tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post8013952248138822100..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Magical EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-9781895224488271862016-02-12T19:25:40.801-06:002016-02-12T19:25:40.801-06:00Since I was waiting for people at work, I actually...Since I was waiting for people at work, I actually had even more stuff written down, 1 or 2 more comments maybe, not sure if it would fit in 1. But anyway, I think it's better to stick to fewer precise topics, since you are clearly getting exasperated, as these few quotes show:<br /> <br />"<i>I have told you why until I’m ready to just quit in total disgust because you refuse to acknowledge it. [...]<br />that says a lot in terms of your need for avoidance. And now you merely try to turn the tables into an unsustainable Tu Quoue. All of your claims just above are false, all of them.<br />[...]<br />Why do you not acknowledge this????????????????????????????<br />WHY?????????????????????????????????<br />[...]<br />even though you WANT it to be considered immutable knowledge in terms of Philosophical Materialism grounded in Philosophical Determinism (both of which fail logic and observation).<br />[...]<br />Where is your logical grounding? You have none, because the required beliefs of Philosophical Materialism and Philosophical Determinism are FALSE. <br />[...]<br />Lalalalala.<br />[...]<br />This has gotten old, well past the sell-by date. <br />[...]<br />This is just more bullshit blather.<br />[...]<br />starting to look like a purposeful deception, and certainly is an intellectually obtuse approach<br />[...]<br />It is inconceivable, rationally, that anyone engaged in science/technology would not understand the principles of empiricism, much less not to think those principles to be of value.<br />[...]<br />or frankly: just go away because you are not rational.</i>"<br /><br />What I see within all of these silly quotes are 3 things:<br /><br />1) On your blog, you usually claim that you want serious conversations using logic and reason. Yet, you inserted tons of these "colorful" bits that serve no purpose other than insulting. You are less and less subtle, now literally saying that 'everything' I write is false, that it's all 'bullshit', and that I am not rational.<br /><br />2) What's particularly disgusting is that last part, that you pretend that I am not rational. I thought we had clarified that. Though I know little about your own background and what kind of IQ or Critical Reasoning test you would pass... In any case, you know I am not stupid and I don't pretend you are. And after reading you for years now, I know that you would never tolerate such behavior on your blog... if it were not coming from yourself. <br /><br />3) And, after ignoring many instances, I think I should address these comments on Philosophical Materialism, which has nothing to do with any of this. As I mentioned on a separate thread, my understanding of evolution has never been influenced by my philosophical stance on anything, at all. My religious views actually changed a lot more, over the past 2 decades, than my views on evolution... Because the latter is science, and nothing more.<br /><br />So it's up to you... more attacks on my character, or more discussion on specific empirical observations related to evolution... or both?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-9063025341833663842016-02-12T19:21:07.245-06:002016-02-12T19:21:07.245-06:00Stan said:
"Every claim of evolutionary chain...Stan said:<br />"<i>Every claim of evolutionary chains and common ancestry cannot be proved empirically. [...]<br />Common ancestry is a fiction [...] What you can prove is common structure characteristics which are observable. You cannot prove the origin. [...] Hierarchy is not a physical characteristic of anything, it is a human-designed classification system, which is based on inference of connectivity, not empirical fact.</i>"<br />Ancestry can certainly be proven; we use it for parent testing on small scale, and can use the exact same techniques to go further and further, between populations, species, genus... <b>Where's the line Stan; where does it stop working?</b> You won't deny it works for child-parent relationship, I hope, what about cousins, or great-great-grand-parents? I still don't understand what you reject here because you make a blanket statement regarding all ancestry, or phylogeny I should say, for biology as a whole.<br /><br />To give specific examples, what do you think of these empirical observations:<br />- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvTmgCk1Lo" rel="nofollow"> Retroviruses And Pseudogenes</a> (The entire playlist on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1R8w_QEvEU&list=PLD0A39ADD948FECE4" rel="nofollow">Facts of Evolution / Natural Selection</a> is worth watching.)<br />- <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Genetic_Code.aspx" rel="nofollow">Universality of the genetic code, including exceptions</a><br />- <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html" rel="nofollow">Empircal tests to confirm phylogenic inference</a> (a lot more empirical studies are referenced on talkorigins.org)<br />- <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/" rel="nofollow">The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates</a> and how it propagated, as <a href="https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/08/17/the-loss-of-vitamin-c-one-more-proof-for-evolution/" rel="nofollow">support for evolutionary theory</a><br />- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)" rel="nofollow">Prediction and findings surrounding humans' chromosome 2 as evidence of mutation and common ancestry with other apes</a><br /><br />"<i>”you won't even pinpoint where the line between micro and macro evolution is.”<br />I certainly did and will again: until the population genome is modified, the individual changes will remain within the population genome and the population is defined as species X = species X. That is why evolutionists say that it is changes at the population/group level that cause speciation/evolution.</i>"<br />Yes, changes always occur within a species. So that does not answer anything... All mammals, for example, are descendants of 1 species that was the original 'mammal' species. Its descendants were, and still are, all mammals.<br /><br />The explanation is that that original population reproduced, some groups got isolated from each other for a lot of different reasons and, eventually, the new groups were so different that new species emerged. Yes, it's a "so-story" to use your own words, or what we usually call a theory, which explains the fact that all mammals share a specific set of features/genes. So again, you don't say where that distinction is; you just don't accept the explanation as to why mammals are not all still the same species today. There is no empirical test that can show 1 mammal species turning into today's millions of mammals' species. But we do have empirical observations as to how similar the DNA of mammals are, which ones are closer to each other and why, and then try to explain how it got to be that way. Evolution by natural selection provides a robust explanation because of what we know today, which is based on empirical observations.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-22863555829438787812016-02-12T18:19:25.996-06:002016-02-12T18:19:25.996-06:00It is inconceivable, rationally, that anyone engag...It is inconceivable, rationally, that anyone engaged in science/technology would not understand the principles of empiricism, much less not to think those principles to be of value. Even worse is to knowingly ditch those fundamental principles in favor of an ideology which is physically-based, but not based in any possibility of empirical validation.<br /><br />This can be the case only if the ideology is more important to the individual ideologist than is science: empirical validation. That is the only way that ideological "principles" can be considered to be "Truth", which "must" be accepted.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-85575849875063111292016-02-12T17:07:13.197-06:002016-02-12T17:07:13.197-06:00It’s time for you to present actual physical evide...It’s time for you to present actual physical evidence which satisfies the principles of empiricism, Aristotelian deduction, and is grounded in First Principles instead of being entirely unground opinion.<br /><br />Either do that, admit that you cannot, or frankly: just go away because you are not rational.<br /><br /><i>” I just find this topic fascinating, always have, and it's interesting to try to pinpoint why people are so irritated by it and which part they understand/misunderstand and believe/disbelieve.”</i><br /><br />Understanding the simplistic evolution stories is easy; it’s done in primary school. What is not done is to analyze their premises, their actual evidentiary support, their logical truth values, and to decide why the evolution industry is so large, so selfishly protected from intellectual questioning, and so elitist by claiming that dissenters “just don’t understand” that the evolutionists' opinions are immutable “truth” and totally unquestionable at the premise level.<br /><br />Your position has been that it can’t even be discussed until it is accepted as Truth.<br /><br />That is specifically a gross intellectual failure; it is dishonest; it is NOT science. It is religion.<br /><br />There is a huge dollar investment in the dogma of evolution with a great many people whose incomes depend on it being TRUE and unquestioned. There is a huge personal investment in the ideology of evolution, with dire consequences for that ideology if it is logically false, and thus a hazard to the worldviews of a great many people who strive to protect it from being analyzed in any significant intellectual depth.<br /><br /><i>”… but I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about! “</i><br /><br />Of course not. Purposeful obtuseness. The term “Species” has specific definition, unless the purpose is to obfuscate and obscure the impossibility of Set [G] turning into Set [Y] merely by invoking Deep Time, which is “not a causal agent”. So you slip-slide the terminology to cover that logical defect. That is purposeful, and it is deception.<br /><br /><i>”…do you believe that a Latin-speaking mother ever give birth to a French-speaking child? Do you understand the similarity with evolution?”</i><br /><br />All analogies fail at some point, some fail sooner than others. This one fails immediately by using intelligent creatures and their cultural attributes. It is the same as the claim that automobiles have mutated and evolved, while ignoring that intelligence allowed it to happen (not to mention exist in the first place), not random outside influence, and not mindless random changes within the design.<br /><br />Do you not see that a human-driven change is not the same as random mutations? Nor Deep Time? Nor any other causal agent which is not intelligent?<br /><br />Mercifully we are at the end of your comments.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-71020085199477243592016-02-12T17:06:46.124-06:002016-02-12T17:06:46.124-06:00”… 2 types of observations.”
1. Evolution going t...<i>”… 2 types of observations.”</i><br /><br />1. Evolution going to macro from micro. Yes, I produced contrary evidence. You still do not produce supporting physical evidence, which is what any actual scientist would demand. And so, where is it?<br /><br />2. <i>” Hierarchy also yields the inescapable conclusion that speciation occurred, as we can look at living things today and figure out how closely related they are to each other.”</i><br /><br />Hierarchy is not a physical characteristic of anything, it is a human-designed classification system, which is based on inference of connectivity, not empirical fact. You find unproven, extrapolatory opinion to be inescapable. That is religious belief in the unprovable.<br /><br /><i>” We thus know that they must have share a common ancestor species, just like we can know that people are siblings, cousins, second cousins, etc...”</i><br /><br />Your use of “must” betrays the fact that you KNOW that you don’t know that claim to be demonstrated by virtue of any direct empirical evidence. You have merely bought into the extrapolated, inferential opinions of which you are a devoted fan. And it is necessary, you think, that everyone else should affirm your decision by making the same leaps of faith in the absence of any physical, empirical evidence for support.<br /><br /><i>” Kimura's research gives 1 of many possible pathways to such speciation; it's an attempt to explain 'how' it can happen over long periods of time.”</i><br /><br />For the Nth time, Kimura <b>Presupposes</b> up front that speciation from neutral mutations can happen, then he makes sure that his equations reflect that. <br /><br /><b>Damnit show otherwise or stop making these false claims. </b>You make claims as if they are TRUTH when you fail to even look at the source or discuss it beyond your conclusion. This is starting to look like purposeful misrepresentation as Truth of what you know to be false.<br /><br /><i>” And no, it does 'not' mean that 'time is an actor'; nobody says that.”</i><br /><br />To claim that Set [R] will change into Set [M] just due to DEEP TIME is <b>exactly saying that DEEP TIME is the causal agent.</b> Claiming otherwise is another case of purposeful obtuseness, which is starting to appear to be your entire approach.<br /><br /><i>” Or, why don't you go back to…”</i><br /><br />You have already attempted to send us all over the internet to see the same sort of evidence-free and false-evidence claims which are abundant in evolution-world. If you actually had even one piece of actual empirical evidence, then you would have presented it long ago. But you are stuck on presenting story-telling by all sorts of different story tellers who read dogma from pretty much the same evidence free evolution bible.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-4967785173576688082016-02-12T16:53:32.155-06:002016-02-12T16:53:32.155-06:00” Nowhere to be found apparently; just opinions......<i>” Nowhere to be found apparently; just opinions... You even tried to quote one paper, Kimura's, without realizing that it makes your case worse. Kimura essentially shows that neutral mutations can lead to speciation; so even if there were no positive mutations ever, as you claim, speciation would still happen because of drift in the gene pool.”</i><br /><br />Kimura does no such thing. Kimura assumes up front for everyone to see that neutral mutations can lead to speciation, by his choice of variables. You have had this pointed out, you ignore it and don’t refute it, you act as if contrary evidence does not exist. Lalalalala.<br /><br />So now you have taken to merely turning the failure modes of your own which I point out, and attempt to turn them back on me in a completely failed Tu Quoque.<br /><br />You have no case, because there IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PHYSICAL CHARACTER, and you refuse to admit it.<br /><br />This has gotten old, well past the sell-by date. <br /><br /><i>” Moreover, you keep doubling down on what are clear indications that you do not understand what the actual scientific explanations entail. Really, the previous paragraph should help clarify what you mean by 'evolution' in your own terms, but this is what I see:”</i><br /> <br />This is just more bullshit blather. When you have actual evidence, then and only then is it science. <br /><br />Regarding your retort to xellos:<br /><i>” Xellos, you don't explain anything; you just reject the evidence and arguments because... I don't know.”</i><br /><br />Your continuation of claiming to have evidence despite not having any evidence is starting to look like a purposeful deception, and certainly is an intellectually obtuse approach: claiming to have that which you do not and cannot have.<br /><br />There is no evidence to reject. What is rejected is the demand to accept as truth unproven speculations which are falsely called “Principles”. <br /><br /><i>” I find the arguments of experts in the field to be more convincing. Not only because they are experts, that would be a fallacy, but also because they show their work, their reasoning, the facts they used, the observations we have today, and how anyone can reproduce that work.”</i><br /><br />There is exactly NO “reproduction” of any “WORK” that these story tellers can produce. Your devotion to them is flawed, if you base it on what you say above.<br /><br /><i>” Just go to any natural history museum and come up with your own explanations if you prefer; the evidence is there for anyone to look into.”</i><br /><br />So you want us to make up our own fables and science fiction stories based on animal bones found in certain geologic layers? This is a specific admission that such “evidence” is nothing but made up opinion. The fact that you cannot admit that, reveals your true position which is one of a religious devotee to unprovable creation stories… premised on Philosophies of Materialism and Determinism, and avoiding the logical black holes in the entire enterprise.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-79454822240097325252016-02-12T16:50:47.921-06:002016-02-12T16:50:47.921-06:00” - Regarding the sources, and level of support fo...<i>” - Regarding the sources, and level of support for evolution articles, I linked to. You insist that it's an appeal to authority fallacy, as if naming an authority automatically classifies a statement as a logical fallacy.”</i><br /><br />It absolutely does qualify as a logic fallacy. What this crowd represents is not the issue; what is pertinent is <b>data in support of your truth claims</b>. To assert that I must believe X because [person^n] believes X is just wrong. Any Atheist should know that. Referring an Atheist who is in the tiny minority to the vast Muslim population who believe in [whatever], and then claiming that the Atheist must believe what the Muslims do because of the sheer numbers of Muslims – is a fallacy.<br /><br />What the evolutionist crowd represents is a class of believers. What it doesn’t represent is any proof of their belief. Presenting people, not facts, is not an argument built on logic.<br /><br />If there are physical evolutionary facts embedded within that crowd, then you would have produced them; you did not.<br /><br /><i>” This could not be further from the truth. I am not saying 'Statement X is true because Y said so'; I have been presenting arguments after arguments, trying to pinpoint where you fail at grasping the correct idea, and then mention that, by the way, all of these professionals agree with my position and I use their information as reliable sources. Where are your sources?”</i><br /><br />Your continual use of the term, “correct idea” presumes that you have evidence of its “correctness”. You do not. I know all the speculations, contrary to your claims of my ignorance due to not accepting your unsupported truth claims.<br /><br />I have given this before; please take note as I elaborate: my source is <b>Aristotle and millennia of logicians</b>. My source is the characterization and definition of knowledge which is produced by John Locke. My source is the definition of Empirical Validation which comes from the French Encyclopedists. My source is the eradication of phony claims by Karl Popper. My source is the mathematical derivation of truth statements by Boole.<br /><br />Where is your logical grounding? You have none, because the required beliefs of Philosophical Materialism and Philosophical Determinism are FALSE. You have ignored this continually, in favor of claiming that I just don’t understand the "correct" yet unfounded “principles” of evolution, over and over.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-62275818821905440362016-02-12T16:44:15.904-06:002016-02-12T16:44:15.904-06:00Here is the crux of the issue:
”Some species are ...Here is the crux of the issue:<br /><br /><i>”Some species are closer than others, but even distant ones exhibit common ancestry. There is no line, but you think there is one, refuse to say where it is, and plead ignorance, stating that nobody knows.”</i><br /><br />Structure is just this: structure. Your claim should read:<br /><b>“Some species are closer [in structure as observed by bones or DNA of current specimens] than others, but even distant ones exhibit common [types of bone structure or DNA, which is speculated without proof to mean:] ancestry.”</b><br /><br /> Any other claim about structure such as similarity “meaning” something is pure speculation, AND YOU CAN”T SHOW OTHERWISE. So that is the precise case: NOBODY KNOWS because they CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW. You cannot produce knowledge, because all you have is speculation, even though you WANT it to be considered immutable knowledge in terms of Philosophical Materialism grounded in Philosophical Determinism (both of which fail logic and observation).<br /><br /><i>” Where is your argument for this rejection and where do you draw the line? At the sub-species level, species, genus, kingdom... where and why?”</i><br /><br />Species is defined at the breeding level; not my definition, it is the common understanding. All the rest is not firm, and changes continually. I.e. it is not fact, it is a human construct meant to categorize by certain characteristics. It is frequently changed due to violating the other characteristics which place creatures in more than one category, or actually uncategorizable.<br /><br /><b>species;</b> A taxonomic category ranking justbelow a genus; includes individuals that display a high degree of mutual similarity <b>AND that actually or potentially inbreed.</b><br />R.M. Atlas; Principles of Microbiology; Mosby Press; 1995; pg 846.<br /><br /><br /><b>species;</b> A group of organisms that resemble each other more than they resemble members of other groups and cannot be subdivided into two or more species. The precise definition of what constitutes a species differs depending on which species concept is applied. According to the biological species concept ,<b> a species comprises a group of individuals that can usually breed among themselves and produce fertile offspring.</b> However, many other species concepts have been proposed, including the phylogenetic species concept and various typological species concepts...<br />http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199204625.001.0001/acref-9780199204625-e-4144?rskey=B2W2s2&result=1<br /><br />If you want a different definition for “species” then it is up to you to specify it. I have done all that I can to make this clear to you.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-58288444410179552016-02-12T16:40:49.048-06:002016-02-12T16:40:49.048-06:00And here you make the basic Grand Error in logic:
...And here you make the basic Grand Error in logic:<br /><br /><i>”Taxonomy and DNA testing can give us that same kind of deduction over longer periods of time, for entire population of living organisms. They both yield the same results, independently.”</i><br /><br />You are extrapolating from (a) within-genome [same set][human to human] to (b) outside-genome [parallel sets] by presupposing that the sets intersect without any knowledge whatsoever that they in fact do intersect; presupposing that in-set variation produces out-set results; presupposing that complexity increases with random mutation; etc. All the standard unproven claims of evolution become presuppostions in a never-ending chain of fantasy-story-as-truth-statement.<br /><br />Why do you not acknowledge this????????????????????????????<br /><br />WHY?????????????????????????????????<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-30720970595820517112016-02-12T16:38:40.836-06:002016-02-12T16:38:40.836-06:00”These pieces of information help theorize potenti...<i>”These pieces of information help theorize potential scenarios as to how our planet form, what material was involved and how it span the first self-replicating molecules. Nothing certain yet; perhaps never, but it's certainly not mineral-to-life and very interesting to investigate.”</i><br /><br />If you had read the articles in the side-bar, you would know that the two competing theories of carbon-to-life have been abandoned due to both falsification and to inability to produce in the lab, with no other competing speculative possibilities for the creation of carbon-to-life even imagined. Both replicant-first and metabolism-first are KAPUT. Go there for references as to the expert opinions why.<br /><br />THERE IS NO IMAGINED, SPECULATED, MUCH LESS EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED PROCESS FOR PRODUCING LIFE FROM THE MINERAL, CARBON.<br /><br />And you continually refuse to acknowledge the logic problem underlying the entire endeavor. When you make claims and refuse to address the underlying logic, that says a lot in terms of your need for avoidance. And now you merely try to turn the tables into an unsustainable Tu Quoue. All of your claims just above are false, all of them. You can reread the entire thread here and see the truth of that.<br /><br />Moving on.<br /><br /><i>”These pieces of information help theorize potential scenarios as to how our planet form, what material was involved and how it span the first self-replicating molecules. Nothing certain yet; perhaps never, but it's certainly not mineral-to-life and very interesting to investigate.”</i><br /><br />No. Not “theorize”; merely speculate and make untestable hypotheses. And yes, it is mineral to life. And it is <b>science fiction – only. All of it.</b><br /><br /><i>”You reject the notion of common ancestry because we cannot identify that 1 common ancestor for everything and thus cannot even discuss it nor prove its existence.”</i><br /><br />Common ancestry is a fiction based purely on a series of stacked speculations. It cannot be proven either way, true or false. Therefore it is not just fiction, it is a religious tenet, religiously believed in with no hope of proof. And thus it is not reputable knowledge, it is speculation: science fiction. <br /><br /><i>”This confirms that you don't understand what is meant by common descent, why we always specify '1 common ancestor or 1 common gene pool', or why we can confirm common ancestry without knowing the exact source.”</i><br /><br />No, you can’t. You can only speculate. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.<br />What you <b>can prove</b> is common structure characteristics which are observable. You cannot prove the origin. Until you provide proof for your claims, you are merely spouting ideology: unprovable claims.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-17817824671591572072016-02-12T16:31:43.549-06:002016-02-12T16:31:43.549-06:00Hugo,
First see today’s post on the state of peer ...Hugo,<br />First see today’s post on the state of peer review and published articles. This is not the first such study of such breeches of faith in the science mega-business. Your lack of “cynicism” requires suspension of recognition of current research on research.<br /><br />Now:<br /><i>”What is 'actual evolution'? You keep repeating 2 things essentially:<br />- The evidence and arguments presented in favor of evolution are false, because they don't prove [undefined], which is what you what to see proven.<br />- There is neither argument nor evidence presented in favor of evolution under the [undefined] theory.”</i><br /><br />Both of these are incorrect. I do keep repeating and you keep not comprehending, it appears.<br /><br />1. There is nothing which is “undefined” about the need for empirical proof. <b>Every claim of evolutionary chains and common ancestry</b> cannot be proved empirically. Therefore all of those claims are not fact, they are imaginary products of speculation and absolutely cannot rise to the standard of definitive knowledge. In order to rise to the position of reputable knowledge, they must be demonstrated, replicated, and non-falsified. I have said this over and over, yet you make claims like the one above, indicating a complete non-comprehension of what I have said.<br /><br />2. There is neither <b>demonstration nor non-falsification</b> presented under <b>the principles of empirical science</b>. I have defined empirical science a number of times; it is definitely NOT undefined, empiricism is the definition of objective, responsible, reputable knowledge-generating science. I have even quoted the definition from the NAS.<br /><br /><i>”So, everything falls under either of these categories. You won't say why”</i><br /><br />Absolutely false!! I have told you why until I’m ready to just quit in total disgust because you refuse to acknowledge it.<br /><br /><i>”you won't say what's really correct,”</i><br /><br />Absolutely false!! Empirical procedures and non-falsification would produce what is contingently correct, and I have said this over and over. You have produced nothing whatsoever that can be called "correct", because it is all speculative opinion.<br /><br /><i>” you won't say what you think is a better set of explanations for the facts you agree on,”</i><br /><br />Any contingent facts I agree on will be based on modern empiricism operating on current biology. What you want me to agree to is pure speculation which is incorrectly termed “explanation” as if it is THE TRUE explanation, which of course there is no empirical evidence even possible to support that devious claim.<br /><br /><i>”you won't even pinpoint where the line between micro and macro evolution is.”</i><br /><br />I certainly did and will again: until the population genome is modified, the individual changes will remain within the population genome and the population is defined as species X = species X. That is why evolutionists say that it is changes at the population/group level that cause speciation/evolution.<br /><br /><i>You even admitted just now that you scanned through some of the videos I linked to, found nothing wrong, but not what you are looking for. So what are you looking for exactly?””</i><br /><br />And even this claim is false!! I specifically said that the use of peppered moths and Darwin’s Finches is not macro-evolution because those are circular changes oscillating back and forth within the group genome, and therefore are FALSE.<br /><br />And I have said over and over what I am looking for. Maybe if it is in CAPS?<br /><br />NO CLAIM OF ANY PHYSICAL PHENOMENON CAN BE EITHER “FACT” OR “KNOWLEDGE” UNTIL IT HAS BEEN (1) DEMONSTRATED; (2) REPLICATED; (3) NON-FALSIFIED; (4) ALL EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS AND DATA FULLY RELEASED TO THE ENTIRE LITERATE WORLD FOR EXAMINATION AND FURTHER REPLICATION. I.E. EMPIRICAL PROCESSING.<br /><br />SHEESH.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-45124513344850240032016-02-11T18:03:28.621-06:002016-02-11T18:03:28.621-06:00Fair enough; it's not a big deal you know. I j...Fair enough; it's not a big deal you know. I just find this topic fascinating, always have, and it's interesting to try to pinpoint why people are so irritated by it and which part they understand/misunderstand and believe/disbelieve. Unfortunately, I get very little of that... you again just repeated that you reject the evidence I don't present; I guess links after links after links, science articles, bodies of professional, natural history museums are... nothing?<br /><br />At least, you did try to answer my question as to what you would like to see: "produce this multitude of species which would survive, not on an animation, not in stories, but in reality" but I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about! What are these 'species' you would like to see produce and how could we possible demonstrate that to you? Do you want to start with a dog, make it bread thousands of times and see what we get? You do realize that would take, well, thousands of years... Or, it seems to me that it's perhaps yet another case of the infamous 'crocoduck' presented by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron a long time ago. They thought this would be some good example of macro-evolution, somehow, when it would actually disprove the entire theory, should we find such a beast. So, what are you looking for Xellos?<br /><br /><i>"what am I?"</i><br />Afaik, you are a human being who can communicate using the English language. Why?<br /><br />Which reminds me of an interesting parallel using language: do you believe that French, Spanish and Italian all come from Latin? If yes, do you believe that a Latin-speaking mother ever give birth to a French-speaking child? Do you understand the similarity with evolution?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-42305636603657714282016-02-11T17:32:20.444-06:002016-02-11T17:32:20.444-06:00I reject the evidence which you don't present ...I reject the evidence which you don't present and the arguments which you cannot prove. I reject stories, to which you reply with "read more stories". NO.<br /><br />If I saw them produce this multitude of species which would survive, not on an animation, not in stories, but in reality, then I'd be willing to admit that there are no such clear lines and be willing to at least listen to your stories instead of, you know, waiting for that evidence to show up. You say evolution doesn't make jumps; I don't make jumps, either.<br /><br />Here's a question, on a not really unrelated topic: what am I?Xelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14472152241523645178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-44816997545573194012016-02-11T16:51:57.289-06:002016-02-11T16:51:57.289-06:00For your convenience; 13th minute of "Foundat...For your convenience; 13th minute of "Foundations of Feliforme Families":<br />https://youtu.be/pNrt90MJL08?t=13m<br />To para-phrase the video: if you had seen these 2 literal cousins who went on to reproduce in isolation from each other, would you have recognized it as a macro evolutionary event?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-26204294058499524482016-02-11T16:46:58.306-06:002016-02-11T16:46:58.306-06:00Or, why don't you go back to either set of vid...Or, why don't you go back to either set of videos I linked to? <br />One is much shorted and to the point, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75" rel="nofollow">see AronRa's Falsifying Phylogeny videos</a>, and shows how 2 literal cousin animals can give rise to the entire 'dog' family and the entire 'cat' family, through what is defined as 'micro' evolution, but after a lot of generations. If you want to jump to that specific conclusion I am talking about, check the 13th minute of "Foundations of Feliforme Families", and then look back at the explanations as to why the argument makes sense.<br />The other set of videos is much longer, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF&feature=iv&src_vid=QnQe0xW_JY4&annotation_id=annotation_546298" rel="nofollow">see the Crash Course on Biology,</a> as it starts from the basics of biology, including why chemistry is relevant, then go on to explain the morphology of different animal groups, how things are related, how we can classify, how we can evaluate relationship through DNAs, what we found in the fossil record to confirm the hypothesis, what predictions can be made, how evo-devo can explain the variation in the rate of evolution, such as why the Cambrian explosion is so interesting, etc...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-64912535660626443722016-02-11T16:46:13.706-06:002016-02-11T16:46:13.706-06:00Xellos, you don't explain anything; you just r...Xellos, you don't explain anything; you just reject the evidence and arguments because... I don't know. Hence, by your own statement, there is no reason to agree with your opinion since you fail to explain something, anything, convincingly. I find the arguments of experts in the field to be more convincing. Not only because they are experts, that would be a fallacy, but also because they show their work, their reasoning, the facts they used, the observations we have today, and how anyone can reproduce that work. Just go to any natural history museum and come up with your own explanations if you prefer; the evidence is there for anyone to look into.<br /><br />What you missed regarding speciation is that yes, we do know it happens based on at least 2 types of observations. <br /><br />1) Several cases of so-called micro-evolution are actual examples of speciation, where an initial population is split into 2 or more groups, and they diverge enough from each other to become independent species, usually not be able to reproduce with each other anymore. Stan mocked at least 1 such example, instead of addressing the implications, by saying that they generated mutant defective fruit flies. Unfortunately, we cannot run experiments over thousands of year so that seems to never be convincing enough for skeptics who want something more, [undefined], to satisfy their idea of what evolution 'should' be. Perhaps one of you guys will explain what you would like to see to be convinced?<br /><br />2) Hierarchy also yields the inescapable conclusion that speciation occurred, as we can look at living things today and figure out how closely related they are to each other. What we see is that completely different species are actually really close at the DNA level. The more similar their morphology is, the more similar their DNA is. We thus know that they must have share a common ancestor species, just like we can know that people are siblings, cousins, second cousins, etc... DNA testing and taxonomy show which species are closely related to each other and the fields agree with each other, and many other sets of observations. Kimura's research gives 1 of many possible pathways to such speciation; it's an attempt to explain 'how' it can happen over long periods of time. And no, it does 'not' mean that 'time is an actor'; nobody says that. It only means that the process is not one of sudden change; you don't ever have a member of a species giving birth to a member of another species. You thus need a lot of generations to start to see big changes; and a lot of generations require a lot of elapsed time.<br /><br />If you want to actually argue that speciation does not, or cannot occur, why don't you address the evidence and arguments such as what's presented here?<br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_40World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-60987700702019740182016-02-11T15:29:35.411-06:002016-02-11T15:29:35.411-06:00"I am not saying 'Statement X is true bec..."I am not saying 'Statement X is true because Y said so'; I have been presenting arguments after arguments, trying to pinpoint where you fail at grasping the correct idea, and then mention that, by the way, all of these professionals agree with my position and I use their information as reliable sources."<br /><br />So you're basically saying 'Statement X is true because Y said so', except you don't like it being called that.<br /><br />And "the idea is correct, you just misunderstand it" is no less religious than "listen and believe". If you fail to explain something convincingly, that doesn't necessarily make it the fault of the one(s) whom you're trying to explain it to.Xelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14472152241523645178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-6411295506771525952016-02-11T15:09:39.973-06:002016-02-11T15:09:39.973-06:00"Kimura essentially shows that neutral mutati..."Kimura essentially shows that neutral mutations can lead to speciation"<br />"speciation would still happen"<br /><br />You make the jump from "can" to "would/will". Once again, without empirical evidence that's not based in speculation.Xelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14472152241523645178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-18950003819052206292016-02-11T13:19:07.879-06:002016-02-11T13:19:07.879-06:00Moreover, you keep doubling down on what are clear...Moreover, you keep doubling down on what are clear indications that you do not understand what the actual scientific explanations entail. Really, the previous paragraph should help clarify what you mean by 'evolution' in your own terms, but this is what I see:<br /><br />- You insist that there is no path between 'minerals' and 'life; and I would agree. <b>Nobody says that minerals span life.</b> This makes no sense. What we do know however is that organic material forms naturally, that water is abundant in the universe, and that how heavy atoms are formed, among other things. These pieces of information help theorize potential scenarios as to how our planet form, what material was involved and how it span the first self-replicating molecules. Nothing certain yet; perhaps never, but it's certainly not mineral-to-life and very interesting to investigate.<br /><br />- You reject the notion of common ancestry because we cannot identify that 1 common ancestor for everything and thus cannot even discuss it nor prove its existence. This confirms that <b>you don't understand what is meant by common descent, why we always specify '1 common ancestor or 1 common gene pool', or why we can confirm common ancestry without knowing the exact source.</b> Yet, it's so simple... My sister and I share the same parents; do you need to know who my parents are to know that they exist? DNA would prove we are related regardless. Robert and Stan are white Americans, presumably of British descent, and DNA would show that your common ancestor is most likely younger than our common ancestor, because I am of French descent; but I could be wrong and DNA would show that. What's more certain is that my wife, who is Indian, is clearly way more remote from us 3 since we are not even the same ethnicity. Again, we don't need to know who the common ancestor of us 3 white guys is to know that it's a much more recent ancestor than the common ancestor of all 4 people. <b>Taxonomy and DNA testing can give us that same kind of deduction over longer periods of time, for entire population of living organisms. They both yield the same results, independently.</b> Some species are closer than others, but even distant ones exhibit common ancestry. There is no line, but you think there is one, refuse to say where it is, and plead ignorance, stating that nobody knows. <b>Where is your argument for this rejection and where do you draw the line?</b> At the sub-species level, species, genus, kingdom... where and why?<br /><br />- Regarding the sources, and level of support for evolution articles, I linked to. You insist that it's an appeal to authority fallacy, as if naming an authority automatically classifies a statement as a logical fallacy. This could not be further from the truth. <b>I am not saying 'Statement X is true because Y said so';</b> I have been presenting arguments after arguments, trying to pinpoint where you fail at grasping the correct idea, and then mention that, by the way, <b>all of these professionals agree with my position and I use their information as reliable sources. Where are your sources?</b> Nowhere to be found apparently; just opinions... You even tried to quote one paper, Kimura's, without realizing that it makes your case worse. Kimura essentially shows that neutral mutations can lead to speciation; so even if there were no positive mutations ever, as you claim, <b>speciation would still happen because of drift in the gene pool.</b>World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-65297074339487734972016-02-11T13:17:38.029-06:002016-02-11T13:17:38.029-06:00Stan,
What is 'actual evolution'? You keep...<b>Stan,<br />What is 'actual evolution'?</b> You keep repeating 2 things essentially:<br />- The evidence and arguments presented in favor of evolution are false, because they don't prove [undefined], which is what you what to see proven.<br />- There is neither argument nor evidence presented in favor of evolution under the [undefined] theory.<br />So, everything falls under either of these categories. You won't say why, you won't say what's really correct, you won't say what you think is a better set of explanations for the facts you agree on, you won't even pinpoint where the line between micro and macro evolution is. You even admitted just now that you scanned through some of the videos I linked to, found nothing wrong, but not what you are looking for. <b>So what are you looking for exactly?</b>World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-46518051237253102592016-02-11T13:05:11.772-06:002016-02-11T13:05:11.772-06:00Robert,
Your point was already clear; I had under...<b>Robert,</b><br /><br />Your point was already clear; I had understood it already. <b>I simply don't share your cynicism.</b> The peer reviewed process, whether you want to call it a part of the science process or not, is an effective way to communicate research findings, even if we know it's not perfect, just like any other alternative would be. Even if papers were removed after the fact, it still means that more review took place and that faulty information as retracted, leaving behind even more accurate documents. <b>Unless you found studies that literally removed 100% of all the peer-reviewed documents of a certain field...</b> now that would be shocking, but that's not what happened, right?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-62107550828837784402016-02-10T13:40:19.891-06:002016-02-10T13:40:19.891-06:00I just can't resist making this next point, re...I just can't resist making this next point, regarding falsifying a non-existing common ancestor. It has to be discovered, identified, analyzed and "validated" before it can be falsified. So it's no wonder that something which does not exist except hypothetically has not been falsified. Not unlike the troll at the bottom of a black hole.<br /><br />On the other hand, if the entire concept of emergence can be shown to fail an Aristotelian analysis, then all the associated dependent concepts fail as well. And that is what has happened, starting with the very first life. There is no mechanism either known or proposed which predicts the possibility of life evolving (yes EVOLVING) from minerals. And further, the obvious characteristics of autonomy and agency defy Materialist determinism.<br /><br />Emergence, by any hypothesis, FAILS Aristotelian testing of reality.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-46886992970843871402016-02-10T08:37:54.847-06:002016-02-10T08:37:54.847-06:00@ Hugo
Thank you for the observation, but you mis...@ Hugo<br /><br />Thank you for the observation, but you missed the point about peer-review. The peer-review process is supposed to be applied <b>PRIOR TO</b> publication and dissemination in respectable science journals, such as <i>Nature</i>. That process is supposed to prevent (or at least reduce) the number of incidents in which data and models have been deliberately "cherry picked" and manipulated to demonstrate the (perhaps ideological) "truth" of a particular position, rather than simply "following the evidence wherever it leads." (Think Socrates and Dr. Antony Flew as exemplars of that "search for truth" paradigm.) Peer-review as a process is NOT concerned with science qua science, but is a procedural process designed to prevent "scientists" (or English Lit majors) with a hidden (or, as in the climate change nonsense, NOT hidden) agenda providing supposed "scientific advances" which actually discredit science when the findings cannot be replicated using the discover(s)'s methods and data. When it is discovered after the fact (i.e., long after the supposed peer-review process has been applied) that the "science" is bogus, that is NOT what science qua science does. It also is what peer-review is supposed to <b>prevent</b>. Unfortunately, the peer-review process is broken, based on the HUGE number of already peer-reviewed papers being retracted. That is NOT an indication that the peer-review process is working.<br /><br />There are several reasons for the modern phenomena of huge numbers of retracted "science" papers (AFTER the peer-review process has been applied). If the data and the accompanying method(s) do not reproduce when repeated by others outside the original investigation, then there is a major scientific problem with the original investigation AND with the "peer-review" process. That is the very essence of empirical science. Give me your data and method(s), and let me see if I can duplicate your findings. If, after being peer-reviewed and published, you refuse to provide the hypotheses and data that led to your conclusions, then a big red flag is hoisted. Without method(s) and data, all you have are conjectures, opinions, religious dogma - but NOT SCIENCE QUA SCIENCE.<br /><br />As to peer-review itself: if the reviewers are "cherry picked" to belong to a specific ideology because of their public support of your <i>a priori</i> position, then THAT is a violation of the very notion of (unbiased) peer-review.<br /><br />Public assaults ("deniers", "Creationists", "flat Earthers", etc.) on anyone who finds objective reasons to reject those peer-reviewed papers is also a strong indication that (1) the "science" in question is NOT science at all, but merely religious belief gussied up to look "scientific", as in the Emperor's New Clothes; (2) that there is a strong likelihood that the person(s) throwing such invective have no actual "science" to defend their position; and (3) that there is a strong likelihood of fraud going on in the process.<br /><br />YOU CHOOSE:<br /><br />Show your data and processes. If they replicate and support your findings, science has been advanced.<br /><br />If you do NOT have empirical data and processes that are replicable, then whatever it is that you are doing has passed out of the realm of empirical science and into philosophy or religion or ideological "magic".<br /><br />Peer-review is NOT part of that scientific process.<br /><br /> Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-23199796509766966012016-02-10T07:41:01.888-06:002016-02-10T07:41:01.888-06:00And there's this:
"And nothing has refute...And there's this:<br /><i><b>"And nothing has refuted the fact of common descent, explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection, for over a century now.</b></i><br /><br />"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof:" Carl Sagan<br /><br />There <i>is no</i> common ancestor. Let me repeat that: <b>THERE IS NO COMMON ANCESTOR"</b> - except in the 150 year old, unproven and unprovable hypotheses which are accepted blindly without proof. SHOW US THE COMMON ANCESTOR. Even simpler, show the intermediate ancestor which created all the phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. <br /><br />WHERE IS IT? It is only in the minds of those who MUST accept evolution, despite its unproven principles and irrational basis in its very premises.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-26060352513634796182016-02-10T07:28:38.190-06:002016-02-10T07:28:38.190-06:00Finally,
"You presented your side: Evolution ...Finally,<br /><i>"You presented your side: Evolution is not an empirical science, just opinions. Living things clearly evolve only within [unspecified] limits; macro-evolution is false, micro-evolution is trivial."</i><br /><br />Not completely the case: macro-evolution is a) not reputable knowledge, either scientific or philosophical; b) not proven; c) not based in coherent premises; d) illogically limited in its investigations. Because it is defended with non-rational "Appeal to" fallacies and pejoratives rather than the presentation of data, it is far closer to a religious ideology than to disciplined science. And yet it is presented as a MUST belief system, one which cannot even be discussed until its unproven "principles" are accepted as Truth.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.com