Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

The discovery of “fishbians” doesn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution……….do you know what “follow logically means”?


An example of follow logically would be “I am married………...therefore(prediction) I am not a bachelor”……. This means that there is no possible way and no possible world where I could be married and be a bachelor………. This is what follow logically means”

Who a I kidding………..obviously you will not grasp this

Who are we kidding, why are we even bothering. Is it masochism or avoidance of other realities or blind faith in the worth of all humans?

 

[Pogo]

The mistake is that “logically follows” is a very strong word ……………. This means that there is no logical way in which the prediction doesn’t follow from the model/theory/hypothesis etc.

For example it is logically possible that the pollination of trumpet shaped flowers where just hallucinations created by the Matrix , in which case the long-billed pollinators wounpt excist.

If that scenario is included in your logically possible set, .....well I don't know what to say.
Maybe instead of trying to take over the world you should get a new avatar. some suggestions.

or

0r

 

[Pogo]

Please answer me this--would you say a lot of information is packed into a zygote?

By whose measure and what definition of information?
Though in general Yes though significantly less than in an adult.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The discovery of “fishbians” doesn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution……….do you know what “follow logically means”?


An example of follow logically would be “I am married………...therefore(prediction) I am not a bachelor”……. This means that there is no possible way and no possible world where I could be married and be a bachelor………. This is what follow logically means”

Who a I kidding………..obviously you will not grasp this

What? It is very obviously a testable (and confirmed) prediction drawn from evolutionary theory.


"For example, I had heard about the fossil of Tiktaalik roseae that was found in 2004 that linked fish to amphibians. This was a huge deal because the animal that the bones came from had characteristics of both fish and amphibians. And it appeared in the fossil record at the right time to be a transitional animal between the two.

What I hadn't fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for.

They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik roseae would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the beast would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.

They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik roseae would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the beast would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.

This is important for a lot of reasons. One is that it obviously tells us a lot about how vertebrates emerged onto dry land. Another is that it provides further validation of geological dating methods. They had to rely on these methods to know where to look for the fossil and the methods worked.

This find is also important because it is based on a prediction made by evolutionary theory. Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land. So the scientists looked in a place that was 375 million years old.

Scientists used evolution to make a testable prediction that turned out to be true. And evolution came through with flying colors like any good scientific theory should."

 

[SkepticThinker]

lol, I love that. I'm wrong because the scientists haven't quite figured it all out. Anyway, here's another tidbit for your perusal: "Speaking during a TV talk show "Star Talk", aired on Sunday on National Geographic Channel, Hawking propounded his theory on what happened before the universe came into existence." I notice his theory was broadcast on the National Geographic Channel. my, oh my! Nothing was around before origin of universe: Stephen Hawking Imagine that. Nothing was around before the origin of the universe. Isn't that quaint?

This thread is about evolution. So why do you keep bringing up Stephen Hawking's views on how the universe came into existence??

 

[firedragon]

Scientists used evolution to make a testable prediction that turned out to be true. And evolution came through with flying colors like any good scientific theory should.

Rosy and sounds just like a very evangelical missionary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rosy and sounds just like a very evangelical missionary.

Sorry, what?

 

[F1fan]

why dont you answer directly?

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

yes or no?

The answer is YES. Why? Because the whole point of a hypothesis is to test a prediction. If the prediction doesn’t follow the evidence, or model, then it’s not a hypothesis. There is a specific design to a hypothesis that has to be testable. Part of what makes a hypothesis is a test for the prediction being made, and it has to be likely that it will meet the minimum statistical standard.

Obviosly the answer is NO, but you dont whant to correct your ally because you dont want to expose him in a public fórum……….correct?

It’s not obvious at all. No high school science class will teach your absurdity. I can’t make any sense of how your approach works. It’s because you don’t understand science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why dont you answer directly?

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

yes or no?

Obviosly the answer is NO, but you dont whant to correct your ally because you dont want to expose him in a public fórum……….correct?

Because I am tired of your shenanigans. You even continued them after asking your question telling everyone that your question was disingenuous.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The mistake is that “logically follows” is a very strong word ……………. This means that there is no logical way in which the prediction doesn’t follow from the model/theory/hypothesis etc.

Yes, if the model or induction is correct, then the deductions that logically follow from it will be correct. If all men are mortal (induction) and Socrates is a man (a claim of fact), then Socrates is mortal (deduction). We predict that he can and will die, and if our premises are correct, then it "logically follows" that Socrates has died or will die. "There is no logical way in which the prediction doesn’t follow."

If I have seven of something and add four more, I'll have eleven of them altogether (induction). I had eleven apples and added four more (fact), therefore, I have eleven apples (deduction). Same thing. If the premises are accurate, the prediction is as well.

Incidentally, "logically follows" is a phrase, not a word.

For example, it is logically possible that the pollination of trumpet shaped flowers where just hallucinations created by the Matrix , in which case the long-billed pollinators wouldn't exist.

Yes, it is, but "logically possible" and "logically follows" don't mean the same thing. If that which is logically possible actually is the case, then your conclusion is correct. We phrase that as a conditional: If our experiences are illusions, then conclusions we deduced from them before we knew that are unreliable.

A problem with faith-based thinking is that it perverts the reasoning faculty, which is most useful when it is employed to discover how things are. When we skip the discovery part, we become motivated to justify our faith-based assumption, which leads to bad thinking. You have some crippling habits of thought that I assume are the result of years of motivated thinking trying to justify creationism. Here you are bucking the concept of a logical conclusion.

Your mind is better used to learn how to arrive at those conclusions yourself than to try to undermine the process, but if you have chosen to believe a false idea and are more interested in defending it than confirming it, you won't do that. It's a terrible habit of thought. You can see how different your thinking is from those with whom you disagree and how different your posting experience is from theirs. You're on the defensive. You're forced to play semantic games as we saw recently regarding the use of the word testify. You're frequently arguing over what has already transpired and demanding to be shown this and that in old posts - points you didn't comment on when they were made. People question your integrity and intelligence.

This is the price one pays for indulging in that kind of thinking and then interacting with those that don't. Look at Trumps lawyers, who are tasked with defending positions that contradict the evidence. Compare them to the prosecutors, who are promoting theories consistent with the evidence and reason. One group has a terrible job and the other an enviable one. Sound familiar?

Please answer me this--would you say a lot of information is packed into a zygote?

Yes, although I don't call it information until some mind becomes aware of it. Until then, it's just form. But that's not what you're interested in, so the simple answer is yes. The genome of a zygote contains a lot of instructions.

 

[leroy]

Because I am tired of your shenanigans. You even continued them after asking your question telling everyone that your question was disingenuous.

I’ll say that it is disingenuous to ignore the mistakes made by others……………just because they have the same philosophical view than you

 

[leroy]

Yes, it is, but "logically possible" and "logically follows" don't mean the same thing. If that which is logically possible actually is the case, then your conclusion is correct. We phrase that as a conditional: If our experiences are illusions, then conclusions we deduced from them before we knew that are unreliable.

Ok but logically follows means that there is no other possible alternative. Agree?

Predictions don’t have to reach such a high level in order to consider them valid predictions.

For example if the hypothesis is that you have a dog………..I would predict that to see dog food in your shopping kart everyone in a while……….. But this prediction (even if valid) it doesn’t follow logically from the hypothesis……….. There are many other possible reasons for why you would buy dog food..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok but logically follows means that there is no other possible alternative. Agree?

Predictions don’t have to reach such a high level in order to consider them valid predictions.

For example if the hypothesis is that you have a dog………..I would predict that to see dog food in your shopping kart everyone in a while……….. But this prediction (even if valid) it doesn’t follow logically from the hypothesis……….. There are many other possible reasons for why you would buy dog food..

It depends on how you understand the 2nd classical law of logic. What is your understanding of that?

 

[leroy]

The answer is YES. Why? Because the whole point of a hypothesis is to test a prediction. If the prediction doesn’t follow the evidence, or model, then it’s not a hypothesis. There is a specific design to a hypothesis that has to be testable. Part of what makes a hypothesis is a test for the prediction being made, and it has to be likely that it will meet the minimum statistical standard.

It’s not obvious at all. No high school science class will teach your absurdity. I can’t make any sense of how your approach works. It’s because you don’t understand science.

You are often so wrong at so many levels that one is tempted to think that you do it on purpose to avoid and change the topic .

The key word is “logically” ……. Yes predictions are expected to follow from the hypothesis but they are not expected to follow LOGICALLY……..do you see the difference?


To follow logically means that there can´t be other alternatives (even if these other alternatives are unlikely or even impossible according to the laws of nature)…………..few if any predictions in science could ever rich such a high level.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are often so wrong at so many levels that one is tempted to think that you do it on purpose to avoid and change the topic .

The key word is “logically” ……. Yes predictions are expected to follow from the hypothesis but they are not expected to follow LOGICALLY……..do you see the difference?


To follow logically means that there can´t be other alternatives (even if these other alternatives are unlikely or even impossible according to the laws of nature)…………..few if any predictions in science could ever rich such a high level.

Again, it depends on your understanding of the 2nd law of classical logic.

 

[leroy]

If that scenario is included in your logically possible set, ...
or 0r

Yes, and also aliens and unicorns and big foot are in the "logically possible set"………the isseue is that you have no idea on what logically possible means………..and @Subduction Zone doesn’t want to correct you because he doesn’t want to humiliate you in a public forum.

This is the meaning of logical possibility

logically possible: capable of being described without self-contradiction https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/logically-possible

So obviously the Matrix and a horse with a horn (unicorn) are not contradictory concepts (like married bachelor) therefore they are logically possible

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and also aliens and unicorns and big foot are in the "logically possible set"………the isseue is that you have no idea on what logically possible means………..and @Subduction Zone doesn’t want to correct you because he doesn’t want to humiliate you in a public forum.

This is the meaning of logical possibility

So obviously the Matrix and a horse with a horn (unicorn) are not contradictory concepts (like married bachelor) therefore they are logically possible

Yeah, but you still haven't connected logic to the rest of the concepts regarding truth, epistemology and ontology.

 

[leroy]

It depends on how you understand the 2nd classical law of logic. What is your understanding of that?

I am not aware of different ways of understanding that law………..something cannot be A and not A ….i don’t see how else ..can it be understood

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not aware of different ways of understanding that law………..something cannot be A and not A ….i don’t see how else ..can it be understood

Well, that is the folk version. In practice A at a given time space can't be A and not A. But from there doesn't follow that A is at all at another time and space.
And that is not even all. Because A is abstract and it changes for e.g. the cat is black, because that is not abstract, but concrete.

So I go it right. You are using a folk version of logic.

 

[leroy]

Well, that is the folk version. In practice A at a given time space can't be A and not A. But from there doesn't follow that A is at all at another time and space.
And that is not even all. Because A is abstract and it changes for e.g. the cat is black, because that is not abstract, but concrete.

So I go it right. You are using a folk version of logic.

Ok, and then what? Is that relevant?

It is still true that predictions in science don’t have to follow logically I order to be valid