|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Theodoric:Thank you for yet again another most valuable contribution to this forum. Tanypteryx:You are saying that common ancestry is an explanation for the common ancestry pattern? Makes totally sense, bro! Taq:I would expect you to be able to read what was said next. Taq:Explanations often predict more than just one thing or have multiple possible scenarios though. I'm sorry you can't handle reality being not as simple as to fit into your puny mind. Taq:Denial without any sensible reply. Taq:You can include as many features as you like. Taq:Observed similar features in phenotype and function explain why we expect to find similar sequences in genetic code. Taq:Yeah I see your mindset. You argue that there is no DNA outside of biology, so biology is special and rules that apply in biology, don't need to apply anywhere else. So you go ahead and make up rules as you see fit. I have no use of your made up rules.
Taq:Any prove of this? You argue that common ancestry is the only possible explanation, by saying that a designer could mix and match. And you are assuming that a designer would have to do so? You come up with these unsubstantiated claims and shaky assumptions, to defend your earlier dubious claims.It's hard for you to stick to facts now, isn't it. AZ3Paul:Do what? AZ3Paul:Anti-science is piling up one dubious claim after another, supported only by shaky assumptions, like Taq is doing. Sadly, almost all biologists follow this line of argument. Making claims like this in the name of science, with these claims having no substantial evidence or prove whatsoever. That is anti-science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Tanypteryx: Tanypteryx: Tanypteryx: You are literally saying that common ancestry is an explanation [for the pattern], and you also literally say that common ancestry is the pattern [explained by common ancestry?]. And then you deny it.
Taq:So your common ancestry claim relies on you not knowing how to answer some questions without common ancestry? Taq:Nah, you just reject any other explanation as your standard response, as it does not fit your view. Do I need to remind you? Taq:So first you claimed common ancestry had evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. And now you weaken it down to being the "preferred" theory over others. Next problem is, you made up how the other theory should be and claimed it predicts anything (rather a straw man tactic). Again, without any substantial proof and only assumptions about some designer according to YOUR view.
Taq:It is a clustering method. It can be applied anywhere. And no doubt, it is applied in biology as well. Just google "hierarchical clustering biology" and the first result reads:"Hierarchical clustering is a simple but proven method for analyzing gene expression data by building clusters of genes with similar patterns of expression." Taq:Life could be designed as it is, the way it is most logical and most efficient. Like humans could design rooms to have any shape. But like 99% or so of all rooms have rectangular shape. Because it is most efficient, why change something that works? Finding pattern often indicates intelligence. For that reason even, we send messages into space, related to large prime numbers, as the pattern could be recognized by other intelligent lifeforms in other galaxies. You think the nested hierarchy is so special. But the pattern is a very common result of most common grouping / clustering methods, also when applied to other things. It does not prove common ancestry at all. You keep insisting that it does, with hopeless attempts, using wild and shaky assumptions and made up ad hoc rules. So let me ask you, do you have any actual facts to bring to the table, or is this it, personal assumptions and rules, that you apply only when you see fit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Taq:Oh boy, now Taq is starting their denial tactics. Taq:Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even. I'm not even gonna continue arguing against you. You come up with one ad hoc rule after another.
Taq:Wow, you really think these conditions are necessary to be able to use hierarchical clustering? Where do you pull all of your nonsense from? What scientific experiment have you conducted, that lead to this conclusion?
Taq:What a nonsense question. Why do you even think that a designer was forced at all? Taq:Hahahahahhahaha, no you don't. But please tell me, which scientific experiment has lead to YOUR conclusion that there is no reason for a designer to use similar design across different species?
popoi:Yeah sure, some things are the same for certain reasons, while other things are not. Taq came with the rule that a designer should make all things differently in different species. Of course, without any scientific experiment to back up this rule of theirs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Taq:Show me where I said this. Taq:What conditions? You don't even seem to know what you are talking about. Taq:The pattern appears as a result of the clustering method, as I said often enough already. You failed to stick to facts, and brought up one dubious claim after another. And you defend those using shaky assumptions and mad up ad hoc rules. Taq:Why explain something that is not even true? Why even think that a designer is forced? Forced by whom? You make zero sense! Logically, it's more likely that a designer is free to choose as they please. Not forced at all.
Taq:I stick to facts, unlike you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Taq: No, you claimed that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked you for your evidence and reasoning.You support it by stating that it is the preferred theory. And yeah, it is nonsense, that being the preferred theory, makes the theory proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is your ad hoc nonsense rule. You have plenty of such rules, and you just cannot stick to facts. Here, I needed to spell it all out for you yet again. But I doubt, that you will get it now even, as you rarely do. But let me ask you this. Suppose we find extraterrestrial life. And we analyze life on Earth and the lifeforms we found from other planet(s). And we find that single celled lifeforms on other planets have similarities with those on Earth. Then we could fit all into a single hierarchical tree, could we not? Would that, in your opinion, prove beyond reasonable doubt, that we share common ancestor with life on those other planets? If you are consistent in your reasoning, you would not doubt that you are related to the aliens in this case. If you do have doubts for whatever reason, then you gonna have to admit that your whole reasoning that leads to believing in common ancestry, is shaky at best. And that the hierarchical tree itself does not prove common ancestry at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Taq: Yes, that was what you said. If it was not, then your argument was pointless. Even so, your changed "statement" that the proven theory beyond doubt, is the preferred theory, is not even useful.If a theory is proven beyond doubt, why even compare to other theories and deciding which is more preferred? But that was not what you said. You said it was the preferred theory, because you think it makes good or better predictions. You cannot even follow along with your own line of reasoning.
Taq: Exactly, branching off still makes it one tree as a whole. And that does not prove common ancestry with the alien species. So if any general rule holds, it is that hierachical tree does not always mean common ancestry.You can continue making up rules and apply them inconsistently, only where it fits your narrative. And then call it evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But those rules don't hold in general.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025