Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

M

I was wondering if someone would take the bait. I purposefully wrote that “Seems to.”

And you took issue with it, revealing a negative tone.

Take your words and apply it to this:

“All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.”

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

But, to you, this is fact, huh?


“Of course it always seems to. That is kind of the
point of what I've said about ignorance and self-deception.”

There are so many “seems to” in papers supporting evolution!

Not being able to understand scientific language does not refute it. An actual scientist's "seems to" beats all creation scientist claims to he. . . oops, I mean to the Discovery Toot and back.

 

[Jim]

I was wondering if someone would take the bait. I purposefully wrote that “Seems to.”

And you took issue with it, revealing a negative tone.

Take your words and apply it to this:

“All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.”

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

But, to you, this is fact, huh?


“Of course it always seems to. That is kind of the
point of what I've said about ignorance and self-deception.”

There are so many “seems to” in papers supporting evolution!

The debating here about evolution looks to me like it revolves around journalistic and factional spins on what researchers are saying, and not what they are actually saying. They might each have their own personal views about a universal common ancestor, but I don’t see any of them claiming to have proof of that. The only thing I’ve seen any of them trying to prove is that one model or another is the best way to model the data. Theobald isn’t even claiming that the universal common ancestor model is the most accurate. He says explicitly that he’s comparing models by a balance between accuracy and simplicity. Some other researchers are even saying that there isn’t any single model that is the best model for all purposes.

I’m not sure that I know what your interests are in discussions about evolution, but if it’s about helping to stop the spread of misinformation, I’ll say again that my response has been to learn more about what researchers are actually saying, and post about what I’ve been learning.

 

[Audie]

I was wondering if someone would take the bait. I purposefully wrote that “Seems to.”

And you took issue with it, revealing a negative tone.

Take your words and apply it to this:

“All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.”

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

But, to you, this is fact, huh?


“Of course it always seems to. That is kind of the
point of what I've said about ignorance and self-deception.”

There are so many “seems to” in papers supporting evolution!

"Seem to" is a fact, to me? Why does your argument rely on
making up an insulting lie?

Shall we await a sincere and thoughtful expkanation for
your "Christian" behaviour?

We wont expect you to figure out the roke of facts / data,
and those of speculation and theory in sceince, for lo,
such, like being deprived of falsehoods, would sink your
"arguments" to nonexistence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not a personal enemy; of rational logical honest and
unsuperstitious thought, yes.

As promoters of such regressive anti intellectualism,
fundies are definitely public enemies.

Telling that you think I labelled you as our friend's
enemy when you were not mentioned? Have you
made him unwelcome? Why must you insert
yourself where you dont belong?

Opponents perhaps, but considering the strength of effort promoting anti-intellectualism, enemy also fits.

 

[dad]

The debating here about evolution looks to me like it revolves around journalistic and factional spins on what researchers are saying, and not what they are actually saying. They might each have their own personal views about a universal common ancestor, but I don’t see any of them claiming to have proof of that. The only thing I’ve seen any of them trying to prove is that one model or another is the best way to model the data. Theobald isn’t even claiming that the universal common ancestor model is the most accurate. He says explicitly that he’s comparing models by a balance between accuracy and simplicity. Some other researchers are even saying that there isn’t any single model that is the best model for all purposes.

I’m not sure that I know what your interests are in discussions about evolution, but if it’s about helping to stop the spread of misinformation, I’ll say again that my response has been to learn more about what researchers are actually saying, and post about what I’ve been learning.

They are actually saying that God is a liar, and that (whatever nuances they prefer to adopt in their beliefs of origins) life actually came about of itself.

 

[dad]

As noted elsewhere, public enemies.

It all depends on what part of the public your perspective comes from. God's part of the people or Satan's crowd. Never the twain shall meet. Of course they are enemies.

 

[dad]

Opponents perhaps, but considering the strength of effort promoting anti-intellectualism, enemy also fits.

Intellectualism is not defined by or limited to your belief set and preferences. Like many religions, so-called science demonizes other beliefs and considers them enemies.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Opponents perhaps, but considering the strength of effort promoting anti-intellectualism, enemy also fits.

So, now you’re equating my opposition to common descent evolution, with “anti-intellectualism”?

Because I support the definition of evolution as “change over time”....enough to accept the current definition of macro-evolution, to some degrees.

If there were no problems within the field of evolution, there wouldn’t be any need or call for an overhaul, as those supporting EES state.
There would be much more consensus between paleontologists, which is evidently lacking...as seen with the movement of B-A-N-D, and other hotly contested areas of the field of evolution.

What’s the phrase? “A House Divided Will Not Stand.”

 

[Audie]

So, now you’re equating my opposition to common descent evolution, with “anti-intellectualism”?

Because I support the definition of evolution as “change over time”....enough to accept the current definition of macro-evolution, to some degrees.

If there were no problems within the field of evolution, there wouldn’t be any need or call for an overhaul, as those supporting EES state.
There would be much more consensus between paleontologists, which is evidently lacking...as seen with the movement of B-A-N-D, and other hotly contested areas of the field of evolution.

What’s the phrase? “A House Divided Will Not Stand.”

Your approach to science is in fact profoundly
anti intellectual, even if you can find a way to
phrase some detail to make a cute argument.

"House divided" is a nice truism, which like
so many others is not necessarily or often
true.

"It's never too late" is a good one. But how often
is it true? It is for sure too late for me to be
Ms America.

If "house divided" (whatever a "house" might
be) is reliably true (regardless of what degree
of division on what) then Chridtianity cannot
stand.

And of course, diversity of competing ideas is
fundamental to science, not the reason that
ToE will collapse, as you try to imply.

But we get it that innuendo is whatcha got,
and it is hard to "refute".

If you had even one fact contrary to ToE
you'd surely have posted it by now.

 

[Jim]

So, now you’re equating my opposition to common descent evolution, with “anti-intellectualism”?

Because I support the definition of evolution as “change over time”....enough to accept the current definition of macro-evolution, to some degrees.

If there were no problems within the field of evolution, there wouldn’t be any need or call for an overhaul, as those supporting EES state.
There would be much more consensus between paleontologists, which is evidently lacking...as seen with the movement of B-A-N-D, and other hotly contested areas of the field of evolution.

What’s the phrase? “A House Divided Will Not Stand.”

Is it okay for me to come in late in this conversation and ask precisely what you’re opposing? Is it the belief that there actually was a form of life that was an ancestor of all life on earth? I’m not convinced either way, but it seems more likely to me that there wasn’t.

 

[Audie]

Is it okay for me to come in late in this conversation and ask precisely what you’re opposing? Is it the belief that there actually was a form of life that was an ancestor of all life on earth? I’m not convinced either way, but it seems more likely to me that there wasn’t.

Good q.

ToE is unchanged whether or not "first life" had one or multiple places
where it first stirred.

If your notion is that human beings are a wholly unique line of descent from
such stirrings, your belief is as unmoored in fact as any of HC's .

 

[Jim]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I decided to go back to the beginning to see what your point might be. If you’re talking about the personal opinions of people posting in these forums, it looks more to me like misunderstanding and misrepresenting what researchers are saying, and what “universal common ancestor” means to them. If you’re talking about what the researchers themselves are saying, I think that most of them would agree that constructing trees of life is based on assumptions and involves a lot guesswork and made up stories. It might be true that they all think that there really was a common universal ancestor, and part of the motivation for some of the research might be wanting to prove that, and even sometimes to discredit creationism, but most of what I see them saying and doing doesn’t look like that to me. What it looks like to me is discussing the pros and cons of different ways of arranging the names of all plant and animal species in a diagram. According to articles I’ve read, that goes back to a long time before Darwin. After Darwin the idea of a tree became popular, but now some researchers are saying that it would be better to think of it as a network. Most of them are still agreeing to include something in it that they call a “universal common ancestor,” but I don’t think that any of them think of any of the research as proof that there ever really was such a thing.

 

[Jim]

Good q.

ToE is unchanged whether or not "first life" had one or multiple places
where it first stirred.

If your notion is that human beings are a wholly unique line of descent from
such stirrings, your belief is as unmoored in fact as any of HC's .

I have two notions. One is that there might be many trees of life with no common ancestry between them. I’m not sure that anyone is actually disagreeing with that. The other is that humans might be in a tree of our own, separate from all the others. I haven’t seen any good reason for thinking that’s true, but I haven’t seen any good reason for thinking that it isn’t, either.

 

[Audie]

I decided to go back to the beginning to see what your point might be. If you’re talking about the personal opinions of people posting in these forums, it looks more to me like misunderstanding and misrepresenting what researchers are saying, and what “universal common ancestor” means to them. If you’re talking about what the researchers themselves are saying, I think that most of them would agree that constructing trees of life is based on assumptions and involves a lot guesswork and made up stories. It might be true that they all think that there really was a common universal ancestor, and part of the motivation for some of the research might be wanting to prove that, and even sometimes to discredit creationism, but most of what I see them saying and doing doesn’t look like that to me. What it looks like to me is discussing the pros and cons of different ways of arranging the names of all plant and animal species in a diagram. According to articles I’ve read, that goes back to a long time before Darwin. After Darwin the idea of a tree became popular, but now some researchers are saying that it would be better to think of it as a network. Most of them are still agreeing to include something in it that they call a “universal common ancestor,” but I don’t think that any of them think of any of the research as proof that there ever really was such a thing.

Simpler to say, is that @nPeace is stating his
baseless beliefs, and descending into gross
falsehood, especially the "presupposition",
being as presupposition is, the exact intellectual
dishonesty that is the very core and foundation
of creationism.

As for you you're hardly a half notch better, with your
"guesses and made up stories"- and your 100 percent
fact-free prattle about multiple lines of descent.

May we humbly suggest that both of you refrain from
projecting your faults on to others, and from making
any claims against the science you two so dimly perceive
until you have at least ONE actual datum point to bring to
the table?

All this general talk about stories and assumptions does
nothing but underline what you guys have- nothing.

 

[nPeace]

I decided to go back to the beginning to see what your point might be. If you’re talking about the personal opinions of people posting in these forums, it looks more to me like misunderstanding and misrepresenting what researchers are saying, and what “universal common ancestor” means to them. If you’re talking about what the researchers themselves are saying, I think that most of them would agree that constructing trees of life is based on assumptions and involves a lot guesswork and made up stories. It might be true that they all think that there really was a common universal ancestor, and part of the motivation for some of the research might be wanting to prove that, and even sometimes to discredit creationism, but most of what I see them saying and doing doesn’t look like that to me. What it looks like to me is discussing the pros and cons of different ways of arranging the names of all plant and animal species in a diagram. According to articles I’ve read, that goes back to a long time before Darwin. After Darwin the idea of a tree became popular, but now some researchers are saying that it would be better to think of it as a network. Most of them are still agreeing to include something in it that they call a “universal common ancestor,” but I don’t think that any of them think of any of the research as proof that there ever really was such a thing.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps you are saying that the idea of universal common ancestry (UCA), is considered the only, and best current model for explaining the diversity of life on earth, but if you are asking what my main point is, I would say, it is basically this : There is no verifiable evidence that can demonstrate that the circumstantial evidence gathered, really supports the idea of UCA.
So really, it is not a scientific fact. It is nothing more than a belief... similar to a religious belief.

 

[Audie]

I have two notions. One is that there might be many trees of life with no common ancestry between them. I’m not sure that anyone is actually disagreeing with that. The other is that humans might be in a tree of our own, separate from all the others. I haven’t seen any good reason for thinking that’s true, but I haven’t seen any good reason for thinking that it isn’t, either.

There might be. No "total" disagreement is reasonable. (Hint: science does not
work that way)

There is zero data FOR human unque line. Thst outta be a clue that
this is a pointless topic.

If you've never seen any contrary evidence, -wow- you have seen so
very much less about ToE than I had even guessed! How did you
ever even manage that?

 

[Audie]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps you are saying that the idea of universal common ancestry (UCA), is considered the only, and best current model for explaining the diversity of life on earth, but if you are asking what my main point is, I would say, it is basically this : There is no verifiable evidence that can demonstrate that the circumstantial evidence gathered, really supports the idea of UCA.
So really, it is not a scientific fact. It is nothing more than a belief... similar to a religious belief.

Of course what you think "supports" or is "verifiable"
is tightly controlled by your presuppositions.
See "flood", an absurdity of magnificent proportions.

Dont deny it! "Faith", make hard your face, and all that
rot about belief in spite of any or everything is key to
Christianity.


As for scientific fact, we are not the ones who confuse
fact with theory.

I doubt you could even identify a "scientific fact"
found in any sciebtific publication.

And I know you will never post one datum point contrary to
ToE, without which all else you can say is no more than blather.

 

[ecco]

When looking at Gensisis one needs to consider the relative ignorance of the people who wrote it.

Better to understand the demonstrated ignorance of those who read it!

Did you really just call yourself and your fellow fundamentalists demonstrably ignorant? Really?!?

 

[ecco]

Nation of Israel, from whom the Messiah would come.

Mary was from the Nation of Israel? There is nothing in the genealogies to show a clear line of descent from Noah to Mary.

 

[Jim]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps you are saying that the idea of universal common ancestry (UCA), is considered the only, and best current model for explaining the diversity of life on earth, but if you are asking what my main point is, I would say, it is basically this : There is no verifiable evidence that can demonstrate that the circumstantial evidence gathered, really supports the idea of UCA.
So really, it is not a scientific fact. It is nothing more than a belief... similar to a religious belief.

I think that most or all of the researchers might actually believe that there really was a form of life that was an ancestor of all life on earth today. That’s their personal opinion. Most or all of them might try to keep their personal opinions out of their discussions about their research, but maybe they don’t always succeed. What the discussions are about is the pros and cons of different ways of arranging all plant and animal species in a diagram. They’re all agreeing more or less on picturing the top part of it as a tree with branches representing lines of ancestry. They’re all agreeing to have something at the bottom that they call a “universal common ancestor.” I don’t actually see any harm in that, other than being a waste of time and ink.