An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

a reply to: chr0naut

perhaps abiogenesis can occur more than once. if it is possible once, it is possible multiple times. your point is unclear.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I would hazard a guess that something supernatural will be invoked as the reason it could occur more than once. Perhaps I misjudge?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I would hazard a guess that something supernatural will be invoked as the reason it could occur more than once. Perhaps I misjudge?

if it can happen naturally once, it can happen naturally multiple times.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You know that, I know that, some people see the Spaghetti monsters tentacles everywhere. In the end you can find what you wish with conformation bias

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

You know that, I know that, some people see the Spaghetti monsters tentacles everywhere. In the end you can find what you wish with conformation bias

I was not invoking anything supernatural at all.

But look at the responses of those who wish to spin things into some sort of creationist vs evolutionist argument!

Of course, the biggest problem is that there doesn't appear to be any staunchly creationist contributors in this debate.

Perhaps you should all huddle round saying how dumb those non-present creationists are, except doing that would just be an extremely sad fail, wouldn't it?



To those have suggested that I have not provided the science to support my position, only providing a Wikipedia link or two. The truth is, I have provided links to Rational Wiki, NCBI and phys.org, in this thread, too.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

You know that, I know that, some people see the Spaghetti monsters tentacles everywhere. In the end you can find what you wish with conformation bias

I was not invoking anything supernatural at all.

But look at the responses of those who wish to spin things into some sort of creationist vs evolutionist argument!

Of course, the biggest problem is that there doesn't appear to be any staunchly creationist contributors in this debate.

Perhaps you should all huddle round saying how dumb those non-present creationists are, except doing that would just be an extremely sad fail, wouldn't it?

To those have suggested that I have not provided the science to support my position, only providing a Wikipedia link or two. The truth is, I have provided links to Rational Wiki, NCBI and phys.org, in this thread, too.

But what is the question?? You're all over the place with different topics, never responding to those who respond to you - only criticizing. What is your question?????

originally posted by: Noinden
In the end you can find what you wish with conformation bias

Science included.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Noinden
In the end you can find what you wish with conformation bias

Science included.

scientific methods and tools are designed to filter out confirmation bias. thats why it works. other methods are designed to fit data to a preconceived conclusion, which also works, just not nearly as well.

a reply to: chr0naut

the person who posted this thread is a staunch creationist (a servant of the lamb aka jesus) who posted this thread for the purpose of casting doubt on a well substantiated theory based on a mountain of tried and proven data. this is supposed to be a 'gotcha!' thread, but it didnt pan out. thats why it is largely devoid of any participating members other than the handful you are observing. must be a slow day for all of us.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
scientific methods and tools are designed to filter out confirmation bias. thats why it works. other methods are designed to fit data to a preconceived conclusion, which also works, just not nearly as well.

Ideally, yes. But I'm not sure you can say it works 100% of the time. The scientific method only goes so far, since you know, humans are the ones that apply it, and must ultimately interpret the data. And all humans operate with some level of confirmation bias. I think maybe evolution has built it in as some sort of survival mechanism.

Perhaps latest examples of evolution, like recent study that found African elephants more increasingly being born without tusk as means of survival might help some with 'evolutionary dilemma'.

African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Perhaps latest examples of evolution, like recent study that found African elephants more increasingly being born without tusk as means of survival might help some with 'evolutionary dilemma'.

African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

is that not an example of adaptation, which could lead to evolution but is not evolution? lets say elephants with smaller tusks start breeding and producing a species with exclusively smaller tusks where such tusks are the genetic norm for such elephants, versus the generic elephant producing offspring with exceptionally reduced tusks as a result of environmental influences. like beetles shrinking in size due to limited resources as opposed to beetles becoming a different color as a result of genetic drift.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: TzarChasm
scientific methods and tools are designed to filter out confirmation bias. thats why it works. other methods are designed to fit data to a preconceived conclusion, which also works, just not nearly as well.

Ideally, yes. But I'm not sure you can say it works 100% of the time. The scientific method only goes so far, since you know, humans are the ones that apply it, and must ultimately interpret the data. And all humans operate with some level of confirmation bias. I think maybe evolution has built it in as some sort of survival mechanism.

with a sufficient amount of cross examination and critical processing, you would produce an ever finer set of data which would eventually be relied upon as the most accurate possible data set available. to put it in numbers, a system which is reliable 95% of the time is always preferable to a system that is reliable 3% of the time. particularly if the 3% system is based solely in confirmation bias and the practice of giving people what they want to buy instead of what actually works. idiocracy is an excellent example of this philosophy.

a reply to: chr0naut

See I take your responses (or anyones who I've interacted with on here) based on previous interactions, as well as current. Thus You've made your stance clear previously, and not disavowed it since. QED.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Possibly. I'm lucky my main science (making Pharmaceuticals) either you make the amount, at the purity, under GMP or you don't

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

You know that, I know that, some people see the Spaghetti monsters tentacles everywhere. In the end you can find what you wish with conformation bias

I was not invoking anything supernatural at all.

But look at the responses of those who wish to spin things into some sort of creationist vs evolutionist argument!

Of course, the biggest problem is that there doesn't appear to be any staunchly creationist contributors in this debate.

Perhaps you should all huddle round saying how dumb those non-present creationists are, except doing that would just be an extremely sad fail, wouldn't it?

To those have suggested that I have not provided the science to support my position, only providing a Wikipedia link or two. The truth is, I have provided links to Rational Wiki, NCBI and phys.org, in this thread, too.

But what is the question?? You're all over the place with different topics, never responding to those who respond to you - only criticizing. What is your question?????

My interests are varied. That probably accounts for the variety of topics to which I contribute.

I do attempt to respond to those who address me directly but do not respond to posts that ignore previous posts and re-ask the same questions. Especially if I feel have already given a clear and unequivocal answer.

I have not specifically criticized anyone in this thread. I try and keep to the topic of debate and avoid the ad-hominem (but I am only human).



I didn't have a question in this thread, I have been pointing out that there is good science that suggests the phylogenetic tree is inaccurate and the result of trying to see pattern where none exists.

a reply to: chr0naut

The "Phylogenetic tree is inaccurate" you say. Which one? Science constantly being re-evaluated. That is how science works.

So have you done any experiments personally on Phylogenetics? I am curious. I mean you can acces the data for free and use R to generate a tree

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

The "Phylogenetic tree is inaccurate" you say. Which one? Science constantly being re-evaluated. That is how science works.

So have you done any experiments personally on Phylogenetics? I am curious. I mean you can acces the data for free and use R to generate a tree

If there is a single common ancestor, then there is only one phylogenetic tree of life.

or...

If there are multiple phylogenetic trees, then the single common ancestor is a fiction.

One or the other.

Running statistical simulations is just that. The results of sims depend on their seed values and don't actally replicate every step in the real-world situations. I wonder if doing such simulartory experiments really isn't just self-deceptive to some extent?

a reply to: chr0naut

I will take that as a no, for having done any bioinformatics. It shows from your posts

a reply to: chr0naut

If there are multiple phylogenetic trees, then the single common ancestor is a fiction.

No.. But your idea is fiction.
You can add additional information to existing models and update them, but this does not change the fact that all life has a common origin.

If you have information from which you could start a whole new phylogenetic tree originating from a different common ancestor that has no relation, then you have an argument. If you can't then your just making stuff up.

Here is the data base.

a reply to: flyingfish

I can point him at some code in R to crunch the data too Its a simple bit of code. I'm not sure what his issue with statistics as a tool is either? ALL science is based on probabilities, the more probable, the better fit the answer. Its as if someone has conformation bais

For the record chron0naut yes I have done the experiments. When I reskilled back in 2010/11 into Bioinformatics (to make me a better scientist) they expected you to look at the data.