Unzicker, Alexander; Wainwright, Milton; Wallis, Jamie; Wallis, Daryl H; Wallis, Max K; Wetherall, John; Wickramasinghe, D T; Wickramasinghe, J T; Wickramasinghe, N Chandra; Liu, Yongsheng

2018-08-01

We review the salient evidence consistent with or predicted by the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe (H-W) thesis of Cometary (Cosmic) Biology. Much of this physical and biological evidence is multifactorial. One particular focus are the recent studies which date the emergence of the complex retroviruses of vertebrate lines at or just before the Cambrian Explosion of ∼500 Ma. Such viruses are known to be plausibly associated with major evolutionary genomic processes. We believe this coincidence is not fortuitous but is consistent with a key prediction of H-W theory whereby major extinction-diversification evolutionary boundaries coincide with virus-bearing cometary-bolide bombardment events. A second focus is the remarkable evolution of intelligent complexity (Cephalopods) culminating in the emergence of the Octopus. A third focus concerns the micro-organism fossil evidence contained within meteorites as well as the detection in the upper atmosphere of apparent incoming life-bearing particles from space. In our view the totality of the multifactorial data and critical analyses assembled by Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe and their many colleagues since the 1960s leads to a very plausible conclusion - life may have been seeded here on Earth by life-bearing comets as soon as conditions on Earth allowed it to flourish (about or just before 4.1 Billion years ago); and living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy bacteria, viruses, more complex eukaryotic cells, fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered ever since to Earth so being one important driver of further terrestrial evolution which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind. Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved
.......................
So, life-bearing comets from space have “continuously delivered” living organisms, thereby explaining the “considerable genetic diversity” on Earth.
Wow, that’s a lot of ‘belief’! Faith!

Is this “populum”? Doubt it.