Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Zosimus]

Good job on your standardized test scores!

Also, my balls are warm. It feels nice. There's nothing wrong with a little personal cupping.

Good for you.

Well, your required premise is a bit flawed because genotypic characteristics aren't physically expressed, and we are talking about phenotypes here, but whatever...

"There is a process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency and, therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate those genotypic qualities to succeeding generations..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research-projects/earliest-humans-china

"...Therefore, all humans must have originated in Africa."

I think you just proved my point. Natural selection doesn't predict that humans originated in Africa. The conclusion that humans originated in Africa has a lot to do with DNA research and assumptions that are not related to natural selection in the slightest. So again, we're back to tacking by disjunction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis

So your answer for why genetic variations exist among human populations is...sex?

You had to look meiosis up?

That's certainly how it happens, yes. You're only halfway there, Bon Jovi.

What biological force decides which features are to be preferred in a given setting?

Dumb luck.

Which overarching factor in the life of an organism determines its fitness to a given environment?

This is a bad question because science never tries to predict what organisms are fit in a given environment. Science just notes that one organism has done well, and comes in after the fact to rationalize why it did so.

Why do we find dark-skinned populations permeating warmer climates and light-skinned cultures permeating cooler ones? Why do we find eye and nose variations among populations that live in extreme environments, compared to those that live in more moderate locales?

Again, this is wrong. My wife is black whereas I'm white. Our noses are very different. Yet we live in the same geographical location. How does evolution explain that? It doesn't.

With even the slightest understanding of Natural Selection, those questions are readily answered.

No, you mean that you can rationalize it after the fact and claim that you predicted something when you did nothing of the sort.

Sexual reproduction is the way in which information is passed on and varied, yes. But it doesn't answer why certain features become prominent within a population - Natural Selection does.

So, again, it's a tautology.

Mutations occur...

Similar to meiosis, mutations are simply one way in which information is changed in both individuals and populations over time. The amount of benefit or hindrance that mutations play in the life of any organism is directly related to it's function in a given environment, assuming of course that it's represented phenotypically. Non-beneficial mutations can be negative or netural. If they are detrimental to survival, they have a limited chance of being passed on to offspring. Beneficial mutations seem to permeate among populations because they increase an organism's fitness respective to their environment. What is beneficial in one environment may not be beneficial in another. Organisms reproduce for survival, and they pass on their own genetic make-up to their offspring. In doing so, positive or beneficial mutations have a better chance of becoming part of the standard gene pool of subsequent generations, creating a new common variation among a specific population.

....Therefore, natural selection.

This is begging the question. One of your premises is "The amount of benefit or hindrance that mutations play in the life of any organism is directly related to it's function in a given environment, assuming of course that it's represented phenotypically."

Essentially you start by assuming natural selection and then conclude natural selection. Fundamentally, this is no different from the following argument.

"Everything that exists has a creator. Since natural forces cannot create a human being, supernatural forces must have been involved. Therefore, God." Great—but it's circular logic.

Our results were incredibly different

Well, try using Google next time.

You are challenging a widely accepted academic standard and what is essentially the basis for all of Biology. You're going to have to support your position with just a little more finesse than screaming "Tracking by disjunction! Logical fallacy!"

No, the basis of biology is the claim that the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. That's not the same as the other assumptions that together form neo-Darwinism.

The logical response to the supposed flaw of the Raven's paradox is written very clearly in the linked article. You asked for a Bayesian equation disputing it and I provided one, via the link.

No, that's not what I asked. I asked whether you thought that finding green apples verified that all ravens were black.

No. Billions of grains of sand have nothing at all to do with Richard Dawkins. If you want to study Richard Dawkins, you should study Richard Dawkins and not sand.

Again, if you think that, then you didn't understand the Bayesian equation you posted, because the equation says that finding grains of sand does provide evidence that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist. So again, I think you need to go back and read the preface to the part of the Wikipedia article you posted, which reads: "One of the most popular proposed resolutions is to accept the conclusion that the observation of a green apple provides evidence that all ravens are black..."
So once again, I think you need to learn how to read.

The same is true of the ravens being black. If you want to study Ravens you should just study Ravens. The color shoes that your mother wore when she married your father have nothing at all to do with ravens.

Once again, your link states otherwise.

Here's one... If you wanted to support the idea of Jesus' divinty, how would you do it?

I wouldn't even know how to start.

We can use unicorn if you like - It wouldn't change anything. The point will remain that changes to populations occur, organisms adapt to their environment, and over the long-term whole populations evolve away from their parent populations becoming something else entirely. This happens anywhere along the taxonomic scale that you care to look.

Speculation. Confirmation bias.

How do you know it wasn't a change in the wood or metal of the chair? You're just tracking by disjunction! There's no way to be sure that it was the electricity that killed the person. Confirmations don't prove anything.

You don't understand the argument you're railing against. Go back and re-read it.

 

[Zosimus]

You wouldn't know - since you can only track by disjunction when testing predictions. Confirmations mean nothing.

A student walked in just as I was replying to you, so I had to cut my response short. However, I had more to say, so I am taking it up again.

What is tacking by disjunction? You don't seem to understand, so I'll explain it to you.

Let's imagine that I am firmly convinced that a celestial teapot exists, but most people are skeptical and I cannot provide any evidence. So I modify my theory slightly to be:

A celestial teapot exists and diamonds are harder than glass. In essence, I have tacked the claim "diamonds are harder than glass" onto my original theory, and I now claim that I have evidence for the theory that the celestial teapot exists because I can demonstrate that all known diamonds are harder than glass. Most people would say that this is invalid tacking.

Yet there exists a theory of natural selection, which is as untestable as the celestial teapot theory. However, this theory is commonly tacked onto the rest of the neo-Darwinism paradigm, and confirmations of mutations and fossil records are often taken as confirmation of not only other elements of Darwinism but also natural selection. You, apparently, think this is valid tacking.

Your job, therefore, is to provide a rule that can be used to seperate "bad" tacking from "good" tacking so that you can justify tacking natural selection into the other theories that make up the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (neo-Darwinism).

Thus, if I say "Electricity can kill someone" and someone dies in an electric chair, there is no tacking of any kind (good or bad) going on.

Now you may fall back on the "confirmations mean nothing" claim, but what you are missing is the difference between the claim:

Electricity will kill you.
and
Electricity can kill you.

The second claim is far more modest than the first one and far less likely to be untrue (or falsifiable).

 

[Zosimus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis Wikipedia links meiosis with natural selection and proof of evolution YIKES? Am I mixed up?I thought the person using that was creationist,maybe I'm confused?

Yes, well, that's because you cannot read. If you look just to the left of this text over there you will see that it says AGNOSTIC. Thus the question is not whether Creationism is evidenced but rather whether there is any evidence that would permit someone to definitely prefer Darwinism over Creationism.

In addition, we have the side topic of whether evidence is actually relevant and how much so. Try to pay more attention.

 

[Shad]

Anyway, there is no reason to believe that humans originated in Africa. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Asia.

Now, since natural selection supposedly predicted the Out of Africa theory, which has now been falsified, does that mean that natural selection is falsified? Of course not. Because no experimental finding could falsify the theory of natural selection. That's because natural selection makes no novel, testable predictions that could be open to experimental falsification.

You should do more research on your sources to avoid embarrassment when one figures out you are quoting pseudoscience author from a "journal" that has been found to be fraudulent for years. He is not only the author of this hack paper but also the editor of the one of the journals that reviewed it. This is a conflict of interests. Alas your rush to confirmation bias has again clouded your judgement and ability to evaluate anything in an honest manner.

 

[Zosimus]

You should do more research on your sources to avoid embarrassment when one figures out you are quoting pseudoscience author from a "journal" that has been found to be fraudulent for years. He is not only the author of this hack paper but also the editor of the one of the journals that reviewed it. This is a conflict of interests. Alas your rush to confirmation bias has again clouded your judgement and ability to evaluate anything in an honest manner.

No, you should learn how to read with an eye for what are facts and what are claims. My claim is that even if the Out of Africa theory is disproved, as seems possible, natural selection will not go with it. That's the point of my argument. Try to keep up.

As for the Out of Asia theory, you can easily find backing for it at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

Scientists working in Daoxian, south China, have discovered teeth belonging to modern humans that date to at least 80,000 years ago.

This is 20,000 years earlier than the widely accepted "Out of Africa" migration that led to the successful peopling of the globe by our species.

Oops! Problems with the theory.

 

[viole]

You err because you think this came out yesterday. Do you think I was walking along and I suddenly realized that Einstein was wrong? Of course not. I never gave Einstein a second thought much less the speed of gravity. The refutation was published in Physics Letter A in 1998.


Physics Letter A is a peer reviewed scientific journal. So all of your speculation is irrelevant.


So when I mention that a peer-reviewed paper, published in 1998, casts doubt on what is currently thought about gravitation, you refer me to a book published in 1973? Seriously?!

Yeap. Seriously. That has been rebutted by Steve Carlip already. FLanders mathematical skills are far from the optimal. He probably does not even know what a tensor is.

And I would not read Physics Letter A. It would be like reading "the Sun", or its american equivalent, to get a culture. I would go for Physical Review letters, which published a more than peer reviewed (hundreds of contributors) article last February about gravitational waves. Can provide the link if you want.

By the way: if I show you a peer reviewed article about, say, evolution, would you accept it as true?

You err because you think that the point of decisions is to make the correct one and because you define correct in a bass ackwards kind of way. Tell me, if you are driving your car late at night and you come upon a stop sign, do you figure that you've never seen a police officer at that intersection and run the stop sign or do you stop even though there is no cross traffic?

You don't even err, because I do not see how that is related. The question is very simple: how do you know that cancer can be killed by reducing glucose, if it does? How do you know it is part of the decision set? Did you get an illumination from God?

Once again, it never ceases to amaze me that the biggest science apologists throw science out the window as soon as it comes up with conclusions that violate their preconceived notions.

And when did I do that?

Funny. When I heard that 80 percent of non-randomized published research findings are later convincingly refuted, I wondered whether you might be better off just flipping a coin than relying on non-randomized published research.

Yeap. Like your Physics Letter A article, I suppose. Lol.

You err because you do not understand the point of the problem. Take, for example, the circus tent puzzle from BG2.

Q: A princess is as old as the prince will be when the princess is twice as old as the prince was when the princess' age was half the sum of their present age.

Someone posted a solution involving lots of algebra, and I'm sure the person is proud of his/her algebra skills. I, however, solved the problem instantly by realizing that the princess must be older than the prince and a quick scan of the answer choices let me eliminate several possibilities. I never even picked up a pencil. It's a different mindset, you see. If you instantly see the solution, then you're a good candidate for a business school. If you can crunch the numbers, then you'd be better off as an accountant. Some people don't know the answer and can't calculate it, but they could still get the answer because they could write a computer program that would figure it out for them. That's great—but it means the person isn't apt for business school. He or she should become a computer programmer.

Do you need algebra for that? Are they all so simple? If yes, why do you need multiple choices? Now I understand why my business managers seem to be so confused when multiple choices are not given .

Well, actually it does because you give someone a math problem that requires 2 minutes to calculate and 1 minute to solve it. People who need to do the calculations are going to run out of time before they finish the test.

One minute? By the way, how many questions and how much time do you have?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

My own president? My president is Pedro Pablo Kuczynski. What planet are you from?

Alright. Point taken. Let me rephrase it.

What I find ironic is that you pointed out my spelling error in your post while failing to spell correctly the name of the President of the United States of America in the same post.

Better?

But it is understandable. There were no multiple choices after all

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

you just keep piling it deeper and deeper.

Get lost Mr. Diaboli. Scoot, scoot. Ha ha.

 

[McBell]

Get lost Mr. Diaboli. Scoot, scoot. Ha ha.

Are you ever going to address the point I raised or are you content with flaunting your dishonesty?

 

[james bond]

Now, looks who's talking about ignorance.

Nonfiction doesn't mean everything written are true, or science or historical. You don't know what you are talking about.

Mythology falls under the nonfiction department, not fiction. Classical literature and medieval literature also fall under the category of nonfiction.

Go to your local library, JB. Look at Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, or Hesiod's Theogony, or Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, or Euripides' Medea, or the Icelandic Snorri's Prose Edda, or Thomas Malory's Death of King Arthur, all of them classified as mythological, and yet come under the nonfiction area of the library.

English literature, French literature, etc, all can be found in the nonfiction area.

Once again, you have shot yourself in the foot, accusing another person of ignorance, when you really should look at your reflection.

I know what I'm talking about because God knows what He's talking about. You're more fakery and misdirection like evolution. You continue to see what you want to see, and continue to talk DOWN to me and the religious, when you're on the downward path to being DOOMED. My faith is in God while yours is with a few men who are wrong and evolution. How stupid is that? We'll have to see who gets the last laugh me bucko ha ha.

Greek mythology and the works you mention has fictional stories, but is considered non-fiction because there is some level of truth involved. The Bible isn't based on mythical stories, but history. It's a history book as I stated before. Can I help it if your people today continue to apply today's ideas and standards to evaluate the past? It was different back then which is what I have been saying all along.

 

[james bond]

I have over 60 publications in legitimate journals, he has none. If you insist on making common cause with their ilk, that's your choice.
There is no need to waste one's time since (as we have seen in many threads) all that they are capable of is complaining about settled science, they have no defensible claims themselves to advance.
Now ... there's an oxymoron.
Not "usurp" rather "falsify."
About the same time they stopped bleeding people who were sick.
No, creation "science" has been eliminated because it is demonstrable nonsense.

Sorry, I didn't reply earlier, but try to keep it to three-posts-in-a-row.

Will you reveal these journals to help enlighten us all? You wouldn't reveal what Donald Johanson said in his speech, so who knows? He's the one who made a monkey out of you. Ha ha. My little humor. Hope you're not African American or else it could be racism.

I'm not on the level of Dr. Snelling on geological time, but that's not what's important. I can read and understand what he's saying and be able to explain to others. What can you explain since you haven't really explained anything, at least to me?

There is a need to correct the mistakes in evolution. That's why we have the battle over education. Evolution is a mistaken belief. We can leave the religion out and present an alternative science or creation science.

The real oxymoron are people like James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and more recently Dr. Victor Stenger.

Let's agree to call it intellectual thievery. It's theft to use it for one's on self-interests. I already mentioned God of the Gaps was a warning to Christian scientists.

Ha ha. More ignorance? Bloodletting is still continued today under phlebotomy. The Bible says, "But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat." Deuteronomy 12:23 and science backs it up. Just what are you saying with the bloodletting. Please explain so we can laugh some more.

The last point is more ignorance on your part.

 

[Zosimus]

Good grief. You are still on this.

This thread is about "Verifiable evidences for creationism". Do you remember, or have you lost sight of the topic of this thread?

I think it is you who have lost sight of the argument.

Verificationism is dead, gone, and buried. It was a philosophical dead end. It was self-refuting. You cannot name one expert alive today who believes in that nonsense.
Yet you want "verifiable" evidence for creationism? How exactly do you propose that the evidence be verified?
Note that the word is not evidences but evidence. Evidence is a singular uncountable mass noun. I have told you this several times now. Yet you persist in putting forward something that you know is wrong. Why is that?

What makes you think that evidence would be relevant to the point in question anyway?
If Creationism is a scientific theory, then it must be falsifiable, and it is on you to falsify it.
If Creationism is not a scientific theory, then requesting evidence is pointless.

 

[Riders]

Yes, well, that's because you cannot read. If you look just to the left of this text over there you will see that it says AGNOSTIC. Thus the question is not whether Creationism is evidenced but rather whether there is any evidence that would permit someone to definitely prefer Darwinism over Creationism.

In addition, we have the side topic of whether evidence is actually relevant and how much so. Try to pay more attention.

WHatever.The point is that there are smart professionals who dont agree with your statement on Meiosis. ( WIki is full of scientific evidence) I dont need to pay more attention its right infront of my eyes, i clearly see smart folks who disagree with you.

 

[Zosimus]

Yeap. Seriously. That has been rebutted by Steve Carlip already. FLanders mathematical skills are far from the optimal. He probably does not even know what a tensor is.

By the way: if I show you a peer reviewed article about, say, evolution, would you accept it as true?

This is a stupid question. Let me answer your question with a question: If I could show Creationism in the Bible, would you believe it?
If not, would that be any bar from you using the Bible to argue against a point made by a Christian?

You don't even err, because I do not see how that is related. The question is very simple: how do you know that cancer can be killed by reducing glucose, if it does? How do you know it is part of the decision set?

Yes, exactly. You don't understand at all how to make a sensible decision. I have provided you with resources to indicate the recommended method, but you either haven't read them or haven't understood them. Let's take a simple decision: Let's assume that you want to lose weight. A friend comes to you and says that she tried product X, and she lost 15 kilos. Your next logical decision is not to ask for scientific studies that prove the method is safe and effective but rather to ask how much the product costs. Why? Because at a certain number the product, even if it could be proved to work, is simply not worth buying because you don't want to lose weight enough to pay that price.

Did you get an illumination from God?

No, God did not give me an illumination on how much IP6 costs. I googled it. Duh.

And when did I do that?

You've been doing this throughout the thread. You have cast aspersions on the GMAT test since the first time you heard about it. Yet empirical studies indicate that the GMAT score is one of the best predictors of success for students in the program. Later studies have suggested that the Analytical Writing Assessment is a better predictor of academic success in an MBA program. Additionally, all schools who accept GMAT scores have their own, proprietary internal scores that allow them to properly weight the various GMAT test indications in line with their experiences of what predicts success for candidates for their personal program. However, although you know literally nothing about the system and have nothing to back up your opinion except a hunch or two have decided that it's all a bunch of BS because you once beat somebody in a baseball trivia multiple choice contest?

Show a little humility. Reserve judgement about things you know nothing about.

Do you need algebra for that? Are they all so simple? If yes, why do you need multiple choices? Now I understand why my business managers seem to be so confused when multiple choices are not given .

So you have taken a randomized statistical sampling of all business managers on the planet and correlated their confusion when you ask them questions to their GMAT scores? No? Then why do you feel entitled to have an opinion on the subject? You know what, even if you had done a randomized sampling you still wouldn't be entitled to an opinion.

One minute? By the way, how many questions and how much time do you have?

Google it.

 

[Zosimus]

Alright. Point taken. Let me rephrase it.

What I find ironic is that you pointed out my spelling error in your post while failing to spell correctly the name of the President of the United States of America in the same post.

Yes, it's nice that you've learned how to spell ironic. You haven't learned the meaning of the word, but at least you can spell it now. Now you need to learn how to spell "all right."

Last I checked neither Barack nor Obama were words. I couldn't find either in my dictionary.

 

[Zosimus]

WHatever.The point is that there are smart professionals who dont agree with your statement on Meiosis. ( WIki is full of scientific evidence) I dont need to pay more attention its right infront of my eyes, i clearly see smart folks who disagree with you.

Ooh. We have been treated to a textbook example of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Out of curiosity, what do those "smart professionals" have to say about morbid obesity and its effect on one's health?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm admittedly cherry-picking. I'll come back for the rest later.

I think you just proved my point. Natural selection doesn't predict that humans originated in Africa. The conclusion that humans originated in Africa has a lot to do with DNA research and assumptions that are not related to natural selection in the slightest. So again, we're back to tacking by disjunction.

This whole conversation came from you attempting to dispute an evolutionary prediction made well-before our ability to test it with DNA. It has been validated through more recent discoveries, which you are obviously agreeing to. Yet somehow it doesn't make the point that Natural Selection makes testable predictions?

You had to look meiosis up?

No - I post sources for people who will come back and read conversations later so that there aren't too many questions while they're educating themselves on issues. As an educator, surely you understand that.

Dumb luck.

Dumb luck.... So, Polar bears, with their white coats, aren't found in wooded and warmer environments simply because of dumb luck, correct? It has nothing at all to do with, say, environmental factors more conducive to their survival?

Again, this is wrong. My wife is black whereas I'm white. Our noses are very different. Yet we live in the same geographical location. How does evolution explain that? It doesn't.

It explains it quite easily and accurately.

Knowing nothing at all about you and your wife I'm going to predict, using the principles of Natural Selection, that her ancestors came from a predominantly warmer and arid climate, where the yearly cycle is dominated by the extremes of heat. I'm going to predict that your ancestors are of Northern European decent. I'll also predict that your DNA contains a higher concentration of Neanderthal-specific genes than does your wife's.

You can tell me as much or as little about your family genealogy as you like. But I'd wager a year's salary that if you go back far enough in lineage for both of you that those predictions will be accurate. We are products of our environments. Your current geographical location is a product of social expansion, not biological influence. How you and your wife arrived are you current place on the globe is probably well known to both of you, right? No evolutionary principle would expect your phenotypical features to change simply because you moved somewhere... That's ridiculous.

 

[Riders]

Ooh. We have been treated to a textbook example of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Out of curiosity, what do those "smart professionals" have to say about morbid obesity and its effect on one's health?

Roll on the floor laugh my fat *** off at the fact that you couldnt come up with a come back so you attack my obesity issue, even though Ive lost over 30 pounds. Its ok I will be a healthy weight soon and Ill get revenge but nice try trying to escape from having to come back with an intelligent answer.

 

[Shad]

No, you should learn how to read with an eye for what are facts and what are claims. My claim is that even if the Out of Africa theory is disproved, as seems possible, natural selection will not go with it. That's the point of my argument. Try to keep up.

Yet you are making a statement of fact right after the video you used to support said fact.

As for the Out of Asia theory, you can easily find backing for it at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34531861

Considering there are remains that date back 130k years, 80ks doesn't really effect the out of African theory much

This is 20,000 years earlier than the widely accepted "Out of Africa" migration that led to the successful peopling of the globe by our species.

Too bad the theory has a dating of 130k years which is still 50k years before your source. Also read the source of your BBC articles which does not support your claim nor BBC's.

Oops! Problems with the theory.

No the problem is still you since you do not read your own source's sources. Your eye's glaze over with confirmation bias and you stop reading. Try again.

 

[gnostic]

I think it is you who have lost sight of the argument.

Verificationism is dead, gone, and buried. It was a philosophical dead end. It was self-refuting. You cannot name one expert alive today who believes in that nonsense.
Yet you want "verifiable" evidence for creationism? How exactly do you propose that the evidence be verified?
Note that the word is not evidences but evidence. Evidence is a singular uncountable mass noun. I have told you this several times now. Yet you persist in putting forward something that you know is wrong. Why is that?

What makes you think that evidence would be relevant to the point in question anyway?
If Creationism is a scientific theory, then it must be falsifiable, and it is on you to falsify it.
If Creationism is not a scientific theory, then requesting evidence is pointless.

No, zosimus.

My background in science is in applied science, so I just want to know HOW something work, HOW to use something, and HOW to avoid making a mistake.

In computer science, it is not so much as life-and-death situation, but in my earlier career as civil engineer, lives are at stake, so I have to make sure I meet the safety requirements in design and in construction, because you really don't want a building or a bridge to collapse, by taking shortcuts. i am required to understand the materials being used in construction, and require testings and knowing their limits, as much as people who actually do the physical works.

I have neither the time nor the patience to learn "this philosophy" or "that philosophy".

I don't give a s### about the verification-ism as a philosophy. I am talking about science methodology of testings, I am not interested in any fricking philosophy of any "-ism".

I am sure that I have already told you that I am not interested in philosophy.