Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Keep reading before you pop a halfy.

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 only said this in direct response to your assertion that all science was based on fallacy. Want to retract that statement?

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.

Enough evidence does make it fact however. None of it is fallacious. Taking any single point of out context and making it as if it were the whole argument is a straw man argument. Which in case you didn't know, is a fallacy. funny funny guy.

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?!

Your DNA similarities show relation as proven and affirmed by smaller scale examples that we can test in our lifetime. Good examples is you, siblings if you ahve them, cousins, uncles, parents, people of your genetic heritage, people near your genetic heritage and then finally people across the world that are no where near your genetic heritage. We can go further and further and further. The DNA didn't start with a blank assumption.

If you care to take step into why then here is a wiki page to get you started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

Strawman number....idk like...30 by now? Can you make it a single post without a strawman? Its now a challenge issued to you.

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."

Let me quote a line out of that. Again start reading your frigging stuff you post on here. Not a damn bit of it has supported you.
"While a good DNA sample does make for a very reliable comparison, real-world crime scene evidence may have several people's DNA mixed together."
In laymans terms "This science is legit yo. Human error is a thing man. Getting perfect sample is hard in crime solving. But don't worry man the science is real we just gotta be real careful not get get the stuff mixed up."

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.

The human error mentioned is when we have bad samples. A study that is conducted with multiple samples is double checked and taken properly. Any errors are found and correct. In crime scene investigation this isn't possible. Any of this sinking in?

Yeah, that's what I meant by tangent.

You mean intelligible answers? If I asked you to use penguin's feet to explain why they can't fly how would you answer such a question?

.

Speculation.

Fact. I mean you live in a world where you can deny facts so I don't really know how to go forward with this conversation. I guess have fun living in your personal delusions...i mean beliefs.

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.

When you come up with one let me know. So far you haven't. You have displayed an amazing amount of fallacious arguments yourself while claiming to have found some such arguments.

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.

I agree with you on the point you made. Not the point you are trying to make. Evolution is a fact. We are related to apes that is a fact. It is backed up by science. We have the evidence. Its there to learn. Its out there and you can research it.

There are issues in the scientific community where certain consensuses have been wrong and have been brought to life by new evidences. A lot of this is usually wrong when big money and business gets involved with scientific research. If a company hires a scientist its usually for them to come up with the answers THEY want. The leading medical opinion of the time in the 40's was the lead was okay in small amounts and was actually harmless. However it took other experts (a famous scientist who invented the basis for various radiometric dating for example and determined not only the age of the earth, super-clean rooms and the allowed us to accurately date fossils) to prove them wrong. The whole thing was a massive upheaval of unprecedented proportions and unhinged not only a section of scientific understanding but a whole industry with it.

But evolution doesn't fall into this. No company is out there paying scientists millions of dollars to fix the books so it looks like evolution is a thing. In fact the opposite is true. MILLIONS of dollars are being funneled by anti-scientific religious groups to doctor up evidence against evolution to push their scientifically incorrect worldview on the public. Despite this the evidence and reliability of the evolutionary theory has shined through the harshest criticism to have ever been brought down on a theory in ALL OF HISTORY. This is amazing. It takes just one fossil out of place. One rabbit or human in the Terrasic period. One modern horse next to a T-rex, one failed line of DNA ect.

The evidence is overwhelming and it matches everywhere its studied in the world. We come up with the same results in Africa, Japan, Russia, Brazil, America, England, Italy, Austrialia, ect, ect, ect. We have people working in biology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, physics, chemistry, genetics, medical sciences and we still come up with answers that fit together.

They have been checked, double checked, triple checked and then checked again because someone asked. We have new evidences coming to light every single day. We have hiccups. We have things that surprise us. Things that were wrong about. Thins that have bettered our understanding of life and its evolution.

You don't get to compare how we have a sudden crisis of "scientific" studies arising of fad knee jerk studies about the benefits of red wine before dinner to the 150 year old study of evolution. Its not the same and to say so is the most dishonest thing I can think of.

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.

Here again is an example of you forcing me into a tangent. I explain how something works. But now you claim the rest of it is bull**** and I'm saying that this part is the only part thats true. Every single aspect of evolution has more research and verification done than we have room for in this conversation. Just because I didn't go into every single detail of one of the most expansive and enormous theories doesn't mean they are based on fallacies or that it hinges on a single thing.

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.

Read the above. Also read a whole lot of stuff to get education on why this is false. I"m not saying I won because you simply don't understand. I'm saying that this statement is objectively false and the only way to prove it to you is for you to go learn. Any aspect of evolution you doubt you can have it explained. Don't get upset that it ties into multiple aspects.

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."

? No? The exact opposite. Selection simply means who managed to survive. It was "selected" to survive. Artificial selection is where when we as humans tip the scales and make certain things survive. We do it with our food to make it grow bigger or to domesticate animals. Another word for Artificial Selection might be breeding. Natural selection is saying that this process still happens but it is the factors of the wild that shape the organisms rather than us.

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

A thousand years before that Aristotle had already begun work on a rudimentary scientific process. When I say they did things scientifically I mean that they used observation and analysis of cause and effect to figure out a solution to a problem. Its the same as what is done in science.

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

Ok?

 

[Zosimus]

Keep reading before you pop a halfy.
I only said this in direct response to your assertion that all science was based on fallacy. Want to retract that statement?

No. All science is based on a logical fallacy. In fact, there are multiple epistemological problems with science. We could go into the problem of induction, the problem of confirmation, the tacking problem, and half a dozen others. There's no dispute that science is logically flawed.

Enough evidence does make it fact however. None of it is fallacious. Taking any single point of out context and making it as if it were the whole argument is a straw man argument. Which in case you didn't know, is a fallacy. funny funny guy.

If by "enough evidence" you mean an infinite amount of evidence, then I'll agree. Until then, I disagree.

Your DNA similarities show relation as proven and affirmed by smaller scale examples that we can test in our lifetime. Good examples is you, siblings if you ahve them, cousins, uncles, parents, people of your genetic heritage, people near your genetic heritage and then finally people across the world that are no where near your genetic heritage. We can go further and further and further. The DNA didn't start with a blank assumption.

Let's start the laundry list of what's wrong with that statement. First of all, you assume that the DNA you have seen in the past is a perfect sample of all DNA everywhere in the universe past, present, and future. In short, you are assuming that induction is valid. Yet how do you know that induction is valid? Can you come up with a non-circular argument for induction? If you can, you'll get your own place in the philosophy encyclopedia. I'm not holding my breath.

Second, you think that when you find a new DNA sample that adheres to the predictions of your model that your theory has been verified. Hempel's Paradox blows that one out of the water. Let's assume that we want to prove that black holes do not exist. The claim: "Black holes do not exist" is logically equivalent to "Everything that exists is not a black hole." Accordingly, I propose to verify that black holes do not exist by finding things that exist that are not black holes. Well, this computer isn't a black hole. In fact, every molecule in this computer isn't a black hole. That's millions of confirmations right there. Every person on the planet isn't a black hole. Every person is made up of millions of atoms. So that's trillions and trillions of confirmations for the theory that black holes don't exist. In fact, we could easily say that the theory that black holes don't exist is more heavily verified than the theory of evolution could ever hope to be.

So here comes the question: Are you convinced that black holes don't exist? If not, why not?

If you care to take step into why then here is a wiki page to get you started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

Wikipedia? That's a joke, right?

Let me quote a line out of that. Again start reading your frigging stuff you post on here. Not a damn bit of it has supported you.
"While a good DNA sample does make for a very reliable comparison, real-world crime scene evidence may have several people's DNA mixed together."
In laymans terms "This science is legit yo. Human error is a thing man. Getting perfect sample is hard in crime solving. But don't worry man the science is real we just gotta be real careful not get get the stuff mixed up."

Well, that's right. Human error is the thing, but you're missing the rest of it. What if the DNA doesn't match? That is to say that a perfectly designed study should not find a result with a p<0.05. Yet what happens if multiple teams are studying the same issue? Surely you realize that a p<0.05 will come up 1 time out of 20 by chance alone. So if you have 20 teams checking the same issue, on average, one of those teams is likely to find a hit by chance alone. So if the one that finds a correlation gets published and the other 19 don't, then science will have a false idea of what's going on. That's not even considering p-hacking, bad study design, bias, and other factors that can make a study wrong.

The human error mentioned is when we have bad samples. A study that is conducted with multiple samples is double checked and taken properly. Any errors are found and correct. In crime scene investigation this isn't possible. Any of this sinking in?

So your plan is to refute my position by agreeing with me? How's that working out?

Fact. I mean you live in a world where you can deny facts so I don't really know how to go forward with this conversation. I guess have fun living in your personal delusions...i mean beliefs.

You have addressed none of the issues I have raised. That has nothing to do with denying facts.

When you come up with one let me know. So far you haven't. You have displayed an amazing amount of fallacious arguments yourself while claiming to have found some such arguments.

It's not an AMOUNT of fallacious arguments but a NUMBER of fallacious arguments. Amount is used for singular and uncountable words. Arguments is a plural word.

I agree with you on the point you made. Not the point you are trying to make. Evolution is a fact. We are related to apes that is a fact. It is backed up by science. We have the evidence. Its there to learn. Its out there and you can research it.

If by evolution you mean that the frequency of alleles can change from generation, then I agree with you. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that humans and apes are related. The data are not sufficient to support that conclusion.

There are issues in the scientific community where certain consensuses have been wrong and have been brought to life by new evidences. A lot of this is usually wrong when big money and business gets involved with scientific research. If a company hires a scientist its usually for them to come up with the answers THEY want. The leading medical opinion of the time in the 40's was the lead was okay in small amounts and was actually harmless.

It's a fact that 47 out of 53 landmark cancer studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals could be replicated even with a dedicated team working full-time to do so for a year. Do you seriously mean to tell me that all of that was because these people were paid by big money and big business?

However it took other experts (a famous scientist who invented the basis for various radiometric dating for example and determined not only the age of the earth, super-clean rooms and the allowed us to accurately date fossils) to prove them wrong. The whole thing was a massive upheaval of unprecedented proportions and unhinged not only a section of scientific understanding but a whole industry with it.

Proof by allegory. Interesting.

But evolution doesn't fall into this(snip)

Of course you know that this is a lie. If I stumbled across a rabbit fossil out of place, it would be judged a hoax. Even if it could be true, evolution would simply make some adjustments in the theory and keep on chugging.

The evidence is overwhelming and it matches everywhere its studied in the world. We come up with the same results in Africa, Japan, Russia, Brazil, America, England, Italy, Austrialia, ect, ect, ect. We have people working in biology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, physics, chemistry, genetics, medical sciences and we still come up with answers that fit together.

As overwhelming as the evidence I posted above that black holes don't exist?

They have been checked, double checked, triple checked and then checked again because someone asked. We have new evidences coming to light every single day. We have hiccups. We have things that surprise us. Things that were wrong about. Thins that have bettered our understanding of life and its evolution.

Right [url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/cp-wuh072816.php]here you can find an article that includes a "surprising" new finding. Now any time the finding is "surprising" that means that it was not predicted by the theory. Yet no number of surprising findings is likely to ever convince people that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is wrong. The narrative is simply rewritten with new, ad hoc hypotheses thrown in, and things go trucking along.

You don't get to compare how we have a sudden crisis of "scientific" studies arising of fad knee jerk studies about the benefits of red wine before dinner to the 150 year old study of evolution. Its not the same and to say so is the most dishonest thing I can think of.

You didn't read far enough. I 1991, the Danish zoologist Anders Møller, at Uppsala University, in Sweden, made a remarkable discovery about sex, barn swallows, and symmetry....

"In the three years following, there were ten independent tests of the role of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual selection, and nine of them found a relationship between symmetry and male reproductive success...

"Then the theory started to fall apart. In 1994, there were fourteen published tests of symmetry and sexual selection, and only eight found a correlation...By 1998, when there were twelve additional investigations of fluctuating asymmetry, only a third of them confirmed the theory. Worse still, even the studies that yielded some positive result showed a steadily declining effect size. Between 1992 and 1997, the average effect size shrank by eighty per cent."
---------------------------------
There you go. A highly corroborated study that appears to show that female sexual preferences work by identifying males who are better genetic matches. Except that it was all bullcrap.

Here again is an example of you forcing me into a tangent. I explain how something works. But now you claim the rest of it is bull**** and I'm saying that this part is the only part thats true. Every single aspect of evolution has more research and verification done than we have room for in this conversation. Just because I didn't go into every single detail of one of the most expansive and enormous theories doesn't mean they are based on fallacies or that it hinges on a single thing.

Verification is impossible. We've been over this.

Read the above. Also read a whole lot of stuff to get education on why this is false. I"m not saying I won because you simply don't understand. I'm saying that this statement is objectively false and the only way to prove it to you is for you to go learn. Any aspect of evolution you doubt you can have it explained. Don't get upset that it ties into multiple aspects.

Ridiculous. You're like a Christian who, upon hearing that the claim "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is not logically valid, responds by saying that you need to read the Bible more so that you understand it better. "Don't get upset that it ties into multiple aspects," he advises.

A thousand years before that Aristotle had already begun work on a rudimentary scientific process. When I say they did things scientifically I mean that they used observation and analysis of cause and effect to figure out a solution to a problem. Its the same as what is done in science.

That's not what makes things science. Hell, astrologists use observation and analysis of cause and effect to figure out how an Aquarius is different from a Gemini. That doesn't make it science.[/url]

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry. Had to cut some to keep it under 12,000 characters.

P.S. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22151785
about lead.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Multiple attempts to fix the code. code seems right. Don't nkow why its not working. Sorry bout that. At some point it got screwed up a bit in your last post as it attempted to make half your text a link.

No. All science is based on a logical fallacy. In fact, there are multiple epistemological problems with science. We could go into the problem of induction, the problem of confirmation, the tacking problem, and half a dozen others. There's no dispute that science is logically flawed.

Strange how it seems to work despite that. Also weird how it has been unanimously the best method of discovery in our universe since its inception as a methodology.

If by "enough evidence" you mean an infinite amount of evidence, then I'll agree. Until then, I disagree.

Then we will disagree.

Let's start the laundry list of what's wrong with that statement. First of all, you assume that the DNA you have seen in the past is a perfect sample of all DNA everywhere in the universe past, present, and future. In short, you are assuming that induction is valid. Yet how do you know that induction is valid? Can you come up with a non-circular argument for induction? If you can, you'll get your own place in the philosophy encyclopedia. I'm not holding my breath.

Philosophy is mostly only useful as a thinking tool. I enjoy it but it doesn't serve much functional purpose without its much more successful brother, logic. Bringing philosophy into this takes it to a place I'm not going. Mainly because I don't need to go there. Philosophically moment is impossible by schools of thought for example. This is objectively...nay laughably false. Philosophy only takes you so far. The single greatest achievement of philosophy was the deduction by Aristotle (arguably the greatest philosopher of history) that observation and reason are the keys to obtaining knowledge. His work laid out the basis of the scientific method.

Second, you think that when you find a new DNA sample that adheres to the predictions of your model that your theory has been verified. Hempel's Paradox blows that one out of the water. Let's assume that we want to prove that black holes do not exist. The claim: "Black holes do not exist" is logically equivalent to "Everything that exists is not a black hole." Accordingly, I propose to verify that black holes do not exist by finding things that exist that are not black holes. Well, this computer isn't a black hole. In fact, every molecule in this computer isn't a black hole. That's millions of confirmations right there. Every person on the planet isn't a black hole. Every person is made up of millions of atoms. So that's trillions and trillions of confirmations for the theory that black holes don't exist. In fact, we could easily say that the theory that black holes don't exist is more heavily verified than the theory of evolution could ever hope to be.

So here comes the question: Are you convinced that black holes don't exist? If not, why not?

I don't even know where you come up with this. I don't even see where anywhere DNA has been part of this fallacy? We can only go by what we observe. We observe DNA. We take conclusions from these observations. What part of the conclusions are the raven paradox? I mean I don't even know how to refute this because I don't see the argument made. Re-phrase this please?

Wikipedia? That's a joke, right?

Incredible rebuttal.
Walk before ya run. It also has links. Wikipedia is a good source of general knowledge with links to more specific knowledge. I mean I could link you to other sources but you don't seem to care. But why not waste some time shall we?
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/dna
https://www.genome.gov/25520880/deoxyribonucleic-acid-dna-fact-sheet/
http://www.dnaftb.org/

Well, that's right. Human error is the thing, but you're missing the rest of it. What if the DNA doesn't match? That is to say that a perfectly designed study should not find a result with a p<0.05. Yet what happens if multiple teams are studying the same issue? Surely you realize that a p<0.05 will come up 1 time out of 20 by chance alone. So if you have 20 teams checking the same issue, on average, one of those teams is likely to find a hit by chance alone. So if the one that finds a correlation gets published and the other 19 don't, then science will have a false idea of what's going on. That's not even considering p-hacking, bad study design, bias, and other factors that can make a study wrong.

Source required here.

So your plan is to refute my position by agreeing with me? How's that working out?

About as well as every time I argue with a brick wall plastered with nonsense. What I"m saying is that you don't understand what your saying. I agree with certain things you say. I also agree that its a problem in crime scene investigation. However you falsely equated this to the science itself. As in, because the messy jobs of police officers getting semen out of vaginas that may have had sex with multiple men makes it difficult to isolate DNA is true. That doesn't mean DNA can't match ID's. In fact it can almost 100% of the time if we have a clean sample. So some of your talking points are true but your overall asertation isn't.

Actually to point out something...every link you have used on the subject to support yourself doesn't actually support you. Every single one. The only exceptions is a non-point about garlic extract.

You have addressed none of the issues I have raised. That has nothing to do with denying facts.

I have. By pointing out they aren't issues. You aren't raising valid issues. You are raising misconceptions about the way science works with a sprinkling of philosophical nihilism that doesn't match the reality we observe.

It's not an AMOUNT of fallacious arguments but a NUMBER of fallacious arguments. Amount is used for singular and uncountable words. Arguments is a plural word.

Currently we are talking about the number zero. Which isn't plural or singular.

If by evolution you mean that the frequency of alleles can change from generation, then I agree with you. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that humans and apes are related. The data are not sufficient to support that conclusion.

It does. I mean it simply does. Feel free to ignore the facts.

Snipped

No. In this case its actually a competitive environment that wants to push results. Outlier results of a test get more press in publican and therefore get more coverage. It also advances the individual's career. The way these papers are actually worded usually fall into the "It seems that" or "indicates" type paper that say there "may be a correlation" which then gets twisted by the media. That is why you don't ever believe anything you see on buzzfeed or any other kind of news outlet about the newsest thing. It takes years of kicking around between multiple labs and multiple replications and reaffirmations before its given any actual credit.

The bottom line is still money. Publishing that you haven't found anything new is bad. If you can't actually find anything new then doctor up your tests a bit to show something interesting. This hasn't been a problem till recent years with the access of information. Prior to this it happened but no one knew about it until it was reaffirmed

partially sinpped. some kinda coding thing is screwing with my quotation boxes.
Of course you know that this is a lie. If I stumbled across a rabbit fossil out of place, it would be judged a hoax. Even if it could be true, evolution would simply make some adjustments in the theory and keep on chugging.. asldkjfaskd
[/quote]
False. If it is legitimate it can hold up on its own. Every single piece of "evidence" that has been brought up against evolution in such a way has been proven to be a hoax not because of any preconceived notion that it is wrong but because it was found to be wrong. Even ideas that would have assumed to have been correct that were false are found out in the same way.

Your conspiracy theory is only that until you bring evidence.

As overwhelming as the evidence I posted above that black holes don't exist?asdflkjasdfkl

I mean you say that...but I still don't think you know what it means. Find me one shred of evidence that is the case of this fallacy. Just one. come on do it. Link it to meh.

[quote]
Right here you can find an article that includes a "surprising" new finding. Now any time the finding is "surprising" that means that it was not predicted by the theory. Yet no number of surprising findings is likely to ever convince people that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is wrong. The narrative is simply rewritten with new, ad hoc hypotheses thrown in, and things go trucking along.[/quote]
That is still the same cancer link from earlier. Want to re link me to it? I can't respond unless I see it. I shall make an educated guess that it is an unexpected discovery that doesn't go counter to the theory of evolution but rather to the specific instance of evolution. We discover unexpected things all he time to strengthen our understanding of evolution. Being wrong about specifics is a good thing. Major things disrupt the theory.

An example of something surprising that it had been theorized taht human brains developed first and thus made the change in the course of our species. We now know that is false. It was walking upright that made the change for our species.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

[quote]
You didn't read far enough. I 1991, the Danish zoologist Anders Møller, at Uppsala University, in Sweden, made a remarkable discovery about sex, barn swallows, and symmetry....

"In the three years following, there were ten independent tests of the role of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual selection, and nine of them found a relationship between symmetry and male reproductive success...

"Then the theory started to fall apart. In 1994, there were fourteen published tests of symmetry and sexual selection, and only eight found a correlation...By 1998, when there were twelve additional investigations of fluctuating asymmetry, only a third of them confirmed the theory. Worse still, even the studies that yielded some positive result showed a steadily declining effect size. Between 1992 and 1997, the average effect size shrank by eighty per cent."
---------------------------------
There you go. A highly corroborated study that appears to show that female sexual preferences work by identifying males who are better genetic matches. Except that it was all bullcrap.
[/quote]
Indeed. A highly popular theory that existed for all of ....five years? That now is known to be negligible in most species? I mean I can give you far more highly supported theories that were wrong. The theory of evolution as a whole is not in danger. Do you know what competing theories are?

Also as a note do you think that all of the evidences of evolution are fake biases? All of them? Not just mistaken theories that had a weak correlation with a lot of buzz.
[quote]
Verification is impossible. We've been over this.[/quote]
By this standard then are all knowledge fallacious and need to be thrown out?

[quote]
Ridiculous. You're like a Christian who, upon hearing that the claim "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is not logically valid, responds by saying that you need to read the Bible more so that you understand it better. "Don't get upset that it ties into multiple aspects," he advises.
[/quote]
I mean if you want to not learn then go for it. I'm saying its there. Unlike Christians it actually is there. We live by it. If you get in your car and turn the key not only is that a marvel of scientific engineering but its also burning up ancient plants that have been extinct for millions of years.
[quote]
That's not what makes things science. Hell, astrologists use observation and analysis of cause and effect to figure out how an Aquarius is different from a Gemini. That doesn't make it science.[/QUOTE]
That is all there is to science. The difference between astrologist is that they didn't analyse their work.

 

[Zosimus]

Multiple attempts to fix the code. code seems right. Don't nkow why its not working. Sorry bout that. At some point it got screwed up a bit in your last post as it attempted to make half your text a link.

We're too verbose.

Strange how it seems to work despite that. Also weird how it has been unanimously the best method of discovery in our universe since its inception as a methodology.

Sure, and people who believe in astrology can easily point to confirmations. "My brother read in his horoscope that he was going to have something good happen... and that same day he got a new job." Are you impressed?

Then we will disagree.

Why? If your theory is "All swans are white" then how many white swans do you need to see before you know that the theory is true?

Philosophy is mostly only useful as a thinking tool. I enjoy it but it doesn't serve much functional purpose without its much more successful brother, logic. Bringing philosophy into this takes it to a place I'm not going. Mainly because I don't need to go there. Philosophically moment is impossible by schools of thought for example. This is objectively...nay laughably false. Philosophy only takes you so far. The single greatest achievement of philosophy was the deduction by Aristotle (arguably the greatest philosopher of history) that observation and reason are the keys to obtaining knowledge. His work laid out the basis of the scientific method.

That's as stupid as saying that you don't believe in science because biology is better. Logic is a philosophy as is science.

I don't even know where you come up with this. I don't even see where anywhere DNA has been part of this fallacy? We can only go by what we observe. We observe DNA. We take conclusions from these observations. What part of the conclusions are the raven paradox? I mean I don't even know how to refute this because I don't see the argument made. Re-phrase this please?

You say that because you don't get the point of the Ravens Paradox. Logically, finding a green apple confirms the theory that all ravens are black. After all, the green object could have been a raven, but it wasn't. Therefore, the theory that all ravens are black has been confirmed. Yet how many green apples do I need to see before I know that all ravens are black? Do you agree that green apples are confirmation for the blackness of ravens?

Incredible rebuttal.
Walk before ya run. It also has links. Wikipedia is a good source of general knowledge with links to more specific knowledge. I mean I could link you to other sources but you don't seem to care. But why not waste some time shall we?
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/dna
https://www.genome.gov/25520880/deoxyribonucleic-acid-dna-fact-sheet/
http://www.dnaftb.org/

Listen–don't bring a knife to a gun fight. When I criticize your logic, it's not the time to introduce evidence.

Source required here.

SERIOUSLY?! Man, you know zero about science. Okay. As you can see here "The P value, or calculated probability, is the probability of finding the observed, or more extreme, results when the null hypothesis (H0) of a study question is true." Therefore, if we have two DNA samples that are dissimilar (that's our null hypothesis), then we will get a p-value of 0.05 or less 5 percent of the time. Now please don't tell me that I have to prove that 5% is the same as 1 time out of 20.

So, if one team is testing DNA that is dissimilar, that team will come up with p<0.05 one time out of 20. But what if two teams are studying that DNA? Then the chance that one team will come up with a false positive increases to 9.75 percent. For each individual team that is studying the same problem, the chance of a false positive increases.

Here's a simple question for you. Imagine that someone comes into a doctor's office and has a test for a rare disease. The results are positive. The chance that the test is wrong is only 1 percent. What is the chance that the woman has the disease in question? How are those chances calculated?

About as well as every time I argue with a brick wall plastered with nonsense. What I"m saying is that you don't understand what your saying. I agree with certain things you say. I also agree that its a problem in crime scene investigation. However you falsely equated this to the science itself. As in, because the messy jobs of police officers getting semen out of vaginas that may have had sex with multiple men makes it difficult to isolate DNA is true. That doesn't mean DNA can't match ID's. In fact it can almost 100% of the time if we have a clean sample. So some of your talking points are true but your overall asertation isn't.

So the problems of bias magically disappear when evolutionary scientists are at work. Wow.

Actually to point out something...every link you have used on the subject to support yourself doesn't actually support you. Every single one. The only exceptions is a non-point about garlic extract.

Yeah, they do. You just have poor reading comprehension.

I have. By pointing out they aren't issues. You aren't raising valid issues. You are raising misconceptions about the way science works with a sprinkling of philosophical nihilism that doesn't match the reality we observe.

Bias is not an issue in scientific research?! Since when?

Currently we are talking about the number zero. Which isn't plural or singular.

The number zero is singular. Zero is a number. It's not two numbers.

It does. I mean it simply does. Feel free to ignore the facts.

Well you can jut out your jaw and scream it to the skies. It won't make the data sufficient.

No. In this case its actually a competitive environment that wants to push results. Outlier results of a test get more press in publican and therefore get more coverage. It also advances the individual's career. The way these papers are actually worded usually fall into the "It seems that" or "indicates" type paper that say there "may be a correlation" which then gets twisted by the media. That is why you don't ever believe anything you see on buzzfeed or any other kind of news outlet about the newsest thing. It takes years of kicking around between multiple labs and multiple replications and reaffirmations before its given any actual credit.

Yeah, it's called publication bias, just one of the many biases in science.

The bottom line is still money. Publishing that you haven't found anything new is bad. If you can't actually find anything new then doctor up your tests a bit to show something interesting. This hasn't been a problem till recent years with the access of information. Prior to this it happened but no one knew about it until it was reaffirmed

Given that money is always present in society, scientists will always be biased. Is that your argument?

That is still the same cancer link from earlier. Want to re link me to it? I can't respond unless I see it. I shall make an educated guess that it is an unexpected discovery that doesn't go counter to the theory of evolution but rather to the specific instance of evolution. We discover unexpected things all he time to strengthen our understanding of evolution. Being wrong about specifics is a good thing. Major things disrupt the theory.

If I mislinked you, my apologies. I was referring to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/cp-wuh072816.php

An example of something surprising that it had been theorized taht human brains developed first and thus made the change in the course of our species. We now know that is false. It was walking upright that made the change for our species.

You know nothing of the sort. You speculate.

 

[Zosimus]

[quote]
You didn't read far enough. I 1991, the Danish zoologist Anders Møller, at Uppsala University, in Sweden, made a remarkable discovery about sex, barn swallows, and symmetry....

"In the three years following, there were ten independent tests of the role of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual selection, and nine of them found a relationship between symmetry and male reproductive success...

"Then the theory started to fall apart. In 1994, there were fourteen published tests of symmetry and sexual selection, and only eight found a correlation...By 1998, when there were twelve additional investigations of fluctuating asymmetry, only a third of them confirmed the theory. Worse still, even the studies that yielded some positive result showed a steadily declining effect size. Between 1992 and 1997, the average effect size shrank by eighty per cent."
---------------------------------
There you go. A highly corroborated study that appears to show that female sexual preferences work by identifying males who are better genetic matches. Except that it was all bullcrap.
[/quote]
Indeed. A highly popular theory that existed for all of ....five years? That now is known to be negligible in most species? I mean I can give you far more highly supported theories that were wrong. The theory of evolution as a whole is not in danger. Do you know what competing theories are?

Also as a note do you think that all of the evidences of evolution are fake biases? All of them? Not just mistaken theories that had a weak correlation with a lot of buzz.
[quote]
Verification is impossible. We've been over this.

By this standard then are all knowledge fallacious and need to be thrown out?

[quote]
Ridiculous. You're like a Christian who, upon hearing that the claim "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is not logically valid, responds by saying that you need to read the Bible more so that you understand it better. "Don't get upset that it ties into multiple aspects," he advises.
[/quote]
I mean if you want to not learn then go for it. I'm saying its there. Unlike Christians it actually is there. We live by it. If you get in your car and turn the key not only is that a marvel of scientific engineering but its also burning up ancient plants that have been extinct for millions of years.
[quote]
That's not what makes things science. Hell, astrologists use observation and analysis of cause and effect to figure out how an Aquarius is different from a Gemini. That doesn't make it science.[/QUOTE]
That is all there is to science. The difference between astrologist is that they didn't analyse their work.[/QUOTE]
That's a really ugly post. I'll just fire a shotgun blast out there, and if I've missed an important point, please re-mention it.

In 1666, Sir Isaac Newton developed his law of universal gravitation. It was highly corroborated for centuries. It was found false in 1919. That's 253 years – a pretty good run, all things considered. So even centuries of corroboration do not guarantee that your pet theory is correct.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sure, and people who believe in astrology can easily point to confirmations. "My brother read in his horoscope that he was going to have something good happen... and that same day he got a new job." Are you impressed?

If a unanimous or even significant amount of the population fell into their categories for it then they might have a point. However after examining the evidence its obvious that the exceptions to the rule are so numerous that it doesn't actually have any correlation what so ever. Not to mention the method of their theory was debunked. The basis for Astrology was that when the year had certain constellations out of sight (behind the earth at night) that it meant that the energy was rushing across the earth's surface to pop up on the other horizon after a month or so. We now know this is wrong. The very basis of the theory is gone because of observation.

When we take into account ALL data and not just an insignificant hand picked quantity we can formulate theories.

Why? If your theory is "All swans are white" then how many white swans do you need to see before you know that the theory is true?

If every known white swan was white then the theory would hold up. The second we see a non-white swan the theory fails.

That's as stupid as saying that you don't believe in science because biology is better. Logic is a philosophy as is science.[//quote]
False. On several things. Number one biology is a science. Did you mean another specific science vs another specific science? Logic is the study of reasoning. Science and logic can exist independent of philosophy. In fact it functions so most of the time. Name one scientific discovery in the last century that was rooted in philosophy.

You say that because you don't get the point of the Ravens Paradox. Logically, finding a green apple confirms the theory that all ravens are black. After all, the green object could have been a raven, but it wasn't. Therefore, the theory that all ravens are black has been confirmed. Yet how many green apples do I need to see before I know that all ravens are black? Do you agree that green apples are confirmation for the blackness of ravens?

The reason why I am confused isn't because I don't understand the raven's paradox as I do know it and have pointed it out with many creationist sources attempt to use it...but genetics and the study of DNA isn't guilty of this. I don't even know what part of the study of it you are even insulating does this.

Listen–don't bring a knife to a gun fight. When I criticize your logic, it's not the time to introduce evidence.

You have been fairing a gun repeatedly into your foot since the beginning of this. You haven't pointed out a single legitimate logical issue. You claim that DNA falls under the raven paradox when it obviously doesn't. You haven't even attempted to explain how you came to that conclusion. I linked you to a wiki page about DNA since you seemed to understand why it was a credible science and you scoffed at it. I decided to waste my time (note I also stated I was wasting my time and I was right) in giving you more credible sources. It is on your shoulders to show how a functioning branch of science is illegitimate.

SERIOUSLY?! Man, you know zero about science. Okay. As you can see here "The P value, or calculated probability, is the probability of finding the observed, or more extreme, results when the null hypothesis (H0) of a study question is true." Therefore, if we have two DNA samples that are dissimilar (that's our null hypothesis), then we will get a p-value of 0.05 or less 5 percent of the time. Now please don't tell me that I have to prove that 5% is the same as 1 time out of 20.

So, if one team is testing DNA that is dissimilar, that team will come up with p<0.05 one time out of 20. But what if two teams are studying that DNA? Then the chance that one team will come up with a false positive increases to 9.75 percent. For each individual team that is studying the same problem, the chance of a false positive increases.

I know zero about science? Says that man (or woman whichever dgaf) who blataltnly denies some of the most basic aspects of the most solid theories we have? But I digress.

The most basic tenant of science is that it has to be repeated over and over again to root out false positives. If something has a minimum requirement of being statistically significant in a minimal number of studies to be considered statistically significant then the result stay the same. If we did the test 20 times with 20 studies and 19 came up negative and only 1 positive then its obvious that it isn't actually significant.

So the problems of bias magically disappear when evolutionary scientists are at work. Wow.

Actually it nearly dissapears when you have clean easy to read samples.

Yeah, they do. You just have poor reading comprehension.

Every article you have linked up about DNA not being reliable has blatantly stated it was reliable except with contaminated samples and basic human error in non-perfect scenarios. Not a single one of them have supported your statement that DNA science is unreliable. Not a single one. You have given a really good example of confirmation bias though so I grant you that. You believe so hard that you are right that you skim over a title you found on google and plant it here.

Bias is not an issue in scientific research?! Since when?

Bias is an issue. Not enough of an issue to dismantle the largest and one of the most solidly supported theories in science. Its mostly an issue with bunk knee jerk science that doesn't last but a few months to years depending.

The number zero is singular. Zero is a number. It's not two numbers.

If you have zero points in an argument do you have a single point or plural points? Neither.

Well you can jut out your jaw and scream it to the skies. It won't make the data sufficient.

when the data stops being sufficient then I will change my mind. Hasn't happened.

Yeah, it's called publication bias, just one of the many biases in science.


Given that money is always present in society, scientists will always be biased. Is that your argument?

I have talked extensively on it yes. Is your argument that all science is simply bias made up by whoever for money? None of its real?

If I mislinked you, my apologies. I was referring to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/cp-wuh072816.php

Neat. I forget what the point was of your link. It seems rather interesting. Nothing that argues against the sciences, evolution or DNA.

You know nothing of the sort. You speculate.

We know. I mean obviously you don't but don't put others on the same level.

 

[Zosimus]

If a unanimous or even significant amount of the population fell into their categories for it then they might have a point. However after examining the evidence its obvious that the exceptions to the rule are so numerous that it doesn't actually have any correlation what so ever. Not to mention the method of their theory was debunked. The basis for Astrology was that when the year had certain constellations out of sight (behind the earth at night) that it meant that the energy was rushing across the earth's surface to pop up on the other horizon after a month or so. We now know this is wrong. The very basis of the theory is gone because of observation.

Not so. It could easily be dark energy, which is undetectable.

When we take into account ALL data and not just an insignificant hand picked quantity we can formulate theories.

You do not have and never will have all data. That's the point.

If every known white swan was white then the theory would hold up. The second we see a non-white swan the theory fails.

Obviously all white swans are white. The point that you seem to miss is that it doesn't matter how many white swans one sees. One single non-white swan sends the theory to its grave. So it doesn't matter how many confirmations you get, the theory can never be proved true.

You don't get the Ravens Paradox. All right, here's how it works:

Let's imagine that you're walking down the street and you see a strange black bird. The person you're with informs you that it's a raven. The next day you see another one. A week later you see another one. Then, in another city, you see a fourth. All of the ravens are black. "This is too many coincidences," you think. "Perhaps all ravens are black." Thus, you have created a scientific hypothesis. It's testable, observable, and falsifiable. So you work on the hypothesis and observe 1,000 ravens all in a week's time. They are all black. So now you elevate your hypothesis to a law.

Logically, we can say that your hypothesis is a conditional. For all P: if P is a raven, then P is black. Now, of course, you cannot observe all ravens. Some ravens are dead. Others haven't been born yet. Still others are on different planets. Yet you feel that your hypothesis has been verified true.

Here's where the problem comes in. The claim that all ravens are black is logically equivalent to the statement all non-black things are not ravens. This can be proved with a simple truth table. So if you find a black raven, that finding confirms not only the theory that all ravens are black but also the theory that all non-black things are not ravens. So here comes the "paradox" -- according to this logic, every non-black thing I find that isn't a raven helps to prove that all ravens are black. The problem is that most people will not accept the "I have a green apple in my hand... therefore, all ravens are black" as a valid logical chain.

Where do you stand on the matter?