Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by Gawdzilla


i'm not arguing it is subjective, but being so doesn't render it devoid of any meaning.

Our entire society is built upon what people think "makes sense".

Whatever makes sense to the majority becomes accepted reality.

reply to post by JPhish


Okay, to go back to your quote:

"Um, i'm pretty sure that lots of things make sense in biology without evolutionary theory, especially since biology preceded it . . .

My pen falling and hitting my desk when i drop it, makes sense regardless as to the reasons why it does so. "

Evolution explains how biology works. The scientists consider how things got to their present state in light of evolutionary processes. The understanding of evolution allows scientist to be objective instead of subjective.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish

 

The understanding of evolution allows scientist to be objective instead of subjective.

like i said, whatever "makes sense" to the majority becomes the accepted reality. What you live in is a contrived world constructed by your own certainties, not necessarily truths.

Practitioners of evolutionary theory may be as objective as clowns at a circus. Not because they are equally subjective in their perceptions, but because objectiveness is indeterminate.

[edit on 5/10/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhishlike i said, whatever "makes sense" to the majority becomes the accepted reality. What you live in is a contrived world constructed by your own certainties, not necessarily truths.

Practitioners of evolutionary theory may be as objective as clowns at a circus. Not because they are equally subjective in their perceptions, but because objectiveness is indeterminate.

[edit on 5/10/2009 by JPhish]

It's not "what makes sense", it's "what works". There is a difference there. And you have a definition of "objectiveness" I've not seen before.

Originally posted by JPhish
Ha, very nice ATTEMPT, though I am nearly certain that was not the original angle of your last sentence.

You're nearly certain because that is favorable for you. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Regardless, it is still circular reasoning. Your last sentence (though it clearly was) doesn’t have to be directly referring to the fossil record for it to be circular reasoning. Even if what you said, grammatically reads. “There is certainly no lack of evidence shown in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence for everything.” That is still circular reasoning . . .

I think you are guilty of circular reasoning right there.

If I claim that “there is certainly no lack of water in my cup because there is plenty of water everywhere” that is circular reasoning.

Analogy fail! I'm sure there's a name for this kind of fallacy too.

Originally posted by JPhish
Oh the one that was one giant causal oversimplification? Or was it the one with all the wishful thinking? You'll have to be more specific because I’m losing track.

It's the one that you miserably failed to show to be a giant causal oversimplification.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Here I make a prediction based on the theory of evolution. In all humanoid fossils older than 7 million years you're going to find a genome that is spread into 24 pairs of chromosomes.

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s not a bold prediction considering we’ve never found DNA from anything, let a lone a human, that was older than a half million years old.
source
Since in all likelihood we will NEVER find human DNA that old; your “safe” prediction is simply foolish.

Here you sure seem to imply that you need DNA for chromosome counting. Let's continue:

Originally posted by JPhish
You don’t need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had? Are you sure about that Tex?

Originally posted by JPhish
I never said you needed DNA for chromosome counting, I alluded that you need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had. I still stand by that.

Lucky choice of words. Doesn't change the fact that you do not need DNA for chromosome counting. And what do you need to do in order to know how many chromosomes an organism had? You need to count its chromosomes. So yeah in this case this sample was (estimated) to being like 115 million years old. How about samples that are like 16 times younger and from hard bone tissue? Is it reasonable to expect that you'll find specimen that are better preserved?

Originally posted by JPhish
I didn’t intentionally misinterpret your position. I genuinely did. I can admit when i’ve made a mistake. What you just said IS wishful thinking (26) however.

I wish I'd kept count of your false claims of logical fallacies. Oh wait, at this point it's at least 25. Do they count as logical fallacies? If yes then your total must be well over 50..

Originally posted by JPhish
I sincerely hope you’re not serious. That’s comparable to me saying “the flying spaghetti monster, clear sign of it.”

So how about you put your evidence on the table? After all your stance is comparable to mine, right?

Originally posted by JPhish
What you’ve shown did not predict anything. It’s comparable to me holding a pen above my desk, dropping it, hypothesizing that it falls because of fairies; then concluding 3 years later that the reason it falls is because there are indeed magic fairies that pull pens down. Doesn’t mean I predicted pen pulling fairies.

Here we have yet another analogy fail. It's also an epic comprehension fail. I'm thinking it's intentional. I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy too, but what's one more on top of your pile?

Originally posted by JPhish
What are you talking about . . . This is the second time you have poorly paraphrased my quotes to the point that they have new meaning in an apparent attempt to slur my true words. Try actually quoting me when you’re done beating up your straw man (27)

You lied, it's that simple.

Originally posted by JPhish
Something being plausible doesn’t make it true.

This one doesn't make any sense at all in this context. Intentional ignore thingy?

p.s. This is going nowhere as you fail to acknowledge facts. We're not debating the issue any longer. It's time for another approach.

If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they? How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

[edit on 10-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

excellent thread TOO many biased people in this world!

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s not a bold prediction considering we’ve never found DNA from anything, let a lone a human, that was older than a half million years old.
source
Since in all likelihood we will NEVER find human DNA that old; your “safe” prediction is simply foolish.

Here you sure seem to imply that you need DNA for chromosome counting. Let's continue:

No, I’m implying that you need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had. I elucidate what I’m implying in this subsequent quote:

Originally posted by JPhish
You don’t need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had? Are you sure about that Tex?

With this question I am clearly suggesting that you need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
I never said you needed DNA for chromosome counting, I alluded that you need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had. I still stand by that.

Lucky choice of words.

No it’s not lucky, you’ve been beating up a straw man and you’ve just realized it.

Doesn't change the fact that you do not need DNA for chromosome counting.

Yeah, a fact that I was never arguing, you were arguing with a straw man. I’ll say it again; you don’t need a telescope to count stars either. Good luck.

And what do you need to do in order to know how many chromosomes an organism had? You need to count its chromosomes.

No, counting the chromosomes is not enough to know. You need to count the CORRECT number of chromosomes.

So yeah in this case this sample was (estimated) to being like 115 million years old. How about samples that are like 16 times younger and from hard bone tissue? Is it reasonable to expect that you'll find specimen that are better preserved?

I never expect things, for anything is possible, though I will venture to guess that what you’re proposing is highly unlikely.

I wish I'd kept count of your false claims of logical fallacies. Oh wait, at this point it's at least 25. Do they count as logical fallacies? If yes then your total must be well over 50..

The one joint mistake that I made misinterpreting what you said, I admitted and apologized for. My other 26 claims were apparently not made in error nor have they been refuted by you. So please do, total mine up. If you find one I’ll be impressed.

So how about you put your evidence on the table? After all your stance is comparable to mine, right?

Put my evidence for what on the table? As I see it, my stance is not even close to being comparable to yours.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
What you’ve shown did not predict anything. It’s comparable to me holding a pen above my desk, dropping it, hypothesizing that it falls because of fairies; then concluding 3 years later that the reason it falls is because there are indeed magic fairies that pull pens down. Doesn’t mean I predicted pen pulling fairies.

Here we have yet another analogy fail. It's also an epic comprehension fail. I'm thinking it's intentional.

bare assertion fallacy and poisoning the well (28). If you offer any evidence as to why my analogy fails and how I have not comprehended, and why I would do so intentionally, I will retract my statements.

I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy too, but what's one more on top of your pile?

In what dictionary is zero of anything a pile?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
What are you talking about . . . This is the second time you have poorly paraphrased my quotes to the point that they have new meaning in an apparent attempt to slur my true words. Try actually quoting me when you’re done beating up your straw man (27)

You lied, it's that simple.

About what exactly??? Sounds like wishful thinking to me (28) ; again, show me where I have lied and I will retract my statement.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
None of these are bare assertion fallacies because they were unmistakably written in jest juxtaposed to your ridiculous assertion that something is EXACTLY anything other than itself.

Yet you offer them as plausible explanations. Hmm

Something being plausible doesn’t make it true.

This one doesn't make any sense at all in this context. Intentional ignore thingy?

Your underlined statement was very vague. I was not sure what you were suggesting and I am still not certain. I did not know how to respond to it exactly, so I spoke a truth which was relevant to our overall discussion concerning plausibility. For it seems to me that you are under the misguided mindset that something being plausible makes it true.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
p.s. This is going nowhere as you fail to acknowledge facts. We're not debating the issue any longer. It's time for another approach.

what facts have I not acknowledged?

If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they?

could be signs for several things.

How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

You walk into a room. There is a normal table in the center of the room with a tipped over vase below it and a scared kitten atop it. The door is secured with an interior deadbolt lock and none of the windows are open, nor are their locks broken. Since no one else could have been in the room besides the cat; you conclude that the cat knocked the vase over.

What’s the problem here?

[edit on 5/11/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Ha, very nice ATTEMPT, though I am nearly certain that was not the original angle of your last sentence.

You're nearly certain because that is favorable for you. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Perhaps I was wrong; but that is not a fact.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Regardless, it is still circular reasoning. Your last sentence (though it clearly was) doesn’t have to be directly referring to the fossil record for it to be circular reasoning. Even if what you said, grammatically reads. “There is certainly no lack of evidence shown in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence for everything.” That is still circular reasoning . . .

I think you are guilty of circular reasoning right there.

Not in the least. Your original statement as I interpreted it was circular reasoning, and your statement as you claim it be, is still circular reasoning.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
If I claim that “there is certainly no lack of water in my cup because there is plenty of water everywhere” that is circular reasoning.

Analogy fail! I'm sure there's a name for this kind of fallacy too.

Doesn’t seem like an analogy fail to me.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Oh the one that was one giant causal oversimplification? Or was it the one with all the wishful thinking? You'll have to be more specific because I’m losing track.

It's the one that you miserably failed to show to be a giant causal oversimplification.

not only did I render most of the post illogical in this post, I also demonstrated that your conclusion was “a false dilemma (24) taken to the extreme wherein you suggest that only one answer/explanation is appropriate; when in fact there are many other possible precursors.”

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they?

could be signs for several things.

Such as? Your argument looks like a bare assertion fallacy to me.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

You walk into a room. There is a normal table in the center of the room with a tipped over vase below it and a scared kitten atop it. The door is secured with an interior deadbolt lock and none of the windows are open, nor are their locks broken. Since no one else could have been in the room besides the cat; you conclude that the cat knocked the vase over.

What’s the problem here?

Two problems: false analogy and denying the correlative. In a better analogy the room would also have a recording security camera and after the incident prior to concluding that it was the cat you could check it from the tape. So again: How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

[edit on 11-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they?

could be signs for several things.

Such as? Your argument looks like a bare assertion fallacy to me.

no, it's not, i'm not claiming that any of these possibilities are truths. Merely pointing out the TRUTH that there could be other possibilities.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

You walk into a room. There is a normal table in the center of the room with a tipped over vase below it and a scared kitten atop it. The door is secured with an interior deadbolt lock and none of the windows are open, nor are their locks broken. Since no one else could have been in the room besides the cat; you conclude that the cat knocked the vase over. What’s the problem here?

Two problems: false analogy

this is the part where you give evidence for why you believe it is.

and denying the correlative.

certainly not, i'm not introducing any alternatives that aren't there.

In a better analogy the room would also have a recording security camera and after the incident prior to concluding that it was the cat you could check it from the tape.

That's your opinion. You're under the false assumption that a video camera is needed to KNOW what's wrong with the conclusion.

So again: How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

your responses to my story sum it up pretty well. As soon as you recant your fallacious statements that i've committed logical fallacies when i haven't; i'll let you in on it.

Originally posted by JPhish
no, it's not, i'm not claiming that any of these possibilities are truths. Merely pointing out the TRUTH that there could be other possibilities.

Okay, let me take that back then. You're dodging the question there, Captain Obvious. Merely pointing out that there could be other possibilities does not answer the question: If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they?". In fact it brings nothing on the table. You're just repeating the premise.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Two problems: false analogy

this is the part where you give evidence for why you believe it is.

I did that with the following:

Originally posted by rhinoceros
In a better analogy the room would also have a recording security camera and after the incident prior to concluding that it was the cat you could check it from the tape.

You see your analogy does not reflect reality very well. Where is genetics in your analogy? Where is the fossil record? Where is comparative anatomy? Where is geographical distribution? Where is comparative physiology and biochemistry? Where is antibiotic and pesticide resistance? There are nowhere to be seen in your analogy, in which we draw a conclusion just because there are no other apparent alternatives. In your analogy there's nothing that accounts for the evidence - the video tape. That's why it's a false analogy.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
and denying the correlative.

certainly not, i'm not introducing any alternatives that aren't there.

You've failed to introduce an alternative explanation to life as we see it, and thus at this point there are none. What's the definition of denying the correlative? The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made (your false analogy) at introducing alternatives where there are none. I'm not taking this one back.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
So again: How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

your responses to my story sum it up pretty well. As soon as you recant your fallacious statements that i've committed logical fallacies when i haven't; i'll let you in on it.

I'm looking forward to your reply.



[edit on 11-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Nola213
S to the Op poster. Unfortunately I can't give a flag because, it only got to 3 posts before this became an evolution VS creation argument.

This thread is about the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific setting.

I have no clue why creationism is even being brought up, and not flagged removed by staff for violation the T+C. Those posts are obviously Off-Topic as it gets.

You couldn't try harder to "derail a thread", but yet this is allowed?

I really was looking forward to an interesting discussion about how much weight is given, and should be given to scientific theory. Many of the points In the videos i was unaware of, and really wanted to see how true they were, and have other members hammer it out.

But nope just another evolution vs creation argument. So no flag, because this thread has gone way off course, and unfortunately should fall off the front page. I guess it's another win for the creationists, who seem to be immune to the T+C, and posting rules.

Agreed. Whether admitting to creationist beliefs or not certain posters threw this topic off track into that ugly world of evolution vs. creationism.

I think the problem with using the word theory in science is that most uneducated [in the sciences] lack the understanding that a scientific theory does not equate to one's own theory on why people like ice cream. The key difference between the two being that a scientific theory requires two things: evidence to back it; and an inherent inability to ever fully prove it. Thus why we classify evolution as a theory. Other notable theories include the theory of the cell (and most of us thought cells were scientific fact!) and the big bang.

It's a very interesting aspect of science, and a very important aspect as well. Without testable theories we would be in a pickle...the key word being testable. We must always question theories, but rather than raise our hand to debate we need to question by getting into a lab and testing our own beliefs.

everything in science is a theory unless it has overwhelming evidence that it is true so anyone that believes in science as there religion is no more right than any other religion.

reply to post by wassy

This picture sums up the difference of science and religion nicely.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
no, it's not, i'm not claiming that any of these possibilities are truths. Merely pointing out the TRUTH that there could be other possibilities.

Okay, let me take that back then. You're dodging the question there, Captain Obvious. Merely pointing out that there could be other possibilities does not answer the question: If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they?". In fact it brings nothing on the table. You're just repeating the premise.

I don’t presume to know.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
You see your analogy does not reflect reality very well.

My story was not formed for analogous purposes; it was formed to demonstrate your bias and naïveté when interpreting information.

Where is genetics in your analogy? Where is the fossil record? Where is comparative anatomy? Where is geographical distribution? Where is comparative physiology and biochemistry? Where is antibiotic and pesticide resistance? There are nowhere to be seen in your analogy, in which we draw a conclusion just because there are no other apparent alternatives. In your analogy there's nothing that accounts for the evidence - the video tape. That's why it's a false analogy.

You’re 100% wrong. It can’t be a false analogy, because it’s not an analogy to begin with.

Originally posted by rhino
You've failed to introduce an alternative explanation to life as we see it, and thus at this point there are none. What's the definition of denying the correlative? The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made (your false analogy) at introducing alternatives where there are none. I'm not taking this one back.

1. It wasn’t a false analogy, so you’re 100% wrong there.
2. Your second assertion, that I have denied the correlative is no longer viable in light of you being 100% wrong about number 1. Your assertion is now a bare (29) one.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
So again: How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

your responses to my story sum it up pretty well. As soon as you recant your fallacious statements that i've committed logical fallacies when i haven't; i'll let you in on it.

I'm looking forward to your reply.

Well you didn’t recant all of the fallacies, but since I proved your accusations fallacious, I’ll let you in on it anyway. By the way, my answer to your “bold” (double entendre) question is . . . it’s not sensible, more than likely because it was created by non sensible people.

Originally posted by JPhish
You walk into a room. There is a normal table in the center of the room with a tipped over vase below it and a scared kitten atop it. The door is secured with an interior deadbolt lock and none of the windows are open, nor are their locks broken. Since no one else could have been in the room besides the cat; you conclude that the cat knocked the vase over.

What’s the problem here?

My story is not an analogy, nor did I ever claim that it was. My story is a riddle that I contrived as a deception. Again, its purpose was to expose the bias and naïveté you express while interpreting information.

You were so preoccupied, spouting critiques and contentions that you failed to realize an interior deadbolt lock can only be opened from the inside . . . the answer to the riddle is . . .
you couldn’t have walked into the room.

What’s the problem here?

You’re not sensible.

[edit on 5/12/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by wassy
everything in science is a theory unless it has overwhelming evidence that it is true so anyone that believes in science as there religion is no more right than any other religion.

Sorry, but that's science ignorance at work. We know you go "down" when you jump off the (formerly) Sears Tower. Exactly WHY you go "down" is a theory. We know the Universe exists. Exactly WHY it exists is a theory. We DON'T know God exists, so his existence is just a theory.

Gentlebeings, continuing to try to equate science and religion is like equating . . . Well, there's no good comparison, it's just silly.

reply to post by JPhish


"You were so preoccupied, spouting critiques and contentions that you failed to realize an interior deadbolt lock can only be opened from the inside . . . the answer to the riddle is . . .
you couldn’t have walked into the room. "

The Mythbusters would have to disagree with you there. A deadbolt is nice for stopping an reasonably honest person entering a room, but not someone determined to get in to rescue their kitten.

BTW, how do you know an earthquake didn't knock over the vase and scare the cat?

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by wassy

 

This picture sums up the difference of science and religion nicely.

I think a picture like that displays a certain sense of ignorance. I absolutely do not agree with the religious zealots who try to force their non-scientific beliefs into the science classroom. But I do not at all discount religion. Pious individuals should be respected--it takes a lot to have faith, especially in today's world. To lump all religious into one category--discounting science--does a great disservice to them. Heck, on the debate that hijacked this thread--evolution--the Catholic Church agrees with the scientifically backed theory.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish

 

"You were so preoccupied, spouting critiques and contentions that you failed to realize an interior deadbolt lock can only be opened from the inside . . . the answer to the riddle is . . .
you couldn’t have walked into the room. "

The Mythbusters would have to disagree with you there. A deadbolt is nice for stopping an reasonably honest person entering a room, but not someone determined to get in to rescue their kitten.

i state in the riddle that no one could enter the room.

BTW, how do you know an earthquake didn't knock over the vase and scare the cat?

that's the second point i was trying to get across. You don't know.