Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of Phylogenetic Methods
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 288 (795897)
12-18-2016 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 6:15 PM


and yet even MORE nonsense.
vaporwave writes:
No matter how weak naturalistic origin of life theories may become, no matter how much that claim may appear to be false, the academic community will never consider the central idea of a naturalistic origin of life to be disproved. Perhaps rethought entirely but never dismissed or replaced... (indeed the alternative is not even to be considered)
Again, more utter bullshit from vaporwave.
Sorry but again you simply show you are totally clueless about even the most basic facts.
If you can present an example of a non-natural cause and explain how it works then of course science would have to take non-natural causes into consideration.
It really is that simple.
Present an example of a non-natural cause and an explanation of how it works.
The facts are we have the fossils so we win and we have the natural causes so we win.
Creationism has been DOA for well over a hundred years and it smells like it's been dead far longer.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 6:15 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 288 (795899)
12-18-2016 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 6:15 PM


Re: More nonsense.
Let me rephrase that. No matter how weak naturalistic origin of life theories may become, no matter how much that claim may appear to be false, the academic community will never consider the central idea of a naturalistic origin of life to be disproved.
Well, again, that's a self-serving fantasy about a universe very different to the one we live in.
It is in fact normal for people to adjust their beliefs in accordance with the evidence. Creationists don't, but that's because they work using the rules of religion rather than science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 6:15 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 288 (795900)
12-18-2016 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 3:38 PM


Re: Introduction
The evolutionist will assume whatever he needs in order to reconcile the theory.
You have this backwards.
Scientists of all kinds work from data to theory. If new or old data does not fit the theory, then the theory has to be modified or discarded.
Creationists, on the other hand, work from belief. If old or new data does not fit the belief, then that data has to be denied, misrepresented, or ignored.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 3:38 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 64 of 288 (795901)
12-18-2016 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 4:58 PM


Re: Introduction
Yes indeed. If.
Let me know when you're able to demonstrate the reasoning or lack of reasoning of this non-evolutionary creature generator.
Until then you're just philosophically speculating to the extreme... Which is totally fine, just don't try to smuggle it in as scientific evidence for your theory.
I demonstrate it like this. You can't think of an alternate theory that would produce the same evidence. You can't begin to think of such a thing. So merely speculating that there might be one which you can't even think of would be idle and vacuous pseudoscientific speculation which can have no place in science. We can't base scientific reasoning on a daydream which you haven't even had yet --- on a daydream that one day you might have a daydream --- on something you can't even imagine, but you can imagine being able to imagine it. In science such speculation about speculation is worthless, no matter how much it may comfort the religious.
It says a great deal about the weakness of the creationist view that you find it necessary to attack the scientific method itself, and to adopt rhetorical positions that would render all of science impossible ... just so's you can dispute evolution. It's like someone adopting a philosophy that nothing is true just so he can say that "It's not true that I took the cookies from the cookie jar".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:58 PM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 7:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 65 of 288 (795902)
12-18-2016 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 4:46 PM


Re: Introduction
Look at the related field of Origin of Life studies to get some inkling of the metaphysical commitment. It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow.
And the various religious communities know with complete certainty that it was a result of supernatural forces.
So?
In any case, origin of life studies are not evolution--completely different fields.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:46 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 66 of 288 (795905)
12-19-2016 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2016 7:12 PM


Re: Introduction
I demonstrate it like this. You can't think of an alternate theory that would produce the same evidence. You can't begin to think of such a thing. So merely speculating that there might be one which you can't even think of would be idle and vacuous pseudoscientific speculation which can have no place in science.
But you are the one guilty of this so far. You've claimed to hold insight into the probabilities of how life would look if common ancestry were false.
If the set was not produced by copying with variation, there is only an infinitesimal chance that it would have this property of robustness by accident
Earlier here you stated that genetic/morphological concordance of life would be "accidental" if not for evolution. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you got this knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2016 7:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2016 9:12 AM vaporwave has replied
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 11:39 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 67 of 288 (795906)
12-19-2016 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tangle
12-18-2016 6:44 PM


Re: More nonsense.
Do you accept that common descent is falsifiable?
Yes. But practically every idea is falsifiable in some way so this isn't saying much. It's like the bare minimum requirement in science. Falsifiability doesn't necessarily translate to a robust ironclad theory that no reasonable person can question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2016 6:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2016 8:41 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 68 of 288 (795911)
12-19-2016 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by vaporwave
12-19-2016 7:44 AM


Re: More nonsense.
vaporwave writes:
Yes
So why don't you find the evidence to disprove it instead of all this pseudo-philosophical waffle you're dolling out? This is not some esoteric, logic-based problem to be solved purely by reading websites and thinking hard - it's evidence based.
The ToE stands or falls on it's empirical evidence, not on a bunch of wordy argument. It can be disproved, your side has had a century and a half to produce the damning evidence against - the theory even tells you where to look for it - but you have produced absolutely nothing, just vapor.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 7:44 AM vaporwave has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 288 (795914)
12-19-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by vaporwave
12-19-2016 7:33 AM


Re: Introduction
And vaporwave's prolonged futile assault on the scientific method itself continues.
But you are the one guilty of this so far.
No.
You've claimed to hold insight into the probabilities of how life would look if common ancestry were false.
No.
Earlier here you stated that genetic/morphological concordance of life would be "accidental" if not for evolution.
No.
If you don't understand my point, why don't you ask me to explain it instead of making up crazy stuff in your head?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 7:33 AM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 9:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 70 of 288 (795915)
12-19-2016 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by vaporwave
12-18-2016 4:46 PM


OOL and science
Look at the related field of Origin of Life studies to get some inkling of the metaphysical commitment. It doesn't matter how much the various OoL theories may struggle, the general academic community knows with complete certainty that it happened completely naturally somehow.
Again you demonstrate ignorance regarding science, moving from your ignorance of how evolution actually works now to more general ignorance of all science. Ignorance is not a crime, nor is it derogatory, it is just unawareness of things (undereducated might be a better term), it is curable with education.
  • Science tests theories with objective empirical evidence.
  • Therefore such theories are necessarily based on information derived from currently known objective empirical evidence and
  • Falsification tests must be based on objective empirical evidence
    because
  • If it can't be tested by objective empirical evidence it isn't science.
Here's a little chart of the scientific method for your use:
Note it is a continual feedback loop, testing keeps being done and each successful test leads to more tests. Nothing is ever proved.
Now we come to Origins of Life, which is not part of evolution (evolution is the change in a living population -- no living population no evolution),
And this leads to all kinds of questions (not least of which is "what is the definition of life?" -- try it -- give us your definition).
Another is "what is the evidence for origin of life?" ... and the evidence is:
  1. that at ~4.5 billion years ago there was no opportunity for life to exist on earth
  2. that at ~3.5 billion years ago the earliest form of rock that can preserve fossils shows life existing
Therefore somewhere between ~4.5 byr and ~3.5 byr ago life began.
So the next question is "How can that occur?"
And that is being tested with a wide variety of hypotheses that posit different scenarios, and that provide tests using objective empirical evidence to see if they work.
A couple of old threads discussing these are:
Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)
Now a question for you: IFF we posit that "God did it" then how do we test that?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by vaporwave, posted 12-18-2016 4:46 PM vaporwave has not replied

  
vaporwave
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 12-17-2016


Message 71 of 288 (795916)
12-19-2016 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2016 9:12 AM


Re: Introduction
If you don't understand my point, why don't you ask me to explain it
I addressed your point.
Go ahead and explain how you didn't mean what you plainly wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2016 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2016 9:59 AM vaporwave has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 288 (795917)
12-19-2016 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by vaporwave
12-19-2016 9:52 AM


Re: Introduction
I addressed your point.
No.
Go ahead and explain how you didn't mean what you plainly wrote.
No.
You're doing such a good job of explaining how I didn't mean what I plainly wrote that you hardly need any help.
I don't know who you can actually hope to deceive on this subject, which I think makes this kind of a strange hobby for you to have. But we are obviously two very different people.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 9:52 AM vaporwave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2016 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 78 by vaporwave, posted 12-19-2016 5:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 288 (795919)
12-19-2016 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2016 9:59 AM


devolution
You're doing such a good job of explaining how I didn't mean what I plainly wrote that you hardly need any help.
I don't know who you can actually hope to deceive on this subject, which I think makes this kind of a strange hobby for you to have. But we are obviously two very different people.
Apparently what we are seeing is a creationist devolving into a troll.
With no cogent argument and no response to the several posts pointing towards erroneous and false arguments, the poster falls back on twisting words to get a rise out of people rather than a discussion.
Waste of bandwidth, imho.
But still a good foil to speak to the peanut gallery, demonstrating the failure of these purported "arguments" -- most of which are pratts (more like coming to an axe fight without an axe).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2016 9:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 74 of 288 (795920)
12-19-2016 11:23 AM


It really is simple...we got the Natural Causes so we win
It's really simple, there is ample evidence of natural causes but no one has ever presented any evidence of any un-natural causes.
Until someone can present one example of some un-natural cause for ANYTHING there is simply no reason to even consider un-natural causes.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2016 1:06 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 75 of 288 (795922)
12-19-2016 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
12-19-2016 11:23 AM


Re: It really is simple...we got the Natural Causes so we win
It's really simple, there is ample evidence of natural causes but no one has ever presented any evidence of any un-natural causes.
Simple -- as soon as something is observed and verified it becomes natural caused ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 12-19-2016 11:23 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024