I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[nPeace]

You think that the only evidence for evolution is that some creatures look alike? You're kidding, right?

The only ones who seem to be kidding are those who read posts but don't seem to get the point because rather than take what is said as a whole, they chop it up, and pick a portion to focus upon.

It would be more akin to saying that the bread products that look alike have the same chemical residue that could only have come from being baked in a particular oven, and that chemical residue came from being cleaned, so it didn't produce that residue before, and after that use it was cleaned again, so it didn't produce that residue after.

Also, please tell me what drawbacks there are that render the genetic investigation of evolution inaccurate.

Doesn't comparing DNA genetic sequences of organisms require interpretations? So we're back to square one.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Expertise combined with the interpretation being in line with the data".

That's circular B.

How so?

You came back to the interpretation being correct based on who says it is.

So if you were on a jury and part of the evidence included the results of genetic tests, you would see the testimonies of a professional geneticist and a soccer player as equally valid?

Hmmm. When I mention witnesses, I get told witness testimony is unreliable.
Is that because the witnesses in the Bible are not "experts" but backward liars? That's confusing.

Well allow me to clear that up for ya.

"Witness" and "expert" are not the same thing. A witness is someone who just happens to see something happen; that's literally the only criterion to be one. Conversely, an expert is someone who is both educated and has professional experience in a specific subject.

So I could be a witness to the collapse of a stadium and could testify to that, but I couldn't testify about the engineering or construction aspects of the event, because I have no expertise in those subjects.

Got it?

Well, I think that's another misrepresentation of what anyone has ever said.

I didn't attribute that to anyone in that post. It was a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point. You didn't catch that?

...but again, I am seeing circular reasoning, and maybe the geneticist is an unreliable witness too.

See above. And I wonder....what alternative means would you propose for presenting evidence about scientific subjects like genetics? Random people off the street?

Most are right. Right?

Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

First, I didn't say they make errors, but they speculate,

Okay, then show where they do. And do so by referring to their actual work (i.e., papers from scientific journals), rather than generalized summaries of the concepts behind their work (e.g., the Berkeley site).

and yes, speculations and assumptions do lead to wrong conclusions.

That's certainly possible. Let's see what you've got.

Second, I did use papers that show that there are assumptions made, and there are interpretations, which can be wrong.

Actually, I did spend quite a lot of time pointing these out, and as usual, they were ignored

Oh, then I won't ask you to repeat yourself, so if you can just refer to the post # and the title of the thread it's in, that'd be fine.

Thirdly, nobody spends any time showing why they dismiss an intelligent designer

I can do that if you'd like.

and why design does not require an intelligent designer.

That too...if you want.

So I am not obligated to 1) repeat myself, or 2) explain anything.

Sure...a post # and the title of the thread it's in is just fine.[/QUOTE]

 

[nPeace]

"Witness" and "expert" are not the same thing.

Got it?

Well, it's clear we are back to where we left off in the last thread. You not understanding me.
So it's not very pleasant trying to communicate with you Fly. Didn't I tell you this before?
I believe I told you why this happens.
Isn't it about wanting to teach?
I'm tired. Don't have that energy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, it's clear we are back to where we left off in the last thread. You not understanding me.
So it's not very pleasant trying to communicate with you Fly. Didn't I tell you this before?
I believe I told you why this happens.
Isn't it about wanting to teach?
I'm tired. Don't have that energy.

Well that's unfortunate, but not atypical among creationists. Long on assertions but short on substance, plus a quick shutting of the door to any discussion.

 

[gnostic]

Hmmm. When I mention witnesses, I get told witness testimony is unreliable.
Is that because the witnesses in the Bible are not "experts" but backward liars? That's confusing.

There are differences between expert witnesses and eyewitnesses in courts.

Eyewitnesses are only recounting their stories of what they have seen and/or what they have heard from their respective perspectives.

You can have 10 eyewitnesses in a scene of an armed robbery, for example, and their accounts can vary widely especially if there were more than 1 armed robber, partly because people generally are not good at observations when they are under pressures and partly because fears can paralyze people seeing clearly and objectively, hence eyewitnesses are not reliable. Especially if the robbery resulted in injuries, or worse, someone or simple people were killed in the robbery.

Expert witnesses are not relying on the eyewitnesses’ accounts, but on forensics who take whatever evidence available are there, and if there is a body or more, medical examiner would examine how they were killed and again forensics could identify precisely what weapon were used.

Expert witnesses, like the coroner and forensic team, will provide the data of any evidence that are available.

Expert witnesses provide more objective testimonies because they are only relying on the evidence.

The jury and judge will decide on all testimonies, both eyewitnesses and expert witnesses, if any of the robbers are standing trial.

The problems with eyewitnesses, are that some can people have been known to shut down, when under great pressures and duress.

Plus, their (eyewitnesses’) stories can also change, from the time of the police interviews to time of the trial. And often the defendant’s lawyer(s) will often use their unreliability and trip witnesses during cross examination.

As you can see, having eyewitnesses there, won’t necessarily mean they will be accurate when the time come for the trial to prosecute the robbers.

 

[nPeace]

Well that's unfortunate, but not atypical among creationists. Long on assertions but short on substance, plus a quick shutting of the door to any discussion.

As usual. It's typical of Atheists to think that way, and not consider their own faults which makes it difficult to communicate with them.
I don't expect them to change. It takes a certain quality for that, which they don't have.
It would be nice if they did. They likely wouldn't be Atheist.

 

[Jose Fly]

As usual. It's typical of Atheists to think that way, and not consider their own faults which makes it difficult to communicate with them.
I don't expect them to change. It takes a certain quality for that, which they don't have.
It would be nice if they did. They likely wouldn't be Atheist.

Who said anything about atheism? But I guess your post does provide yet more confirmation that this is first and foremost, a religious issue for you. IOW, you see this through a religious lens, and a fairly specific one at that.

But again, that's hardly atypical among creationists. It's been the case with pretty much every creationist I've ever interacted with.

 

[nPeace]

There are differences between expert witnesses and eyewitnesses in courts.

Eyewitnesses are only recounting their stories of what they have seen and/or what they have heard from their respective perspectives.

You can have 10 eyewitnesses in a scene of an armed robbery, for example, and their accounts can vary widely especially if there were more than 1 armed robber, partly because people generally are not good at observations when they are under pressures and partly because fears can paralyze people seeing clearly and objectively, hence eyewitnesses are not reliable. Especially if the robbery resulted in injuries, or worse, someone or simple people were killed in the robbery.

Expert witnesses are not relying on the eyewitnesses’ accounts, but on forensics who take whatever evidence available are there, and if there is a body or more, medical examiner would examine how they were killed and again forensics could identify precisely what weapon were used.

Expert witnesses, like the coroner and forensic team, will provide the data of any evidence that are available.

Expert witnesses provide more objective testimonies because they are only relying on the evidence.

The jury and judge will decide on all testimonies, both eyewitnesses and expert witnesses, if any of the robbers are standing trial.

The problems with eyewitnesses, are that some can people have been known to shut down, when under great pressures and duress.

Plus, their (eyewitnesses’) stories can also change, from the time of the police interviews to time of the trial. And often the defendant’s lawyer(s) will often use their unreliability and trip witnesses during cross examination.

As you can see, having eyewitnesses there, won’t necessarily mean they will be accurate when the time come for the trial to prosecute the robbers.

An eyewitness can also be an expert witness.
Their being an eyewitness may be secondary to their expert knowledge.
Being an eyewitness does not annul their expertise.
I don't think eywitness testimony should be dismissed on that basis.

 

[nPeace]

Who said anything about atheism? But I guess your post does provide yet more confirmation that this is first and foremost, a religious issue for you. IOW, you see this through a religious lens, and a fairly specific one at that.

But again, that's hardly atypical among creationists. It's been the case with pretty much every creationist I've ever interacted with.

Either you really can't understand me, or you are not trying to... or both, which I think is the case.
Yup. That one quality is such a vital one. We don't fail to see ourselves, if we have it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Either you really can't understand me, or you are not trying to... or both, which I think is the case.
Yup. That one quality is such a vital one. We don't fail to see ourselves, if we have it.

Well to be clear, there's nothing wrong at all with viewing this issue through a religious lens. You evaluate and interpret the information you see through the lens of scripture, right? As long as you're up front about that, I say....okay and good for you.

As to me apparently not understanding you, you could try and help the situation by explaining. Complaining about it is....well....just that....complaining.

 

[nPeace]

Well to be clear, there's nothing wrong at all with viewing this issue through a religious lens. You evaluate and interpret the information you see through the lens of scripture, right? As long as you're up front about that, I say....okay and good for you.

As to me apparently not understanding you, you could try and help the situation by explaining. Complaining about it is....well....just that....complaining.

I tried that - explaining myself - in the other thread. It didn't work. You don't remember, do you. I know why.
I'm telling you, but you won't get it. I see that now.

 

[Jose Fly]

I tried that - explaining myself - in the other thread. It didn't work. You don't remember, do you. I know why.
I'm telling you, but you won't get it. I see that now.

It's interesting how we each interpret all this. I see what you're describing (and doing in this thread) as classic avoidance. The conversations weren't going your way, so you found ways to shut them down. And what's particularly fascinating is how you blame me for you shutting them down. I see it as effectively....

nP: I have shown where there are assumptions and speculations in published papers, but those posts were ignored.

JF: Oh? Where are those posts?

nP: You don't understand me, so I don't want to talk to you anymore.​

And I'm sure you see it quite differently.

 

[nPeace]

It's interesting how we each interpret all this. I see what you're describing (and doing in this thread) as classic avoidance. The conversations weren't going your way, so you found ways to shut them down. And what's particularly fascinating is how you blame me for you shutting them down. I see it as effectively....

nP: I have shown where there are assumptions and speculations in published papers, but those posts were ignored.

JF: Oh? Where are those posts?

nP: You don't understand me, so I don't want to talk to you anymore.​

And I'm sure you see it quite differently.

Pride is before a crash. I'm sure you don't see that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As usual. It's typical of Atheists to think that way, and not consider their own faults which makes it difficult to communicate with them.
I don't expect them to change. It takes a certain quality for that, which they don't have.
It would be nice if they did. They likely wouldn't be Atheist.

It is not just atheists that have experienced that. I have experienced the same sort of thing from strict creationists.

If you think an interpretation is flawed, then you need to point that out and back your claim with evidence and explanation of how it is flawed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Pride is before a crash. I'm sure you don't see that.

Oh I see it all right...from the person who's so full of pride, the mere possibility that they might be wrong is sufficient reason to shut down discussions whenever they start to show signs of not going their way.

It's classic defense of one's ego.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is not just atheists that have experienced that. I have experienced the same sort of thing from strict creationists.

If you think an interpretation flawed, then you need to point that out and back your claim with evidence and explanation of how it is flawed.

I've often marveled at how just about every debate thread with creationists is the same....the creationist makes claims, and the rest of the thread is one or more people chasing them around, trying to get them to back up the claims and answer basic questions while the creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An eyewitness can also be an expert witness.
Their being an eyewitness may be secondary to their expert knowledge.
Being an eyewitness does not annul their expertise.
I don't think eywitness testimony should be dismissed on that basis.

It is very unlikely that an eyewitness is going to have expertise in an area that is germane to what they witnessed, but it is possible. I don't think anyone is suggesting that eyewitness testimony should be dismissed outright. However, when three different eye witnesses give three different versions of the same event, how is it that it should be evaluated and weighed to reach the best conclusion? Firstly, they would have to be established as witnesses. Sometimes people claim to have witnessed things they did not.

In fact, I would say that being an expert witness should lend itself to increasing the credibility of what they relate about what they witnessed. Those sorts of witnesses having been trained in observation. However, what @gnostic mentions remains valid in such a circumstance. Being an expert witness does not mean they would be automatically shielded from the stress of witnessing stressful events or that such stress wouldn't effect their testimony. Expert witnesses are not giving witness about subjects that they experienced under stress or duress. It is expertise gained in a controlled environment and with training. Most of us are not trained to shut out emotion and observe armed robbers pointing at us and expected to recount descriptions of finite detail.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've often marveled at how just about every debate thread with creationists is the same....the creationist makes claims, and the rest of the thread is one or more people chasing them around, trying to get them to back up the claims and answer basic questions while the creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

That pretty much sums up my experience with them over the last 30 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've often marveled at how just about every debate thread with creationists is the same....the creationist makes claims, and the rest of the thread is one or more people chasing them around, trying to get them to back up the claims and answer basic questions while the creationist does everything they can to avoid doing so.

I would say that by now many of us here have some standing as expert witnesses to the phenomenon.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would say that by now many of us here have some standing as expert witnesses to the phenomenon.

Well played sir!