Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Mock Turtle]

What is this widespread belief that science is a group project of good old boys who have to belong to a club! Nobody believed anything like this when I was young.

In the old days each individual had his own unique models of experiment and reality and only individuals had ideas or invented hypothesis and experiment. I can't imagine how any of them are thinking now or how they can stay in lockstep. Perhaps it's a sort of synchronicity achieved by having all the same beliefs of which none are in Kuhn, and frankly, all seem to know there is no God.

Not sure as to any club, but you seem to have missed out an important bit, as to religious beliefs often being left behind - and where science tends to fill any appropriate spaces left by such - unless one is a bound and gagged YEC believer of course.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

I have already done that.

I determined the probability of evolution occurring in systems that self-replicate with variation and which are in a struggle to survive and in competition with peers over limited resources, to be a probability of 1 in 1.

Back in the days, when we developed an optimization module based on genetic algorithms, a customer paid us 100s of thousands of euro's for it. Because it works.

You need to learn about probability then

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance.

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance.

Dumbest quote of the day. You state "the only way" and then list two ways to do it.

Also you used or which indicates that it has to be one or the other but I know tons of ways to argue against evolution that you didn't include there which are not using lies or ignorance.

Also why does someone have to argue against evolution and be lying or wrong. You speak as if evolution is 100% based on facts and is the truth

 

[cladking]

It's both. Self-protection as well as protecting others.

That may work for you and I applaud you. But when the risk of complications gets high enough I must weigh it against the odds of getting the disease. As a rule I usually ignore risks under .25% unless they are very serious. But I also have always tended to avoid risks of disease unless the results are likely to be serious.

The effect I have on the transmissibility of disease plays a very small role in the decision. Obviously some percentage of the population must get vaccines to have much effect but this is not my concern. If too few people are being immunized and too many around me aren't it raises the possibility I will. It is always a personal decision and not a public health decision. If people aren't getting flu shots then I will.

Of course with the mess things are now days coercion can be the only way to get many people to do the right thing. People get out of schools and colleges with "new" ideas.

Unless we fix the schools conformity will be the only way to operate a country, a science, and an economy. All hail the Handicapper General.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need to learn about probability then

Explain

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also you used or which indicates that it has to be one or the other but I know tons of ways to argue against evolution that you didn't include there which are not using lies or ignorance.

Mention and explain one such way.

Also why does someone have to argue against evolution and be lying or wrong.

Because evolution theory is scientifically so well supported that it's nothing short of extreme ignorance or near perverse to try and deny it.
Evolution is probably the best supported theory in all of science.

You speak as if evolution is 100% based on facts and is the truth

No theory is ever considered 100% proven.
But evolution comes close. I can't think of a theory in science with better evidential support.

It is not for nothing that it is sometimes called the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences.
It has multiple independent lines of evidence, all converging on the same answer.

Genetics, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, phylogenies, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record,....

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Explain

What you wrote indicates that you have very little understanding of probability but insinuated that you are knowledgeable in that field

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Mention and explain one such way.



Because evolution theory is scientifically so well supported that it's nothing short of extreme ignorance or near perverse to try and deny it.
Evolution is probably the best supported theory in all of science.


No theory is ever considered 100% proven.
But evolution comes close. I can't think of a theory in science with better evidential support.

It is not for nothing that it is sometimes called the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences.
It has multiple independent lines of evidence, all converging on the same answer.

Genetics, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, phylogenies, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record,....

I didn't have to argue another way, you did it for me. So its a theory and according to you "no theory is ever considered 100% proven". So now I will use that as my argument that evolution isn't 100% proven which is not a lie or being willfully ignorant.

How can you think it is so well proven though in day to day life? Gravity seems much more reasonable and observable to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That may work for you and I applaud you. But when the risk of complications gets high enough I must weigh it against the odds of getting the disease. As a rule I usually ignore risks under .25% unless they are very serious. But I also have always tended to avoid risks of disease unless the results are likely to be serious.

The effect I have on the transmissibility of disease plays a very small role in the decision. Obviously some percentage of the population must get vaccines to have much effect but this is not my concern. If too few people are being immunized and too many around me aren't it raises the possibility I will. It is always a personal decision and not a public health decision. If people aren't getting flu shots then I will.

Of course with the mess things are now days coercion can be the only way to get many people to do the right thing. People get out of schools and colleges with "new" ideas.

Unless we fix the schools conformity will be the only way to operate a country, a science, and an economy. All hail the Handicapper General.

You seem to be only focusing on the risk of the vaccine. You have to outweigh it also against the risk of catching the disease it protects you against.
You didn't mention that at all, which I find strange.

You also have to outweigh it against the risk of your loved ones catching the disease.

Take covid for example. Considering my biological profile, chances were enormous that if I would catch it I'ld just have a running noes for a couple days and that would be it.

But my wife's profile gave her serious risk of complication.
Same goes for my parents.
I was protecting them also.

Taking the shot was a complete no-brainer as a result.

 

[cladking]

Not sure as to any club, but you seem to have missed out an important bit, as to religious beliefs often being left behind - and where science tends to fill any appropriate spaces left by such - unless one is a bound and gagged YEC believer of course.

Leaving out religious beliefs are fine but they also need to leave out their own beliefs and the millions of beliefs of every et al.

I do not support beliefs, Sam I am. We all have them because we must but we each need to identify them to slow our reasoning in circles and to see anomalies.

To each his own but the simple fact is disbelief in God is no different than belief in God. Everything you know is a superstition so call it that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you wrote indicates that you have very little understanding of probability but insinuated that you are knowledgeable in that field

I am knowledgeable about evolution theory.

I'm telling you that if you have systems that
1. reproduce with variation
2. are in competition over limited resources
3. in a struggle for survival
4. in a gradually changing environment (thus gradually changing selection pressures)

Then evolution of those systems is inevitable.
Aka, 1 in 1.



Also, when I asked you to "explain", I meant for you to explain how I was wrong, since you were implying I was.
Care to try again?

Explain to me how evolution is not inevitable, when you have systems that reproduce with variation in a struggle for survival and in competition with peers over limited resources.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

He doesn't have to do anything you said. Also you seem to only be focusing on the pros of the vaccine not the negative before your no brainer decision. Maybe you should have researched more and considered more and understood that just because people say it is good and will help doesn't mean it's true. Seems reckless to jump into a decision like that so quickly and important.

Try considering all other sides for once if you want to learn. Science has failed you, sorry never mind.. you failed science

You seem to be only focusing on the risk of the vaccine. You have to outweigh it also against the risk of catching the disease it protects you against.
You didn't mention that at all, which I find strange.

You also have to outweigh it against the risk of your loved ones catching the disease.

Take covid for example. Considering my biological profile, chances were enormous that if I would catch it I'ld just have a running noes for a couple days and that would be it.

But my wife's profile gave her serious risk of complication.
Same goes for my parents.
I was protecting them also.

Taking the shot was a complete no-brainer as a result.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Leaving out religious beliefs are fine but they also need to leave out their own beliefs and the millions of beliefs of every et al.

I do not support beliefs, Sam I am. We all have them because we must but we each need to identify them to slow our reasoning in circles and to see anomalies.

To each his own but the simple fact is disbelief in God is no different than belief in God. Everything you know is a superstition so call it that.

Everything you know is a belief, just relax

 

[cladking]

Taking the shot was a complete no-brainer as a result.

Same here. I was exposed to one single high risk carrier and I was at high risk of serious symptoms so I got the shot. Turns out I got it twice anyway with the first one being nothing and the second was no worse than a mild flu.

 

[cladking]

Everything you know is a belief, just relax

I seem to be about the only one who knows this though.

...Or at least I believe I do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't have to argue another way, you did it for me. So its a theory and according to you "no theory is ever considered 100% proven".

As is every theory in science.
That doesn't mean you can rationally argue against it.
I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

So now I will use that as my argument that evolution isn't 100% proven which is not a lie or being willfully ignorant.

Which is not arguing against it. It's just stating the obvious.
By any and all accounts, evolution is the best possible explanation for the diversity of species.
It explains all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none. It's independently testable and verifiable. It makes predictions that can be tested and verified which confirm the validity of the theory.

By any and all accounts, it is thus "true". As "true" as an explanation in science can possibly be.
As true as the earth is a sphere and orbits the sun.

How can you think it is so well proven though in day to day life?

Supported, not proven.
And the answer is the mountains of independent evidence that all converges on the same answer.

Gravity seems much more reasonable and observable to me.

The fact is actually that we know a lot more about evolution then we do about gravity.
Gravity is very poorly understood. The lack of properly understanding gravity is likely what prevents us from unifying quantum physics with relativity.

Physics doesn't have it's unified field theory.
Biology does. It's evolution.


Also, here you seem to be confusing the fact of gravity (apples fall) with the THEORY of gravity (how do apples fall?).
There is also the fact of evolution (species share ancestry - this is a genetic fact). The theory EXPLAINS the facts. It provides the mechanism by which the facts occur. How do species share ancestry?

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

As is every theory in science.
That doesn't mean you can rationally argue against it.
I'm sorry if you don't understand that.



Which is not arguing against it. It's just stating the obvious.
By any and all accounts, evolution is the best possible explanation for the diversity of species.
It explains all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none. It's independently testable and verifiable. It makes predictions that can be tested and verified which confirm the validity of the theory.

By any and all accounts, it is thus "true". As "true" as an explanation in science can possibly be.
As true as the earth is a sphere and orbits the sun.



Supported, not proven.
And the answer is the mountains of independent evidence that all converges on the same answer.


The fact is actually that we know a lot more about evolution then we do about gravity.
Gravity is very poorly understood. The lack of properly understanding gravity is likely what prevents us from unifying quantum physics with relativity.

Physics doesn't have it's unified field theory.
Biology does. It's evolution.


Also, here you seem to be confusing the fact of gravity (apples fall) with the THEORY of gravity (how do apples fall?).
There is also the fact of evolution (species share ancestry - this is a genetic fact). The theory EXPLAINS the facts. It provides the mechanism by which the facts occur. How do species share ancestry?

We know less about evolution than anything. Because nobody can even agree or prove what it is this all evolved from, big bang or God.

Its just funny that modern humans seem to be such a new edition to earth and yet we just assume we can interpret the entire past. So after the ice age was done did we just reset to the beginning and do all the evolution again? If so how did it happen so rapidly when other forms of evolution took forever.

Most importantly though where did the first thing come from that began evolving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He doesn't have to do anything you said.

Indeed he doesn't. He is free to engage in irrational risk assessment.

Also you seem to only be focusing on the pros of the vaccine not the negative before your no brainer decision.

The very post you are replying to is literally stating to weigh the pro's against the cons. I merely pointed out that the cons are not just limited to the cons of taking the vaccine, but also the cons of NOT taking the vaccine.

Not taking the vaccine means you aren't protected against the disease. So you would have to add that in.
If a vaccine has a 10% chance of making you infertile and the disease it protects you against is for example extremely contagious (so VERY HIGH probability of getting it) and has a 90% mortality rate, then clearly taking the vaccine is the better choice in terms of risk assessment.

If on the other hand you have low chance of getting the disease and the mortality rate is only 0.01%, then taking a vaccine with 10% chance of infertility is rationally not a good choice in terms of risk assessment.



Seems pretty obvious

Maybe you should have researched more and considered more and understood that just because people say it is good and will help doesn't mean it's true.

What makes you think I didn't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know less about evolution than anything.

lol

Because nobody can even agree or prove what it is this all evolved from, big bang or God.

Way to demonstrate to the world that you have no clue what you are talking about.
The big bang is cosmology, god is religion.

Evolution concerns biology.

Its just funny that modern humans seem to be such a new edition to earth and yet we just assume we can interpret the entire past. So after the ice age was done did we just reset to the beginning and do all the evolution again?

Wut?

If so how did it happen so rapidly when other forms of evolution took forever.

What on earth are you on about.........

Most importantly though where did the first thing come from that began evolving.

Abiogenesis is its own field of study.
Evolution theory isn't dependend on how first life originated.

It matters not how life began. Evolution starts when first life already existed.
If your god of choice created first life, that's actually compatible with evolution.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

As is every theory in science.
That doesn't mean you can rationally argue against it.
I'm sorry if you don't understand that.



Which is not arguing against it. It's just stating the obvious.
By any and all accounts, evolution is the best possible explanation for the diversity of species.
It explains all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none. It's independently testable and verifiable. It makes predictions that can be tested and verified which confirm the validity of the theory.

By any and all accounts, it is thus "true". As "true" as an explanation in science can possibly be.
As true as the earth is a sphere and orbits the sun.



Supported, not proven.
And the answer is the mountains of independent evidence that all converges on the same answer.


The fact is actually that we know a lot more about evolution then we do about gravity.
Gravity is very poorly understood. The lack of properly understanding gravity is likely what prevents us from unifying quantum physics with relativity.

Physics doesn't have it's unified field theory.
Biology does. It's evolution.


Also, here you seem to be confusing the fact of gravity (apples fall) with the THEORY of gravity (how do apples fall?).
There is also the fact of evolution (species share ancestry - this is a genetic fact). The theory EXPLAINS the facts. It provides the mechanism by which the facts occur. How do species share ancestry?

I am a truth teller so you should learn from me if your fragile ego will consider something better than science for once... truth.

First of all, the earth is not a sphere, it is oblique and fat in the middle. And science isn't very explanatory, more observatory.

How can you think it is the most true science can be for explaining things when we can't observe something that took place before our arrival and continuously see it happen rapidly where as some tests such as litmus paper can be done over and over again with great accuracy.

You do a terrible job representing science which shows me you are very ill informed. The main problem science has is the arrogance of some of their statements. I'd rather just have a conversation about truth rather than theories and ego glorification