Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

Straw man, my point is that our mental abilities are far more extraordinary than needed for survival.

For example why do we even wonder about the existence of God, or Alians, or the origin of the universe?......... this is far more complex than “creating fire” and adds not survival value

How about spending virtually one's entire life wondering about the effects of mechanics of gravity?

 

[YoursTrue]

Three year old children ask a lot of questions but that may be mere curiosity. I do not think that quite qualifies as deep philosophical thought. And chimps may be as curious as humans at times as they grow up.

Perhaps you know if scientists know from pondering or experiments that chimpanzees think beyond a 2 year old as they get older.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the point that I am making is that you are reeling on testimonies …….. You personally haven’t done the tests with the chromosomes ………. The implication is that testimonies (at least sometimes) count as evidence……………. There is no secret agenda; this is not supposed to be a controversial claim all you have to do is say “Yes Leroy you are correct, testimonies can also count as evidence”

Then , if God wills it, we can have a nice dialogue on when should we consider testimonies evidence (hopefully this would include a definition of "evidence")

LOL! That is not the way that it works. You screwed up and I gave you a detailed explanation why and that is all that you have? Try again.

 

[leroy]

How about spending virtually one's entire life wondering about the effects of mechanics of gravity?

Good example

 

[leroy]

LOL! That is not the way that it works. You screwed up and I gave you a detailed explanation why and that is all that you have? Try again.

According to you what did I screw?

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to you what did I screw?

Go back and reread the posts. You refuse to understand explanations so I have no need to repeat myself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can show and verify objectively that the testimony exists.

yes, the claim exists.

If there is a long ness monster, we would predict such testimonies

I see nothing in that definition that prevents these testimonies from being evidence.

Testimony isn't objective data. It's subjective claims.
The testimony also isn't independently verifiable.

I already explained this.

If we change “Long ness Monster” (LNM) for “Rat” or any other common animal , would that same testimony suddenly become evidence?

No.
Although it would become more probable right out the gates, since rats demonstrably exist.
Surely you see the difference between claiming having seen a simple rat vs a rat with the head of a lion or bigfoot or alike?

Besides, all the evidence that we have for evolution, big bang, relativity, the existence of other galaxies etc…………… is based on testimonies

No. It's based on indepdently repeatable, verifiable objective data.

………….. you are trusting the testimonies (claims) of other scientists

No.

(since you haven’t done any experiment)……….

I test relativity every time I turn on my GPS.

So you shouldn’t reject testimonies as evidnece

I don't reject them. I just don't assume by default they are accurate when the testimony is all that is available.

why not?

Explain how it can be falsified.

The hypothesis “rats excists” is falsifiable isen´t ?

That's not a hypothesis. Rats factually exist.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a fact and a hypothesis.

............. why change the criteria when we change Rat for LNM

I'm not.

Well a “person believing” that he saw “X” is evidence for X isn’t it?

No. It's evidence of a person believing something.

............... by your definition if “ X “exists we would predict to have observations of people who think that have seen “X”

No. X could exist without anybody seeing X.
You don't seem to understand how predictions work. Or what a hypothesis is.

So lets see

“Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis.
Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable.”

1 Testimonies of people having seen the LNM would be predicted if the LNM Exists

No.

2 The existence of the testimony could be objectively and independently verifiable

ow boy....
Verifying that a testimony was given, does not verify the accuracy of said testimony....
I'm baffled that this requires pointing out.

3 the Hypothesis LNM exists is falsifiable

How?

, all you need to do is show that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true

That's not how falsification works.
Nor is it clear at all how one would go about that.

So I don’t think “testimonies of the LNM” fail as evidence according to your definition. so ether there is something wrong wit the definition or testimonies for the LNM are evidence.

There is something wrong with your understanding of reason, logic, facts, hypothesis, predictions and falsification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I tried to say is that the brain is complex beyond necessity

Nothing is "necessary".
The point remains that increased intellectual and mental capacity was/ is beneficial for survival for our species.

The ability to reflect and think about the deep philosophical questions requires and extra layer of complexity in our brain that has no selective benefit…………so why did it evovled?

Already explained this.

Not too convincing for me.

Your fallacious argument from incredulity is noted.

It is easy to imagine an Alien (or a ROBOT) that is very good in innovating and solving problems but that doesn’t care (or even wonders) about deep philosophical stuff.

In simple terms

1 wondering about deep philosophical stuff requires an extra layer of complexity

2 this extra layer of complexity has no selective benefit.

In my opinion both 1 and 2 are at least probably true , I don’t even find them controversial

Your bare assertions are noted also.
They are not in evidence and usual simply pulled out of your behind.

I don't care about your "imagination". I care about the facts we observe in the world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and how do you know that the data is measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable?

Because they are described in equations which when applied in tech, makes my GPS work.

All you have are testimonies,

No, my GPS does not work merely because some scientist says so.

from scientist who claimed to have done the experiments the math and the observations……….. You haven’t done any experiments yourself…… all you have is your trust in the testimonies of other people

My point is that testimonies are not non-evidence necessarily………. This is not supposed to be controversial, you shouldn’t have problems in granting this simple and obvious claim

yeah, ok, sure... all of science is mere "testimony based". yep. There's no such thing as quantifiable, verifiable, measureable, repeatable evidence in science - or anywhere else for that matter. Nope. it's all just "testimony" on par with "aliens kidnapped me and did weird anal experiments on my after which I was transported to another dimension where I played poker with unicorns after which I was beamed down into my bedroom again where nobody was around to see me appear out of seemingly nowhere."

Yep. Ok. "you win".




This is a new low Leroy, even for you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I may add, it is apparent to me that one's thinking can be developed or enhanced. Another interesting thing about development. And, as another poster brought out, there is quite a bit of difference between the cognitive ability of a chimpanzee and a human.

The difference is actually a lot smaller then narcistic humans would like to believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even 3yo children wonder about deep philosophical stuff

As the father of 2 young kids, I can assure you that this is pure BS.

 

[leroy]

Go back and reread the posts. You refuse to understand explanations so I have no need to repeat myself.

Ok so back to... you screwed it because I say so.....

 

[gnostic]

Ok so back to... you screwed it because I say so.....

EVIDENCE and evidence-based DATA that back any scientific theory (I am not just talking about theory of Evolution…I am talking about any science and any scientific field), is not merely opinions of scientists “say so”, Leroy.

Creationists and Intelligent Design creationists are the ones with no evidence and no data, so all their concepts are based on unsubstantiated beliefs, opinions and pseudoscience concepts.

Even Behe admitted under oath, being cross-examined during the Kitzermiller vs Dover case, that there are no evidence, no experiments, & no data to scientifically support Intelligent Design…which mean ID is unfalsifiable, untestable and unscientific.

Basically, Michael Behe had flushed his career as biochemist down toilet. No fellow biochemists believed a word he say, since he wrote Irreducible Complexity, Darwin’s Black Box, and his contribution to the later edition of Of Panda And People.

What Behe wrote, are merely speculative opinions, that have no scientific substance…in another word - his “say so”.

If you don’t understand the differences between models backed evidence-based data and personal testimonials of some half-assed creationists, then you only got yourself to blame for being hopeless science-illiterate.

 

[F1fan]

How about spending virtually one's entire life wondering about the effects of mechanics of gravity?

And then others, who are negatively influenced by religion, reject the work by experts in science. They reject the work without any expertise of their own, just religious bias.

 

[Pogo]

Ok so back to... you screwed it because I say so.....

This is your new attempt to take over the world?
Testimony is an assertion without evidence, revealed knowledge, Loonies barking on the street corner.
Scientific evidence is the presentation of observation with not just the observation itself, but with the methods and materials for you or others to duplicate the observations if they wish.
Theories are overarching schema that integrate observations and predict new observations.
Now you will attempt to equivocate again with the usual pathetic denial.
I don't class this as a theory because while it is "obvious" it is not worth the effort of data collection to demonstrate the scientific rigor.

 

[McBell]

If I may add, it is apparent to me that one's thinking can be developed or enhanced. Another interesting thing about development. And, as another poster brought out, there is quite a bit of difference between the cognitive ability of a chimpanzee and a human. But I am pretty sure the cognition of either can be changed, depending upon circumstances.

Her instructor and caregiver, Francine Patterson, reported that Koko had an active vocabulary of more than 1,000 signs of what Patterson calls "Gorilla Sign Language" (GSL).[5][6] This puts Koko's vocabulary at the same level as a three-year-old human.[7] In contrast to other experiments attempting to teach sign language to non-human primates, Patterson simultaneously exposed Koko to spoken English from an early age. It was reported that Koko understood approximately 2,000 words of spoken English, in addition to the signs.[8] Koko's life and learning process has been described by Patterson and various collaborators in books, peer-reviewed scientific articles, and on a website.[9]​

Koko (gorilla) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[leroy]

yes, the claim exists.


Testimony isn't objective data. It's subjective claims.
The testimony also isn't independently verifiable.

I already explained this.





No.
Although it would become more probable right out the gates, since rats demonstrably exist.
Surely you see the difference between claiming having seen a simple rat vs a rat with the head of a lion or bigfoot or alike?




No. It's based on indepdently repeatable, verifiable objective data.



No.




I test relativity every time I turn on my GPS.



I don't reject them. I just don't assume by default they are accurate when the testimony is all that is available.



Explain how it can be falsified.



That's not a hypothesis. Rats factually exist.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a fact and a hypothesis.



I'm not.



No. It's evidence of a person believing something.



No. X could exist without anybody seeing X.
You don't seem to understand how predictions work. Or what a hypothesis is.


No.



ow boy....
Verifying that a testimony was given, does not verify the accuracy of said testimony....
I'm baffled that this requires pointing out.



How?



That's not how falsification works.
Nor is it clear at all how one would go about that.


There is something wrong with your understanding of reason, logic, facts, hypothesis, predictions and falsification.

Wow, you are wrong in so many things and at some many levels that I don’t even know where to start .

I´l simply start with the most obvios mistake……………..but pay attention this is not supposed to be controversial, there are no hidden tramps nor semantic tricks……….. you are supposed to accept my next comment without any hesitation.

Yes almost everything you know form science comes from testimonies………..testimonies is nearly all you have.

For example You *know* that probably there is a chromosomal fusion in the human genome because you read a paper (or a book, or an article or a youtube video) and you simply trust in the testimony of the author of that source.

You haven’t done the experiments yourself, all you have is their testimony…………… so by your standards you don’t have evidence for the chromosome fusion in the human genome because according to you testimonies are not evidence.

"testimony" on par with "aliens kidnapped me and did weird anal experiments on my after which I was transported to another dimension where I played poker with unicorns after which I was beamed down into my bedroom again where nobody was around to see me appear out of seemingly nowhere."

Well obviously some testimonies are more reliable than others, (some testimonies represent better evidence than others)

Obviously the testimony of a scientists on a claim related to his area of expertise and who has confirmation form the testimonies of his peers …… is much more valuable than the testimony of a crazy guy who claims that was kidnapped by allliens.

But Both are testimonies and by your standards none count as evidence.

The point is that the vast , vast , vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from testimonies, you simply trust the testimonies of these who made the experiments. (which is ok)

The conclusion is not “therefore science fails” the conclusion is “therefore your own standards fail”

All you have to do is acknowledge your mistake, and simply admit that testimonies (at least sometimes) count as evidence. Once you admit this obvious simple and uncontroversial fact I will proceed in correcting your other mistakes

 

[leroy]

This is your new attempt to take over the world?
Testimony is an assertion without evidence, revealed knowledge, Loonies barking on the street corner.
Scientific evidence is the presentation of observation with not just the observation itself, but with the methods and materials for you or others to duplicate the observations if they wish.
Theories are overarching schema that integrate observations and predict new observations.
Now you will attempt to equivocate again with the usual pathetic denial.
I don't class this as a theory because while it is "obvious" it is not worth the effort of data collection to demonstrate the scientific rigor.

Make an honest effort and try to understand my point, I promise it is not so hard.

Nobody is questioning the validity of the scientific method; my only point is that YOU PERSONALLY in most of the cases can only know something about science, because you trust in the testimonies of others. You trust in the testimonies of the authors of the papers (books, articles ...), and trust that they really did made the experiments and really got the results they claim they got.

Which is ok, there is nothing wrong with trusting in a testimony, especially if this testimony comes from a well-informed person whose peers can confirm it.

The mistake is to say that testimonies are not evidence (because at least sometimes they clearly are)

 

[leroy]

EVIDENCE and evidence-based DATA that back any scientific theory (I am not just talking about theory of Evolution…I am talking about any science and any scientific field), is not merely opinions of scientists “say so”, Leroy.

Creationists and Intelligent Design creationists are the ones with no evidence and no data, so all their concepts are based on unsubstantiated beliefs, opinions and pseudoscience concepts.

Even Behe admitted under oath, being cross-examined during the Kitzermiller vs Dover case, that there are no evidence, no experiments, & no data to scientifically support Intelligent Design…which mean ID is unfalsifiable, untestable and unscientific.

Basically, Michael Behe had flushed his career as biochemist down toilet. No fellow biochemists believed a word he say, since he wrote Irreducible Complexity, Darwin’s Black Box, and his contribution to the later edition of Of Panda And People.

What Behe wrote, are merely speculative opinions, that have no scientific substance…in another word - his “say so”.

If you don’t understand the differences between models backed evidence-based data and personal testimonials of some half-assed creationists, then you only got yourself to blame for being hopeless science-illiterate.

You claim that the TOE is true, because you trust in testimonies. You trust the testimony of your teacher, or the testimony of the authors of books, or articles or papers etc.

You trust in the testimony of scientists who claimed to have done the experiments and the math, and the observations etc…. (which is ok, at least sometimes it is ok to trust in other´s people testimony)

If you think that testimonies are not evidence , then you have NEARLY zero evidence for evolution

Even Behe admitted,,,,,

how do you know that? where you there? NO, you know that Behe made those claimes because you trust in the testimonies of those who where there. (therefore testimonies are evidence)

 

[leroy]

I don't care about your "imagination". I care about the facts we observe in the world.

Awesome………….. so please prove that it is a fact that our ability to reflect upon deep philosophical stuff evolved by Natural Selection.

I won ‘accept you bare assertions (provide a source)

And I won’t accept testimonies as evidence (just kidding on this one)…….obviously I would accept the testimony of a scientist in a peer reviewed publication