Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences

[Deeje]

I should have known you'd go back to the well of selectively quoting sources and making ridiculous assumptions based on uncertain terminology.

I merely gave back to you what you gave to me.....I selected the parts that demonstrate exactly what all articles on evolution do....there were so many!.....why do you all choose to gloss them over like it doesn't matter? Did you even read the article before you posted your link?

You honestly believe that admitting uncertainty or acknowledging difficulties in research is somehow scientists exposing evolution for the shame it is.

No I don't...what I believe is a shame is that scientists promote their theory as if it were established fact....you teach it to school aged children who then take it into adulthood with them but you never tell them that none of it is provable. If you ask the youth or even the teachers at universities if evolution is a proven fact, how many will say no? If you asked them to prove macro-evolution...how many could?

Here's an important question, Deeje: If evolution really were fundamentally based on a lie, why would scientists deliberately use uncertain terminology and admit the gaps and difficulty in their research?

Your argument makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Scientists value their standing in academia so they can't tell outright lies because someone would pull them up and they would lose credibility....so they substitute speculation and disguise it as truth by using the language of uncertainty. It isn't read that way though...is it? Most people don't even notice that they are being offered unsubstantiated guesswork instead of real facts. If you pick them up on it they refer to the uncertain terminology to show that they aren't really lying...just making suggestions about what "might have" happened...but inferring that it "must have". This theory is so much more than just a theory for scientists.....for many it means the death of God. If that has eternal ramifications, there is much to lose.

Tell me which of the following statements is more likely to come from a dishonest person:

"There is definitely a gold bar in the garage. But I won't show you, you'll have to take my word for it. But there absolutely, definitely is."

Or

"There may be a gold bar in the garage. I've done some research which presents evidence of this, though my work is incomplete."

Tell me honestly, Deeje.

You honestly think that a question like that relates to what we are discussing? Either of those statement could come from an honest person under certain circumstances.

An honest scientist however would say..."this is what the theory of evolution leads us to believe....but we have no real evidence to prove that its true. Its all speculation at present but we hope to add more to substantiate it in the future".......Now, we know that this is not what scientists say at all. They present the "might have's" and the "could have's" of evolution as if they "must have".....there is the dishonesty. That is the issue for me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I merely gave back to you what you gave to me.....I selected the parts that demonstrate exactly what all articles on evolution do....there were so many!.....why do you all choose to gloss them over like it doesn't matter? Did you even read the article before you posted your link?



No I don't...what I believe is a shame is that scientists promote their theory as if it were established fact....you teach it to school aged children who then take it into adulthood with them but you never tell them that none of it is provable. If you ask the youth or even the teachers at universities if evolution is a proven fact, how many will say no? If you asked them to prove macro-evolution...how many could?



It makes perfect sense. Scientists value their standing in academia so they can't tell outright lies because someone would pull them up and they would lose credibility....so they substitute speculation and disguise it as truth by using the language of uncertainty. It isn't read that way though...is it? Most people don't even notice that they are being offered unsubstantiated guesswork instead of real facts. If you pick them up on it they refer to the uncertain terminology to show that they aren't really lying...just making suggestions about what "might have" happened...but inferring that it "must have". This theory is so much more than just a theory for scientists.....for many it means the death of God. If that has eternal ramifications, there is much to lose.



You honestly think that a question like that relates to what we are discussing? Either of those statement could come from an honest person under certain circumstances.

An honest scientist however would say..."this is what the theory of evolution leads us to believe....but we have no real evidence to prove that its true. Its all speculation at present but we hope to add more to substantiate it in the future".......Now, we know that this is not what scientists say at all. They present the "might have's" and the "could have's" of evolution as it they "must have".....there is the dishonesty. That is the issue for me.

Paragraphs of nothing but avoidance, denial and misrepresentation. On the one hand, you accuse scientists of teaching evolution "as fact", and with the other you decry scientists for admitting uncertainty. It doesn't take a psychologist to notice the cognitive dissonance there.

I'm tired of re-treading old ground with you, Deeje. Why do you refuse to admit that using uncertain terminology is an indicator of honesty? Why is that so difficult for you to acknowledge?

 

[Deeje]

Paragraphs of nothing but avoidance, denial and misrepresentation.

The paragraphs said exactly what they said.....why do you deny it?

On the one hand, you accuse scientists of teaching evolution "as fact", and with the other you decry scientists for admitting uncertainty. It doesn't take a psychologist to notice the cognitive dissonance there.

Re read my reply...that is not what I did at all.

I'm tired of re-treading old ground with you, Deeje. Why do you refuse to admit that using uncertain terminology is an indicator of honesty? Why is that so difficult for you to acknowledge?

I am left wondering about you evolutionists.....why do you find it so difficult to admit that evolution is just an unproven (and I believe an unprovable) theory? If it were fact, supported by real evidence, then the uncertain terminology would not be necessary...would it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am left wondering about you evolutionists.....why do you find it so difficult to admit that evolution is just an unproven (and I believe an unprovable) theory? If it were fact, supported by real evidence, then the uncertain terminology would not be necessary...would it?

Why must I explain this to you, over and over?

Scientific theories are never proven. That terminology is necessary for anybody talking about anything that is drawn from evidence and inference rather than directly observed. It is the language of honest skepticism, not a mask to hide intent behind.

The only person who hides is you, Deeje. You latch on to uncertainty to pretend it is some kind of admission. You inflate honest skepticism and semantics for some kind of hidden agenda. But we both know where the real agenda lies - with you.

You religion tells you evolution must be false, and that's it. You have no real objection to the theory beyond that. You have yet to even demonstrate a working understanding of what the theory actually claims. You can't denounce something you refuse to understand.

 

[sayak83]

I think it helps to picture what you are saying....just for those of us who are not familiar with the scientific jargon.
Let me see if I have this straight.....

Here is an example of the Red Fox.....at a glance, this diagram makes the fox appear to be part of a group of creatures who are grouped in scientific terms so that they appear to be related down a line of biological classifications.

So what do we deduce from this? That Red Foxes are in the canidae Family. (Wolf or dog family)...right so far?

Then we see another couple of classifications because Canines are "carnivores" and they are also "mammals".
But is this because all carnivores and mammals are somehow related as the diagram implies?

What are the carnivores then...?

Are these really related in some way or are they all just meat eaters by design?

What about mammals? Are they all somehow related by evolution?

...... or is it just that they have a common method of feeding their young?

Moving right along....the Red Fox belongs to the Phylum Chordata.....which means that creatures under this banner are extremely diverse. You can see from the following diagram that at the very bottom are these assumed phantom 'ancestors' that never seem to rate a mention.....but then we are supposed to believe that all these are somehow related in the long evolutionary process with branches suddenly taking creatures in different directions.....but no one has any evidence that this ever took place except in the imagination of scientists who wanted it to be true.

So what about "Clades"?

This diagram makes them all look related too, doesn't it? But the problem I see in this diagram is that the lines joining these diverse creatures are drawn by scientists who have no actual evidence for their conclusions. They are based on inferences and assumptions about these relationships, because their theory demands it.

The whole evolutionary 'chain' is based on assumptions. You can classify them as much as you like...shroud them in scientific terminology....but you cannot prove that any of these creatures are related in a slow evolutionary process.

Once you question the validity of the relationships, the lines become rather comical because they are based on nothing but guesswork. Look where humans are....

...obviously we are related to rabbits and squirrels...?

And, where does that first vertical line come from? Who or what is it connected to?......who said that all the other lines in this graph have a single shred of evidence that ties any of these creatures together?

(All diagrams are from Google searches)



That is a matter of opinion. I believe that the "evolutionary trees" will fall over on their own because they have no roots. Your complicated theory has no solid foundation.



Yep.....Inferring is what its all about......

So as far as I can see, the technical terminology does nothing to promote confidence in the theory of evolution at all because it is based on belief, not facts....just as creation is.

I will address your points in the future posts.

 

[Deeje]

Why must I explain this to you, over and over?

Scientific theories are never proven. That terminology is necessary for anybody talking about anything that is drawn from evidence and inference rather than directly observed. It is the language of honest skepticism, not a mask to hide intent behind.

The only person who hides is you, Deeje. You latch on to uncertainty to pretend it is some kind of admission. You inflate honest skepticism and semantics for some kind of hidden agenda. But we both know where the real agenda lies - with you.

You religion tells you evolution must be false, and that's it. You have no real objection to the theory beyond that. You have yet to even demonstrate a working understanding of what the theory actually claims. You can't denounce something you refuse to understand.

This response tells me that you just don't get it.....it's not me refusing to understand.....it's me understanding and completely rejecting the premise that you never question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This response tells me that you just don't get it.....it's not me refusing to understand.....it's me understanding and completely rejecting the premise that you never question.

You're wrong about the nature of the premise, you're wrong about how science works, you're wrong about how theories relate to evidence and not "proof",... and on top of it all, the claims you make and the accusations you throw around, also expose a vast, vast ignorance concerning what evolution theory actually says and teaches.

People keep exposing and explaining your mistakes.
You keep repeating them ad nauseum.

It's quite clear that you need evolution to be wrong, no matter what. This is why you actually have such a vast ignorance of it... you don't even care what it says or what the evidence shows or doesn't show. You only care about arguing against it, because you need to uphold your dogmatic religious beliefs.

You have dug this hole for yourself and it seems to me that we can throw you a ladder, but you're going to have to crawl out of it yourself.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am left wondering about you evolutionists.....why do you find it so difficult to admit that evolution is just an unproven (and I believe an unprovable) theory? If it were fact, supported by real evidence, then the uncertain terminology would not be necessary...would it?

You really might as well of written "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE!"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This response tells me that you just don't get it.....it's not me refusing to understand.....it's me understanding and completely rejecting the premise that you never question.

Okay then.

Please explain to me, in your own words, what is claimed by evolutionary theory. We'll start with the basics:

Natural selection. Can you explain what evolutionary theory describes this process as?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then when people line up to try and show her some of the evidence, she'll scan through the material looking for words like "likely", "possibly", or "might" and once she finds them, use them as an excuse to declare that it's all just "assumption/speculation".

Uh...that’s what those words imply.

 

[Jose Fly]

Uh...that’s what those words imply.

Only to people who are limited to black/white thinking.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's quite clear that you need evolution to be wrong, no matter what. This is why you actually have such a vast ignorance of it... you don't even care what it says or what the evidence shows or doesn't show. You only care about arguing against it, because you need to uphold your dogmatic religious beliefs.

Yep. When discussing evolution with a Jehovah's Witness, the main thing to keep in mind is, according to their leadership "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose". Deeje has told me herself that if evolution were true her life would have no meaning or purpose.

That's really all there is to this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Only to people who are limited to black/white thinking.

So you have different definitions, then.

“Possibly” really means “definitely”.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you have different definitions, then.

“Possibly” really means “definitely”.

Wow.....just.....wow.

You know, it fascinates me how some people simply are unable to think in anything other than black/white terms. For whatever reason, folks like you can only see two possibilities....something is either definitive and proven, or it is assumption and belief. There's no grey area or middle ground between those two ends of the spectrum at all.

The main thing I wonder is whether such thinking is something you've learned, or something you were just born with. Either way, it's as I said......fascinating to watch.

 

[Deeje]

You really might as well of written "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE!"

These are the kinds of responses that reinforce everything I've said.

I am obviously not a scientist, but I know enough to see that macro-evolution's basic principles are underpinned by mere speculation, not solid evidence.......when I see an elaborate mansion that keeps getting decorated to improve the ambience, but it is supported by matchsticks, I don't need to have an engineering degree to see that complete collapse is inevitable.

You see from the responses in this this and many other threads on this topic, that no one has provided any evidence for that basic premise. They can't provide real substantiated evidence because none exists. The major flaw is at the very beginning. Regardless on what you build on that premise, I believe that this flaw cancels out everything else.

 

[Deeje]

Okay then.

Please explain to me, in your own words, what is claimed by evolutionary theory. We'll start with the basics:

Natural selection. Can you explain what evolutionary theory describes this process as?

No, no, no....if you are going to start....start at the very beginning because that is where the major problem lies. The very foundation of your theory is based on an idea...supposition....not on any real evidence.

You tell me with substantive proof that life is an accident and then show me how science "knows" that a single celled organism gradually morphed itself into all the living things on this earth.

When you can do that we can talk about natural selection, which I have no problem with at all.

 

[Deeje]

You know what's telling @Hockeycowboy? That when you press them for real substantial evidence that reinforces their main premise, all they can do is hurl insults and throw tantrums. Cracks me up.

*Give us the goods that supports the basis premise*....is it too much to ask? Show us the real evidence for how it all began. How can a single cell become a dinosaur? If they can't answer that, then the rest is irrelevant IMO.

 

[Deeje]

People keep exposing and explaining your mistakes.
You keep repeating them ad nauseum.

LOL.....we keep asking the hard questions about the validity of the basic premise upon which your whole theory stands....and we keep getting told we don't understand science....but I have yet to see any explanation of our 'mistakes' that has any real science to substantiate it......so give us the real evidence for how it all happened. Not how you *believe* it happened......science doesn't do *beliefs*...or does it? We need more than assumptions to put God in a box...OK?

The things provided to date are not remotely convincing.....in fact, I believe it takes more *faith* to believe in the accidents of evolution (especially in the early musings about microscopic life) than it does to see real intelligent design in nature. Amoebas to dinosaurs in obviously not a stretch for you?

Instead of the mindless insults, give us the proof......oh I forgot...you don't have any....and apparently you don't need any either. Well then, where does that leave us? At an impasse I fear. You have your beliefs and we have ours.

 

[Jose Fly]

The things provided to date are not remotely convincing

Of course not, given.....

Deeje, October 3, 2016: "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago".

 

[ratiocinator]

These are the kinds of responses that reinforce everything I've said.

But it's obviously true. I can't believe, for example, that it hasn't been explained to you many times that scientific theories are never proven and that what science does is tell us about the most likely explanation, given the current evidence. This is not unique to evolution and you will find the "uncertain terminology", as you called it, in every branch of science.

Yet you post what I quoted. If you can't or won't even grasp the basic principles of science itself, what hope have you got of assessing evidence?

I am obviously not a scientist, but I know enough to see that macro-evolution's basic principles are underpinned by mere speculation, not solid evidence......

Yes the first sentence is obviously true but then you collapse into school level misunderstanding again - "macro-evolution's basic principles" are identical to micro-evolution's basic principles. Macro-evolution is nothing more than lots of micro-evolution.

Again, if you can't or won't grasp the basics of the subject you are trying to criticise, why should anybody take you seriously when you are accusing almost all the world's experts in the field of missing something that you can see clearly? It's just comically absurd.