How do you define SCIENCE?

[John53]

@John53 God isn't punishing anyone personally by allowing deleterious mutations to transmit problems. But most mutations are not beneficial. So again -- how many fish does it take to mutate (evolve) to become landrovers? One? Two? continual mutations until legs and lungs develop? I haven't gone into the mathematical possibilities of mutations turning into beneficial evolutions.

What's your proof that most mutations are not beneficial?

Why does Jehovah allow any mutations?

 

[Truthseeker]

Some people scientifically trained (like my cousin the doctor) do not believe global warming exists.

Being scientifically trained as a doctor does not qualify him in a different specialty. It is the climatologists we should listen to.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contain errors or cannot be replicated.

 

[Truthseeker]

For me it's interesting as all hell, the way various foiks from different back grounds approach the topic. It's all so polarized in that there's no big average folk, it's all one side or the other.

See this post of mine:

How do you define SCIENCE?

 

[Pete in Panama]

See this post of mine:

How do you define SCIENCE?

You mentioned in that post that "Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change." In the U.S. the biggest donor for scientific papers is the National Science Foundation (Gov't funded) and virtually all of their requests for proposals require the assumption that humans cause detrimental climate change.

Kind of a "fast-track" for scientific decisions, simply assume it's true.

 

[exchemist]

You mentioned in that post that "Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change." In the U.S. the biggest donor for scientific papers is the National Science Foundation (Gov't funded) and virtually all of their requests for proposals require the assumption that humans cause detrimental climate change.

Kind of a "fast-track" for scientific decisions, simply assume it's true.

But that is just in the miserable piranha tank of the United States.

The science of climate change does not stand or fall on what happens in that Godforsaken country of lunatics, all at one another's throats. The science is determined by the worldwide science community. This has been enough to convince not only governments but motor manufacturers, fossil fuel companies and many more that have, if anything, a vested interest in playing it down, not bigging it up. And yet everyone, I mean everyone, is agreed it is a real and pressing issue.

The debate is over.

 

[Pete in Panama]

But that is just in the miserable piranha tank of the United States.

The science of climate change does not stand or fall on what happens in that Godforsaken country of lunatics, all at one another's throats. The science is determined by the worldwide science community. This has been enough to convince not only governments but motor manufacturers, fossil fuel companies and many more that have, if anything, a vested interest in playing it down, not bigging it up. And yet everyone, I mean everyone, is agreed it is a real and pressing issue.

The debate is over.

That's my impression too, that everyone has very strong feelings about it and nobody's willing to discuss it.

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

To me science is an adventure to take chances and make mistakes then learning from it. For me personally, science was the most fun class back in school.

 

[exchemist]

That's my impression too, that everyone has very strong feelings about it and nobody's willing to discuss it.

Yup, you're about a decade too late for that, like people still trying to hang onto the Rutherford model of the atom in the 1940s.

 

[YoursTrue]

But that is just in the miserable piranha tank of the United States.

The science of climate change does not stand or fall on what happens in that Godforsaken country of lunatics, all at one another's throats. The science is determined by the worldwide science community. This has been enough to convince not only governments but motor manufacturers, fossil fuel companies and many more that have, if anything, a vested interest in playing it down, not bigging it up. And yet everyone, I mean everyone, is agreed it is a real and pressing issue.

The debate is over.

naturally you don't believe this, but the Bible says that God will ruin those who are ruining the earth. That's in Revelation.

 

[exchemist]

naturally you don't believe this, but the Bible says that God will ruin those who are ruining the earth. That's in Revelation.

Irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is complete nonsense.

It isn't. It is in fact spot on.

"Objectivism" is a philosophical construct that has nothing whatever to do with science, except in the biased minds of the "scientism" cult.

That is what is complete nonsense.

They label the data gathered by the scientific process "objective" and then worship it as if it were the fountain of all wisdom and truth.

There is no worshipping going on at all. What makes you even say that? What a strange thing to say...

But it's neither objective nor subjective. It's just data. Information that scientists can use to explore the next unknown possibility.

Objective data can be used to build upon and continue exploring.
"Subjective data" is nothing but non-reproducible opinion that you can't build upon.

Derp

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So with that in mind I was thinking what is the science behind macroevolution?

paleontology, genetics, comparative genetics, geographic distribution of species (and fossils), comparative anatomy,...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The more I learn about evolution,

I haven't noticed you learned anything about evolution at all.
For example, I still see you make that mega silly argument of "...but they are still tigers!" or alike.

Which is such a fundamental mistake that it exposes you haven't even understood the basics.
It's been a very long time, years actually, since I first pointed out that error to you.

And you still haven't correct it and learned.
So yeah... when you say such a thing as in the quote, can you really blame me that I can only laugh with it?

the less realistic it is in its terms. But many are going to accept the theory despite the inexplicable realities.

They are only "inexplicable" in your own mind because you refuse to learn.

 

[exchemist]

What a lot of folks don't know is that it's possible to start w/ a set of completely random data points and from it identify a trend:


View attachment 81638
The big problem that comes out of that is we end up w/ random meaningless processes getting presented as some kind of crisis that we need to raise taxes over.

You seem never to have encountered correlation coefficients: Correlation coefficient - Wikipedia

These are routinely used in science, to determine the degree of confidence that the data really does indicate a trend. Here is one example: Trend Analysis | Climate Data Guide

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Peer review is often by those who get the most votes or money...

That's an extreme accusation which you are going to have to support with evidence.

But you can't do that, can you? It's just thrash talk designed only for your own piece of mind to rationalize your anti-science beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reproducible such as smaller or larger beaks? Shorter or longer legs? Birds remain birds, humans stay as humans, there's nowhere to go beyond that with any substance. Speculation, yes. Actuality, no.

See? I have JUST told you in a post where you claimed to have "learned more about evolution" that you in fact have not.
And as evidence I said that you STILL use this ridiculous "argument" of "x remains x" as if it is an argument against evolution.

I have pointed out this mistake and explained how it is a mistake countless times for the past years whenever I encountered you saying it.
MANY MANY times.

Why are you still repeating it?
When you say that you have learned new things about evolution, what exactly are you referring to?
The fact that you STILL make this very very basic mistake and refuse to correct it, tells me that you have learned NOTHING at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question could be...is there global warming?

There is. And it clearly correlates with human industrialization and the unnatural spewing of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.
And it clearly does NOT correlate with the natural cycles of climate shifts the world has known for millions of years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm saying that insofar as what is SEEN, birds remain birds, fish remain fish. That's it. Anything beyond that is... speculation.

And again with the silly PRATT


One more time: if birds would change into non-birds, then evolution would be falsified, wrong, disproven

In evolution, species don't outgrow their ancestry.
Eukaryotes produce more eukaryotes
Vertebrates produce more vertebrates
Tetrapods produce more tetrapods
Mammals produce more mammals.
Primates produce more primates.
Humans produce more humans.

Humans = "still remain" humans, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.


Why do you refuse to learn?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know that as a member of the scientism crowd, you fully believe that the purpose of science is to uncover the truth of what is. Because you assume that "what is" is physical, only, and therefor the exclusive purview of science to investigate and decipher. So I have no doubt that anything I post to the contrary appears wildly "wrong" to you. Such is the nature of a blinding bias. And I can't do anything about that.

We have already corrected your mistakes about this whole "scientism" thing hundreds of times, so I won't bother anymore.

Instead, I'm just going to ask you a question:

What method, other then science, do you suggest to tackle questions about the universe and the stuff and phenomenon it contains?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I was in school i did not question the theory of evolution because I thought what they were teaching me was the truth. I had no reason to doubt what I was being taught. The point is that I believed I was being taught the truth. It was later that I realized the gaps in the theory which are covered over by conjecturing what may have happened, in other words.. guessing according to the established theoretical framework.

You consistently confuse gaps in your understanding with gaps in the theory.