Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[whirlingmerc]

No one has said that similarity means common ancestry. Where do you get this from? Similarity can be evidence of common ancestry. It is evidence of common ancestry, but one needs to be careful. Convergent evolution occurs when environment governs the form that a species takes. It is better to look deeper. Body parts are more telling and DNA is a slam dunk.

It was claimed blood similarity and bacteria similarity between cow and whale showed common ancestry

I agree it's fanciful

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, something that a creationist would make up.

Perhaps if you learned what science is and how it is done you would not make such obvious errors.

Well perhaps the Museum of Natural History can commission a cow to whale painting to their liking

Friendship between animals does not prove common ancestry either

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bill Nye only has a BS in Mechanical Engineering .
Carl Sagan has more but astronomy
Darwin's another astornomer
Darwin had a degree in Bible and that was it

so yes... fair enough

Darwin was more of a geologist. I don't think that he studied astronomy at all. All of these people understand the scientific method and evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Even Richard Dawson couldn't think of an example of where information increased in a point mutation... as many information scientists have noted is a big hole in the speculation of evolution... perhaps theory is not as good a work for it as speculation.

Information and software gotta come from somewhere and software doesn't write itself

You made a claim here, please identify some of these scientists. As nPeace is so fond of quoting forum rules please be good enough to adhere to them

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was claimed blood similarity and bacteria similarity between cow and whale showed common ancestry

I agree it's fanciful

Where? That is a first for me. It is DNA that shows the relationship.

 

[ChristineM]

My my my.... I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees...and many decades of practical experience

I see you really enjoy ad hominem
but when you're position is weak as yours is, what can you do but fall back on that?

None in biology or a science so where is the as hom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 22893

Well perhaps the Museum of Natural History can commission a cow to whale painting to their liking

If you don't want people questioning your intelligence you should not write such insipid posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My my my.... I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees...and many decades of practical experience

I see you really enjoy ad hominem
but when you're position is weak as yours is, what can you do but fall back on that?

What ad hom? You probably do not understand the term.

And why do you keep breaking the Ninth? I have mountains of scientific evidence for my position. You have none for yours.

 

[nPeace]

ALL science is based on this method. You start with an educated guess or hypothesis and figure out a way to test the hypothesis that can be replicated by others. Based upon the results of the test, additional hypothesis are then made. It holds true for Ortelius's theory of plate tectonics as well as Einstein's theory of relativity... and of course, Darwin's theory of evolution.

Thanks. I'll get back to you.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Darwin was more of a geologist. I don't think that he studied astronomy at all. All of these people understand the scientific method and evidence.

His only degree was in Bible
His grandfather did shape his views and had quite an occult take on the transmigration of souls from lower animals to higher

 

[ChristineM]

My my my.... I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees...and many decades of practical experience

I see you really enjoy ad hominem
but when you're position is weak as yours is, what can you do but fall back on that?

You also seem fond of advertising the fact.

I find that people who drive big flashy red cars are really quite small.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Thanks. I'll get back to you.

Actually... that's not true... the scientific method requires things to be observable, repeatable, testable and was articulated by creationist Sir Fransic Bacon

Darwin's theories were largely form another type of scientific inquiry more related to historical investigations and they were not observable repeatable and testable as required by the scientific method

 

[whirlingmerc]

You also seem fond of advertising the fact.

I find that people who drive big flashy red cars are really quite small.

No, no... I actually don't like to advertise when people resort to ad hominem

Charcoal car here

But yes... PhD related to statistical experiments.. and into my 4rth decade working on practical engineering issues

 

[ChristineM]

When someone "knowledgeable" tells you this
Not a few bones but many along with dna (which cannot lie), comparative anatomy and anthropology. 50 years ago the conclusion was interred, but you are behind the times because it suites your agenda, now, 50 years later things have moved on and the evidence is sound

.and someone "knowledgeable" tells you this
And most of science is "inferring". It is inference based upon evidence and testing.
You wonder, so what are these "knowledgeable" people making so much noise about?

With so much evidence around us, why don't you infer a creator.
Ah. The scientific method cannot include the supernatural - only ETs.
Too bad.

[/QUOTE]

You obviously still do not comprehend the scientific method so fall back on the old mockery again

Please provide evidence of a creator, the supernatural... ou and et's.

 

[nPeace]

You obviously did not even bother with the link i provided

You gave me what I asked for.
I thought the last link was your way of saying, 'Here get yourself educated about science.'
Was it what I asked about, then I'll look at it, otherwise,... sorry. This is a debate forum, not a science class.

Besides I informed you before hand.
Forum rules say
always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines)

 

[Subduction Zone]

None in biology or a science so where is the as hom?

Actually... that's not true... the scientific method requires things to be observable, repeatable, testable and was articulated by creationist Sir Fransic Bacon

Darwin's theories were largely form another type of scientific inquiry more related to historical investigations and they were not observable repeatable and testable as required by the scientific method

And perhaps it would help if you understood what "observable" means in the sciences. The evolution of species is observable. This may help:

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

By the way, experiments must be repeatable. Individual events need not be repeatable. The theory of evolution meets all of those requirements.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You obviously still do not comprehend the scientific method so fall back on the old mockery again

Please provide evidence of a creator, the supernatural... ou and et's.[/QUOTE]

And there's the rub... the creator is not 'in the box' of the universe unless he wants to but out of the box and hence a serious limitation of naturalistic science - or a blind spot if you prefer

 

[whirlingmerc]

And perhaps it would help if you understood what "observable" means in the sciences. The evolution of species is observable. This may help:

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

By the way, experiments must be repeatable. Individual events need not be repeatable. The theory of evolution meets all of those requirements.

Actually it does not. The speculations of evolution rely on scientific inquiry more skin to historical investigations

And as pointed out some are quite circular... calibrating mitrochonrial rates to what evolution claims.. then turning around and using it as supposed proof..

 

[ChristineM]

No, no... I actually don't like to advertise when people resort to ad hominem

Charcoal car here

But yes... PhD related to statistical experiments..

Right, you are doing a great job of not advertising

good for barbecues... ?

Statistics is a mathematical discipline, not science

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, no... I actually don't like to advertise when people resort to ad hominem

Charcoal car here

But yes... PhD related to statistical experiments.. and into my 4rth decade working on practical engineering issues

That is because usually they have not done so.

If you have a PhD you really should be able to understand this. You might have severe cognitive dissonance. That could be the only excuse that I can think of and your refusal to discuss this topic properly.