Evolution My ToE

[shunyadragon]

There is a reason they don't see your point. I understand.

So there are different opinions. my point exactly. I can find numerous, but I won't waste our time.

In science opinions do not count. neither do religious agendas..

 

[nPeace]

Now please. These are not mere opinons. That is what you post. They are what appear to be rather uncomfortable facts that you do not appear to be able to deal with.

You complain about rudeness and dishonesty and you are guilty of both in that post. If you want people to be polite to you then be polite to them.

There you go again. You don't last very long, do you.

 

[nPeace]

There's nothing "subjective" about this. These are objective predictions that naturally flow from the model.
Like when a fresh layer of snow fell during the night and there is a hypothesis that person X left his house that same morning at 8, there is a prediction that naturally flows from that saying "then there should be footprints left in the snow".

Like if there there is a hypothesis that earlier today there was a fire in your car, that there should now be remnants of said fire, like blackened carseats or whatever.

It's pure cause and effect. Not subjective at all.

If humans and chimps share a young ancestor, then we should share more genetic markers with chimps then we do with dogs, with whom we share a much older ancestor. And if we find that we in fact share more markers with dogs then with chimps, then the hypothesis of us sharing a younger ancestor with chimps is necessarily incorrect.

If that prediction were "subjective" then we could just change our minds when we see it doesn't work. But we can't. Because the prediction is OBJECTIVE. "if a, then b". if we find c instead of be, then it naturally and objectively follows that "a" is incorrect at worst. At best, there is another still unknown factor X missing from A, which made the prediction itself wrong while a is essentially still correct.

Again: nothing about this, is subjective. This is not just "opinion".




Direct observation isn't always possible. But that doesn't mean that we therefor can't know anything about it.

Just about every murder or other crime can't be directly observed or repeated. But surely you understand that that doesn't stop us from being able to solve said crimes, right?





No. It's not opinion. It's objective analysis of data, drawing conclusions and then testing your conclusions.



I want to discuss it, but only with someone who is actually interested and can be intellectually honest about it.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that predictions of evolution theory, like some of the examples I've given, are objective in nature. What use is it to discuss the evidence with someone, if that someone couldn't even recognise the concept of evidence if there life dependend on it?

It's like this stuff hasn't been explained to you countless times already.

But I'm a patient man and I have faith (ha!) in your capacity to think rationally and logically and honestly. So whenever you're ready, we are here for you. But keep in mind that opening up your mind to the actual science WILL force you to rethink some of the core fundamentalist dogma's you are religiously required to adhere to.



Those posts have already been addressed by others and explained to you.

Okay. Two things. Apply your analogies to what you said after. I see hypothetical that don't apply, because it can be a situation of finding out who left the house, or was it a male and female, and it can be a case of finding out what caused the fire. You made it convenient for yourself.
It's subjective period. You have not shown otherwise.

Feel free not to discuss it with me, that shall be quite fine with me. In fact it would be a blessing, because you just like to say things without any support. The scientific papers do not even agree with your assertions. Find one.

Finally, you say that people addressed the posts. Show me one that did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again. You don't last very long, do you.

There was nothing wrong with that post. Your complaint shows that it hit home. It was some helpful advice. If you followed it you would not have get all but hurt and put people on ignore time after time. Just remember, for you to demand that people be polite you have to be polite yourself in the first place..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. Two things. Apply your analogies to what you said after. I see hypothetical that don't apply, because it can be a situation of finding out who left the house, or was it a male and female, and it can be a case of finding out what caused the fire. You made it convenient for yourself.
It's subjective period. You have not shown otherwise.

Feel free not to discuss it with me, that shall be quite fine with me. In fact it would be a blessing, because you just like to say things without any support. The scientific papers do not even agree with your assertions. Find one.

Finally, you say that people addressed the posts. Show me one that did.

He used simpler examples so that you could understand. He did not "make it easy on himself". You tried to change the argument, once again that is not proper. Deal with the argument presented to you.

This is also why I keep telling you that you need to learn what is and what is not evolution. But sadly it does not look as if you want to learn. You want excuses to keep believing a myth that was debunked a long time ago.

 

[nPeace]

In science opinions do not count. neither do religious agendas..

So if the papers disagree, what are they?

Scientific opinion
"Scientific opinion" may reflect opinions on scientific concerns as articulated by one or more scientists, published in scholarly journals or respected textbooks, both of which entail peer-review and rigorous professional editing. It may also refer to opinions published by professional, academic, or governmental organizations about scientific findings and their possible implications.

A related—but not identical—term, scientific consensus, is the prevailing view on a scientific topic within the scientific community, such as the scientific opinion on climate change.

Scientific opinion(s) can be "partial, temporally contingent, conflicting, and uncertain" so that there may be no accepted consensus for a particular situation. In other circumstances, a particular scientific opinion may be at odds with consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review.


Seems to me you are making a baseless assertions again.
Is that why you only repeat yourself when asked to address the assertions you made in the post you refused to respond to?
The one I was waiting forever for, and you still have not responded.

How is it, you can respond to my posts now, but you cannot respond to the one where you were asked to support the stuff 'it seems apparent to me, you made up?

Should I ever believe anything you say on these forums, about science, or anything else, then?

Do you or do you not understand the definition of macro-evolution?

What does that have to do with what was written in the science paper?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does that have to do with what was written in the science paper?

Have you not time after time denied macroevolution? This dodge of yours indicates that you did not read the papers supplied.

 

[Jose Fly]

No. You have it all wrong my friend.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Allow me to trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry to clarify.
There are a lot of questions you are asking. I try to answer them as clear as possible, but you seem not to get it,even when I break it down... and why is that?
I think it's your mindset. If you are telling me something and in my mind I have 1) a presumption about you, and 2) a plan to act on that presumption, I'll miss what you are saying... every time.

In my mind, whatever you say has no bearing on what I think.
The other thing I am going to be doing, is trying to lead you to where I want to get you - to what I have presumed. Also, I will not be paying attention. That will cause me to miss things too.

My questions will be formed in such a way as to bring out from you, what is in my mind.
For example... questions like what I think about a hypothetical, or idea - that I don't even believe is true.

I'm not going to give yo what you want.
If you want an answer you will get one, but not what you are drawing me to say.

First, I'm not sure what mistaken "presumption" you think I have about you. So if you could clarify, that would help.

Second, as I've said since the outset of our more recent discussions, I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to change your mind on anything.

I'm not going to support what you believe either, just because you believe it so strongly, and want me to believe it.

Let me be absolutely clear again....I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to change your mind on anything. In fact, given the stakes at play for you on this subject and what you'd face personally if you did change your mind, I honestly think it's probably best you stay where you're at.

Do you want an example?
I believe the cell was purposefully designed with the mechanisms for repairing, resisting, and removing or eliminating foreign invaders or problems to the genome. If that's what you are asking, it's a yes.
Does that answer your question Also, do you believe God deliberately designed bacteria to have the ability to resist antibiotics?
That answer was not too long ago given to you, here.
Yet, you asked again.

The problem is, that really doesn't answer the question I asked. You didn't specify whether you believe God did the "purposeful designing". That was the main point of the question. Remember, we had earlier agreed that any entity that "designed" bacteria to resist antibiotics was evil, so it seemed important to me to have you clarify exactly who you believed the "designer" was that gave bacteria the ability to resist antibiotics.

I know you believe no layman has the right, the knowledge, or he expertise to question a scientist or the work of scientists, and I know when you are acting on that mindset.

Well, that's another misconception on your part. I've specifically and emphatically stated otherwise directly to you.

So let me be absolutely clear.....everyone has the right to question the work of scientists. However, everyone does not have the right to have scientists take everything they say seriously. If you want to be taken seriously by scientists, you'd better bring something significant to the table.

I also know that you have not removed the mindset that Creationists who don't belief as you do, do so because of religion. You know the funny thing about that, which I keep trying to point out, religious people believe as you do, so why do they, if it's a religious thing?

Now that is indeed true. I see someone like you who doesn't really know much about evolutionary biology (so much so that you ask extremely basic questions), but also adamantly argues against it, even to the point of spending countless hours online arguing against it. That raises an obvious question....if you don't really know the science, why are you so eager to argue against it? The fact that you belong to a religious group that requires its members to oppose evolutionary biology, and enforces that via the threat of social and emotional ruin answers that question.

IOW, if your position were based purely on science, then I would expect you to actually know the science quite well. The fact that you don't indicates that something else is going on.

Another thing, Atheist who once believed like you do, stopped believing. Why? Because of their religious agenda? LOL
They had no religion... except Darwinism. So ask yourself, why would a person, knowing that "religious people are so ignorant" leave the creme de la creme, where the experts reside in the luxury of intelligence, to join a group of backward people? Did he become stupid overnight?
Ah. He was brainwashed.

He stuck his head in that book of myths, and he lost his mind, and all reason, or ability to think.
Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses did telepathy on him from a distance, so he got stupiditus, and joined some religious group.

I honestly have no idea. Unless it's someone I know, or someone who's written an account of their change, I am unable to say.

So technically, all religious people are really under the Jehovah's Witness spell... when they oppose Darwinism. Crackpots.

You do realize that the Witnesses aren't the only religious group that opposes evolutionary biology, right?

I can't change your mindset, and I told you at the outset of talking to you again, that you can keep singing your Jehovah's Witness song. If it brings you peace, that's cool. I already set that in my mind that it's set in your mind, so I don't expect it to dislodge any time soon. It may be there till you die.

Well honestly, larger picture-wise, I don't think what motivates you on this really matters much. It's just that I find it fascinating how so many creationists are ashamed to say that the main factor in their views on evolution is how it conflicts with their reading of scripture.

I'm not thinking about that, but if you think you will get me to agree with you, I am really sorry for you.
You really want me to believe everything you do? Come on Fly.
It's one thing to want me to believe the Darwinian concept, but to believe that I have lost my mind and can't think for myself...

As I've said repeatedly, I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to change your mind on anything.

Do I avoid talking about design, and the intelligent designer? Seriously? Ha. That's the furthest thing from the truth. Ha ha ha.
That's all I can do - laugh.
I find there are people who demand stuff from Creationists, and when they post it, those people are nowhere to be seen, and if they take a peek, they can only make a disparaging comment and then disappear, only to turn up again, when they think the "course is clear".

If you have time, I urge you to look back through our discussions of junk DNA, stick insects, natural selection, and mutations, and pay particular attention to the amount of time we spent on those subjects and the level of detail we got into. Then compare that with your posts about "design". The differences are pretty stark.

So, Mr. Fly, you have it all wrong.

I'm sorry to hear that. But as is now evident, you've gotten a few things wrong yourself, most notably how you're thinking I'm trying to persuade you. And now that I think about it some more, didn't we cover this before in this thread? Yeah, we did when you started accusing me of being "serpent like", and you said about yourself ...

"I think with me, I tend to pick up on, or be more sensitive to perceived deception, because of dealing with it at a young age. So once I get any "whiff" of it, it tends to trigger a reaction.
It's like, "once bitten, twice shy"."​

Is it possible that once again your past is causing you to mistakenly think I'm up to something nefarious? Like I said back then, I've really gone out of my way to be as polite and non-confrontational with you as I can. It's kinda sad that it seems to have been in vain.

Oh. The thread is opened. The OP hasn't changed, and I am not done. So if you feel there is lots more to discuss, be my guess.
We touched on natural selection, mutations, although I don't think we came to a clear understanding... not on my part. . I explained above. Personally, I think you try to avoid admitting to assumptions.
That would be a good path to trek.

I suppose. Specific to "assumptions", what I see is you being innately prone to black/white thinking (which isn't uncommon), which causes you to struggle with the type of nuanced, "shades of gray" thinking that's essential in science.

Not everyone is cut out for the sciences, just like how not everyone is cut out to be a pastor.

 

[nPeace]

There was nothing wrong with that post. Your complaint shows that it hit home. It was some helpful advice. If you followed it you would not have get all but hurt and put people on ignore time after time. Just remember, for you to demand that people be polite you have to be polite yourself in the first place..

I don't think I am being impolite, or rude.
How is saying this rude?
There is a reason they don't see your point. I understand.

So there are different opinions. my point exactly. I can find numerous, but I won't waste our time.

Which part is rude or impolite?
I think you just target me for no good reason, and that is why I stop responding to you, because you seem to want to dictate how I say every word - for no good reason, but I don't think your motive is genuine, no matter how you try to claim that. I know your deeds. They are not new to me.

I'm being rude for saying that too, right?
Be careful. Your thread is getting thinner.
Perhaps you can't answer my questions, and that's fine. I will exclude you. There is no need to make excuses to get on my bad side.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are lying dude. I don't own up to lies, or anything I did not say, or do.
You seem to think it's okay to lie... Is that something you do so regularly, it has become so ingrained.
Go ahead. Adjust your words, again.... and as you cleverly twisted in the post before.
Try to fabricate more lies.
Are you not ashamed of such tactics?
I don't believe this is the behavior of your Bahai brothers. I don't think Bahaullah would preach it either.

Every eyeball that reads Post #1102 can see that you are lying and fabricating lies.
Why don't you say what the post really says?

I just went back and checked.
In post #1102, you said this:

"Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think I am being impolite, or rude.
How is saying this rude?
There is a reason they don't see your point. I understand.

So there are different opinions. my point exactly. I can find numerous, but I won't waste our time.

Which part is rude or impolite?
I think you just target me for no good reason, and that is why I stop responding to you, because you seem to want to dictate how I say every word - for no good reason, but I don't think your motive is genuine, no matter how you try to claim that. I know your deeds. They are not new to me.

I'm being rude for saying that too, right?
Be careful. Your thread is getting thinner.
Perhaps you can't answer my questions, and that's fine. I will exclude you. There is no need to make excuses to get on my bad side.

You are now playing semantics games. A "scientific opinion" is totally different from the sort of opinion that you have. If you want to debate it is dishonest to use terms that are prejudicial. The difference in scientific opinion is relatively minor. Much less so than the difference in opinion between Christian sects. If you want to disprove evolution by using that sort of argument then the existence of Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses "disproves" Christianity. You would laugh at someone that tried to refute your beliefs using that sort of argument. And if a person insisted on it after being corrected many times you would probably think that that person was dishonest.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly & @Subduction Zone what do you think of a theory that is supported only by circumstantial evidence alone, where there is no direct evidence

That's the case with every explanation for every pre-historical event. Since no one was there to directly observe the event, all the evidence for it will be circumstantial, by necessity. But that doesn't mean we can't draw solid, reasonable conclusions about those events. We do that all the time in courts of law, even to the point of sentencing people to death.

and the only evidence that can be observable, is not testable?

Not sure what you mean, since if the evidence is observable, it is testable.

How confident are you in it, and why?

I'm very confident in it, because all the available evidence from multiple fields of science is consistent with it. There are even young-earth creationists who are honest enough to admit this to be true...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...

...Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

Why do you have confidence in the methodologies that are all subjective, and based on opinions of researchers?

As I explained earlier, because it works. The understanding of the evolutionary history of life on earth has led to new fields of science, new avenues of research, beneficial and productive discoveries, and an increased understanding of the world around us.

Are you fully convinced? Why?

See above....it works.

What do you consider the most convincing evidence?

Now this is yet another aspect of your way of thinking that doesn't lend itself to science very well. You're thinking of each piece of evidence all by itself, isolated from all the other pieces of evidence, and concluding since that one piece doesn't "prove" UCA all by itself, then it's not really evidence for UCA. That's like getting a jigsaw puzzle that's supposed to be a picture of a tiger, holding up each individual puzzle piece, saying to yourself "this isn't a picture of a tiger", and on that basis concluding that the idea of the puzzle showing a tiger is a fraud or hoax.

With both the puzzle and UCA, it's when you put all the pieces of evidence together that the picture emerges.

 

[nPeace]

I'm sorry to hear that.


First, I'm not sure what mistaken "presumption" you think I have about you. So if you could clarify, that would help.

Second, as I've said since the outset of our more recent discussions, I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to change your mind on anything.


Let me be absolutely clear again....I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to change your mind on anything. In fact, given the stakes at play for you on this subject and what you'd face personally if you did change your mind, I honestly think it's probably best you stay where you're at.


The problem is, that really doesn't answer the question I asked. You didn't specify whether you believe God did the "purposeful designing". That was the main point of the question. Remember, we had earlier agreed that any entity that "designed" bacteria to resist antibiotics was evil, so it seemed important to me to have you clarify exactly who you believed the "designer" was that gave bacteria the ability to resist antibiotics.

First. Where did we agree that any entity that "designed" bacteria to resist antibiotics was evil?

Well, that's another misconception on your part. I've specifically and emphatically stated otherwise directly to you.

So let me be absolutely clear.....everyone has the right to question the work of scientists. However, everyone does not have the right to have scientists take everything they say seriously. If you want to be taken seriously by scientists, you'd better bring something significant to the table.


Now that is indeed true. I see someone like you who doesn't really know much about evolutionary biology (so much so that you ask extremely basic questions), but also adamantly argues against it, even to the point of spending countless hours online arguing against it. That raises an obvious question....if you don't really know the science, why are you so eager to argue against it? The fact that you belong to a religious group that requires its members to oppose evolutionary biology, and enforces that via the threat of social and emotional ruin answers that question.

IOW, if your position were based purely on science, then I would expect you to actually know the science quite well. The fact that you don't indicates that something else is going on.

When you say I don't know much about evolutionary biology, please be more specific. In other words, give a detailed elaboration.

I honestly have no idea. Unless it's someone I know, or someone who's written an account of their change, I am unable to say.


You do realize that the Witnesses aren't the only religious group that opposes evolutionary biology, right?


Well honestly, larger picture-wise, I don't think what motivates you on this really matters much. It's just that I find it fascinating how so many creationists are ashamed to say that the main factor in their views on evolution is how it conflicts with their reading of scripture.


As I've said repeatedly, I have absolutely no intention of persuading you to change your mind on anything.


If you have time, I urge you to look back through our discussions of junk DNA, stick insects, natural selection, and mutations, and pay particular attention to the amount of time we spent on those subjects and the level of detail we got into. Then compare that with your posts about "design". The differences are pretty stark.

Stick insects took a short time. The other took a long time, not because I didn't understand them, but 1) it took you quite a bit of time to understand the point I was making, and up till this point you still don't seem to understand. 2) You were disagreeing with me, and I with you, and we were taking our time trying to help each other look at our side of the argument. 3) I think because you had the presumption that I did not understand, you took long routes to come to a point I already knew, and that was unnecessary, but I think that was because of your helpful nature, to teach someone, whom you believed did not understand.
None of that had to do with my not understanding. The shortest one - stick insect - was the only one you clarified for me, because I did not have some data, which you filled in for me.
I don't think it is fair for you to paint that picture, but I'm good.

I'm sorry to hear that. But as is now evident, you've gotten a few things wrong yourself, most notably how you're thinking I'm trying to persuade you. And now that I think about it some more, didn't we cover this before in this thread? Yeah, we did when you started accusing me of being "serpent like", and you said about yourself ...

"I think with me, I tend to pick up on, or be more sensitive to perceived deception, because of dealing with it at a young age. So once I get any "whiff" of it, it tends to trigger a reaction.
It's like, "once bitten, twice shy"."​

Is it possible that once again your past is causing you to mistakenly think I'm up to something nefarious? Like I said back then, I've really gone out of my way to be as polite and non-confrontational with you as I can. It's kinda sad that it seems to have been in vain.

Why do you think it was in vain? Is it a bad thing for humans to have perceptions - even if wrong at times?

I suppose. Specific to "assumptions", what I see is you being innately prone to black/white thinking (which isn't uncommon), which causes you to struggle with the type of nuanced, "shades of gray" thinking that's essential in science.

Not everyone is cut out for the sciences, just like how not everyone is cut out to be a pastor.

I only have a different view. I understand life to be that way. It's not odd, or foreign, to the human race. Nor is it expected that the whole world will agree with the way we see things.

Let me know if you feel your time is being wasted with this though. You probably are a busy man. Remember though, you are the one who said there is lots more to discuss.
I really have no problem who want to drop out. It has happened before, but i'm good.

 

[nPeace]

That's the case with every explanation for every pre-historical event. Since no one was there to directly observe the event, all the evidence for it will be circumstantial, by necessity. But that doesn't mean we can't draw solid, reasonable conclusions about those events. We do that all the time in courts of law, even to the point of sentencing people to death.


Not sure what you mean, since if the evidence is observable, it is testable.


I'm very confident in it, because all the available evidence from multiple fields of science is consistent with it. There are even young-earth creationists who are honest enough to admit this to be true...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...

...Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

As I explained earlier, because it works. The understanding of the evolutionary history of life on earth has led to new fields of science, new avenues of research, beneficial and productive discoveries, and an increased understanding of the world around us.


See above....it works.


Now this is yet another aspect of your way of thinking that doesn't lend itself to science very well. You're thinking of each piece of evidence all by itself, isolated from all the other pieces of evidence, and concluding since that one piece doesn't "prove" UCA all by itself, then it's not really evidence for UCA. That's like getting a jigsaw puzzle that's supposed to be a picture of a tiger, holding up each individual puzzle piece, saying to yourself "this isn't a picture of a tiger", and on that basis concluding that the idea of the puzzle showing a tiger is a fraud or hoax.

With both the puzzle and UCA, it's when you put all the pieces of evidence together that the picture emerges.

Thanks for answering.
Do you have time to clarify a few things, and answer questions in relation to them?
I don't want to take up your time, unless you permit me.

 

[Jose Fly]

First. Where did we agree that any entity that "designed" bacteria to resist antibiotics was evil?

In THIS POST I said...

"the idea that some entity is secretly directing mutations would mean that entity is pretty evil, given how so many mutations are the bane of our existence. I mean, is this entity trying to mess with us by giving bacteria and pests the ability to resist our treatments? Is it deliberately giving people cancer?"​

You replied...

That makes a lot of sense.
Just wanted to know which side you were on.​

I took that as you agreeing with me. If I was wrong on that, I apologize. Also, if I'm wrong on this can you clarify? Do you believe God deliberately designed bacteria to resist antibiotics?

When you say I don't know much about evolutionary biology, please be more specific. In other words, give a detailed elaboration.

You've been asking high school level questions about natural selection, mutations, molecular genetics, and population genetics. I don't mind answering them at all, but the fact that you felt the need to ask such questions, plus how it's apparent that you've not taken any college level courses in evolutionary biology, haven't spent time reading scientific journals, or attended evolutionary biology conferences....all indicates to me that your level of knowledge on the subject is.....well....about at the general high school level.

And again to be clear, that's fine. I don't expect you to have expert level knowledge of the subject. In fact, I'd be shocked if you did. It's a very technical field of science that requires years and years of education and experience to fully grasp (just like most other fields of science).

Stick insects took a short time. The other took a long time, not because I didn't understand them, but 1) it took you quite a bit of time to understand the point I was making, and up till this point you still don't seem to understand. 2) You were disagreeing with me, and I with you, and we were taking our time trying to help each other look at our side of the argument. 3) I think because you had the presumption that I did not understand, you took long routes to come to a point I already knew, and that was unnecessary, but I think that was because of your helpful nature, to teach someone, whom you believed did not understand.
None of that had to do with my not understanding. The shortest one - stick insect - was the only one you clarified for me, because I did not have some data, which you filled in for me.
I don't think it is fair for you to paint that picture, but I'm good.

This seems like you're saying you already knew the answers to all the questions you've been asking me. Is that true?

Why do you think it was in vain? Is it a bad thing for humans to have perceptions - even if wrong at times?

Because in your post to me it seemed like you were going back to the notion that I was being serpent like and trying to persuade you towards something that you believe to be of Satan. In my mind, all I was doing was answering the questions you asked as best I could.

I only have a different view. I understand life to be that way. It's not odd, or foreign, to the human race. Nor is it expected that the whole world will agree with the way we see things.

I absolutely agree.

Let me know if you feel your time is being wasted with this though. You probably are a busy man. Remember though, you are the one who said there is lots more to discuss.
I really have no problem who want to drop out. It has happened before, but i'm good.

No, I'm not seeking to drop out of the discussion. I was hoping we'd spend at least as much time discussing your views on "design" as we did discussing various aspects of evolution. I just got the impression that you didn't really want to do that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for answering.
Do you have time to clarify a few things, and answer questions in relation to them?
I don't want to take up your time, unless you permit me.

Sure, no problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if the papers disagree, what are they?

Scientific opinion
"Scientific opinion" may reflect opinions on scientific concerns as articulated by one or more scientists, published in scholarly journals or respected textbooks, both of which entail peer-review and rigorous professional editing. It may also refer to opinions published by professional, academic, or governmental organizations about scientific findings and their possible implications.

Actually I agree with this definition. I believe you should read more carefully how the scientific 'opinion' is used in this definition. The professional expression of differences in scientific opinion clearly in the highlighted above. This is not like the view of fundamentalist creationist who reject evolution, and often the ancient earth and universe billions of years old. IT does not involve published in scholarly journals or respected textbooks, both of which entail peer-review and rigorous professional editing. It may also refer to opinions published by professional, academic, or governmental organizations about scientific findings and their possible implications.

A related—but not identical—term, scientific consensus, is the prevailing view on a scientific topic within the scientific community, such as the scientific opinion on climate change.

Scientific opinion(s) can be "partial, temporally contingent, conflicting, and uncertain" so that there may be no accepted consensus for a particular situation. In other circumstances, a particular scientific opinion may be at odds with consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review.

Agree with the above also, and in the above context I have addressed your posts, and I am satisfied that the layman 'opinions' you expressed based on selective references and a religious agenda DO NOT represent differing scientific opinions based on published in scholarly journals or respected textbooks, both of which entail peer-review and rigorous professional editing. It may also refer to opinions published by professional, academic, or governmental.organizations about scientific findings and their possible implications.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay. Two things. Apply your analogies to what you said after. I see hypothetical that don't apply, because it can be a situation of finding out who left the house, or was it a male and female, and it can be a case of finding out what caused the fire. You made it convenient for yourself.

For crying out loud.........................

First of all, damning the analogy by taking it further then it was meant, is a logical fallacy.
The analogies served as illustrations of the type of predictions we are talking about.

Given a scenario where there is a fresh layer of snow around a house and there is a claim that someone left the house by foot after it stopped snowing, from that flows an objective prediction that there should be tracks in the snow. If all around the house the snow is perfectly blank with no tracks at all, then the claim that someone left the house by foot is necessarily false. Because walking in the snow factually leaves footprints behind.

Sheesh.

This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty I was talking about............

It's subjective period. You have not shown otherwise.

I have shown otherwise, but like usual you didn't pay attention and / or just ignored what was being said. Conversly, YOU are the one with the bare assertion that it's subjective, without showing it.

So here's your chance..........

According to evolution, chimps and humans are closely related and thus share a young common ancestor. According to the same model, humans and dogs share a more distant common ancestor.
The prediction that flows from this (one of many, actually) is: humans should share more ERV's with chimps then they do with dogs.

So, please explain: how is that "subjective" prediction? What part of this prediction is mere "opinion"?

Feel free not to discuss it with me, that shall be quite fine with me.

I think you actually prefer it. Wouldn't want to get your nose rubbed in your intellectual dishonest and/or ignorance on the topic, right? Who knows, it might even lead to a faith crisis.

In fact it would be a blessing, because you just like to say things without any support

I was pretty elaborate in my explanation of how these predictions work. You responding to that with intellectual dishonesty doesn't change that.

But by all means: I gave you the example of the ERV prediction. I await with grand expectations your explanation of how that is a "subjective" prediction and thus just mere opinion.

The scientific papers do not even agree with your assertions. Find one.
Finally, you say that people addressed the posts. Show me one that did.

Go read the thread yourself and stop trying to change the topic and dodge the points at hand.

So, now... please explain how the ERV example is a "subjective" prediction.

 

[nPeace]

In THIS POST I said...

"the idea that some entity is secretly directing mutations would mean that entity is pretty evil, given how so many mutations are the bane of our existence. I mean, is this entity trying to mess with us by giving bacteria and pests the ability to resist our treatments? Is it deliberately giving people cancer?"​

You replied...

That makes a lot of sense.
Just wanted to know which side you were on.​

I took that as you agreeing with me. If I was wrong on that, I apologize. Also, if I'm wrong on this can you clarify? Do you believe God deliberately designed bacteria to resist antibiotics?

Well here is the whole post, since you chose to only put part...

A question... Do you believe that mutations are random, or do you believe they are directed?

Spoiler: Your response

They're random, since they don't show any signs of occurring relative to an organism's specific need. If that were the case, then we'd have a heck of a time fighting pathogens and pests, since whatever measure we used against them, they'd just immediately mutate a counter-measure (and every individual in the population would do so instantaneously). Plus, the idea that some entity is secretly directing mutations would mean that entity is pretty evil, given how so many mutations are the bane of our existence. I mean, is this entity trying to mess with us by giving bacteria and pests the ability to resist our treatments? Is it deliberately giving people cancer?

What if I did like you, and left off part...
Your response...
They're random, since they don't show any signs of occurring relative to an organism's specific need. If that were the case, then we'd have a heck of a time fighting pathogens and pests, since whatever measure we used against them, they'd just immediately mutate a counter-measure (and every individual in the population would do so instantaneously).

That makes a lot of sense.
Just wanted to know which side you were on.
Mutations are random

That looks more like it.
I read the words that followed but was not interested, because they weren't relevant to my question, and so, meant nothing to me at the time because I found the idea weird - How could someone actually think that God was sitting down playing with genes?

Yes, I appreciate the apology, because it does make me wonder about your intentions when you say things, and then just take portions of what was someone said, which twists or warps the context of the quote.
Can you blame me for being suspicious and cautious with you, especially when things like this rekindle my suspicions?

Again you asked... Do you believe God deliberately designed bacteria to resist antibiotics?
I gave you the answer twice, why you ask again is bearing me silly.
Let me try something.
What do you understand from this?
I believe the cell was purposefully designed with the mechanisms for repairing, resisting, and removing or eliminating foreign invaders or problems to the genome.

You've been asking high school level questions about natural selection, mutations, molecular genetics, and population genetics. I don't mind answering them at all, but the fact that you felt the need to ask such questions, plus how it's apparent that you've not taken any college level courses in evolutionary biology, haven't spent time reading scientific journals, or attended evolutionary biology conferences....all indicates to me that your level of knowledge on the subject is.....well....about at the general high school level.

I already said before. Asking questions is not an indication one does not know the answer. Asking question is a form of reasoning, and it also allows one to clearly get a perspective of the one they are talking to.
That's what I do. It's part of how I was trained. Jesus was a stilled teacher, because that was one of his effective methods. Paul also, when reasoning with the people, he asked questions. JWs are the same.

I am a quick learner. I read and study, and grasp the underlying structure, and discard of the superficial fluff that given to the public.

And again to be clear, that's fine. I don't expect you to have expert level knowledge of the subject. In fact, I'd be shocked if you did. It's a very technical field of science that requires years and years of education and experience to fully grasp (just like most other fields of science).


This seems like you're saying you already knew the answers to all the questions you've been asking me. Is that true?

What did I say to you when we were discussing how natural selection acts on variation?
I said...
If I express that I don't see how something is the case, it doesn't automatically mean I don't understand. It may mean I don't agree.

Please, feel free to do your best to explain it, if you so wish to, but please bury the thought that I will accept it after you explain it.
Bear in mind that a person may explain his position / view / understanding, of something, but the listener may not agree, and have a different view.

You said I expressed confusion, but that is not true.
If someone has a presumption, it is more likely it will affect what the person sees.
So seeing... I think this article is a bit misleading." may be translated in that person's mind as, "This article is confusing. I don't understand it." ...and the action that follows will be, in your case, to help them understand.... which is a good action, but the conclusion is not accurate... and it's usually due to the fact that the person is referring to something you believe is right, so the person must be confused. That's my theory on that.

I don't mind someone stepping in to help, as you did, because I might be missing something, which the person may provide, and that happens. It happened in the case of the stick insect.
However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR.
When I want something specific, that may be hard to find on the web, I would ask... like when I asked where I could find the charts for stick insects... things like that, but to come and ask what is a mutation, on a debate forum, seems to me . However, I do my own personal research. I search for stuff, myself.
I would ask a question like, "if mutations are random, how blah blah blah?" and that's because I am trying to get the perspective of the person in the discussion. Those questions are appropriate. It does not mean I don't know the answer from my perspective.

I hope you understand.

Because in your post to me it seemed like you were going back to the notion that I was being serpent like and trying to persuade you towards something that you believe to be of Satan. In my mind, all I was doing was answering the questions you asked as best I could.

You see how perception works?
You don't have to worry about that. I know you are trying, and I already told you, go ahead and sing your JWs song, since it probably brings you peace. Beside I realize you can't seem to help it.

I absolutely agree.


No, I'm not seeking to drop out of the discussion. I was hoping we'd spend at least as much time discussing your views on "design" as we did discussing various aspects of evolution. I just got the impression that you didn't really want to do that.

No. The problem with that, is that I created threads to discuss particular subjects. As I said, I like to be organized (easier to find stuff ), So I did create a thread specifically dealing with design, and evidence for God, but like I said, some people you don't see, and the few you see, drop in to make disparaging comments. So when the question is asked again, I don't take the question seriously.
I really don't mind discussing that with you at all. I think it might be interesting. You can find the thread here.
Feel free to comment when you like.

 

[nPeace]

For crying out loud.........................

First of all, damning the analogy by taking it further then it was meant, is a logical fallacy.
The analogies served as illustrations of the type of predictions we are talking about.

Given a scenario where there is a fresh layer of snow around a house and there is a claim that someone left the house by foot after it stopped snowing, from that flows an objective prediction that there should be tracks in the snow. If all around the house the snow is perfectly blank with no tracks at all, then the claim that someone left the house by foot is necessarily false. Because walking in the snow factually leaves footprints behind.

Sheesh.

This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty I was talking about............



I have shown otherwise, but like usual you didn't pay attention and / or just ignored what was being said. Conversly, YOU are the one with the bare assertion that it's subjective, without showing it.

So here's your chance..........

According to evolution, chimps and humans are closely related and thus share a young common ancestor. According to the same model, humans and dogs share a more distant common ancestor.
The prediction that flows from this (one of many, actually) is: humans should share more ERV's with chimps then they do with dogs.

So, please explain: how is that "subjective" prediction? What part of this prediction is mere "opinion"?



I think you actually prefer it. Wouldn't want to get your nose rubbed in your intellectual dishonest and/or ignorance on the topic, right? Who knows, it might even lead to a faith crisis.





I was pretty elaborate in my explanation of how these predictions work. You responding to that with intellectual dishonesty doesn't change that.

But by all means: I gave you the example of the ERV prediction. I await with grand expectations your explanation of how that is a "subjective" prediction and thus just mere opinion.




Go read the thread yourself and stop trying to change the topic and dodge the points at hand.

So, now... please explain how the ERV example is a "subjective" prediction.

If you refuse to address the posts I referred you to, which you falsely claimed were addressed, you will just keep repeating your claims.
Feel free to do that... and please don't ask me questions while refusing to look at a post I created to discuss the phylogenectic tree among other hypotheses.