• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
So explaining the meaning of, and or reasoning on a body of facts to come to a conclusion.

Okay. You are free to say what you like, and deny whatever you choose to, but scientists do interpret data, and make inferences.... like everyone else.
This is what fascinates me and keeps me coming back to these discussions. Do you think any of that is a revelation? Do you think the folks you're talking with don't know that already?

And more importantly.... haven't you and I been over this before, like lots of times?

I have to say, I can't think of another group of people that spends significant amounts of time discussing, debating, and asking questions about a subject, yet rarely seems to retain anything from it.

It's like y'all hit a reset button at the end of each day. It's positively fascinating to watch.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Strictly logical scientific analysis.

Homology searching makes use of these sequence similarities. The basis of the analysis is that if a newly sequenced gene turns out to be similar to a previously sequenced gene, then an evolutionary relationship can be inferred and the function of the new gene is likely to be the same, or at least similar, to the function of the known gene.

What does it mean to interpret?
interpret - explain the meaning of...

What's an inference?
inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning

So explaining the meaning of, and or reasoning on a body of facts to come to a conclusion.

Okay. You are free to say what you like, and deny whatever you choose to, but scientists do interpret data, and make inferences.... like everyone else.

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

Automated DNA Sequencers generate a four-color chromatogram showing the results of the sequencing run, as well as a computer program’s best guess at interpreting that data – a text file of sequence data. That computer program, however, does make mistakes and you need to manually double-check the interpretation of the primary data.

The Interpretation of DNA Evidence

I really don't know why I bother talking with you guys about scientific stuff. I often hear Atheists claim Creationists are dishonest. While dishonesty is not limited to Creationist, my experience with Atheists is they don't tend to be honest.
It's as though they think 'Creationists' are not very bright up top.
However, that's not surprising, considering they think anyone who disagrees with them does not understand science - even scientists.

However, you seem to be insisting on the word "interpret" in order to make it seem like they're just making guesses. I have seen creationists do it many times, and I'm sure that many other skeptics and atheists here have seen it as well. We're simply trying to get in before we see it again.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Strictly logical scientific analysis.

Homology searching makes use of these sequence similarities. The basis of the analysis is that if a newly sequenced gene turns out to be similar to a previously sequenced gene, then an evolutionary relationship can be inferred and the function of the new gene is likely to be the same, or at least similar, to the function of the known gene.

What does it mean to interpret?
interpret - explain the meaning of...

What's an inference?
inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning

So explaining the meaning of, and or reasoning on a body of facts to come to a conclusion.

Okay. You are free to say what you like, and deny whatever you choose to, but scientists do interpret data, and make inferences.... like everyone else.

Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

Automated DNA Sequencers generate a four-color chromatogram showing the results of the sequencing run, as well as a computer program’s best guess at interpreting that data – a text file of sequence data. That computer program, however, does make mistakes and you need to manually double-check the interpretation of the primary data.

The Interpretation of DNA Evidence

I really don't know why I bother talking with you guys about scientific stuff. I often hear Atheists claim Creationists are dishonest. While dishonesty is not limited to Creationist, my experience with Atheists is they don't tend to be honest.
It's as though they think 'Creationists' are not very bright up top.
However, that's not surprising, considering they think anyone who disagrees with them does not understand science - even scientists.
I have a question ...

Do you think DNA tests are accurate when say, determining who your mother is, or your great-grandfather, or your children? Do you think that's open to interpretation?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This is what fascinates me and keeps me coming back to these discussions. Do you think any of that is a revelation? Do you think the folks you're talking with don't know that already?

And more importantly.... haven't you and I been over this before, like lots of times?

I have to say, I can't think of another group of people that spends significant amounts of time discussing, debating, and asking questions about a subject, yet rarely seems to retain anything from it.

It's like y'all hit a reset button at the end of each day. It's positively fascinating to watch
.
This! ^^^^ So much this! ^^^
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have a question ...

Do you think DNA tests are accurate when say, determining who your mother is, or your great-grandfather, or your children? Do you think that's open to interpretation?
Hmm., I see what you are getting at. So you are saying that Maury Povich was wrong when he says that I was the father! Whew, I am bringing this back up before the judge!

faf1b1788a1fa41652987ad7e758c3158dddb87e.gif
 

gnostic

The Lost One
This is what fascinates me and keeps me coming back to these discussions. Do you think any of that is a revelation? Do you think the folks you're talking with don't know that already?

And more importantly.... haven't you and I been over this before, like lots of times?

I have to say, I can't think of another group of people that spends significant amounts of time discussing, debating, and asking questions about a subject, yet rarely seems to retain anything from it.

It's like y'all hit a reset button at the end of each day. It's positively fascinating to watch.

I do agree with what I highlighted in bold.

Er...but ”fascinating”?

I was thinking more along the line with “perplexing” o_O to me when they don’t seem capable of learning something new to them.

Then followed by the feeling of exhausting “irritation” :mad: by the illogic of having to start again this same crap.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
However, you seem to be insisting on the word "interpret" in order to make it seem like they're just making guesses. I have seen creationists do it many times, and I'm sure that many other skeptics and atheists here have seen it as well. We're simply trying to get in before we see it again.
I don't think interpret means anything more or less than what it means, but you guys want to make it more than what it is, where science is concerned, and less of what it is where religion or any other study is concerned.
That's all I am saying.

The speculations in science are not absent either, but you guys want to act as though there are none - like science is all about "bang on accurate verifiable testing".
That's a myth that Atheist fill their heads with, and argue about, to sound superior.to religious folk.

Here is your quote...
"There's no opinion, there's no matters of interpretation. There's only strictly logical scientific analysis."

Clear, is it.
You promote it, and yet deny that you do, when it cannot be denied, as though you think the people you argue with don't know anything, so you can just say anything.

When scientists argue for their speculations, are they laughed at; called religious fanatics. Or are they just considered scientists, doing their work?
Neanderthal - Wikipedia
Following Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species,
  • Fuhlrott and Schaaffhausen argued the bones represented an ancient modern human form;
  • Schaaffhausen, a social Darwinist, believed that humans linearly progressed from savage to civilised, and so concluded that Neanderthals were barbarous cave-dwellers.
  • Fuhlrott and Schaaffhausen met opposition namely from the prolific pathologist Rudolf Virchow who argued against defining new species based on only a single find.
  • In 1872, Virchow erroneously interpreted Neanderthal characteristics as evidence of senility, disease, and malformation instead of archaicness, which stalled Neanderthal research until the end of the century.
  • In 2012, deep scratches on the floor of Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar, were discovered, dated to older than 39,000 years ago, which the discoverers have interpreted as Neanderthal abstract art.
Neanderthals: A History of Interpretation

Mario Crocco - Wikipedia
Mario Crocco is internationally known for having proposed in March 2007, a new taxonomic system that would include the hypothetical microorganism thought to have been detected on Mars by the Viking lander biological experiments in 1976. Though these findings were later deemed inconclusive, some scientists interpret the results as evidence of metabolism, and therefore of life; the major proponents of this position are Gilbert Levin, Rafael Navarro-González, and Ronald Paepe.

The intended effect was to reverse the burden of proof concerning the life issue, but biologists stated that naming a 'species' at this point is inappropriate, as it may lend credibility to the possibility that life has been detected. The proposed rationale was rejected by the scientific community and it remains a Nomen nudum as there is no evidence of organic biomolecules.


I'm saying that scientists are not free of using the same methods religious folk do.
We are both looking at the same evidence - body of facts, and using reason, and logical scientific analysis". Yes. Not only scientists employ the scientific method. Where it's not possible to prove one conclusion or other, we argue on the reason for the conclusion.
One isn't correct on the basis of which explanation is most accepted.

Take this extinction debate, for example.
Pleistocene megafauna - Wikipedia
Despite the evidence of interactions between humans and Genyornis, there is not much evidence to indicate that there were significant interactions between humans and other megafaunal species. Many scientists interpret this lack of evidence of interaction as evidence that humans did not cause most megafaunal extinctions in Australia.

Other researchers disagree, and argue that there is sufficient evidence to determine that human activity was the primary cause for many of the megafaunal extinctions. They argue that the lack of evidence of hunting does not indicate that hunting during the Pleistocene was negligible. ... Researchers who believe that human activity was the primary cause of megafaunal extinction in Australia argue that the lack of evidence should not rule out human-megafauna interactions.


Here we have scientists arguing.
Why make it a science vs religion argument, when it's not about that at all, since scientists aren't always religious when they argue against interpretation, inferences, assumption, speculations, proposals, suppositions, extrapolations, and yes, guesswork - which does exist - of scientists?

That's my point.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I do agree with what I highlighted in bold.

Er...but ”fascinating”?
Yup, from a human behavior standpoint it's fascinating to see a group of people act this way. I can't help but wonder what their internal narrative is.

I was thinking more along the line with “perplexing” o_O to me when they don’t seem capable of learning something new to them.
In most cases I don't think it's a matter of abilities. Instead, I see it as protection of one's ego, which in the case of fundamentalist creationists is directly tied to maintenance of religious beliefs and the psychological benefits they provide.

IOW, they behave this way because they must. Anything else is far too risky.

Then followed by the feeling of exhausting “irritation” :mad: by the illogic of having to start again this same crap.
Well that's that part you can actually control (how you respond). For me, rather than go over topics that have already been covered with that person, I go straight to asking "Why are we doing this again".

Of course creationists tend to do everything they can to avoid such discussions, which is yet another defense mechanism, which I too find.....fascinating. ;)
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Why make it a science vs religion argument, when it's not about that at all
We don't. The people running around trying to inject religion into the science of evolution are the creationists. If scientists and such were just left to their own devices, religion would almost never enter into their work. It's generally only when the religious people show up and start objecting to their work because it contradicts a holy book that religion even comes up.

Again I have to wonder what creationists like you think scientists do all day.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yup, from a human behavior standpoint it's fascinating to see a group of people act this way. I can't help but wonder what their internal narrative is.


In most cases I don't think it's a matter of abilities. Instead, I see it as protection of one's ego, which in the case of fundamentalist creationists is directly tied to maintenance of religious beliefs and the psychological benefits they provide.

IOW, they behave this way because they must. Anything else is far too risky.


Well that's that part you can actually control (how you respond). For me, rather than go over topics that have already been covered with that person, I go straight to asking "Why are we doing this again".

Of course creationists tend to do everything they can to avoid such discussions, which is yet another defense mechanism, which I too find.....fascinating. ;)
I have gotten into trouble too many times for times when I called creationists liars for either going back on their promises or for denying something that was already thoroughly discussed and them finally admitting that they were wrong.

I think that it is some sort of mental issue with them. Their mind just shuts down in defense of their personal beliefs.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I have gotten into trouble too many times for times when I called creationists liars for either going back on their promises or for denying something that was already thoroughly discussed and them finally admitting that they were wrong.
That's usually the loophole creationists tend to exploit. In forums like this, it's not against the rules to lie but it is against the rules to point out that someone is lying.

I think that it is some sort of mental issue with them. Their mind just shuts down in defense of their personal beliefs.
I'm sure you're familiar with "Morton's Demon". Interestingly, I see that sort of thing all the time among my Christian relatives, and not just with science. Sadly, I've seen it result in some pretty tragic consequences.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's usually the loophole creationists tend to exploit. In forums like this, it's not against the rules to lie but it is against the rules to point out that someone is lying.


I'm sure you're familiar with "Morton's Demon". Interestingly, I see that sort of thing all the time among my Christian relatives, and not just with science. Sadly, I've seen it result in some pretty tragic consequences.
Thanks, I have never heard of "Morton's Demon" before and yes that is exactly what we observe.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
So by the same token, do you think folks like you "go on forums to heckle people about science"?
No. I don't. However, I don't let that heckling slide either from Atheists, or professed Christians, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or...
I just stand for truth. That's all.
If that involves pointing out errors, so be it.
If you are on the side of that... heads up.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No. I don't. However, I don't let that heckling slide either from Atheists, or professed Christians, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or...
I just stand for truth. That's all.
If that involves pointing out errors, so be it.
If you are on the side of that... heads up.

If you stood for the truth you would argue logically and consistently. You would learn what is and what is not evidence and why. Creationists simply cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence. They will run away every time someone tries to get them to understand the concept. It is one of their key defense factors.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Thanks, I have never heard of "Morton's Demon" before and yes that is exactly what we observe.
From other material I've read, it's basically avoidance behavior. Specific to creationists, it's avoidance of the conflicts that arise between their beliefs and the conclusions of science (and the data that supports them).

So a creationist believes humans are not at all related to other primates.

They're presented with data showing humans are related to other primates.

Now they have a conflict, so what do they do?

They typically invoke avoidance behaviors, such as making excuses to shut down the discussion, never bothering to look at the data, or just plain leaving a thread.

Conflict resolved.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
No. I don't.
Well that's interesting. When someone like me makes comments about holy books and gods, I'm "heckling". But when you make comments about science and evolution, you're "standing for truth".

How convenient.....for you.

I just stand for truth. That's all.
As long as it is consistent with your religious beliefs, right?

If that involves pointing out errors, so be it.
If you are on the side of that... heads up.
Well earlier I asked you to provide post #'s for where you claimed you'd pointed out errors in published papers, but you immediately shut that down.

Seems like rather odd behavior from someone who's "just standing for truth", doesn't it?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
From other material I've read, it's basically avoidance behavior. Specific to creationists, it's avoidance of the conflicts that arise between their beliefs and the conclusions of science (and the data that supports them).

So a creationist believes humans are not at all related to other primates.

They're presented with data showing humans are related to other primates.

Now they have a conflict, so what do they do?

They typically invoke avoidance behaviors, such as making excuses to shut down the discussion, never bothering to look at the data, or just plain leaving a thread.

Conflict resolved.
I am willing to bet that all sorts of science deniers rely on Morton's Demon. I see it all of the time in AGW deniers for example. And Flat Earthers have the world's strongest Morton's Demon.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I am willing to bet that all sorts of science deniers rely on Morton's Demon. I see it all of the time in AGW deniers for example. And Flat Earthers have the world's strongest Morton's Demon.
Oh yes, very much so. Like I hinted at earlier, I've seen that sort of thing result in some extremely tragic outcomes.

It's one thing to ignore inconvenient reality in areas in which one isn't directly involved (e.g. how none of the creationists here actually work in science); it's something else entirely to do so when people's safety is at stake.
 
Top