Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[Zosimus]

No, it isn't. You're committing the faulty generalization fallacy - asserting that because 'x' may not be true in ALL situations that 'x' cannot be demonstrated to be true as a general rule.

I have seen some stupid arguments, but this one really takes the cake.

My point is that natural selection is a tautology. A tautology is something that is always true by definition. Your rebuttal is that even though it might not always be true, it can be taken to be true as a general rule?

Natural selection is an observable phenomenon.

So is the love of God. What's your point?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, it's a waste of time. It's like arguing with racists. They only change when they want to.

 

[Zosimus]

How are you failing to understand this? Natural selection is the explanation that accounts for how and why certain genes in certain environments proliferate greater than other ones and how this leads to overall changes in allele frequencies in living populations over time.

Right. The beneficial mutations are selected for.

How do we know that the ones that were selected for were the beneficial ones?

Because they were selected for.

It's a tautology. That's all it is. Fundamentally it's no different from saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

 

[Zosimus]

You mean Charles Babbage the mechanical engineer?

From Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage was an English mathematician, philosopher and inventor born on December 26, 1791, in London, England.

That's what I love about you people. You find out that someone is:

English
a mathematician
a philosopher, and
an inventor

then he makes something and you say:

He did so because he was a SCIENTIST.

ImmortalFlame's definition of a scientist: Anyone who discovers or invents something that I like.

How do you know he didn't invent the computer because he was English?
or a mathematician?
or a philosopher?
or an inventor?

Simple! It's this thing called confirmation bias.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have seen some stupid arguments, but this one really takes the cake.

I agree, your argument is ridiculous.

My point is that natural selection is a tautology. A tautology is something that is always true by definition. Your rebuttal is that even though it might not always be true, it can be taken to be true as a general rule?

I'm getting tired of explaining something to you that you are determined not to understand. Do you understand the difference between a tautology and an observation?

So is the love of God. What's your point?

False. Please demonstrate a direct observation of God.

 

[Zosimus]

So what? Why is that relevant? Mutation also makes no predictions.



Natural selection is not a scientific theory, which is why it predicts nothing. It's the name for an observed processes: the differential survival and reproductive capacity of variants within a population of organisms. Natural selection is the name for that phenomenon, not a prediction.

Another observed and named process is mutation. It also predicts nothing. Such is the nature of names.

I'll bet that you have a name. What does it predict?

Also, natural selection is not a tautology any more than any other name for a physical process is. Is mutation also a tautology?

One can play the tautology game with any definition. Let's define the even integers as those integers that yield another integer when divided by two. Well, if we can substitute "those integers that yield another integer when divided by two" for "even integers," then we get that "Those integers that yield another integer when divided by two are those integers integers that yield another integer when divided by two."

Again with the missing the point thing.

No one claims that number theory is a subject for scientific inquiry because it isn't.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

From Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage was an English mathematician, philosopher and inventor born on December 26, 1791, in London, England.

That's what I love about you people. You find out that someone is:

English
a mathematician
a philosopher, and
an inventor

then he makes something and you say:

He did so because he was a SCIENTIST.

ImmortalFlame's definition of a scientist: Anyone who discovers or invents something that I like.

How do you know he didn't invent the computer because he was English?
or a mathematician?
or a philosopher?
or an inventor?

Simple! It's this thing called confirmation bias.

Are you serious? Are you honestly suggesting that Charles Babbage, the incredibly influential mechanical engineer and godfather of computer science, who applied for the position as junior secretary of the Royal Society, who wrote extensively for and about scientific journals in the hopes of refining the scientific process, who built his difference engine through rigorous testing and application of the then scientific method, was not a scientist and did not use the methodology of science to produce his work?

Okay, I'm calling Poe. There has to be some kind of punchline.

 

[Zosimus]

Ridiculous. Science considers sense experience a vital but not the only source of (fallible) knowledge about the world. Since science so strongly relies on mathematics, logic and inference, it would be ridiculous to claim that science relies only on sense experience. You are confusing how science actually works with what a bunch of clueless philosophers have been saying about how science works.

Further the fact that I use inference from past experience everyday to live successfully is entirely based on the data of these past experiences. How are you making the absurd claim that my argument does not rely on sense experience as well as reasoning.?

How do you reliably distinguish between which liquids to drink and not to drink using infallible rationality untouched by corruption of experiential data.? Stop dodging the question.

I have already answered your question a half a dozen times, but I'll answer it again.

There is no reliable way to determine which liquids are safe to drink and which are unsafe to drink.

You can buy 100 Pepsi's and have no problems whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the 101st Pepsi couldn't be tainted.

Knowledge requires certainty. Induction does not provide certainty. Therefore, induction does not provide knowledge.

On the other hand, we can know things about the world a priori. If I am chasing a rabbit and that rabbit ducks out of sight, I know that the rabbit still exists. It has not ceased to exist.

Similarly, I know that there are no atheists in foxholes. I don't need to observe a large number of atheists and foxholes to know that.

 

[Zosimus]

I'm getting tired of explaining something to you that you are determined not to understand. Do you understand the difference between a tautology and an observation?

Here we go again.

Let me try to explain it again, as though you were a five-year-old kid, and maybe you'll get it.

The sun rose in the east yesterday. It rose in the east the day before. In fact, no one can remember a time when the sun did not rise in the east. You, therefore, claim that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

How do you know this?

You are employing something called induction. Your reasoning is as follows:

P1. The sun rose in the east has always risen in the east in the past.
C. The sun will always rise in the east in the future.

The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Accordingly, there must be a missing premise.

The missing premise is: What is true of the past will also be true of the future.

The question is now: How do we know that the past is a good guide to the future? Most people, when asked this question, invariably say: Because it has worked well in the past.

So their argument is that the past is a good guide to the future because it has worked well in the past and will, therefore, work well in the future. The problem with this argument is that it is begging the question. It assumes that the past is a good guide to the future and uses this to (supposedly) prove that the past is a good guide to the future.

Now, your argument is that natural selection is an observation. Yes, it is! It's an observation that you have made about the past. Why should I think that this observation will hold true in the future?

 

[Zosimus]

Are you serious? Are you honestly suggesting that Charles Babbage, the incredibly influential mechanical engineer and godfather of computer science, who applied for the position as junior secretary of the Royal Society, who wrote extensively for and about scientific journals in the hopes of refining the scientific process, who built his difference engine through rigorous testing and application of the then scientific method, was not a scientist and did not use the methodology of science to produce his work?

Okay, I'm calling Poe. There has to be some kind of punchline.

Heck, I'll go you one better. Newton was not a scientist, and I can prove it.

Newton died in 1727.

The first scientist didn't exist until after 1834. In fact, the word didn't even exist until 1834.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here we go again.

Let me try to explain it again, as though you were a five-year-old kid, and maybe you'll get it.

The sun rose in the east yesterday. It rose in the east the day before. In fact, no one can remember a time when the sun did not rise in the east. You, therefore, claim that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

How do you know this?

You are employing something called induction. Your reasoning is as follows:

P1. The sun rose in the east has always risen in the east in the past.
C. The sun will always rise in the east in the future.

The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Accordingly, there must be a missing premise.

The missing premise is: What is true of the past will also be true of the future.

The question is now: How do we know that the past is a good guide to the future? Most people, when asked this question, invariably say: Because it has worked well in the past.

So their argument is that the past is a good guide to the future because it has worked well in the past and will, therefore, work well in the future. The problem with this argument is that it is begging the question. It assumes that the past is a good guide to the future and uses this to (supposedly) prove that the past is a good guide to the future.

Now, your argument is that natural selection is an observation. Yes, it is! It's an observation that you have made about the past. Why should I think that this observation will hold true in the future?

How many times do you leave your house by walking through the front door, rather than opening it?

 

[sayak83]

Point 1: The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Point 2: The statement "Either Zosimus has to admit this or state its irrational to breed faster, stronger warhorses for battle going against all historical evidence." is not parallel.

Point 3: I can understand you misspelling warhorse once, but misspelling it to warhouse and later to warehouses?!

Point 1 is not a point but poetry
Point 2 is since simply stating the obvious fact that fitness is a statistical thing and among the group warhorses, a faster stronger horse is more likely to survive, which is how fitness is measured... a statistical probability.

Point 3 is Google autocorrect.

 

[sayak83]

I have already answered your question a half a dozen times, but I'll answer it again.

There is no reliable way to determine which liquids are safe to drink and which are unsafe to drink.

You can buy 100 Pepsi's and have no problems whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the 101st Pepsi couldn't be tainted.

Knowledge requires certainty. Induction does not provide certainty. Therefore, induction does not provide knowledge.

On the other hand, we can know things about the world a priori. If I am chasing a rabbit and that rabbit ducks out of sight, I know that the rabbit still exists. It has not ceased to exist.

Similarly, I know that there are no atheists in foxholes. I don't need to observe a large number of atheists and foxholes to know that.

I disagree that knowledge requires certainty. Look up fallibilism. And no, you know no such thing about the rabbit. It's just another probabilistic inference based on your past experiences on how objects behave with you assuming that that rabbit is not an exception or the inference holds in the next moment. It is entirely possible that next second onwards, all rabbits that go into a hole vanish permanently. You cannot declare with certainty that is not the case
Your knowledge about the rabbit is based on inference, uncertain and fallible.

I know atheists who have served bravely. Your disparaging remark merely belittles you and does nothing to me as I am no atheist either.

 

[Sapiens]

Similarly, I know that there are no atheists in foxholes. I don't need to observe a large number of atheists and foxholes to know that.

Your implied Theft of Honor sickens me, you are such a poser.

The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers provides community for atheists, humanists, and other nontheists in the military.

MAAF maintains a roster of Atheists in Foxholes, just in case there are any rumors that we don't exist. The next time you hear someone repeat that old myth, just send them here to see how atheists have served honorably in combat - always have, always will.

Besides the MAAF members below, keep in mind atheists in foxholes whose stories have been in feature stories and documentaries: Pat Tillman, Afghanistan war Army Ranger and football player, Hans Kasten, WWII POW leader, Phil Paulson, Vietnam Veteran and activist, Kurt Vonnegut, WWII POW and author, Ted Williams, WWII Veteran and baseball player, Ernest Hemingway, WWI Vet and author, Sherwin Wine, Founder of Humanistic Judaism, Major Sidney Excell, who arrested Heinrich Himmler, Bob Kerrey, former Governor and Senator, Navy Seal, and Medal of Honor recipient.

You need to retract that base canard!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay so beneficial mutations = mutations that increase your chance of breeding.

So the natural selection argument boils down to this: Mutations that increase your chance of survival and production of progeny increase your chances of survival and production of progeny.

Therefore, according to your own words, it's a tautology.

Ah, the tautology game again.

No, that was not according to his words. Those were your words.

He gave a definition and you substituted the definiens for the definiendum and then called it tautological.

You've done the equivalent of changing his 2+2 = 4 to 4 = 4 by substituting equivalents, then criticized what you came up with as tautological..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your question merely shows that you don't understand at all. The point that I am making is that natural selection is not a scientific theory.

Then you are arguing with yourself. Nobody claimed otherwise. You came closest:

Zosimus said: "It will simply claim, after the fact, that the result (whatever it may be) is consistent with the tautology/theory of natural selection."

IANS: "Natural selection is not a scientific theory, which is why it predicts nothing. It's the name for an observed processes: the differential survival and reproductive capacity of variants within a population of organisms. Natural selection is the name for that phenomenon, not a prediction. Another observed and named process is mutation. It also predicts nothing. Such is the nature of names."

The scientific theory is called the theory of (biological) evolution, not natural selection. You've been told this.

I notice that you disregarded the second part of my request, the practical one:

"Did you answer my last request for an explicit statement of your position - just exactly what it is that you are criticizing or objecting to, and what you recommend doing about it? And given whatever answer you provide, should we toss this scientific theory out? Modify it? Do nothing different?"

Is there a reason for that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have seen some stupid arguments, but this one really takes the cake.

My point is that natural selection is a tautology. A tautology is something that is always true by definition.

"Natural selection" is the name of an observable process. A name cannot be a tautology, and is neither true nor false.

Is "Zosimus" a tautology?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again with the missing the point thing.

No one claims that number theory is a subject for scientific inquiry because it isn't.

Again, ignoring the point and deflecting from it by misrepresenting the purpose of an analogy.

Here's what you deflected from:

"Natural selection is not a scientific theory, which is why it predicts nothing. It's the name for an observed processes: the differential survival and reproductive capacity of variants within a population of organisms. Natural selection is the name for that phenomenon, not a prediction. Another observed and named process is mutation. It also predicts nothing. Such is the nature of names. I'll bet that you have a name. What does it predict? Also, natural selection is not a tautology any more than any other name for a physical process is. Is mutation also a tautology?"

Is there any reason that you chose to ignore all of that and pursue a straw man instead?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Knowledge requires certainty. Induction does not provide certainty. Therefore, induction does not provide knowledge.

You seem to have your own private definition of knowledge. Most definitions refer to useful ideas acquired through experience or education.

Being certain about something says nothing about that of which you are certain. Believers tell us that they are certain about gods. That doesn't make their god belief knowledge.

On the other hand, we can know things about the world a priori. If I am chasing a rabbit and that rabbit ducks out of sight, I know that the rabbit still exists. It has not ceased to exist.

Object permanence is an acquired (a posteriori) understanding.

Object permanence - Wikipedia

Similarly, I know that there are no atheists in foxholes. I don't need to observe a large number of atheists and foxholes to know that.

The idea that there are no atheists in foxholes underscores the idea that theistic belief is born of fear. It suggests that a rational man who, in a state of calm and over many years has concluded that there is probably no god, can be made to reverse himself when terrified and desperate.

That's hardly an endorsement of a god belief.

 

[sayak83]

Okay so beneficial mutations = mutations that increase your chance of breeding.

So the natural selection argument boils down to this: Mutations that increase your chance of survival and production of progeny increase your chances of survival and production of progeny.

Therefore, according to your own words, it's a tautology.

What are you going on about. That's the definition of a beneficial Mutation. We are defining what we mean by beneficial. Those mutations that increases the chances of reproductive success. It helps to identify that subclass of mutations from others (harmful and neutral). How is this a tautology?

Eg,. Circle is defined as the collection of points for which x^2 + y^2 = r^2 hold.

By your logic, when one finds the collection of points that follow the above rule and identifies it as a circle, he is doing something irrational?