The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[metis]

It's impossible for one man to out vote all the Peers no matter his credentials

That's not how it's done! In cases of disagreement or uncertainty, what's disagreed upon is typically on the same formal paper with information as to what that issue is.

Welcome to the future and the brave new world where everyone is free to believe only what Peers approve.

Talk about "conspiracy theories" that don't even stand up to basic logic.

You clearly have no clue how modern science is handled, nor do you seem to much care to know.

 

[F1fan]

It's impossible for one man to out vote all the Peers no matter his credentials.

Why do you think voting is the way to decide results in science and not the scientific method, which is objective?

And do you think professional credentials are not important?

Nothing can, will, or has ever changed until Peers vote on a matter and it thus becomes "settled science".

I still don't understand why you think voting is a way to decode what science is. It doesn't;t work that way for a reason. Heck, even Christianity can't decide what it is, and it needs some 41,000 sects to argue over.

Science has a method that has quite objective and has rules. For example an experimenter has to account for all data. If the data does not support the hypothesis then it fails. It takes a lot of work, and experts have better instruments and more and more data.

Welcome to the future and the brave new world where everyone is free to believe only what Peers approve.

This future has been been a thing since the 1800's.

And you are free to believe your nonsense. But you can't blame ethical experts who follow the scientific method for not agreeing with your non-scientific ideas. That's your problem. We all know it. You can't bluff educated people.

 

[cladking]

Almost all science throughout the world now uses peer review, so you really don't know what you're talking about. It not only creates more transparency, it also sets up more honesty.

No!!!! For all the reasons ALREADY MENTIONED and because it serves to glorify and set the status quo in concrete. Peers can not consider ANY hypothesis or theory that is outside of their assumptions and many of the assumptions of science have turned out to be false. Populations are not stable, ancient people made perfect sense, and consciousness is not irrelevant to change in species or ANTHING ELSE RELATED TO LIVING THINGS.

You will almost never build good theory on false assumptions. It is virtually impossible and for most practical purposes we should consider it impossible.

There are numerous false assumptions besides these three relevant ones. Our understanding of our place on earth and in the cosmos is highly flawed. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is nonsense of the highest order. Ask yourself which would win in a meeting of the fittest lion with the fittest wildebeest. How about the second fittest lion with the fittest wildebeest? Which lion living today is the fittest? Are you wholly incapable of seeing a circular argument?

 

[cladking]

You clearly have no clue how modern science is handled, nor do you seem to much care to know.

For the 1000th time; real science is experiment. It is not looking and it is not the belief of Peers.

 

[tas8831]

One of the problems with the current version of evolution is it is too dependent on the mysticism of randomness.

Given your vast scientific background and years of study of evolution, can you explain in your own words what "random" means in the context of evolution?

I know you can, so thanks in advance!

There is a type of religious element added that is based on some unknown force of that gives you anything you need but under its own schedule. It is like a god principle. If you cannot figure out how the cell call appears you summon the god of random with math oracles.

Surely you are joking? You cannot really think that 'randomness' is posited as a force?

The creationist approach uses a god that is deliberate and organized.

You betcha! How else to explain the hyena female's pseudopenis?

Such grand organization! Such deliberate grotesqueness! So deliberate and organized that these poor creations must often chew off the ends of their own clitoris/pseudopenis to give birth!

AMAZING!

The god of evolution is like an idiot savant who staggers around, and can fall onto good luck allowing a link to the unknown gaps; finite odds. This idiot savant God does not sit right with a theory calling itself science.

How precious of you to feel a need to imbue a natural process with the antics of a deity in order to drag it down into the gutter with religion.

That cladking liked this post should be evidence enough that it is not accurate or relevant or to be taken seriously.

 

[tas8831]

For the 1000th time; real science is experiment. It is not looking and it is not the belief of Peers.

I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence)

 

[tas8831]

"Peer review" is NOT a part of the scientific method. It is irrelevant to experiment and reality. All science is based on experiment and no science is based on peer review.

So you dismiss the role of observation.

Quaint.

But since you find experiment paramount - please show us the experiments for your claims. ANY of them - even the dopey stuff about pyramids and Ancient Language that does not exist outside of your cranium.

I am especially interested in your experiments on how human infants decide to grow a bifurcated "broccas area."

 

[metis]

No!!!! For all the reasons ALREADY MENTIONED and because it serves to glorify and set the status quo in concrete. Peers can not consider ANY hypothesis or theory that is outside of their assumptions and many of the assumptions of science have turned out to be false. Populations are not stable, ancient people made perfect sense, and consciousness is not irrelevant to change in species or ANTHING ELSE RELATED TO LIVING THINGS.

You will almost never build good theory on false assumptions. It is virtually impossible and for most practical purposes we should consider it impossible.

There are numerous false assumptions besides these three relevant ones. Our understanding of our place on earth and in the cosmos is highly flawed. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is nonsense of the highest order. Ask yourself which would win in a meeting of the fittest lion with the fittest wildebeest. How about the second fittest lion with the fittest wildebeest? Which lion living today is the fittest? Are you wholly incapable of seeing a circular argument?

As one who was involved in that process, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Thus, it is you who have fallen victim to "false assumptions".

 

[cladking]

And do you think professional credentials are not important?

Give that man a cigar!!

"Credentials" can make anyone MORE LIKELY to be wrong. In the 1850's every surgeon thought washing their hands and tools was a waste of time with critical patients. No doubt many people washed splinters and tweezers before removing foreign objects. No doubt folk remedies and "witches" often included using cleaned instruments. But the patients of surgeons almost all died.

Every human being which includes every Peer alive today uses circular reasoning. It is unavoidable and "Peers" by definition is the group of all individuals who share the exact same assumptions. Why can't you understand and address THIS thought? I would be happy to argue this and have plenty of logic and evidence to support this belief (see preceding paragraph) but instead you are changing the subject by presenting doctrine and YOUR belief in the omniscience of Peers.

 

[F1fan]

One of the problems with the current version of evolution is it is too dependent on the mysticism of randomness. There is a type of religious element added that is based on some unknown force of that gives you anything you need but under its own schedule. It is like a god principle. If you cannot figure out how the cell call appears you summon the god of random with math oracles.

The creationist approach uses a god that is deliberate and organized. The god of evolution is like an idiot savant who staggers around, and can fall onto good luck allowing a link to the unknown gaps; finite odds. This idiot savant God does not sit right with a theory calling itself science.

It's hard to even respond to these kinds of responses because there are so many errors and wrong assumptions that have to be corrected. If you can't get science right why make comments that prove it?

I'm not sure if you guys just don't know better, or if you are trying to bluff more educated people, which is oddly naive. Trying to infuse religious ideas into how science explains nature isn't good faith or accurate.

 

[metis]

For the 1000th time; real science is experiment. It is not looking and it is not the belief of Peers.

It's "experiment" and "observation of evidence", so repeating your falsehoods doesn't miraculously make them magically true.

You need to go back to basics, and here's not a bad place to start because of your basic lack of understanding: Science - Wikipedia

 

[F1fan]

Give that man a cigar!!

"Credentials" can make anyone MORE LIKELY to be wrong.

Really? So you get a Ph. D. in biology and you are more likely to be wrong than a high school graduate working at a local car wash?

Is it fair to say to have contempt for expertise and professionalism?

In the 1850's every surgeon thought washing their hands and tools was a waste of time with critical patients. No doubt many people washed splinters and tweezers before removing foreign objects. No doubt folk remedies and "witches" often included using cleaned instruments. But the patients of surgeons almost all died.

Right. Germ Theory and Pasteur. Classic example of how facts overturn wrong assumptions.

Evolution has facts, and you have wrong assumptions, as many point out. You're on the wrong side of your example.

Every human being which includes every Peer alive today uses circular reasoning.

Well then you condemn your own claims.

It is unavoidable and "Peers" by definition is the group of all individuals who share the exact same assumptions. Why can't you understand and address THIS thought?

Because you are wrong and it is only your bias that you are presenting as evidence.

I would be happy to argue this and have plenty of logic and evidence to support this belief (see preceding paragraph) but instead you are changing the subject by presenting doctrine and YOUR belief in the omniscience of Peers.

IOW you have no evidence and no argument, and no accountability for your failure.

 

[cladking]

As one who was involved in that process, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Thus, it is you who have fallen victim to "false assumptions".

How ironic. My only assumptions are that reality exists as it is perceived by most people most of the time, time is what keeps two objects from being in the same place, cause precedes effect, and everybody makes perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises.

Suffice to say your premises are very very different. Many of your premises are simply wrong. They seem to be right because they make perfect "sense" but they only makes sense because you think in a confused language that you learned along with beliefs and ideas that were not true. They seem to make sense because words can be ephemeral even in our own thinking and virtually worthless for communication.

 

[cladking]

Really? So you get a Ph. D. in biology and you are more likely to be wrong than a high school graduate working at a local car wash?

YES! On some subjects you are far more likely to be wrong. Remember prediction is the hallmark of good theory and the average joe can sometimes have a better chance of making accurate prediction.

This doesn't mean I'd go to the carwash to have my tonsils removed.

 

[tas8831]

Give that man a cigar!!

"Credentials" can make anyone MORE LIKELY to be wrong.

What a joke....

 

[cladking]

Thus, it is you who have fallen victim to "false assumptions".

This is your chance to trot out your evidence and logic. You can either try to show you're right or I'm wrong but use evidence and not doctrine.

 

[tas8831]

Give that man a cigar!!

"Credentials" can make anyone MORE LIKELY to be wrong.

Says the guy with a 'few college classes' that despite having the correct spelling and relevant information provided to him, continues to misspell "Broca's area" and misrepresent what it is and its location and development.

In the 1850's every surgeon thought washing their hands and tools was a waste of time with critical patients. No doubt many people washed splinters and tweezers before removing foreign objects. No doubt folk remedies and "witches" often included using cleaned instruments. But the patients of surgeons almost all died.

Almost all?
Evidence please.

Every human being which includes every Peer alive today uses circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning - like claiming to be the only person that understand Ancient Language while being the only person that claims there was such a thing?

It is unavoidable and "Peers" by definition is the group of all individuals who share the exact same assumptions. Why can't you understand and address THIS thought? I would be happy to argue this and have plenty of logic and evidence to support this belief (see preceding paragraph) but instead you are changing the subject by presenting doctrine and YOUR belief in the omniscience of Peers.

Bolded part is a lie. You rely on your mere suppositions and 'it sounds right to me' folk "logic", not facts or experiment. Where is your take on the Ancient Hebrew antics of anointing tapestries with oils to ward off illness, and the kooky ritual of killing a pigeon over running water to cure leprosy?

 

[F1fan]

YES! On some subjects you are far more likely to be wrong.

OK, give us examples of how a high school grad working at a car wash can know more about some subjects than a Ph.D. in a field of science.

And please don't give the example of how the kid knows how to get bird **** off a car better than a Ph.D. I'll give you that one.

Now back up your outrageous claim. Use facts.

Remember prediction is the hallmark of good theory and the average joe can sometimes have a better chance of making accurate prediction.

Give examples of this actually happening, and being successful in modern times.

This doesn't mean I'd go to the carwash to have my tonsils removed.

You never know, the towel boy might have a new insight in tonsil removal. Are you saying you have doubts about your own claim?

 

[tas8831]

Many of your premises are simply wrong.

Empty assertions are the egotists' way.

 

[cladking]

OK, give us examples of how a high school grad working at a car wash can know more about some subjects than a Ph.D. in a field of science.

I didn't say he knows more. I said his beliefs and expectations on a specific question can be more likely to lead him to the truth or an accurate prediction than a Peer. I said all Peers can be wrong about anything because Peers are by definition the group of all individuals who share the same beliefs about a given question. Peers, as a rule, are far more likely to be correct than other people but they are certain to share the same errors and others might not. The guy at the car wash might know from figuring it out or from experience that white cars are easier to wash or Chryslers are harder where an expert in any subject might predict exactly the opposite or believe his experience is mere superstition. Maybe the critically wounded patient about to be operated upon in the 1850's would be appalled to see the doctor come at him with a blood stained scalpel. Maybe the "settled science" of aiding autistic patients to "speak" using ouija boards would be obvious claptrap to almost anybody with two brain cells.

Now back up your outrageous claim. Use facts.

Why don't you explain how the child who first washed his tweezers back in the 1850's was less right than the surgeons who sawed off legs with rusty implements

You never know, the towel boy might have a new insight in tonsil removal. Are you saying you have doubts about your own claim?

No!!! My claim is obviously true because every peer can be wrong since (did I mention) "PEERS" are BY DEFINITION the group of individuals who share the same beliefs. Why can't you see this? Would a larger font help or maybe it should be in hieroglyphs. When one Peer is wrong They are Each wrong. Peers are not Gods, They are not privy to the Truth, They are merely the Priests of Science.