Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[McBell]

Do I believe in cause and effect? Yes, I do.

Why are you scared of answering the question brought before you?

 

[Zosimus]

Why are you scared of answering the question brought before you?

That was the question brought before me. Did I stutter?

 

[Zosimus]

I was asked a straightforward question. I gave a straightforward answer.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Do I believe in cause and effect? Yes, I do.

Cause and effect is another issue. I"m asking you what you think determines the rate of survival of a species? Is it pure luck or does the performance capabilities of the organisms play a role?

 

[Zosimus]

I'd say a little of both. What would you say?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'd say a little of both. What would you say?

A little or a lot? If I have a lion in the wild who doesn't have claws, teeth or eyes will it survive as well as a lion with all of these traits? Or will luck have just as much of a role to play?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It isn't. Natural selection is the observed process in which pressures genetic change. Do you disagree that unfit animals in the wild die?

It's the same process which determines that superior products survive to be replicated and copied also, inferior ones are discarded.

But the change, those significant improvements in design must first arise somehow... before they can be selected right?

i.e. natural selection of superior traits goes entirely without saying, whether we are talking about giraffes or potato chips.

But how millions of significant design improvements arise, morphing a single cell into a human being.. relying entirely on fluke mutations, random genetic coding errors... that's the problematic part which leads most to be skeptical of the theory.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's the same process which determines that superior products survive to be replicated and copied also, inferior ones are discarded.

But the change, those significant improvements in design must first arise somehow... before they can be selected right?

i.e. natural selection of superior traits goes entirely without saying, whether we are talking about giraffes or potato chips.

But how millions of significant design improvements arise, morphing a single cell into a human being.. relying entirely on fluke mutations, random genetic coding errors... that's the problematic part which leads most to be skeptical of the theory.

There are two ways in which genetic change happens rapidly.
1st, a new force is encountered which makes a certain gene that only a few possess already that is usually a neutral gene become far more beneficial.
2nd, a new mutation arises without change to the environment which vastly improves the organism's chances of survival and reproduction.

The first is more likely than the second as we have observed.

The rest of your post goes back to the unsupported nonsense that there must be a designer because its complicated. It doesn't. The time required isn't beyond the scope of reality and every piece of evidence we find supports the timeline that has been reinforced and clarified over the last hundred years.

 

[Zosimus]

A little or a lot? If I have a lion in the wild who doesn't have claws, teeth or eyes will it survive as well as a lion with all of these traits? Or will luck have just as much of a role to play?

Wow. That's profound. A lion in the wild who(sic) doesn't have eyes might not survive as well as a lion with those traits.

Thank God Darwin existed. Otherwise, none of us would have been able to work that out.[/sarcasm]

Of course, Imre Lakatos claimed that scientific theories should make novel, testable predictions that those unenlightened by the theory in question wouldn't expect. But what did he know? Since natural selection gets a pass, perhaps we should let the fairies-who-make-your-flowers-grow theory slide too.

Dontcha think?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Wow. That's profound. A lion in the wild who(sic) doesn't have eyes might not survive as well as a lion with those traits.

Thank God Darwin existed. Otherwise, none of us would have been able to work that out.[/sarcasm]

Of course, Imre Lakatos claimed that scientific theories should make novel, testable predictions that those unenlightened by the theory in question wouldn't expect. But what did he know? Since natural selection gets a pass, perhaps we should let the fairies-who-make-your-flowers-grow theory slide too.

Dontcha think?

Natural selection isn't a theory. At least not in the sense that it is the evolutionary theory. Its a mechanism that is is well documented, observed and commonly understood. You beg the question so often that I am forced to bring such intellectually demeaning examples into play so you don't twist them. Others earlier in the thread have used more sophisticated examples and citations but they fell on deaf ears. If you want we can go into more complex discussions about the multiple aspects to the mass of theories that is biological evolution.

Here is one. Chimpanzees as well as most of our other ape cousins have 48 chromosomes. We only have 46. That is a big genetic difference. In fact so much so that anti-evolution proponents used it constantly in their arguments to debunk evolution. So then using evolution and our knowledge of the genetic side of evolution we made the prediction that somewhere in our genome we will find a place side by side to where it is on the Chimpanzee where one of our chromosomes fused. Now this was in the 80's and 90's prior to the human genome project and before we ever mapped out any species's DNA.

Lo and behold they were correct. We found the fused spot. In fact some scientists had even gone so far as to tell us teh general location of the fusion about mid way through the study and they were right. It was incredible predictive power based on our knowledge of the genome and evolution.

If we want to take a more advanced usage of Natural Selection we have predicted and cultivated plants that have higher nutrition, resistance to diseases and insects and can grow better in more bitter climates. We did so intentionally in a way that if people didn't know about evolution they could not have done.

Now you talk about natural selection as if it is somehow apart from what we do on a normal daily basis. Its not. It is common knowledge and a building block for figuring out the rest of the theory of evolution. When you see fairies making flowers grow and have it recorded on thousands upon tens of thousands of scientific studies then sure we can give them a pass without having to prove that its a mechanism that works to every anti-evolution layman on the internet.

But now that Im' still thinking about it here is another example of natural selection working in a way that helps us predict how things will react that was beyond the scope of knowledge prior. Antibotics create stronger bacteria that will eventually become immune to every known antibotic we have created. It happened just this year. Science has used their predictive power to tell us that it was an inevitability and will happen at some time soon. It did this year and now we have a UTI that is resistant to all known antibiotics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are two ways in which genetic change happens rapidly.
1st, a new force is encountered which makes a certain gene that only a few possess already that is usually a neutral gene become far more beneficial.
2nd, a new mutation arises without change to the environment which vastly improves the organism's chances of survival and reproduction.

The first is more likely than the second as we have observed.

Exactly my point 'already posses' . from where? how did this design advantage arise and why was it preserved while useless?

Again the design improvement must exist first, only this way the process is made even more problematic by the necessity of preserving/ protecting a 'future good design' from any further mutation, for a rainy day,and without the aid of natural selection! This is just a further argument for ID pre-determining outcomes

Likewise I would vastly improve my chances of winning a card game, if I suddenly found a randomly selected hand that I stuck in my pants pocket a year ago, & kept for no particular reason, which just luckily happened to be a royal flush. Cheating would be the far more probable scenario don't you think?

i.e. you are only shifting the burden of staggering fluke somewhere else and compounding it.

The rest of your post goes back to the unsupported nonsense that there must be a designer because its complicated. It doesn't. The time required isn't beyond the scope of reality and every piece of evidence we find supports the timeline that has been reinforced and clarified over the last hundred years.

[/quote]

A chaotic pile of one thousand rocks on a beach is far more complex than a hundred spelling the word HELP.

Which do you assign to chance and which to ID? and why? i.e it ain't the complexity, it's the purpose integral to the design that shows us the fingerprint of ID.

'Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we did in Darwin's time" David Raup

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Exactly my point 'already posses' . from where? how did this design advantage arise and why was it preserved while useless?

Again the design improvement must exist first, only this way the process is made even more problematic by the necessity of preserving/ protecting a 'future good design' from any further mutation, for a rainy day,and without the aid of natural selection! This is just a further argument for ID pre-determining outcomes

Likewise I would vastly improve my chances of winning a card game, if I suddenly found a randomly selected hand that I stuck in my pants pocket a year ago, & kept for no particular reason, which just luckily happened to be a royal flush. Cheating would be the far more probable scenario don't you think?

i.e. you are only shifting the burden of staggering fluke somewhere else and compounding it.

It exemplifies already existing genes. Not that the gene simply knew it had to be there and popped up beforehand. If we suddenly required all of our fingers to be at least 4 inches long then all people with fingers shorter than that would die out and those that had fingers longer than 4 inches would continue to exist and breed. Now lets say the longer our fingers are the better chance we have to reproduce. This creates a trend of ever increasing finger length.

So its not that we magically needed the gene to have fingers longer than 4 inches but rather it already existed and now became more of a dire trait rather than a benign one. No gene has ever existed that didn't have a purpose beforehand. No gene has ever simply popped into existence at the exact time it was needed. It doesn't work that way.

The probability fits perfectly fine. There is no mathematical issue.

A chaotic pile of one thousand rocks on a beach is far more complex than a hundred spelling the word HELP.

Which do you assign to chance and which to ID? and why? i.e it ain't the complexity, it's the purpose integral to the design that shows us the fingerprint of ID.

'Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we did in Darwin's time" David Raup

Without humans, without the word help neither would be considered ID. The fact that the word "help" exists and we know that humans can spell that with rocks shifts the probability. But she sheer probability of those rocks being in that position mean nothing if it happened naturally. What if the shape they were in was some word spelled out in an alternative dimension where we were all squid people? If it naturally fell that way then it still has no meaning and still doesn't point to ID.

Similarly with our genes and evolution there is no evidence to point to such a thing. It all comes back to natural processes. A part luck, a part natural forces following the laws of nature.

That quote doesn't fight against evolution. If you would care to read up on where its from and the actual transcript its a good read for you and helps dispel some of the misunderstandings that have been painted into the fossil record by non-scientists and especially non-scientists with a god agenda.

 

[Zosimus]

Natural selection isn't a theory. At least not in the sense that it is the evolutionary theory. Its a mechanism that is is well documented, observed and commonly understood. You beg the question so often that I am forced to bring such intellectually demeaning examples into play so you don't twist them. Others earlier in the thread have used more sophisticated examples and citations but they fell on deaf ears. If you want we can go into more complex discussions about the multiple aspects to the mass of theories that is biological evolution.

Here is one. Chimpanzees as well as most of our other ape cousins have 48 chromosomes. We only have 46. That is a big genetic difference. In fact so much so that anti-evolution proponents used it constantly in their arguments to debunk evolution. So then using evolution and our knowledge of the genetic side of evolution we made the prediction that somewhere in our genome we will find a place side by side to where it is on the Chimpanzee where one of our chromosomes fused. Now this was in the 80's and 90's prior to the human genome project and before we ever mapped out any species's DNA.

Lo and behold they were correct. We found the fused spot. In fact some scientists had even gone so far as to tell us teh general location of the fusion about mid way through the study and they were right. It was incredible predictive power based on our knowledge of the genome and evolution.

If we want to take a more advanced usage of Natural Selection we have predicted and cultivated plants that have higher nutrition, resistance to diseases and insects and can grow better in more bitter climates. We did so intentionally in a way that if people didn't know about evolution they could not have done.

Now you talk about natural selection as if it is somehow apart from what we do on a normal daily basis. Its not. It is common knowledge and a building block for figuring out the rest of the theory of evolution. When you see fairies making flowers grow and have it recorded on thousands upon tens of thousands of scientific studies then sure we can give them a pass without having to prove that its a mechanism that works to every anti-evolution layman on the internet.

But now that Im' still thinking about it here is another example of natural selection working in a way that helps us predict how things will react that was beyond the scope of knowledge prior. Antibotics create stronger bacteria that will eventually become immune to every known antibotic we have created. It happened just this year. Science has used their predictive power to tell us that it was an inevitability and will happen at some time soon. It did this year and now we have a UTI that is resistant to all known antibiotics.

Congratulations! You have succeeded in committing a formal logical fallacy. In fact, if I give it some time, I may be able to identify multiple logical flaws in your argument. However, let me start by shooting the fish in the barrel.

Here's your logical argument in a nutshell:

We theorize that humans and apes share a common ancestor. If that's true, humans and apes should have the same number of chromosomes or, at least, there should be some sort of a fusion event that links two of the chromosomes together to get the number down to 46.
You find what you're looking for.
So you think that your theory has been verified true. In reality, however, you have only committed the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy. Here it is, in a nutshell.

Let P = humans and apes share a common ancestor.
Let Q = the fused chromosome finding.

If P then Q ( P=>Q )
Q
Therefore, P

Wow! That's amazing! Here let me try it:

If God created life, the Earth will be populated with life.
The Earth is populated with life.
Therefore, God created life!

Woah! Using your own flawed logic, I just proved Creationism! Would you like me to prove Islam and Zoroaster while I'm at it?

Of course, what does any of this have to do with natural selection? NOTHING.

P.S. MRSA bacteria can still be easily killed by good old-fashioned garlic. It works on vampires too.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Congratulations! You have succeeded in committing a formal logical fallacy. In fact, if I give it some time, I may be able to identify multiple logical flaws in your argument. However, let me start by shooting the fish in the barrel.

Here's your logical argument in a nutshell:

We theorize that humans and apes share a common ancestor. If that's true, humans and apes should have the same number of chromosomes or, at least, there should be some sort of a fusion event that links two of the chromosomes together to get the number down to 46.
You find what you're looking for.
So you think that your theory has been verified true. In reality, however, you have only committed the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy. Here it is, in a nutshell.

Let P = humans and apes share a common ancestor.
Let Q = the fused chromosome finding.

If P then Q ( P=>Q )
Q
Therefore, P

Wow! That's amazing! Here let me try it:

If God created life, the Earth will be populated with life.
The Earth is populated with life.
Therefore, God created life!

Woah! Using your own flawed logic, I just proved Creationism! Would you like me to prove Islam and Zoroaster while I'm at it?

Of course, what does any of this have to do with natural selection? NOTHING.

What you are doing is actually called strawman which is a fallacy. I haven't actually used a fallacy as I haven't hinged the whole argument of evolution on the basis of chromosomes and chromosomal fusion. I showed you the predictive power of the theory of evolution. If you want a crash course in evolution, its evidences and why its true we would need a few semesters to get you through the nitty gritty bits. If you are okay with the smooth-over that can get you all the basic information wtihout the nitty gritty and check the nitty gritty as you go along that is fine. I can recommend you plenty of links.

Now onto the chromosomes and the fusion. We already knew due to other evidences (again just ask for a link and I"ll set you up man. Most people on the thread will. In fact we have stickied evolution resources thread at the top of this subforum check it out!) and in fact we share between 97 and 98% of their DNA to begin with. There has been no question what so ever that they are our closest living relatives and that evolution is fact. That all had been hammered out in the scientific community long before then. So now we get to use our handy dandy predicting power to tackle something. Why do we have less chromosomes than a chimpanzee if they are our closest relatives. We already knew that the number of chromosomes isn't an indicator of how closely related we are but unless there was a specific change it should have been the same. Through the eyes of science we knew that there had to have been a fused chromosome in there that wasn't fused in the Chimpanzee line. If not then guess what? Evolution would have been disproved on that day. So putting our money where our mouth is we made the claim.

Then our predictive power, based upon our knowledge of evolution which requires natural selection as a function we correctly predicted a fusion. Had that fusion not been there we wouldn't be teaching evolution in school today. It is that big of a deal.

And what does this have to do with natural selection? Everything. We know that it works. I've never even heard of anyone questioning it before but I see new stuff on here every day so I shouldn't be surprised. But without natural selection we wouldn't have the drive for evolution or any other kind of genetic change.

P.S. MRSA bacteria can still be easily killed by good old-fashioned garlic. It works on vampires too.

On the garlic thing can you link me to a clinical study that shows its effectiveness? I googled it since I had never heard of it before and all I can find is some non-scientific nature living sites and blogs posting that it can do everything from cure MRSA and cancer to ending baldness.

 

[McBell]

On the garlic thing can you link me to a clinical study that shows its effectiveness? I googled it since I had never heard of it before and all I can find is some non-scientific nature living sites and blogs posting that it can do everything from cure MRSA and cancer to ending baldness.

You know what they call Alternative Medicine that works?
Medicine.

 

[Zosimus]

What you are doing is actually called strawman which is a fallacy. I haven't actually used a fallacy as I haven't hinged the whole argument of evolution on the basis of chromosomes and chromosomal fusion. I showed you the predictive power of the theory of evolution. If you want a crash course in evolution, its evidences and why its true we would need a few semesters to get you through the nitty gritty bits. If you are okay with the smooth-over that can get you all the basic information wtihout the nitty gritty and check the nitty gritty as you go along that is fine. I can recommend you plenty of links.

I've been through it all before. Someone points out a few logical fallacies and the stupefied evolution-apologists stammeringly fall back on "You must not understand evolution. I'll send you some links so that you can be super-cool informed logic abusers like us."

Now onto the chromosomes and the fusion. We already knew due to other evidences (again just ask for a link and I"ll set you up man. Most people on the thread will. In fact we have stickied evolution resources thread at the top of this subforum check it out!) and in fact we share between 97 and 98% of their DNA to begin with.

It's the same fallacy. If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then they will have similar DNA. Humans and chimps have similar DNA. Therefore, they must share a common ancestor. Try to mix your logical fallacies up, will you? When you keep using the same old one, it gets boring. Throw in a false dichotomy or something.

There has been no question what so ever that they are our closest living relatives and that evolution is fact.

Speculation.

That all had been hammered out in the scientific community long before then. So now we get to use our handy dandy predicting power to tackle something. Why do we have less chromosomes...

It's fewer chromosomes. Less is for uncountable things such as sugar or milk whereas fewer is for plural words such as chromosomes.

...than a chimpanzee if they are our closest relatives. We already knew that the number of chromosomes isn't an indicator of how closely related we are but unless there was a specific change it should have been the same. Through the eyes of science we knew that there had to have been a fused chromosome in there that wasn't fused in the Chimpanzee line. If not then guess what? Evolution would have been disproved on that day. So putting our money where our mouth is we made the claim.

No it wouldn't have. Darwinists would have still claimed that all living things share a common ancestor. It would have simply modified its tree to put chimps on a different branch.

Then our predictive power, based upon our knowledge of evolution which requires natural selection as a function we correctly predicted a fusion. Had that fusion not been there we wouldn't be teaching evolution in school today. It is that big of a deal.

There we go! A new logical fallacy -- tacking by disjunction! Way to mix it up there.

And what does this have to do with natural selection? Everything. We know that it works.

Your faith is strong. Keep up the jihad against those evil Christians.

I've never even heard of anyone questioning it before but I see new stuff on here every day so I shouldn't be surprised. But without natural selection we wouldn't have the drive for evolution or any other kind of genetic change.

News flash: Saying that natural selection is a TAUTOLOGY does not mean that natural selection is FALSE. Why don't you look up the meaning of the word tautology?

On the garlic thing can you link me to a clinical study that shows its effectiveness? I googled it since I had never heard of it before and all I can find is some non-scientific nature living sites and blogs posting that it can do everything from cure MRSA and cancer to ending baldness.

Can I link you to a clinic study? Sure. Try:

Of the strains tested, 88% had MICs for allicin liquids of 16 microg/mL, and all strains were inhibited at 32 microg/mL. Furthermore, 88% of clinical isolates had MBCs of 128 microg/mL, and all were killed at 256 microg/mL. or
The antimicrobial effects of aqueous garlic extracts are well established but those of garlic oil (GO) are little known....Both GO and GP revealed wide-spectrum antimicrobial activities. Molecule for molecule, these activities were greater with GP thiosulfinates than GO sulfides against most bacteria tested. or
Allicin, one of the active principles of freshly crushed garlic homogenates...[exhibits] antibacterial activity against a wide range of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant enterotoxicogenic strains of Escherichia coli.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've been through it all before. Someone points out a few logical fallacies and the stupefied evolution-apologists stammeringly fall back on "You must not understand evolution. I'll send you some links so that you can be super-cool informed logic abusers like us."

A common theme I'm feeling from this conversation is that I bring up one specific point of evidence as an example of how something works and you then attempt to call it fallacy since it doesn't prove evolution by itself. This makrs the 3rd time in the last 2 posts and I have barely begun the post. I hope you aren't in the delusion that I am debating the whole of evolution to you but rather very specific parts and key points that you seem to have difficulty with.

It's the same fallacy. If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then they will have similar DNA. Humans and chimps have similar DNA. Therefore, they must share a common ancestor. Try to mix your logical fallacies up, will you? When you keep using the same old one, it gets boring. Throw in a false dichotomy or something.

This statement only makes sense if this is the only evidence. I also get the feeling you are throwing DNA out of the window. DNA in and of itself is already an established science that lends itself to evolution for evidence but stands totally independent of evolution itself. To have similar DNA shows relation. That is one of the core facts of DNA and genetics. No two genes are the same that didn't originate from the same place.

Do you feel that paternity tests are bull****? Its the exact same mechanism. We look at how closely related two pieces of DNA are and can match if one is directly related to one another. We can even tell how closely related you are to someone else by the same DNA test. Do you require me to bring all of the evidence that proves DNA and genetics are legitimate to the table before we move forward with why shared DNA with Chimpanzees means we are closely related?

Speculation.

I have some speculations about you that is for sure.

It's fewer chromosomes. Less is for uncountable things such as sugar or milk whereas fewer is for plural words such as chromosomes.

I get the feeling you aren't following. Not because you don't agree with me but because the answers and responses I get are seemingly nonsensical in this case. I don't even really know how to respond to this.

No it wouldn't have. Darwinists would have still claimed that all living things share a common ancestor. It would have simply modified its tree to put chimps on a different branch.

Its not just the chimps but all other great apes have 48 chromosomes. In the theory of evolution it would mean that they all had to have independently developed a full extra set of chromosomes (which is a drastically more impressive genetic leap than fusing a chromosome) or humans had 48 at some point in time in the past and they were fused during our evolution. If this fact was wrong then it would be back to the drawing board for the whole of human evolution. But it wasn't. We knew it wouldn't be. The reason we knew is because all of the evidence is overwhelming. The conclusions are nigh irrefutable with scientific processes and logical deduction. Every single prediction and every single piece of evidence falls in line. It just takes one to throw it out of wack and we don't see that. Why? Out of tens of thousands of fossils? Out of every DNA and genetics test? Out of every geological dig? What are the chances?

There we go! A new logical fallacy -- tacking by disjunction! Way to mix it up there.

I am impressed by your leaping power. I have pointed it out a few times before but once more I shall do it again. When you read this please answer this first before anything else or at least make sure you respond to this bit. Do you understand what the fallacy is that you accused me of? It requires me to give a scenario and if it is correct say it proves my point. It does not. That has not been my statement. I am not debating the whole of evolution with you but showing you small pieces at a time.
Do you know what falsifiable is? Fallibility is what gives strength to arguments. It gives us a scenario or a theory that very may well be wrong. We continue to take on evidence as we develop the theory and if we are right then our predictions will be true. If our predictions are wrong then it shows that our theory is flawed in some such way. That is all that happened with the chromosome story. You asked for predicting power. I gave you an example. You claim that I am producing a fallacy when it obviously is not.

Your faith is strong. Keep up the jihad against those evil Christians.

I mean sure. Thank you for your support. Please drop by the Satanic sub shop for half off diablo sauce on sin-wiches.

News flash: Saying that natural selection is a TAUTOLOGY does not mean that natural selection is FALSE. Why don't you look up the meaning of the word tautology?

The problem you have is that it is a logical obvious point that has been given a name and used to describe mechanisms. Fire hot. Therefore we use it to boil water. The water expands and rises to the top because gravity pulls the denser and colder water to the bottom. Fire hot transfers to new colder water. Therefore convection.
"BUT SAYING FIRE IS HOT IS TAUTOLOGY!"

Can I link you to a clinic study? Sure. Try:

Of the strains tested, 88% had MICs for allicin liquids of 16 microg/mL, and all strains were inhibited at 32 microg/mL. Furthermore, 88% of clinical isolates had MBCs of 128 microg/mL, and all were killed at 256 microg/mL. or
The antimicrobial effects of aqueous garlic extracts are well established but those of garlic oil (GO) are little known....Both GO and GP revealed wide-spectrum antimicrobial activities. Molecule for molecule, these activities were greater with GP thiosulfinates than GO sulfides against most bacteria tested. or
Allicin, one of the active principles of freshly crushed garlic homogenates...[exhibits] antibacterial activity against a wide range of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant enterotoxicogenic strains of Escherichia coli.

Some of these are a pretty heavy read. The first from 2004 says it most simply. Allicin which is a antibiotic derived from garlic showed to be effective against staff that was resistant to Mupirocin which is the traditional treatment of the time. The second one, written in 2001, was talking about the methodologies used and the base point of their observations is that it works significantly better in liquid cultures rather than dry cultures.
The third one written in 1999 said that it showed promise when used on a wide range of different bacteria in lab tests.

None of these used or introduced infected beings. These were all only ever used in lab tests. While the idea has been kicked around to use allicin to fight MRSA and is still being researched after some digging it apparently doesn't work IV and only can be used effectively with topical cream. It currently is not used as a mainstream treatment for MRSA or any other infection.

In short you can't just eat a bunch of garlic and beat out MRSA. However there is a semi-promising antiboitic chemical that can be extracted from garlic.

 

[Zosimus]

A common theme I'm feeling from this conversation is that I bring up one specific point of evidence as an example of how something works and you then attempt to call it fallacy since it doesn't prove evolution by itself. This makrs the 3rd time in the last 2 posts and I have barely begun the post. I hope you aren't in the delusion that I am debating the whole of evolution to you but rather very specific parts and key points that you seem to have difficulty with.

No, the point is that you have no method you can use to verify evolution true that doesn't involve logical fallacies. In fact, science is one gigantic logical fallacy. Now, that doesn't stop me from quoting scientific studies to those who believe, but I'm not convinced of anything.

This statement only makes sense if this is the only evidence. I also get the feeling you are throwing DNA out of the window. DNA in and of itself is already an established science that lends itself to evolution for evidence but stands totally independent of evolution itself. To have similar DNA shows relation. That is one of the core facts of DNA and genetics. No two genes are the same that didn't originate from the same place.

This is an unprovable statement. How can you say that no two genomes are the same any more than you can say that no two fingerprints are the same. Since you cannot have looked at all fingerprints everywhere (and I'm willing to bet that you haven't looked at even a few dozen fingerprints in your life), the only thing you are going on is assumptions.

Second, you seem to have this idea that DNA tests are like a human barcode. You just wave the wand over the person and voila! the computer has the exact data of the person. This is not true. Nor can DNA alone be used to determine history or lineage. Professors David Balding and Mark Thomas of the University College London [URL='http://www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/119/sense-about-genetic-ancestry-testing']warn in a public statementfrom the Sense About Science campaign group that "you cannot look at DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey"[/url]

Additionally, you have not mentioned anything about motivational or cognitive biases. DNA testing is a subjective enterprise and even experts don't agree on it. For example, one man convicted of raping a woman had his DNA sample sent to 17 different labs. Of those 17 labs, 1 said that the suspect "could not be excluded," 4 said that "nothing could be concluded," and 12 concluded that the suspect should be excluded. So why did the prosecutor's lab make the positive match? One explanation may be motivational bias. The prosecutor's lab only works with police, so the police are their sole client. The forensic examiners want to "do good work" and good work is defined as finding what the police think they should find. Second, the forensic examiners already knew that there was a witness that was testifying that the person in question was the rapist. Thus, confirmation bias may well have been involved. Since they already "knew" that the guy in question was guilty, their minds found confirmation for this preconceived notion.

Do you feel that paternity tests are bull****? Its the exact same mechanism. We look at how closely related two pieces of DNA are and can match if one is directly related to one another. We can even tell how closely related you are to someone else by the same DNA test. Do you require me to bring all of the evidence that proves DNA and genetics are legitimate to the table before we move forward with why shared DNA with Chimpanzees means we are closely related?

DNA testing is not as reliable as you think it is.

I get the feeling you aren't following. Not because you don't agree with me but because the answers and responses I get are seemingly nonsensical in this case. I don't even really know how to respond to this.

I'm following just fine. We were talking about natural selection, and now you're off on a tangent.

Its not just the chimps but all other great apes have 48 chromosomes.

So do beavers. Your point?

In the theory of evolution it would mean that they all had to have independently developed a full extra set of chromosomes (which is a drastically more impressive genetic leap than fusing a chromosome) or humans had 48 at some point in time in the past and they were fused during our evolution. If this fact was wrong then it would be back to the drawing board for the whole of human evolution. But it wasn't. We knew it wouldn't be. The reason we knew is because all of the evidence is overwhelming. The conclusions are nigh irrefutable with scientific processes and logical deduction. Every single prediction and every single piece of evidence falls in line. It just takes one to throw it out of wack and we don't see that. Why? Out of tens of thousands of fossils? Out of every DNA and genetics test? Out of every geological dig? What are the chances?

Don't forget that most published research findings are false. In many cases, scientific consensus merely reveals the prevailing bias. How many of those studies were randomized? How many were blinded?

I am impressed by your leaping power. I have pointed it out a few times before but once more I shall do it again. When you read this please answer this first before anything else or at least make sure you respond to this bit. Do you understand what the fallacy is that you accused me of? It requires me to give a scenario and if it is correct say it proves my point. It does not. That has not been my statement. I am not debating the whole of evolution with you but showing you small pieces at a time.

Yes, I understand the logical fallacy you're committing. Do you?

Do you know what falsifiable is? Fallibility is what gives strength to arguments. It gives us a scenario or a theory that very may well be wrong. We continue to take on evidence as we develop the theory and if we are right then our predictions will be true. If our predictions are wrong then it shows that our theory is flawed in some such way. That is all that happened with the chromosome story. You asked for predicting power. I gave you an example. You claim that I am producing a fallacy when it obviously is not.

No, I said that natural selection had no predictive power. So you are off talking about something that has **** all to do with natural selection. Why don't you just fall back on the standard logical fallacy? "Since science can put a man on the moon, chimps and apes must share a common ancestor." That's always good for a laugh.

I mean sure. Thank you for your support. Please drop by the Satanic sub shop for half off diablo sauce on sin-wiches.

I have no idea what this refers to.

The problem you have is that it is a logical obvious point that has been given a name and used to describe mechanisms. Fire hot. Therefore we use it to boil water. The water expands and rises to the top because gravity pulls the denser and colder water to the bottom. Fire hot transfers to new colder water. Therefore convection.
"BUT SAYING FIRE IS HOT IS TAUTOLOGY!"

No, because you can give a definition for "hot" that is independent of fire. You cannot give an independent definition of natural selection.

Some of these are a pretty heavy read. The first from 2004 says it most simply. Allicin which is a antibiotic derived from garlic showed to be effective against staff that was resistant to Mupirocin which is the traditional treatment of the time. The second one, written in 2001, was talking about the methodologies used and the base point of their observations is that it works significantly better in liquid cultures rather than dry cultures.
The third one written in 1999 said that it showed promise when used on a wide range of different bacteria in lab tests.

As I said, garlic has been shown effective against MRSA. If you find the actual studies "heavy" try just reading http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32117815

Unless, of course, you think that the BBC is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to deny science, shun vaccines, and use vitamin C to ward of everything from cancer to the boogeyman.

None of these used or introduced infected beings. These were all only ever used in lab tests. While the idea has been kicked around to use allicin to fight MRSA and is still being researched after some digging it apparently doesn't work IV and only can be used effectively with topical cream. It currently is not used as a mainstream treatment for MRSA or any other infection.

So what? If you get inhaled anthrax, what will you be treated with? Ciprofloxacin – but how do we know it works? Are there any studies involving infected beings? No. But you accept cipro, but you don't accept garlic. Why? Like Cipro, Garlic has been shown effective against anthrax. Just admit that you're biased – that you prefer "scientific" drugs over "natural" ones even when peer-reviewed studies show them equally effective.

In short you can't just eat a bunch of garlic and beat out MRSA. However there is a semi-promising antiboitic chemical that can be extracted from garlic.

Well, stomach acid destroys alliinase. However, there are solutions to that problem.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, the point is that you have no method you can use to verify evolution true that doesn't involve logical fallacies. In fact, science is one gigantic logical fallacy. Now, that doesn't stop me from quoting scientific studies to those who believe, but I'm not convinced of anything.

All of science is a fallacy? I guess its by chance we managed to land on the moon, cure diseases and invent the internet. Every aspect of your life has been engineered by this fallacious science.

This is an unprovable statement. How can you say that no two genomes are the same any more than you can say that no two fingerprints are the same. Since you cannot have looked at all fingerprints everywhere (and I'm willing to bet that you haven't looked at even a few dozen fingerprints in your life), the only thing you are going on is assumptions.

I'm going with the evidence. I'm not going to sit here and teach you every aspect of DNA. Get some frigging research in. It is a scientific fact. If you feel you can dispute it then by all means take it to the scholastic field.

Second, you seem to have this idea that DNA tests are like a human barcode. You just wave the wand over the person and voila! the computer has the exact data of the person. This is not true. Nor can DNA alone be used to determine history or lineage. Professors David Balding and Mark Thomas of the University College London warn in a public statementfrom the Sense About Science campaign group that "you cannot look at DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey"

Additionally, you have not mentioned anything about motivational or cognitive biases. DNA testing is a subjective enterprise and even experts don't agree on it. For example, one man convicted of raping a woman had his DNA sample sent to 17 different labs. Of those 17 labs, 1 said that the suspect "could not be excluded," 4 said that "nothing could be concluded," and 12 concluded that the suspect should be excluded. So why did the prosecutor's lab make the positive match? One explanation may be motivational bias. The prosecutor's lab only works with police, so the police are their sole client. The forensic examiners want to "do good work" and good work is defined as finding what the police think they should find. Second, the forensic examiners already knew that there was a witness that was testifying that the person in question was the rapist. Thus, confirmation bias may well have been involved. Since they already "knew" that the guy in question was guilty, their minds found confirmation for this preconceived notion.


DNA testing is not as reliable as you think it is.

I've bunched all three of these together because all three of them are equally wrong in the context you are trying to talk about. The first talks about how you can't tell when certain things arise from the DNA with the DNA alone. But if we see that we are 99.9% similar to all other humans on the planet, then we see we are 98% alike to chimpanzees, 97% alike to gorillas, about 80% similar with fish and 50% familiar with Tree's we can see the trend. Now don't take this as the only evidence as I am not going to take 2 semesters and a half a degree worth of collegiate material to convince you that DNA is a real and we understand it to a workable degree. But the above is how we can determine relationships and track relations by DNA. We cannot look at a snigle strand of human DNA and tell where everything comes from and when certain things developed. There is no time marker in DNA to tell us how many years ago it developed or which mutation happened first. That is what he is saying.

The second is about corrupted samples. Nothing more and nothing less. You can have inconclusive results because of corruption and contamination. This is easily avoided with multiple samples taken properly but selecting out sperm cells from fluids obtained several hours later from a rape victim's vagina is not always possible to get a perfect sample. That is what this article is about. It says nothing against the science of DNA and genetics.

The third link talks more about its usage in court cases and human error but not of the study and science itself. Read your own damn articles.

I'm following just fine. We were talking about natural selection, and now you're off on a tangent.

We are talking about far broader spectrum than just natural selection. It would be a very boring discussion if you were attempting to fight against natural selection only. In fact the way you attempt to shape your arguments forces me to talk about things other than natural selection even when answering questions about natural selection.

So do beavers. Your point?

Way over your head apparently. Or perhaps intentionally ignored. Still haven't figured out which yet. The point is that we are genetically related to apes. The theory of evolution states that we are in the same family as apes. The fact that we have X number of chromosomes is irrelevant except when we have a different number than our supposed cousins. We aren't related to beavers closely enough for their number of chromosomes to be an issue. But it would be an issue for humans vs chimpanzees or other apes.

Don't forget that most published research findings are false. In many cases, scientific consensus merely reveals the prevailing bias. How many of those studies were randomized? How many were blinded?

All studies that have been thought of now as scientific fact have been repeated, critiqued, reviewed and re-affirmed. The vast majority of published research is white noise because it does not matter. None of them are cited as fact.

Yes, I understand the logical fallacy you're committing. Do you?

You apparently do not. I'm not into pissing contests. I know the fallacy you accuse me of and why I'm not committing it. Either you don't see it or you choose not to see it. I have explained enough for you to understand so if you still don't then I assume its willing.

No, I said that natural selection had no predictive power. So you are off talking about something that has **** all to do with natural selection. Why don't you just fall back on the standard logical fallacy? "Since science can put a man on the moon, chimps and apes must share a common ancestor." That's always good for a laugh.

There is no theory of natural selection. It can't have predictive power because it isn't a scientific theory but an aspect of a larger theory. Asking me why a single wing can't fly doesn't mean it isn't an important part of an airplane.

As a funny thing I did say something to that effect at the first response. But that is because you claimed all science is bunk bull**** based on fallacies. I assumed you meant evolution but I decided to go with a literal response to what you said. Evolution and Rocket science don't go hand in hand. One being true doesn't make the other true. What makes them both true is that they are both backed up with mountains of evidence and study. They also both assert themselves with results. Evolution has produced more astounding results in medicine and biology than engineering has putting a man on the moon.

I have no idea what this refers to.

It was a joke. You be sarcastic I'll be sarcastic. Hell I"ll probably be sarcastic even if you aren't.

No, because you can give a definition for "hot" that is independent of fire. You cannot give an independent definition of natural selection.

Natural selection definition - the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
An example of a process in which organisms better adapt to their environment and tend to survive to produce more offspring by means other than natural or already occurring forces is called artificial selection.

As I said, garlic has been shown effective against MRSA. If you find the actual studies "heavy" try just reading http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32117815

Unless, of course, you think that the BBC is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to deny science, shun vaccines, and use vitamin C to ward of everything from cancer to the boogeyman.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Good for ancient people figuring things out the scientific way even back then. It was kinda rare. Good for them.

So what? If you get inhaled anthrax, what will you be treated with? Ciprofloxacin – but how do we know it works? Are there any studies involving infected beings? No. But you accept cipro, but you don't accept garlic. Why? Like Cipro, Garlic has been shown effective against anthrax. Just admit that you're biased – that you prefer "scientific" drugs over "natural" ones even when peer-reviewed studies show them equally effective.

No such study. All of the things you have linked me to are scientific drugs made from onions and garlic. All drugs came from somewhere. Alternative medicine that works is called medicine. Science is already looking into using it potentially. The reason it hasn't been used so far has been because it fails to be as effective as the already existing drugs. Perhaps in the future that will change.

 

[Zosimus]

All of science is a fallacy? I guess its by chance we managed to land on the moon, cure diseases and invent the internet. Every aspect of your life has been engineered by this fallacious science.

You see? I knew this fallacy was coming. Didn't I call it?

If science works, then science will be able to put a man on the moon.
Science has put a man on the moon.
Therefore, science works!

Woah! It's a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy! Don't worry–I can do it too.

If belief in God works, then believers in God will develop a Law of Universal Gravitation.
Sir Isaac Newton, a believer in God, developed a Law of Universal Gravitation.
Therefore, belief in God works!

Wow! Using this, we can prove just about anything we want. I guess I've convinced you to be a deist now.

I'm going with the evidence. I'm not going to sit here and teach you every aspect of DNA. Get some frigging research in. It is a scientific fact. If you feel you can dispute it then by all means take it to the scholastic field.

Here we go again. Here's another "true believer" who thinks that if you just put enough evidence into the logical fallacies, that they suddenly become persuasive. One logical fallacy proves nothing, but 10,000 logical fallacies can prove evolution.

I've bunched all three of these together because all three of them are equally wrong in the context you are trying to talk about. The first talks about how you can't tell when certain things arise from the DNA with the DNA alone. But if we see that we are 99.9% similar to all other humans on the planet, then we see we are 98% alike to chimpanzees, 97% alike to gorillas, about 80% similar with fish and 50% familiar with Tree's we can see the trend. Now don't take this as the only evidence as I am not going to take 2 semesters and a half a degree worth of collegiate material to convince you that DNA is a real and we understand it to a workable degree. But the above is how we can determine relationships and track relations by DNA. We cannot look at a snigle strand of human DNA and tell where everything comes from and when certain things developed. There is no time marker in DNA to tell us how many years ago it developed or which mutation happened first. That is what he is saying.

If you share a common ancestor, your DNA will be alike.
Your DNA is alike.
Therefore, you share a common ancestor. This is a classic example of the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy. Can't you mix it up at all?!

The second is about corrupted samples. Nothing more and nothing less. You can have inconclusive results because of corruption and contamination. This is easily avoided with multiple samples taken properly but selecting out sperm cells from fluids obtained several hours later from a rape victim's vagina is not always possible to get a perfect sample. That is what this article is about. It says nothing against the science of DNA and genetics.

Corruption happens all the time. As you can see here here, "The case ... demonstrates the amazing psychological power of DNA evidence. The belief that DNA samples mark out individuals like an infallible biological barcode is so powerful that people will begin to hypothesise invincible, transsexual, border-hopping serial killers just to keep the story coherent with the genetic evidence."

The third link talks more about its usage in court cases and human error but not of the study and science itself. Read your own damn articles.

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that zero humans were involved in the DNA studies you have mentioned. I thought the researchers might have been humans. I guess they're unicorns and, as we all know, unicorns are immune to cognitive bias.

We are talking about far broader spectrum than just natural selection. It would be a very boring discussion if you were attempting to fight against natural selection only. In fact the way you attempt to shape your arguments forces me to talk about things other than natural selection even when answering questions about natural selection.

Yeah, that's what I meant by tangent.

Way over your head apparently. Or perhaps intentionally ignored. Still haven't figured out which yet. The point is that we are genetically related to apes

.
Speculation.

The theory of evolution states that we are in the same family as apes. The fact that we have X number of chromosomes is irrelevant except when we have a different number than our supposed cousins. We aren't related to beavers closely enough for their number of chromosomes to be an issue. But it would be an issue for humans vs chimpanzees or other apes.

I'm familiar with the theory. You don't have to explain it to me. I'm more interested in the logical fallacies involved in maintaining the theory.

All studies that have been thought of now as scientific fact have been repeated, critiqued, reviewed and re-affirmed. The vast majority of published research is white noise because it does not matter. None of them are cited as fact.

First of all, there's no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only facts. Second, that the findings have been repeated, critiqued, reviewed, and re-affirmed means nothing. A simple look here shows that even heavily corroborated theories are often wrong. The problem is that people who don't find the latest fad theory find it very difficult to get their research published.

You apparently do not. I'm not into pissing contests. I know the fallacy you accuse me of and why I'm not committing it. Either you don't see it or you choose not to see it. I have explained enough for you to understand so if you still don't then I assume its willing.

Whatever.

There is no theory of natural selection. It can't have predictive power because it isn't a scientific theory but an aspect of a larger theory. Asking me why a single wing can't fly doesn't mean it isn't an important part of an airplane.

Sure. And my new unicorn religion is scientific because it involves two claims: 1) An invisible pink unicorn has created everything AND 2) diamonds are made of carbon. So it's scientific and has predictive power. All you have to do to prove the religion wrong is to find a diamond that isn't made of carbon. Since it's science, let's start teaching it in schools. After all, if science can put a man on the moon, invisible pink unicorns need to be taught in school.

As a funny thing I did say something to that effect at the first response. But that is because you claimed all science is bunk bull**** based on fallacies. I assumed you meant evolution but I decided to go with a literal response to what you said. Evolution and Rocket science don't go hand in hand. One being true doesn't make the other true. What makes them both true is that they are both backed up with mountains of evidence and study. They also both assert themselves with results. Evolution has produced more astounding results in medicine and biology than engineering has putting a man on the moon.

Yeah, I felt it coming. I've had this conversation before. Fundamentally, it's no different from the Christian argument that since parts of the Bible have been verified true, all of it must be true.

It was a joke. You be sarcastic I'll be sarcastic. Hell I"ll probably be sarcastic even if you aren't.

I have no problems with jokes. You just need to reference more of my post so that I can know exactly what I'm responding to.

Natural selection definition - the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
An example of a process in which organisms better adapt to their environment and tend to survive to produce more offspring by means other than natural or already occurring forces is called artificial selection.

Right. And by better adapted, you surely mean that organisms that tend to survive and produce more offspring are those that are better adapted. Therefore, your claim boils down to: "The process whereby organisms that tend to survive and produce more offspring tend to survive and produce more offspring by means that are not related to artificial selection."

I didn't say anything of the sort. Good for ancient people figuring things out the scientific way even back then. It was kinda rare. Good for them.

Yeah, that was pre science, though. Science as we know it was invented in the 20th century.

No such study. All of the things you have linked me to are scientific drugs made from onions and garlic. All drugs came from somewhere. Alternative medicine that works is called medicine. Science is already looking into using it potentially. The reason it hasn't been used so far has been because it fails to be as effective as the already existing drugs. Perhaps in the future that will change.

You see? As I said, garlic kills antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It works against vampires too.