Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video

a reply to: chr0naut

They don't have lookup tables to verify that whatever they find conforms to known lifeforms.

They don't?

Why then doesn't the insect my sister identified still have the name she assigned to it?

Answer: it took her 3 weeks to to return from Alaska and by the time she had submitted her name some other guy who identified the same insect at almost the same time had beaten her to it.

So how did they know it was the same insect?

Answer: Because they have lookup tables that list such things. And there are hundreds of insects added to the list every year.

a reply to: chr0naut

C'mon man, that isn't Omega! That's Q.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

They don't have lookup tables to verify that whatever they find conforms to known lifeforms.

They don't?

Why then doesn't the insect my sister identified still have the name she assigned to it?

Answer: it took her 3 weeks to to return from Alaska and by the time she had submitted her name some other guy who identified the same insect at almost the same time had beaten her to it.

So how did they know it was the same insect?

Answer: Because they have lookup tables that list such things. And there are hundreds of insects added to the list every year.

Cool, was it Oeneis Tanana?

a reply to: chr0naut

No.

It was some kind of wasp or aphid or I dunno, that is co-dependent with some rare lily or orchid or something that she was studying while her husband was counting eagles.

a reply to: chr0naut

One might argue that the packetized quanta of a photon, since it exists forever and cannot be destroyed, demonstrates a property of atemporality (this also raises questions of its starting point in time within conventional physical models).

the question is not "one might argue" but if one can make a solid case for the property of atemporality. your defense is more hypothetical than actual.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Can I make up a bunch of hypothetical stuff to support my side now? Postulating what ifs does not magically make an apologetic argument logical.

Does for philosophy and mathematics.

Also, the early steps in scientific method are:
- Make an observation.
- Form a question.
- Form a hypothesis.
... & etc.

I would have thought that the only way to present an argument (even an apologetic) is to propose hypotheses so that their 'reasonableness' may be evaluated.

being reasonable is not the same as being factual or even theoretical. there is no evidence to specifically indicate any of the "omega" idea you posted. of course the next step would be to devise a series of experiments to demonstrate every instance of causality you described.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

No.

It was some kind of wasp or aphid or I dunno, that is co-dependent with some rare lily or orchid or something that she was studying while her husband was counting eagles.

Shame she didn't get there 1st.

None the less, she probably got some worthwhile experiences and it doesn't invalidate her work at all.

It sort of supports the Jungian collective unconscious idea because things like discoveries and new ideas seem to pop up all over the place at the same time. Anyway, that's an off topic aside.

I acknowledge that I was wrong about biologists looking up taxonomic tables (well, databases) to classify species. What I intended was very poorly expressed in that sentence.

What I was intending was to say that 'food technologist' biologists wouldn't do a taxonomic lookup as an primary and initial step. They'd initially be concerned about the product and its spoilage.

But they definitely would culture the product and then try and identify what is growing there as a later stage in their investigation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

One might argue that the packetized quanta of a photon, since it exists forever and cannot be destroyed, demonstrates a property of atemporality (this also raises questions of its starting point in time within conventional physical models).

the question is not "one might argue" but if one can make a solid case for the property of atemporality. your defense is more hypothetical than actual.

I think the case is solid.

Photons evidence atemporality in that they cannot be destroyed. The scientificly established theory does not allow it, all current evidence supports that theory and there is no contradictory evidence despite experimentation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Can I make up a bunch of hypothetical stuff to support my side now? Postulating what ifs does not magically make an apologetic argument logical.

Does for philosophy and mathematics.

Also, the early steps in scientific method are:
- Make an observation.
- Form a question.
- Form a hypothesis.
... & etc.

I would have thought that the only way to present an argument (even an apologetic) is to propose hypotheses so that their 'reasonableness' may be evaluated.

being reasonable is not the same as being factual or even theoretical. there is no evidence to specifically indicate any of the "omega" idea you posted. of course the next step would be to devise a series of experiments to demonstrate every instance of causality you described.

I never claimed the 'Omega idea' was factual (nor do I claim its invention). If you need it stated, the idea is highly speculative. Any observations that may be argued to support the idea could also be indicative of alternate and conflicting hypotheses.

What I was demonstrating was that the ideas proposed by theologians are not irrational or delusional (as has been proposed derisively, several times).

The 'Omega idea' is just one amidst a sea of possibilities that are flat out rejected by some. That rejetion represents an abandonment of reason in favour of opinion.

originally posted by: chr0naut
This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?

Well, it's unlikely it was the work of a transdimensional supernatural superbeing. Surely they could have done better than this.

a reply to: chr0naut

No. Making stuff up doesn't qualify as a good argument for anything. Your view isn't even backed by math.

You didn't propose any hypotheses because everything you said is not testable. You proposed guesses.

I think the case is solid.

Of course you do, because it agrees with your preconceived notions. Pure speculation does not make a solid case. Funny how you conveniently left out the TESTING phase of the scientific method, the most important step.

What I was demonstrating was that the ideas proposed by theologians are not irrational or delusional (as has been proposed derisively, several times).

LOL! Sorry, it is completely based on assumption. LOL at making up some ridiculous explanation and claiming it makes somebody rational. Just wow. Making up a complete assumption like that does not make an argument rational, whether it agrees with you or not. I could postulate that the universe is on the back of turtle shell and make up some extravagant illogical nonsense that supports it, but that's not how logic works.

a reply to: Barcs

I could postulate that the universe is on the back of turtle shell and make up some extravagant illogical nonsense that supports it, but that's not how logic works.

Everybody knows its turtles all the way down. Nothing extravagant or illogical about the support at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

No. Making stuff up doesn't qualify as a good argument for anything. Your view isn't even backed by math.

I suggest that you read the last section of "The Physics of Immortality" by Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler of Tullane University, which outlines his Omega Point hypothesis (that's where i borrowed the idea from). That last section was written specifically for scientists and consists of pages of rigourously verified, peer reviewed mathematics (objections to Tippler's hypothesis have not been on mathematical grounds as far as I know).

So, what you just wrote is incorrect.

You didn't propose any hypotheses because everything you said is not testable.

One of the hypotheses included in the 'Omega idea' was that the universe tends towards entropy and the future state of the universe is one without energy gradient. There is so much experimental evidence that such a direction to entropy exists that the idea of entropy is called a law of thermodynamics (the hypothetical part is that it applies to the entire universe).

Another hypothesis included in the 'Omega idea' is that communications technologies will improve up to the point where individuals can 'co-think'. Work on neural interfaces, improvements to interface haptics, mapping of neural function and goals in communications and technology are experimentally demonstrative.

So, what you just wrote is incorrect.

You proposed guesses.

Please refer to the section of the Wikipedia article on 'hypothesis' that specifically refers to a 'scientifc hypothesis'. Please note the use of "educated guess" in that section and how it is not universally rejected as an alternate for scientific hypothesis.

I think the case is solid.

Of course you do, because it agrees with your preconceived notions. Pure speculation does not make a solid case. Funny how you conveniently left out the TESTING phase of the scientific method, the most important step.

You asked: "Can I make up a bunch of hypothetical stuff to support my side now? Postulating what ifs does not magically make an apologetic argument logical."

The implications in what you posted was that there is something wrong with proposing a hypothesis and also that an argument based upon a hypothetical, is illogical.

Neither is true.

As well as the "TESTING phase of scientific method", I did not mention case hardening of wheel nuts either, because it is irrelevant to the topic. My point was that 'hypothesizing' is a required part of science and proposing such "what if's" is not illogical, but neccesary.

What I was demonstrating was that the ideas proposed by theologians are not irrational or delusional (as has been proposed derisively, several times).

LOL! Sorry, it is completely based on assumption.

How would you know?

LOL at making up some ridiculous explanation and claiming it makes somebody rational.

Please identify the specific things you find ridiculous in the 'Omega idea' (which I assume is what you are deriding) and explain the rationale of why you think they are ridiculous.

Just wow. Making up a complete assumption like that does not make an argument rational, whether it agrees with you or not. I could postulate that the universe is on the back of turtle shell and make up some extravagant illogical nonsense that supports it, but that's not how logic works.

Of course, if something was "extravagant illogical nonsense", it would be extravagant illogical nonsense. That reasoning is unarguable, but one may propose hypotheses without the hypotheses being "extravagant illogical nonsense".

Can you see how even your language is prejudicially biased?

The 'Omega idea' was entirely speculative, it may be a fiction, but not illogical (in a philosophic sense of the word 'logic', before you start with that red herring), nor nonsensical as far as deterministic mechanics and physics causes and effects.

Making assumptions based upon rational principles of cause and effect and observed data is the basis of scientific advancement. It isn't irrational.

I included the example of the 'Omega idea' because I believed that you were ridiculing something to which you have given inadequate consideration. Everything you have subsequently written reinforces my feeling that your opinion is based on unconsidered and prejudicial bias.

Remenber that you accused me of misleading you about the European Peppered Moth 'speciating' during the industrial revolution. Something that I was provably arguing against. You were so blinded by your bias that even when I told you over and over again that I never suggested such a thing, you still couldn't let it drop. The evidence and my repeated assertions just didn't have the weight, in your mind, of your incorrect assumption and bias.

Should you reject Einstein's "Special Relativity" paper because at the time of writing it was a scientific hypothesis (i.e: supported by some evidence but unproven by experiment)?

What about "The Origin of the Species", where was the experimentation when that was written?

What about the cosmological Big Bang? Where is the experimental evidence?

What about the Higgs field, when Sir Peter proposed it?

It is clear that untested hypotheses cannot be disregarded. It they were, nothing would ever get to the experimental stage of scientific method.

In summary,

- Be far more careful about what you allow yourself to assume others are saying.

- Speak to the topic and try not to introduce red herrings (like Peppered Moth breeding cycles in Californian glasshouses when we were talking about scientific papers written in England during the Industrial Revolution, hmm).

- Get your facts straight. Post clear supportive links if available.

- Take responsibility for your own errors (we all make mistakes, me too).

Only then can we fairly debate the topic.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Barcs

I could postulate that the universe is on the back of turtle shell and make up some extravagant illogical nonsense that supports it, but that's not how logic works.

Everybody knows its turtles all the way down. Nothing extravagant or illogical about the support at all.

Really, I'd take what that Stephen Hawking says with a grain of salt.

originally posted by: chr0naut
One of the hypotheses included in the 'Omega idea' was that the universe tends towards entropy and the future state of the universe is one without energy gradient.

There is so much experimental evidence that such a direction to entropy exists that the idea of entropy is called a law of thermodynamics (the hypothetical part is that it applies to the entire universe).

That does not support anything about the "Omega" concept. You are basically using Stephen Meyer style arguments, by citing facts and then making subjective assumptions about it. Just because the universe is cooling down over time, does not even come close to supporting that idea. You don't seem to grasp what a hypothesis is. The "Omega" thing isn't a hypothesis, it is completely untestable.

Another hypothesis included in the 'Omega idea' is that communications technologies will improve up to the point where individuals can 'co-think'. Work on neural interfaces, improvements to interface haptics, mapping of neural function and goals in communications and technology are experimentally demonstrative.

Same assumptions as a above. What you are proposing is the OPPOSITE Of science. You are making a conclusion first and then cherry picking evidence that doesn't conflict with it. That isn't science. Science starts with the evidence and follows it to slowly fill in the big picture. Thermodynamics and improvements in communications do not point to the Omega concept in the slightest.

You asked: "Can I make up a bunch of hypothetical stuff to support my side now? Postulating what ifs does not magically make an apologetic argument logical."

The implications in what you posted was that there is something wrong with proposing a hypothesis and also that an argument based upon a hypothetical, is illogical.

The problem is using that argument to claim theologians are not illogical or irrational in their apologetic arguments. If you want to come up with a guess about the universe and believe that, I have no issue with that. Just stop trying to project it as if it is supported by evidence or math. It's not. Hypotheses are testable, Omega is not.

As well as the "TESTING phase of scientific method", I did not mention case hardening of wheel nuts either, because it is irrelevant to the topic. My point was that 'hypothesizing' is a required part of science and proposing such "what if's" is not illogical, but neccesary.

I never said coming up with hypotheses isn't required in science or is illogical. I said that they aren't hypotheses unless they are testable concepts. When scientists propose an educated guess, they have to ask how they can test it. That is what differentiates an educated guess from a hypothesis. A hypothesis is testable.

LOL! Sorry, it is completely based on assumption.

How would you know?

Because it's not testable.

Please identify the specific things you find ridiculous in the 'Omega idea' (which I assume is what you are deriding) and explain the rationale of why you think they are ridiculous.

The fact that it is not supported by any evidence or testable data.

The 'Omega idea' was entirely speculative, it may be a fiction, but not illogical (in a philosophic sense of the word 'logic', before you start with that red herring), nor nonsensical as far as deterministic mechanics and physics causes and effects.

Presuming things exist without evidence is illogical, in any sense of the word.

Making assumptions based upon rational principles of cause and effect and observed data is the basis of scientific advancement. It isn't irrational.

False. Science doesn't address untestable ideas.

I included the example of the 'Omega idea' because I believed that you were ridiculing something to which you have given inadequate consideration. Everything you have subsequently written reinforces my feeling that your opinion is based on unconsidered and prejudicial bias.

Maybe it is biased, but you have nobody to blame for that but yourself, because you constantly twist my words around and exploit semantics to make your arguments. Hence I am much more predisposed to thinking your arguments are baseless and illogical. The Omega concept is pure "south park" logic. It's not even related to the hypotheses and laws that you mentioned.

Remenber that you accused me of misleading you about the European Peppered Moth 'speciating' during the industrial revolution. Something that I was provably arguing against. You were so blinded by your bias that even when I told you over and over again that I never suggested such a thing, you still couldn't let it drop. The evidence and my repeated assertions just didn't have the weight, in your mind, of your incorrect assumption and bias.

You got destroyed in that conversation and tried to back track out of your original claim by saying that "commentators" agreed it was speciating when literally nobody said that. You were arguing a straw man and lied about it multiple times. That other thread is still open waiting for a response from you that shows the alleged commentators that you were supposedly arguing against.

Should you reject Einstein's "Special Relativity" paper because at the time of writing it was a scientific hypothesis (i.e: supported by some evidence but unproven by experiment)?

I agree with it today because there is a lot of testable evidence. Speculating on what I would have said in the past when it was first proposed is completely pointless.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

That does not support anything about the "Omega" concept. You are basically using Stephen Meyer style arguments, by citing facts and then making subjective assumptions about it. Just because the universe is cooling down over time, does not even come close to supporting that idea. You don't seem to grasp what a hypothesis is. The "Omega" thing isn't a hypothesis, it is completely untestable.

Same assumptions as a above. What you are proposing is the OPPOSITE Of science. You are making a conclusion first and then cherry picking evidence that doesn't conflict with it. That isn't science. Science starts with the evidence and follows it to slowly fill in the big picture. Thermodynamics and improvements in communications do not point to the Omega concept in the slightest.

The problem is using that argument to claim theologians are not illogical or irrational in their apologetic arguments. If you want to come up with a guess about the universe and believe that, I have no issue with that. Just stop trying to project it as if it is supported by evidence or math. It's not. Hypotheses are testable, Omega is not.

I never said coming up with hypotheses isn't required in science or is illogical. I said that they aren't hypotheses unless they are testable concepts. When scientists propose an educated guess, they have to ask how they can test it. That is what differentiates an educated guess from a hypothesis. A hypothesis is testable.

Because it's not testable.

The fact that it is not supported by any evidence or testable data.

Presuming things exist without evidence is illogical, in any sense of the word.

False. Science doesn't address untestable ideas.

Maybe it is biased, but you have nobody to blame for that but yourself, because you constantly twist my words around and exploit semantics to make your arguments. Hence I am much more predisposed to thinking your arguments are baseless and illogical. The Omega concept is pure "south park" logic. It's not even related to the hypotheses and laws that you mentioned.

You got destroyed in that conversation and tried to back track out of your original claim by saying that "commentators" agreed it was speciating when literally nobody said that. You were arguing a straw man and lied about it multiple times. That other thread is still open waiting for a response from you that shows the alleged commentators that you were supposedly arguing against.

I agree with it today because there is a lot of testable evidence. Speculating on what I would have said in the past when it was first proposed is completely pointless.

Honestly, I never suggested that the 'Omega idea' was hypothetical, theoretical, factual, actual, testable or even a guess.

Except for containing a few factual errors as well, your post was a waste of effort because it goes to greatlengths to refute something that was never claimed.

Your entire post was a 'red herring' argument (a diversionary tactic that avoids opposing argument/s rather than addressing them)

I will take issue, with your, now slightly changed, false assertion that I suggested that other commentators had claimed that the European Peppered Moth had 'speciated' during the last Industrial Revolution in England.

I clearly and equivocally did NOT write that 'other commentators had claimed speciation'. I was arguing against speciation in the case of European Peppered Moths in England during the late Industrial Revolution (the diametric opposite of what you previously accused me of, BTW).

I did suggest that other commentators had called it evolution, when only natural selection was evidenced.

Please read what I actually wrote and in context without trying to infer something else.

Your current false accusation is untrue, defamatory and against ATS terms and conditions of use.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

One might argue that the packetized quanta of a photon, since it exists forever and cannot be destroyed, demonstrates a property of atemporality (this also raises questions of its starting point in time within conventional physical models).

the question is not "one might argue" but if one can make a solid case for the property of atemporality. your defense is more hypothetical than actual.

I think the case is solid.

Photons evidence atemporality in that they cannot be destroyed. The scientificly established theory does not allow it, all current evidence supports that theory and there is no contradictory evidence despite experimentation.

photons are subject to transformation just like any other form of energy or matter. vibration is frequency and frequency by definition is time.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Can I make up a bunch of hypothetical stuff to support my side now? Postulating what ifs does not magically make an apologetic argument logical.

Does for philosophy and mathematics.

Also, the early steps in scientific method are:
- Make an observation.
- Form a question.
- Form a hypothesis.
... & etc.

I would have thought that the only way to present an argument (even an apologetic) is to propose hypotheses so that their 'reasonableness' may be evaluated.

being reasonable is not the same as being factual or even theoretical. there is no evidence to specifically indicate any of the "omega" idea you posted. of course the next step would be to devise a series of experiments to demonstrate every instance of causality you described.

I never claimed the 'Omega idea' was factual (nor do I claim its invention). If you need it stated, the idea is highly speculative. Any observations that may be argued to support the idea could also be indicative of alternate and conflicting hypotheses.

What I was demonstrating was that the ideas proposed by theologians are not irrational or delusional (as has been proposed derisively, several times).

The 'Omega idea' is just one amidst a sea of possibilities that are flat out rejected by some. That rejetion represents an abandonment of reason in favour of opinion.

such rejection represents an abandonment of accepting information without due process. all of which is beside the point - this discussion has so far failed to make a solid case of the video proving intelligent design. people continue to miss the scope of the matter, something that you would need a supercomputer to recreate accurately. not human imagination.

FYI, here is funny video where the host gives the other people a statement, and they have to guess if it is a random word generator or actually Jordan Peterson. It's funny because it's hard to tell the difference, even to the really smart people like Matt Dillahunty. He is inacapable of defining anything or making clear concise points. He basically relies on people not looking up the words he uses, because they are mostly meaningless. It's just more pseudo-intellectualism. It tricks people into thing he's smart because they don't even check the meaning of his statements. Peterson is basically the Deepak Chopra of Christianity.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Honestly, I never suggested that the 'Omega idea' was hypothetical, theoretical, factual, actual, testable or even a guess.

Except for containing a few factual errors as well, your post was a waste of effort because it goes to greatlengths to refute something that was never claimed.

Seriously? When I argued against it, you literally said that there is nothing wrong with coming up with hypotheses. How are you going to deny that? Calling my post a red herring when it directly addressed just about every point you made is ridiculous. You need to stop being so deceptive in your arguments.

I will take issue, with your, now slightly changed, false assertion that I suggested that other commentators had claimed that the European Peppered Moth had 'speciated' during the last Industrial Revolution in England.

I clearly and equivocally did NOT write that 'other commentators had claimed speciation'. I was arguing against speciation in the case of European Peppered Moths in England during the late Industrial Revolution (the diametric opposite of what you previously accused me of, BTW).

I did suggest that other commentators had called it evolution, when only natural selection was evidenced.

LMAO! You are so full of crap. I'm sorry but you said that it was "agreed to be speciating", and when I asked who said that you claimed it was "commentators" and referred me to list of 108 science papers, none of which even claimed that. Now you are trying to backtrack out of that argument by claiming that they said it "evolved," and assuming that means speciated when it doesn't.

You made a false statement. Nobody agreed that those moths were speciating. Organisms can evolve without speciating. Not sure why you continue to exclusively use semantics and twist meanings of words. It's really getting old.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0nautHonestly, I never suggested that the 'Omega idea' was hypothetical, theoretical, factual, actual, testable or even a guess.

Except for containing a few factual errors as well, your post was a waste of effort because it goes to greatlengths to refute something that was never claimed.

Seriously? When I argued against it, you literally said that there is nothing wrong with coming up with hypotheses. How are you going to deny that? Calling my post a red herring when it directly addressed just about every point you made is ridiculous. You need to stop being so deceptive in your arguments.

You wrote that it wasn't a hypothesis. I'm agreeing with you. The 'Omega idea' wasn't a hypothesis. It wasn't testable (at least I don't think so, as far as I care to think about it).

You have still have not answered my question as to what specific component ideas in the 'Omega idea' you found ridiculous. It is not an unreasonable question and no-one else can answer it for you.

Your statement that it wasn't a hypothesis because it wasn't testable is beside the point, yours was, and remains, a red herring argument.

If you persist in deferring and not answering the question, I can only assume your derision (LOLing) was irrational.

I will take issue, with your, now slightly changed, false assertion that I suggested that other commentators had claimed that the European Peppered Moth had 'speciated' during the last Industrial Revolution in England.

I clearly and equivocally did NOT write that 'other commentators had claimed speciation'. I was arguing against speciation in the case of European Peppered Moths in England during the late Industrial Revolution (the diametric opposite of what you previously accused me of, BTW).

I did suggest that other commentators had called it evolution, when only natural selection was evidenced.

LMAO! You are so full of crap. I'm sorry but you said that it was "agreed to be speciating", and when I asked who said that you claimed it was "commentators" and referred me to list of 108 science papers, none of which even claimed that. Now you are trying to backtrack out of that argument by claiming that they said it "evolved," and assuming that means speciated when it doesn't.

You made a false statement. Nobody agreed that those moths were speciating. Organisms can evolve without speciating. Not sure why you continue to exclusively use semantics and twist meanings of words. It's really getting old.

OK, did you take note of all the online references to Peppered Moth 'evolution' and then, without critically evaluating those headlines, assume that it included speciation? And before you deny that you did, in this post you argued for macroevolution (which includes speciation absent in microevolution) in regard to the Peppered Moth example.

Just to be clear that you weren't discussing something else, you did so again in your very next sequential post, where you explicitly mentioned that there were "2 species", here.

Then, in your next post after that, you finally realized your error, here and blamed me (somehow?) for your error, suggesting I had made the same error (I didn't, I was arguing against it). You made the error, it was your error.

It is clear that I never said that the evidence showed speciation. I was clearly arguing that there was no evidence of speciation before you even entered the thread and also after you admitted your error. The idea that I would write that there was speciation in the case, when I was arguing against it, is just ilogical and unreasonable.

Now we have established the facts of the matter that you were clearly one of the "commentators" who had read all the online useage of the word 'evolution' linked to the Peppered Moth example, and that you (and others) had incorrectly assumed speciation, posting their erroneous assumptions publicly (like you did). Can you see my argument about "commentators" (like you) who read about Pepperd Moth 'evolution' and "agreed it to be speciating" (like you did)?

Everything you accused me of, you have done, in spades!