Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

An ad hominem fallacy is distinct from an insult.

That's what you're calling either insult or a fallacious argument (I can't tell which it is). And that was as extreme as it gets?

If you wish to be unambiguous, refer to ad hominem fallacies (all three words) when you mean fallacious arguments with that fallacy and insults when you mean insults.

*******

I notice that you ignored most of my post to you. Was there a reason for that (I've proposed one below on the assumption that I probably won't get an answer to that, either.)

Apparently, the only words that caught your eye were, "The word demand might be a little stronger than need be." They're the only ones you disliked or even acknowledged seeing.

Points you ignored:

• The proper name is an ad hominem fallacy. Lay people use the term ad hominem as a synonym for insult as you seem to be doing here
• Where do you see an argument there? I see unsupported claims which I happen to agree with. The evidence in prior posts, not that claim.
• My point is that if one doesn't make an argument, once cannot make a fallacious argument.
• His language was descriptive (expository).
• You HAVE called bare assertions arguments when they are not
• What is it you teach and to what aged students?
• you are just some random person that we don't know
• it is indeed almost as old as writing itself that people have simply asserted ideas as fact even when they're not. It's at least as old as the Old Testament.

I'll assume that you felt that you couldn't rebut any of those and so ignored them. The first bullet point might have been useful to you (it would have been useful to me had you assimilated those words) before writing your ambiguous opening line above.

Do you realize that you demand much from others regarding when and how to address you, but hold yourself to no similar standard?

I'll say the same to you. I can't tell whether you mean insult or ad hominem fallacy when you use nonstandard language like this.

Furthermore, not all ad hominem fallacies are insults or attacks. We can attempt to disqualify an argument by calling the arguer too young or inexperienced to have much to offer yet. It may be correct or it may be incorrect, but it isn't an attack.

I usually don't use such language, but I was just checking out the use of the term.

 

[YoursTrue]

Furthermore, not all ad hominem fallacies are insults or attacks. We can attempt to disqualify an argument by calling the arguer too young or inexperienced to have much to offer yet. It may be correct or it may be incorrect, but it isn't an attack.

That's almost like saying a myth does not necessary mean it's a lie..

 

[Valjean]

When I say science 'evolves' I am saying that the science we know increases as we explore, test, wonder, and expand our knowledge and technology as we ourselves evolve. It requires giving up former beliefs and doctrines. And I believe if there are beings from other galaxies who have been visiting us, our science and technology is still in its infancy compared to theirs.

I thought you said science didn't evolve.

I have never questioned evolution and am quite comfortable with that theory. I only resist the assertion that evolution, or science for that matter, explains all that exists because I believe in God who created both but is bound by the constraints of neither.

Good.
Noöne is saying that science explains all that exists, and evolution's explanations only concern the mechanisms of change within populations.

The constraints of all the sciences are the laws and constants of nature and mathematics. A God bound by these would be a god with no more power than we have.
To create ex nihilo; to speak a thing into existence or breathe life into a thing, is to circumvent the normal constraints of nature. This has never been observed. Proposed examples have always been found explicable by ordinary chemistry or physics.

God retreats to the margins of science, residing today in abiogenesis or Big Bang cosmology, where science has not yet worked out the details.

 

[Valjean]

The 'scientific method' is a human invention and it not itself science. In its simplest definition, Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"

Or according to Britannica: "Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation." (I rather think Britannica's version is closest to an accurate definition.)

The probable allegorical tale of Columbus observing ship masts sinking and disappearing behind the horizon (or vice versa) and concluding that the world was not flat but rather round from that observation is one of the more primitive examples of science. But it is nevertheless science. The flat Earthers dispute that by believing the ships are sailing in a circle on a flat surface. The fact of a round Earth was established definitively once we could go into space and observe and photograph it from there. (Of course the flat Earthers maintain the photos and testimony are bogus.)

I strongly believe that anything scientific that does not allow itself to be questioned or challenged is not science but rather dogma. A true scientist wants to get it right however long that takes and keeps an open mind that he/she doesn't know all there is to know.

And the attempt to disprove hypotheses, along with the invitation to criticism and retesting, is what has made science such a useful, predictive, and productive modality.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah. The usage of "ad hominem" on this forum so often comes down to nothing more than either "I feel insulted" or "Let me use this term to hide the fact that I have nothing to say"

Criticism of a fact, idea, or line of reasoning is not an ad hom.

 

[leroy]

.

I thought I was clear to you, Leroy, that I don't intend to go further down this rabbit hole with you.

That is fine nobody is asking to continue the conversation with me...... But given that you misrepresented my claims....I thought it was convenient to clarify them

As the word fish is almost always used, it refers to a collection of similar marine animals with heads, tails, spines, and endoskeletons, most of which have gills and fins, and most of which lay eggs and are cold-blooded, although some species will straddle categories. Some lay people might include some mollusks and arthropods ("shellfish"), but these are different phyla.

Agree . Except for the "similar" in red above.


We call tunas and sharks fish despite the fact that at least genetically they are very different


But if we similar you simply mean "superficially similar" the I would agree.

Taxonomically, we use words like monophyletic (and clade), polyphyletic, and paraphyletic to describe the relationships of some groups of living things to one another and to others outside of the group. The word fish in any of its variants can be described using those terms.

Sure

 

[leroy]

Where is this wide range? Do you mean from 400-375 million years ago?

From 400M (or more) years ago to modern days.... that is that rage in which evolution predicts to the possibility of intermediates between fish and tetrapods could be found

If so, so what, it also needs to be the right kind of rock that would have formed where they lived. I have 400 million year old rocks all around here but they are not from the environment Tiktaalik would have fossilized in,

Yes granted . Only the layers that represent the correct environment can be counted in that rage

 

[Kathryn]

Do you think you were destined to choose this position?

I believe I have free will, but it sets on top of things that I cannot control.

I believe that predestination and free will work together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To clarify what has been and, as the evidence indicates, continues to be a misconception on this thread as well as many of the threads about science and evolution. Many threads for that matter.

Here a few links and definitions for ad hominem gleaned from a brief search of the internet done to satisfy any discontent that might be roused by simply defining it myself as I know it.

"An ad hominem fallacy is a type of argument that attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself." Google Generative AI

Ad Hominem.
"Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution." Texas State Department of Philosophy

Ad hominem - Wikipedia
"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background."

Ad hominem | Definition, Fallacy, Bias, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
"ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter."

I haven't read every word over the last two days, but what I have read that is claimed as an ad hominem fallacy doesn't fit these definitions. I have seen points, ideas and claims addressed, but not attacks on the people presenting those things.

Pointing out that ideas, assertions, claims, declarations and revealed truth are incorrect or pointing out fallacies that a person is using is not an ad hominem attack either. I have seen that asserted on here numerous times. Perhaps stemming from the inability of some to differentiate between themselves and their own ideas or claims. Or from a misunderstanding of the fallacy and application. Hard to say.

This has been a personal public service announcement brought to you by my interest in moving on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that predestination and free will work together.

I can't determine if anything is predestined or see how it can be determined. I know that it can be believed to be, but that doesn't help me in my determinations. To the best of my knowledge, this effort to find out is of my own free will, but that is open to interpretation as well.

I suppose there are some things that seem predetermined under circumstances. It is predetermined that I continue breathing to maintain this conversation for instance. But is that predestiny or consequence of existing conditions? I could end it out of my own desire. Or continue on at my own interest as well. Another consequence?

Of course, there is death that seems to be the destination of us all, but how can I know that other than to say the evidence strongly supports it.

 

[Kathryn]

I can't determine if anything is predestined or see how it can be determined. I know that it can be believed to be, but that doesn't help me in my determinations. To the best of my knowledge, this effort to find out is of my own free will, but that is open to interpretation as well.

I suppose there are some things that seem predetermined under circumstances. It is predetermined that I continue breathing to maintain this conversation for instance. But is that predestiny or consequence of existing conditions? I could end it out of my own desire. Or continue on at my own interest as well. Another consequence?

Of course, there is death that seems to be the destination of us all, but how can I know that other than to say the evidence strongly supports it.

I don't worry about understanding it or all of everything because my mind cannot grasp it and I am OK with that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes dear. I teach it. But thanks for asking.

Are you a teacher? I consider teaching to be one of the most important jobs there is. Not just in imparting knowledge to students, but in encouraging them to continue learning and discovering and thinking critically.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't worry about understanding it or all of everything because my mind cannot grasp it and I am OK with that.

I often end up that way as well. Though, I cannot shake thinking about it, questioning and wondering. I concede that may just be my nature. But then that just gets me thinking about free will again.

 

[Kathryn]

I often end up that way as well. Though, I cannot shake thinking about it, questioning and wondering. I concede that may just be my nature. But then that just gets me thinking about free will again.

But there is so much that points to predestination too!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But there is so much that points to predestination too!

Is it that so much points to it or that we look back and cherry pick, intentionally or unintentionally, those things that confirm the belief?

Was I destined to be a scientist or was that a choice? Could I have chosen something else? Certainly, many things interest me. I don't know that it was predestined, but I can look back and note many influences that lead to my choice.

 

[wellwisher]

Then how were the pyramids built? Why was the species that was on site at the time say "the gods built the pyramids"? The gods organized themselves into work gangs of nine, called enneads and cut and lifted stones.

Either they were confused or we are. Seeing as how they were there I'm going with we are confused.

The modern human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is older and is common to all animals and was/is a product of evolution. The ego is newer and is only found in humans. The ego is empty at birth and evolves from outside, in, via culture; education and the super ego of culture. The ego appears to have consolidated 6-10K years ago.

The story of Adam and Eve is really about the appearance of the ego and the loss of natural instinct from the inner self. A new version of humans appeared, with human DNA but an extra ego center; seed, within the brain.

Contemporary humans are more ego-centric and few are even aware of the inner self, even though the inner self is the mainframe part of the brain. When we walk, all we need to do is think command lines, and the inner self takes over the driving.

"The God built the pyramids", is an ancient projection of the inner self helping the early ego. The ancients were less ego-centric and the inner self was far more conscious, and often projected as the gods; firmware of the inner self.

This useful effect can be witnessed, if you ever owned a kitten. They will spontaneously play a game of chasing imaginary prey. In essence, their inner self plays little training programs or films, so they can imagine little prey, helping them to develop skills, into neural and muscle memory. In terms of building the pyramids, dreams and visions were their training films, from the main frame, that the ancient ego would follow; sacred rituals for neural and muscle memory.

The analogy is a PC and a mainframe with the PC networked to the mainframe as a terminal. The modern ego is more stand alone and works within limits of the PC, unconscious it is also a terminal. The ancients understood the terminal nature to the gods; main frame operating system. They could run programs, and get results that appear way above their pay grade; main frame output to the terminal. Math that might take forever on the PC to process, can be done quickly on the mainframe. The Egyptians envisioned the needed skills; inner self=helpful gods, and then the ego helped to teach others, and make it into reality.

The inner self, although natural and genetic based, changed when the ego appeared, since it now had an extra data stream that was on top of natural, causing the inner self to change and evolve differently; inner self domestication effect and more sophistication.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution has been explained numerous times in this thread and many others. The assumptions behind it have been presented numerous times, explained and maintained. Definitions, explanations, experiments and evidence supporting the theory have been provided numerous times.

Most or all of this has been dismissed without reasonable evidence, comment, review, debate or discussion if it is addressed at all. None of it has been refuted.

How much more explanation does a person need before it becomes clear that no amount of explanation, description, reason or evidence will ever be enough or matter in the decision to reject it without regard to any of that and on personal belief alone?

I don't recall ever seeing anyone post a sound argument defeating the theory although I have witnessed many that are convinced that it is defeated by what they believe without evidence or any apparent effort. And those beliefs vary widely too. From philosophical to faithful to fantastical and often nonsensical.

But on the evidence and with reason, the theory has held up. The continued empty attacks on it seem a testament to that fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you a teacher? I consider teaching to be one of the most important jobs there is. Not just in imparting knowledge to students, but in encouraging them to continue learning and discovering and thinking critically.

Thank you. I am not a public or private school teacher--don't have the credentials for that--but I did a bit of substitute teaching and have tutored students from time to time. I also have some experience in formal debate and have served as a debate coach on a couple of occasions which is where I taught logical fallacies. But I do love to teach and apparently am pretty good at it has I have had many many opportunities to do that over the years.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the attempt to disprove hypotheses, along with the invitation to criticism and retesting, is what has made science such a useful, predictive, and productive modality.

Yes. I myself don't set out to disprove a hypothesis but I do sometimes check them out or get more information. Okay in the political world, I sometimes look for material to use to dispute what I think is a particularly erroneous or shall we say 'stupid' comment, but in the area of science and religion, both of which I am intensely interested, I enjoy exchanging ideas and concepts and understanding with those who also enjoy that kind of exercise. Those who set up to prove another wrong and/or cannot argue a concept without introducing a toxic element into it are not my cup of tea.

Those who believe in literal Biblical or other theist creation stories have deep emotional conflict with the Theory of Evolution. Since their beliefs do them no harm and are valuable to them, I allow them their faith and do not try to convince them differently. And while I know God is and I believe He created all that exists, I personally am not conflicted between that belief and evolution. But then I don't believe evolution or even all the science we have can answer many questions a thinking human can have. There is so very much that we do not know.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought you said science didn't evolve.

Good.
Noöne is saying that science explains all that exists, and evolution's explanations only concern the mechanisms of change within populations.

The constraints of all the sciences are the laws and constants of nature and mathematics. A God bound by these would be a god with no more power than we have.
To create ex nihilo; to speak a thing into existence or breathe life into a thing, is to circumvent the normal constraints of nature. This has never been observed. Proposed examples have always been found explicable by ordinary chemistry or physics.

God retreats to the margins of science, residing today in abiogenesis or Big Bang cosmology, where science has not yet worked out the details.

Science does not evolve. Science is absolute unless God decides to alter the laws of science for whatever reason. (The Bible story of Jesus calming the wind and waves of the storm comes to mine.) Our knowledge of science evolves and I believe we have a very long way to go to understand a lot of it let alone all there is to know. As for the rest of your comment I think I probably addressed that in my post #3,019 responding to you.