tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4397058363312996060..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Evolutionary Tree Continues to Fall: Falsified Predictions, Backpedaling, HGTs and Serendipity SquaredUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33787193409373039342011-08-03T12:45:49.677-07:002011-08-03T12:45:49.677-07:00Gerry: Ah yes, another classic evolutionist argume...<b>Gerry</b>: <i>Ah yes, another classic evolutionist argument, 'if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." </i><br /><br />Scientific conclusions are always considered tentative and subject to change. When you said otherwise, it demonstrated to our readers that you misunderstand the nature of scientific inquiry. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>If conclusions in science are truly held tentatively why am I expected to accept evolution as a fact? </i><br /><br />Because that is what the evidence supports. If you prefer, you can make the more limited statement that it is a scientific fact. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>If evolution is able to be abandoned why are those who challenge it ridiculed as ignorant and incapable of understanding how science works. </i><br /><br />Because they are ignorant and incapable of understanding how science works. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>The simple truth is you hold evolution to be fact and simply are unwilling to entertain the possibility it's false. </i><br /><br />Actually, we're more than willing to entertain the possibility, but to change the scientific findings requires evidence. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>What would you accept as falsifying evolution? And don't say a pre-cambrian bunny. At least try to come up with a mature response.</i><br /><br />What's wrong with the Precambrian Bunny? It would precede its posited ancestor, so would violate Common Descent. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>First, the congruence is not at the level you imply. Different human genes are resulting in greatly varying trees. </i><br /><br />In fact, the congruence is profound, and only recently has research uncovered significant anomalies near the trunk of the tree. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>Second, the concept of common design explains the facts as well as common descent. <br /></i><br /><br />No. Design, human design at least, has an entirely different signature.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22655150691893294602011-08-03T01:08:50.045-07:002011-08-03T01:08:50.045-07:00Gerry, what do you think the facts are about the d...Gerry, what do you think the facts are about the diversity and history of life and what evidence do you have that supports those alleged facts?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57969219254411363492011-08-02T21:57:45.662-07:002011-08-02T21:57:45.662-07:00Gerry said...
Different human genes are resulting...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br />Different human genes are resulting in greatly varying trees. </i><br /><br />Please define 'greatly varying'. Please provide scientific references for these human genes that produce 'greatly varying' trees. Please provide scientific references that these human genes somehow remove humans from their relationships with chimps, gorillas, orangs, new world monkeys, old world monkeys, etc.<br /><br />You're mindlessly regurgitating crap from Creationist sites again. I want to see how much you actually understand.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3507857484478799982011-08-02T21:40:03.893-07:002011-08-02T21:40:03.893-07:00Gerry said...
Thorton,
"I'll go...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br /> Thorton,<br /><br /> "I'll go with the vast majority..."<br /><br /> That I will grant you. The vast majority of practicing scientists agree with the idea of evolution. Does that make it true or are you simply following the majority blindly? Can you think for yourself or do you just believe what the majority believes? This type of appeal carries no weight logically.</i><br /><br />The proof is in the pudding. As I already pointed out, the evolution paradigm is used successfully by thousands of businesses and lab and by hundreds of thousands of researchers. If you have something that works better, publish it and become a millionaire overnight. <b>Money talks and BS walks</b> Gerry, and all ID is doing is walking right mow.<br /><br /><i>I really don't understand why you always make childish statements equating doubt in evolution with belief in witch doctors. Is that the most mature argument you can provide? Do you really expect me to accept your implication that belief in evolution is necessary to accept modern medical practice? </i><br /><br />Not to accept, but to <b>understand</b> why certain things work the way they do. Why doctors insist you finish all your antibiotic prescription even though you feel better. Why we can use pigs' heart valves in human operations but not alligators' valves. But we both know you're not interested in understanding.<br /><br /><i>How on earth does the statement you quoted contradict my claim you're using circular reasoning?</i><br /><br />I don't have to 'contradict' unsupported claims, just point them out. It's up to you to show why your stupid strawman has any relevance to the actual ToE.<br /><br /><i>What would you accept as falsifying evolution? And don't say a pre-cambrian bunny. At least try to come up with a mature response.</i><br /><br />Having the fossil phylogenetic tree be vastly different from the genetic tree for instance. Having animals with different types, er, 'kinds' of non-compatible DNA for another. ToE is quite falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. How can you falsify ID?<br /><br /><i>Second, the concept of common design explains the facts as well as common descent. </i><br /><br />Hardly. We have recognize and tested mechanisms for common descent, and a timeline. What are the mechanisms for design? When was the design done? and where? How were the raw materials collected? Who did the actual manufacturing? Merely saying 'common design' explains zero point squat.<br /><br />What observations would be incompatible with common design? <b>How do you falsify ID?</b> How do you know your 'designer' didn't use evolution to achieve his end goals?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13927911202170111432011-08-02T20:54:24.678-07:002011-08-02T20:54:24.678-07:00Thorton,
"I'll go with the vast majority...Thorton,<br /><br />"I'll go with the vast majority..."<br /><br />That I will grant you. The vast majority of practicing scientists agree with the idea of evolution. Does that make it true or are you simply following the majority blindly? Can you think for yourself or do you just believe what the majority believes? This type of appeal carries no weight logically.<br /><br />I really don't understand why you always make childish statements equating doubt in evolution with belief in witch doctors. Is that the most mature argument you can provide? Do you really expect me to accept your implication that belief in evolution is necessary to accept modern medical practice? The two have nothing in common. In fact evolutionary thought has been detrimental to medical research. The evolutionary belief that the appendix was a useless vestige of our evolutionary past is only one example. Such thinking resulted in the belief that the appendix was of no importance and could be routinely removed. It is now known to be of great use no thanks to evolutionary thought. Fortunately not everyone blindly accepted what the majority of evolutionists held to be true. <br /><br /><br />"All you succeeded in doing was demonstrating you don't understand what circular reasoning even is."<br /><br />I've said before, but I'll say it again, you're really entertaining. I've never come across someone who can bounce off walls quite like you. How on earth does the statement you quoted contradict my claim you're using circular reasoning?<br /><br />"Has withstood 150 years of attempts to falsify it."<br /><br />What would you accept as falsifying evolution? And don't say a pre-cambrian bunny. At least try to come up with a mature response.<br /><br />"You plumb forgot to give your explanation..."<br /><br />First, the congruence is not at the level you imply. Different human genes are resulting in greatly varying trees. Second, the concept of common design explains the facts as well as common descent. I will go now and wait for your howls of derision which will be conspicuous for the lack of any actual sound criticism of that position.Gerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255934981257089814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25650952919882509312011-08-02T20:27:26.521-07:002011-08-02T20:27:26.521-07:00Gerry said...
"Sorry, but that just betrays ...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br />"Sorry, but that just betrays your lack of understanding of how science works."<br /><br />Ah yes, another classic evolutionist argument, 'if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." You guys are full of illogical arguments. Anyone who doesn't agree with you simply doesn't understand how science works. Yeah, right.</i><br /><br />No one said "if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." We are saying it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone like you who has demonstrated zero knowledge or understanding of the topic, and who relies on mindless regurgitation of Creationist PRATT talking points.<br /><br /><i>If conclusions in science are truly held tentatively why am I expected to accept evolution as a fact?</i><br /><br />That life on the planet has been here over 3 billion years is a scientific fact. That life has changed considerably and in recognizable patterns over that time is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation for the observed fact of evolution.<br /><br /><i>If evolution is able to be abandoned why are those who challenge it ridiculed as ignorant and incapable of understanding how science works.</i><br /><br />You get ridiculed because you don't challenge ToE with scientific evidence. You challenge it with demonstrable ignorance and misunderstandings.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps it's you who doesn't believe in the scientific method or understand how it works.</i><br /><br />No, it's you to a > 3-sigma probability.<br /><br /><i>The simple truth is you hold evolution to be fact and simply are unwilling to entertain the possibility it's false.</i><br /><br />Not true. We just require more evidence than the usual Creationist empty bluster.<br /><br /><i>You demand evidence which you have no intention of accepting or even investigating.</i><br /><br />Since you haven't presented any evidence I guess we'll never know.<br /><br /><i>Yet you say it is I who does not understand how science works.</i><br /><br />All we can go on is the incompetence you've demonstrated so far.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77210698937240214232011-08-02T20:23:36.875-07:002011-08-02T20:23:36.875-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9000943289821802012011-08-02T19:52:13.059-07:002011-08-02T19:52:13.059-07:00Zechriel,
"Sorry, but that just betrays your...Zechriel,<br /><br />"Sorry, but that just betrays your lack of understanding of how science works."<br /><br />Ah yes, another classic evolutionist argument, 'if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." You guys are full of illogical arguments. Anyone who doesn't agree with you simply doesn't understand how science works. Yeah, right.<br /><br />If conclusions in science are truly held tentatively why am I expected to accept evolution as a fact? If evolution is able to be abandoned why are those who challenge it ridiculed as ignorant and incapable of understanding how science works. Perhaps it's you who doesn't believe in the scientific method or understand how it works. <br /><br />The simple truth is you hold evolution to be fact and simply are unwilling to entertain the possibility it's false. You demand evidence which you have no intention of accepting or even investigating. Yet you say it is I who does not understand how science works.Gerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255934981257089814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7183914860411104322011-08-02T15:35:16.808-07:002011-08-02T15:35:16.808-07:00Gerry said...
Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyo...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br />Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt which ultimately must be the scientific standard for determining truth.</i><br /><br />As Zachriel already pointed out, that statement alone shows that you don't have even the most basic understanding of how science operates. You are taking your religious view of some ultimate TRUTH, normally dictated by the Diety of you choice, and confusing it with the actual scientific method.<br /><br /><i>Also, who determines what constitutes reasonable doubt in this question, you? You may appeal to numbers in support of your position, but you'll only be guilty of using another logical fallacy. That form of argumentation seems to be a pattern for you.</i><br /><br />I'll go with the vast majority who actually study and do science for a living over an ignorance based layman's opinion, thank you. You can scream logical fallacy if it makes you feel better. Just like the logical fallacy that makes me trust medical doctors who prescribe antibiotics for strep throat over a witchdoctor who suggests chanting and killing a chicken as a cure.<br /><br /><i>"Common morphology is an empirically observed fact that requires an explanation...."<br /><br />When did I ever argue against that? You're simply assuming your explanation is the correct one. I'm challenging that belief and the methods you use to support your position, ie, logically fallacious arguments such as circular reasoning.</i><br /><br />And all you succeeded in doing was demonstrating you don't know what circular reasoning even is.<br /><br /><i>"Why do you claim such evidence doesn't exist?"<br /><br />When did I say such evidence doesn't exist? Never. It has never been a question about evidence, but about the application and interpretation of the evidence. You seem to think in a very one dimensional fashion. You assume their is only one interpretation of the evidence and that is your interpretation. Your analogy of Joe should have pointed that out to you. You thought the evidence was a slam dunk against Joe, but it's not. Neither is the evidence for common descent iron clad. Evidence is always subjective.</i><br /><br />I'll go with the explanation that is the most logically consistent and consilient across hundreds of scientific disciplines, has demonstrated the best predictive power, and has withstood 150 years' worth of attempts to falsify it. You're free to believe some Loki God poofed all the evidence to look like evolution if you wish.<br /><br /><i>"What is your explanation for that empirically observed data set?"<br /><br />This evidence is the same as all evidence, it's open to interpretation. As usual you assume common descent and point to that as the only plausible explanation.</i><br /><br />In all those words you plumb forgot to give <b>your</b> explanation for the amazing congruence between the phylogenetic patterns of the fossil and genetic records.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78730961337701248192011-08-02T15:31:29.321-07:002011-08-02T15:31:29.321-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36606899938870873502011-08-02T12:54:27.087-07:002011-08-02T12:54:27.087-07:00Gerry: Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all d...<b>Gerry</b>: <i>Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt which ultimately must be the scientific standard for determining truth. </i><br /><br />Sorry, but that just betrays your lack of understanding of how science works. All scientific conclusions are held tentatively, and subject to revision or abandonment. Indeed, science is characterized by the ability to make these sorts of tentative conclusions, even when most of the universe may remain mysterious.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68812210644751638472011-08-02T12:42:12.542-07:002011-08-02T12:42:12.542-07:00Thorton,
"The scientific evidence can be us...Thorton,<br /><br /><br />"The scientific evidence can be used to establish the veracity of common descent beyond all reasonable doubt..."<br /><br />Here you go again, 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is a legal standard NOT a scientific standard. It was believed to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in the minds of many that the sun revolved <br />around the earth. How did that turn out? Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt which ultimately must be the scientific standard for determining truth. Also, who determines what constitutes reasonable doubt in this question, you? You may appeal to numbers in support of your position, but you'll only be guilty of using another logical fallacy. That form of argumentation seems to be a pattern for you.<br /><br /><br />"Common morphology is an empirically observed fact that requires an explanation...."<br /><br />When did I ever argue against that? You're simply assuming your explanation is the correct one. I'm challenging that belief and the methods you use to support your position, ie, logically fallacious arguments such as circular reasoning.<br /><br />"Darwin didn't start with the assumption common descent was true..."<br /><br />Here you are certainly wrong. In all likelihood he acquired this belief from his grandfather Erasmus who espoused common descent many decades earlier. Darwin's diary from his time on the HMS Beagle also gives evidence that he was hypothesizing common descent even at that time.<br /><br /><br />"Why do you claim such evidence doesn't exist?"<br /><br />When did I say such evidence doesn't exist? Never. It has never been a question about evidence, but about the application and interpretation of the evidence. You seem to think in a very one dimensional fashion. You assume their is only one interpretation of the evidence and that is your interpretation. Your analogy of Joe should have pointed that out to you. You thought the evidence was a slam dunk against Joe, but it's not. Neither is the evidence for common descent iron clad. Evidence is always subjective. <br /><br />"What is your explanation for that empirically observed data set?"<br /><br />This evidence is the same as all evidence, it's open to interpretation. As usual you assume common descent and point to that as the only plausible explanation.Gerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255934981257089814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54098239622653453002011-08-01T15:36:43.437-07:002011-08-01T15:36:43.437-07:00Translated into Portuguese and posted here:
http:...Translated into Portuguese and posted here:<br /><br />http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com/2011/08/arvore-da-vida-de-darwin-ja-era.htmlEnézio E. de Almeida Filhohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517878300175234830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12025878824230298482011-07-30T18:21:31.541-07:002011-07-30T18:21:31.541-07:00Gerry: All the factors you list are simply compone...<b>Gerry</b>: <i>All the factors you list are simply components of the single hypothesis, did Joe commit the murder? </i><br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Each hypothesis has its own entailments. If Joe was merely a witness then it has different empirical implications with regards to the evidence. </i><br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>Well DUH! If the hypothesis was that Joe committed the murder then it is to be expected the evidence would take on different implications if it was shown he was only a witness. </i><br /><br />And other evidence, such as pointing to motivation and state-of-mind are also important in forensic science. Hence, forensic science, like all sciences, proposes and tests different specific hypotheses, not some vague, generalized hypothesis, such as "did he commit the murder". <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>Vague, specific, detailed, whatever you want. Arguing that morphology comes by evolution and morphology points to evolution is circular reasoning. </i><br /><br />Specific is the key. Science doesn't look at some vague notion of "morphology", but at the specific characteristics. So, if the same structure in reptilian embryos that forms jaw bones instead forms ossicles in mammals, then we can propose that there were intermediate organisms, predict their strata, find the appropriate geological formation, and look for such fossils. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>So, here we go again. It's a straw man! </i><br /><br />Yes, it's a strawman. You conflate some vaguely constituted notion of morphology with the specific details that are of interest to scientists.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9452459555630956302011-07-30T15:53:27.253-07:002011-07-30T15:53:27.253-07:00Gerry said...
Thorton,
"This whole discussi...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br />Thorton,<br /><br />"This whole discussion has been over the fact you insist on using forensic evidence to prove Joe's guilt and Joe's guilt to explain the forensic evidence..."<br /><br />First, it was you who introduced Joe, not me.</i><br /><br />Yep, as a way of demonstrating just how silly your Creationist strawman argument is. Worked pretty well too.<br /><br /><i>Second, you demonstrate quite nicely with this paragraph that you posses little or no skill in the construction of arguments or the ability to think critically or analytically. Yes, the forensic evidence can be used to prove Joe's guilt. However, it is not necessary for Joe to be guilty to explain the forensic evidence.</i><br /><br />The scientific evidence can be used to establish the veracity of common descent beyond all reasonable doubt, just as the overwhelming evidence in my hypothetical Joe case can be used to convict Joe. However, it is not necessary for common descent to be true to explain the scientific evidence. The FSM could have *poofed* the evidence into existence last Tuesday. Common descent is not 'proven'. It is just the best inference by far for the empirically observed data, beyond all reasonable doubt.<br /><br /><i>"Morphology is only one of many independent lines of evidence..."<br /><br />And that makes it not a circular argument how?</i><br /><br />Similar morphology in extant animals doesn't depend on common descent being true. Common morphology is an empirically observed fact that requires an explanation whether you hypothesize evolution or not. You can't seem to get your mind around that important fact.<br /><br /><i>"Science didn't start with assumption of common descent..."<br /><br />That's very true, science did not start with such an assumption, but evolution did, and evolution is what you're trying to defend. Do not confuse evolution with science, they are not the same.</i><br /><br />LOL! Now you're going to try and rewrite history? Darwin didn't start with the assumption that common descent was true, he started with empirical observations - patterns of similarities between species. Only after decades of pondering did he propose the hypothesis of common descent to explain the data. The hypothesis has been incredibly well tested and has been confirmed to such a degree that it now has the status of scientific theory. At no time in the process was any of the reasoning behind the inference circular.<br /><br />I know your religious beliefs desperately need it to be circular so can hand-wave away the parts that threaten you, but that's too bad for you.<br /><br /><i>Thank you for the references to transitional fossils, etc. I read them years ago.</i><br /><br />You're welcome, but if you read them why did you still claim such evidence doesn't exist? Did you get amnesia?<br /><br />Did you read up on the amazingly close correlation between the fossil and genetic phylogenetic trees? What is your explanation for that empirically observed data set?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76665491893839856552011-07-30T15:40:57.480-07:002011-07-30T15:40:57.480-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58281855075073012132011-07-30T12:54:32.896-07:002011-07-30T12:54:32.896-07:00Thorton,
"This whole discussion has been ove...Thorton,<br /><br />"This whole discussion has been over the fact you insist on using forensic evidence to prove Joe's guilt and Joe's guilt to explain the forensic evidence..."<br /><br />First, it was you who introduced Joe, not me.<br /><br />Second, you demonstrate quite nicely with this paragraph that you posses little or no skill in the construction of arguments or the ability to think critically or analytically. Yes, the forensic evidence can be used to prove Joe's guilt. However, it is not necessary for Joe to be guilty to explain the forensic evidence. Do you understand that or do you still operate under the fallacy that your scenario is a sound analogy for the argument against evolution/morphology?<br /> <br /><br />"Morphology is only one of many independent lines of evidence..." <br /><br />And that makes it not a circular argument how?<br /><br /><br />"Science didn't start with assumption of common descent..."<br /><br />That's very true, science did not start with such an assumption, but evolution did, and evolution is what you're trying to defend. Do not confuse evolution with science, they are not the same. <br /><br />Thank you for the references to transitional fossils, etc. I read them years ago.Gerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255934981257089814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76651457017476042312011-07-30T05:21:27.353-07:002011-07-30T05:21:27.353-07:00Corrected link to list of transitional fossils
Li...Corrected link to list of transitional fossils<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils" rel="nofollow">List of transitional fossils</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50985956931402965592011-07-30T05:18:34.563-07:002011-07-30T05:18:34.563-07:00Gerry said...
Thorton,
"Similar mor...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br /> Thorton,<br /><br /> "Similar morphology of extant animals..."<br /><br /> How incredibly dense are you? This whole discussion has been over the fact that you insist on using morphology to prove evolution, and evolution to explain morphology and my position that that is circular reasoning.</i><br /><br />" How incredibly dense are you? This whole discussion has been over the fact that you insist on using forensic evidence to prove Joe's guilt, and Joe's guilt to explain forensic evidence and my position that that is circular reasoning."<br /><br />LOL! Actually the discussion has been about your stupid strawman claim that science uses morphology to 'prove' evolution when in fact morphology is only one of many independent lines of evidence used to infer evolution. But like most Creationists you get a dumb idea stuck in your craw and refuse to learn about the scientific reality.<br /><br /><i>So how do you suppose asserting morphology of extant animals as proof of evolution is going to fly with me? Incredible!</i><br /><br />Given your track record of amazing willful ignorance on the subject I'd say nothing anyone shows you will penetrate your titanium dome. Fortunately, science doesn't rely on the uneducated opinions of ignorant laymen.<br /><br /><i>As for the genetic record matching the fossil record, I'm curious, what have you been smoking?</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence" rel="nofollow">Consilience of independent phylogenies</a><br /><br /><i>You may believe this is not what you're saying, but the simple fact is that is exactly what you're arguing.</i><br /><br />Double LOL! Despite being corrected by numerous people you insist on telling others what their words mean. Let me try that. Gerry, you keep saying "ToE uses circular logic" but what you are really saying is "I'm an ignorant Creationist who thinks that blind repetition of dumb arguments will win the day". How's that? <br /><br /><i>Only if you start from the assumption of common descent which you support by appealing to morphology. </i><br /><br />Science didn't start with the assumption of common descent, just like the police didn't start with the assumption of Joe's guilt. Both were inferences made after the factual evidence was examined.<br /><br /><i>Are you serious? How out of date are you? Where do you find 'clear transitional patterns of fossils?'</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates" rel="nofollow">Intermediate and transitional forms</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)" rel="nofollow">List of transitional fossils</a><br /><br />Maybe you should go visit any good Natural History museum, see some of this stuff for yourself. It certainly couldn't hurt.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81582017853349576772011-07-29T22:59:28.418-07:002011-07-29T22:59:28.418-07:00Gerry, what do you think the facts are about the d...Gerry, what do you think the facts are about the diversity and history of life and what evidence do you have that supports those alleged facts?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26418776495092696342011-07-29T22:33:40.979-07:002011-07-29T22:33:40.979-07:00Zechriel
"If Joe was just a witness then it ...Zechriel<br /><br />"If Joe was just a witness then it has different empirical implications with regards to the evidence."<br /><br />Well DUH! If the hypothesis was that Joe committed the murder then it is to be expected the evidence would take on different implications if it was shown he was only a witness. How long did you have to think that one through?<br /><br />My position is clear that this analogy does not constitute a multiple hypothesis scenario equivalent to the morphology/evolution argument and is therefore not a sound analogy. Nothing in this paragraph even remotely addresses that question, so what is your point?<br /><br /><br />"Forensic science concerns legal matters."<br /><br />And this relates to the topic how?<br /><br /><br />"One doesn't point to some vague morphology..."<br /><br />Vague, specific, detailed, whatever you want. Arguing that morphology comes by evolution and morphology points to evolution is circular reasoning. Maybe its fancier circular reasoning if you put a lot of detail in it, but it is circular reasoning nonetheless.<br /><br /><br />"We provided a detailed rebuttal." <br /><br />Are you serious? You provided a really lousy analogy which was clearly shown to be completely pointless.<br /><br /><br />"You repeated the same straw man."<br /><br />So, here we go again. It's a straw man! It's a straw man! As if you shout it long enough and often enough it will become true. Sorry, you can't escape the facts. I suppose you can delude yourself into believing what you chant. However, facts are facts. C'est la vie.Gerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255934981257089814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84356610304546938142011-07-29T22:08:29.712-07:002011-07-29T22:08:29.712-07:00Gerry said:
"Science on the other hand MUST ...Gerry said:<br /><br />"Science on the other hand MUST deal with truth or falseness of a question. A reasonable explanation does not establish truth as required by science. If you have a reasonable explanation for a particular phenomenon, but it is in fact not the correct answer, of what use is it?. Close does not count in science. Reasonable explanations are of no use."<br /><br />Science does not require absolute truth or falseness. In many cases it cannot determine truth or falseness, at least <i>yet</i>. In many cases it can. A lot of science is <i>in progress</i>. Do you think that science should just stop, and not even bother looking for evidence, proof, truth, falseness, or reasonable explanations, since it can't just come up with the absolute truth of falseness of absolutely everything in a nanosecond? <br /><br />If science <i>knows</i> that a "reasonable explanation" is "in fact not the correct answer", then it is not considered a reasonable explanation. <br /><br />What "truth" or "falseness" do you think is the "truth" or "falseness" about everything, and how do you know that it is in fact the correct answer? <br /><br />Gerry said:<br /><br />"In law one is entitled to hold a dissenting opinion, unlike modern science when it comes to the question of evolution. This fact also points out another fallacy of your reasoning processes, the idea that you can appeal to the majority as proof of the correctness of your position."<br /><br />Anyone can hold any opinion they like, but it's unreasonable to expect science to listen to it unless it has evidential support. That is, scientifically testable, evidential support. I could opine that god is the bastard child of the FSM and Bigfoot and that flying purple people eaters are responsible for all missing humans but I doubt that anyone in science would take me seriously. I could probably find someone who would believe it though, because some people will believe anything, as is shown by the world's religions. <br /><br />Gerry said:<br /><br />"Your protestations mean nothing in light of the facts. Morphology is used to support evolution and evolution is used to explain morphology. No matter how much you try to tap dance around it, that is circular reasoning and as such is fallacious. It's obvious you simply do not grasp that."<br /><br />Of course using completely unsupported fairy tales about god/religious beliefs to support god/religious beliefs isn't circular? Show me even one piece of actual scientific evidence of your chosen god. <br /><br />You and your fellow god pushers might want to seriously think about your "Your protestations mean nothing in light of the facts." comment. <br /><br />Gerry said:<br /><br />"That's not science, that's story telling."<br /><br />Thank you for that description of religion/ID/creationism. <br /><br />Gerry said:<br /><br />"You present speculation and insist it's evidence."<br /><br />And thank you for that description of religion pushers, IDiots, and creationists.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88139432494678958702011-07-29T21:51:40.124-07:002011-07-29T21:51:40.124-07:00Thorton,
"Similar morphology of extant anima...Thorton,<br /><br />"Similar morphology of extant animals..."<br /><br />How incredibly dense are you? This whole discussion has been over the fact that you insist on using morphology to prove evolution, and evolution to explain morphology and my position that that is circular reasoning. So how do you suppose asserting morphology of extant animals as proof of evolution is going to fly with me? Incredible!<br /><br />As for the genetic record matching the fossil record, I'm curious, what have you been smoking?<br /><br />"Animals look similar because they evolved" may be a hypothesis in your world, but animals look similar because they evolved and evolution is true because animals look similar is circular reasoning. You may believe this is not what you're saying, but the simple fact is that is exactly what you're arguing.<br /><br />I understand very well what constitutes circular reasoning . This is such a simple, blatant example of circular reasoning I find it incredible you cannot see it. I guess if you keep telling yourself over and over again that it's a sound argument, you actually end up believing it.<br /><br />"So we are going one way also,..." <br /><br />Only if you start from the assumption of common descent which you support by appealing to morphology. Thus your circular argument. Is that ever going to register with you? I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />"Clear transitional patterns..." <br /><br />Are you serious? How out of date are you? Where do you find 'clear transitional patterns of fossils?' What are you going to try, Ida or the old classic coelacanth? Where are you coming up with this stuff. Have you been out of your basement in the last 20 years? This is just incredibly funny. It's a good thing I'm going away for a few days, I don't know how much more of this nonsense I can take.Gerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255934981257089814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78174390681853132262011-07-29T15:15:00.231-07:002011-07-29T15:15:00.231-07:00Gerry said...
Thorton,
"The situati...<i>Gerry said...<br /><br /> Thorton,<br /><br /> "The situations are identical."<br /><br /> This is a clear illustration of your amazingly poor critical thinking skills. The situations are not at all similar. In the case of morphology/evolution each factor needs explanation (ie. there are two hypotheses) and each hypothesis is explained by appealing to the other.</i><br /><br />No. Similar morphology of extant animals is an empirically observed fact. The temporal distribution of the fossils is a fact. The clear transitional patterns formed by distinct sequences of fossils is a fact. The best fit nested hierarchy that can be created from the fossil record is a fact. That the phylogenetic tree found in genetic record matches the one in the fossil record to better than 99.9% is a fact.<br /><br />A single hypothesis, common descent, was proposed to explain the above facts. <br /><br /><i>That is circular reasoning. Do you understand that? </i><br /><br />I understand you have no clue as to what 'circular reasoning' even means. You read the term on a Creationist site and are mindlessly regurgitating it. You certainly haven't demonstrated it here.<br /><br />"Animals look similar because they evolved." is a hypothesis.<br /><br />"They evolved because they look similar." is <b>not</b> a hypothesis, it's the <b>inference from the evidence</b>, an inference supported by thousands of other factual observations. <br /><br /><i>In the case of Joe only one hypothesis exists, did Joe kill the victim. The victim is not an hypothesis, it's a fact.</i><br /><br />And only one scientific hypothesis was being tested, does common descent over deep time explain the observed facts. The specimens and the distribution of the fossil record is not an hypothesis, it's a fact.<br /><br /> <i>The presence of Joe's DNA is not a hypothesis, it's a fact.</i><br /><br />The patterns in the genetic record are not a hypothesis, they're a fact.<br /><br /><i>Therefore, you only need to gather evidence to support one hypothesis, did Joe commit the crime. </i><br /><br />Exactly like scientists did for ToE.<br /><br /><i>So we are only going one way, from the DNA to Joe, we are not going from Joe to the DNA. Can you not see that? </i><br /><br />So we are only going one way also, from the empirically observed facts to the inference of common descent. Your religious bias and ignorance is stopping you from seeing that.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45965371485924811732011-07-29T09:46:42.930-07:002011-07-29T09:46:42.930-07:00Gerry: All the factors you list are simply compone...<b>Gerry</b>: <i>All the factors you list are simply components of the single hypothesis, did Joe commit the murder? Premeditation or anger do not effect whether or not Joe committed the crime as they would only become relevant after it was proven he did. </i><br /><br />Each hypothesis has its own entailments. If Joe was merely a witness then it has different empirical implications with regards to the evidence. The reasons and motivations that Joe had can be important, and also have empirical implications. It may not even have been a crime, depending on the circumstances, for instance, in the case of self-defense or an accident. The evidence has to be considered with respect to some explanatory framework. These are all standard components of any forensic investigation, and criminal trials always concern competing hypothetical explanations. You do understand that forensic science concerns legal matters? <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>If you insist on pointing to morphology as indicative of evolution and then use evolution to explain morphology you are engaging in circular reasoning. </i><br /><br />One doesn't point to some vague "morphology", but to specific patterns, and whether or not you can use the hypothesis to deduce testable empirical predictions, such as organisms with transitional characteristics like Archaeopteryx. <br /><br /><b>Gerry</b>: <i>I wish I had a dollar for every time one of you guys have attempted to refute an argument by labeling it a straw man. </i><br /><br />We provided a detailed rebuttal. The reason it is a strawman is because it is a false representation of the position you are arguing against. When this was pointed out to you, you repeated the same strawman.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.com