Irony of the evolutionary belief

[John53]

I don't have to wonder what sort of reception I would get if if tried to explain the develop of resistance in corn earworm to some active toxin if I used the techniques and claims that I've seen render here.

That would be a good way to tell them nothing and end my career.

They use ramps to crawl up the corn stalks.

 

[cladking]

I've asked you many times what a "peer" is, and you've yet to define it. You use the term as if a peer were some sort of committee member.

As far as science and metaphysics are concerned there's no such thing as a "peer" or a "Peer".

To believers in science "Peers" are Gods who define a nebulous thing they think is reality. To those who understand science "peers" are those versed in the current paradigm who are most likely to agree about the greatest number of things. "Peers" are individuals and do not necessarily agree about anything and each has different models.

Neither "peers" nor "Peers" have anything to do with the scientific method and are extrametaphysical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as science and metaphysics are concerned there's no such thing as a "peer" or a "Peer".

Sorry, you are, as is often the case, wrong. Every scientist is a peer of every other in their respective areas of expertise. You seem to have this belief that peers are some faceless organization that controls what gets researched and what that research says and that things that might support your erroneous ideas are suppressed out of some belief system that you see science as being.

You seem to embrace all the negative claims that you lay on scientists about holier than thoughs and things like seeing what you believe and want to see.

To believers in science "Peers" are Gods who define a nebulous thing they think is reality.

This is just nonsense. It's the conspiracy you keep claiming and never demonstrating.

To those who understand science "peers" are those versed in the current paradigm who are most likely to agree about the greatest number of things.

You don't any idea and are just saying stuff.

"Peers" are individuals and do not necessaily agree about anything

Peers are those that are skilled knowledgeable in the areas of the work being offered for review. I've been peer reviewed a number of times and found value in it.

Have you ever done actual research and submitted reports for publication?

I understand that you might say this, because I couldn't imagine anything you claim without evidence or experiment to support it ever getting a pass from reviewers or even finding a journal that would risk collapse for publishing what you state.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as science and metaphysics are concerned there's no such thing as a "peer" or a "Peer".

To believers in science "Peers" are Gods who define a nebulous thing they think is reality. To those who understand science "peers" are those versed in the current paradigm who are most likely to agree about the greatest number of things. "Peers" are individuals and do not necessarily agree about anything and each has different models.

Neither "peers" nor "Peers" have anything to do with the scientific method and are extrametaphysical.

If you were to try and publish your claims about the assumptions Darwin made in formulating the theory of evolution being all wrong, you would be asked to show those assumptions and demonstrate that they are wrong. You can't even do that on this forum, so it is without much effort to conclude that you couldn't do it in publication. It is no wonder that you come to the conclusions you do, for thinking your claims have merit and finding them so flawed they cannot pass muster.

 

[cladking]

I don't see how Experimentation conflicts with the skepticism, empiricism, falsifiability, repeatability

It doesn't necessarily but experiment is fundamental and "empiricism" is an abstraction which includes things like "evidence" which is subject to personal interpretation. "Skepticism" has become nothing but a word that usually means one accepts dogma for better or for worse. Falsifiability and repeatability are important but science is not a spectator sport nor is it dependent on others.

Ancient science was in many real ways dependent on others but not our science. An experiment that can be repeated need not be repeated. An experiment can lead to new knowledge and new experiment without ever being repeated.

Science is experiment and reasonable homo omnisciencis use evidence, observation, and logic to create hypothesis but failed hypotheses are only science to the degree that they show dead ends.

 

[cladking]

Have you ever done actual research and submitted reports for publication?

Irrelevant.

If you don't accept dogma and the prevailing paradigm you can not be peer reviewed.

I mightta mentioned I do not accept all the assumptions underlying soft science and none of the paradigms. To the degree Evolution is a soft science I do not accept it either. I believe that people see what they expect.

 

[cladking]

I remember it was on one of these threads where you first discovered punctuated equilibrium. And not all that long ago either. A relatively well-known theory. So, given what appears to be a very, very limited subject matter detail of evolution and the theory, I find that your claiming against the theory as if you have expertise in the field to be ironic as well.

It is my contention that one need not be a "Peer" nor well versed in a subject to observe that the king has no clothes and that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at population bottlenecks.

 

[cladking]

...all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at population bottlenecks.

It would almost lead one to think that change in species is genetic and that each individual is a slightly different species than its parents!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is my contention that one need not be a "Peer" nor well versed in a subject to observe that the king has no clothes and that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at population bottlenecks.

If one is well-versed in a subject, then one is a peer.

You have no clothes. This has been demonstrated countless times.

Your claim about observed change in species occurring at bottlenecks is completely wrong and this has been explained to you countless times. It is one of those events where you believe you have clothes on and expect others to agree with your belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would almost lead one to think that change in species is genetic and that each individual is a slightly different species than its parents!

More nonsense.

Change in species is genetic. Different species have different genes. Who woulda guessed it? Good grief!

Individuals are not slightly different species than their parents. Yet more claims you make that don't make sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Personally I recognize that a day can be however long the Bible needs and or wants it to be.
Since it has no bearing outside the Bible...

Yes, it does.

 

[YoursTrue]

NO!@!!!

As I've tried to explain many times the basis of science is experiment. If you expand on this you can add "observation". And then add in threory. then definitions and axioms. You can go all day defining "metaphysics'.

Peer review is irrelevant and contained in no definition except among those who don't understand metaphysics and the nature of real science. If you think that Peers define what is and is not science you are never going to be a real scientist or understand the nature of science. If people are hav9ing this much trouble understanding simple English and simple science it's little wonder they are missing the concept of "paradigm" altogether.

Bravo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant.

If you don't accept dogma and the prevailing paradigm you can not be peer reviewed.

I mightta mentioned I do not accept all the assumptions underlying soft science and none of the paradigms. To the degree Evolution is a soft science I do not accept it either. I believe that people see what they expect.

That is not true at all. One only needs to show evidence . . . oh oh, you still do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Oh well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would almost lead one to think that change in species is genetic and that each individual is a slightly different species than its parents!

All observed change in species is not sudden. You claim to have posted examples supporting, but you never have. Not once. Ever. The best you could come up with is that change in living things or species happens quickly relative to the formation of galaxies. As if that ridiculous observation means something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bravo.

No, not bravo. He tries to use an improper definition of "experiment" to go with that claim. In fact there is nothing that says one must have a laboratory to do science. The basis of science is the testable hypothesis. As long as one can reasonably test one's idea it is "science".

 

[YoursTrue]

All observed change in species is not sudden. You claim to have posted examples supporting, but you never have. Not once. Ever. The best you could come up with is that change in living things or species happens quickly relative to the formation of galaxies. As if that ridiculous observation means something.

All observed changes by who?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All observed changes by who?

By whoever is making the observations. For example we can often observe the results of evolution in the fossil record. If accurate enough photographs and information is given of where and how they were found and especially of the specimens people can observe and test this all around the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

All observed change in species is not sudden. You claim to have posted examples supporting, but you never have. Not once. Ever. The best you could come up with is that change in living things or species happens quickly relative to the formation of galaxies. As if that ridiculous observation means something.

Not sudden, hmm? @Subduction Zone also...Who observed these changes and when did this observation begin, by the way? Beaks getting larger, smaller. Maybe long time until birds become ... Well they're not going back to ... Large dinosaurs you think? Given the chance of possibilty maybe they will.

 

[McBell]

Yes, it does.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[McBell]

No, not bravo. He tries to use an improper definition of "experiment" to go with that claim. In fact there is nothing that says one must have a laboratory to do science. The basis of science is the testable hypothesis. As long as one can reasonably test one's idea it is "science".

Cladking uses off the wall definitions for most the words they use.
they fancy themselves as some sort of beyond science scientist, but I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, agree with their "theories".