Arrogance of Elitism

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

I was saying that what physicist elitists consider as scientifically blasphemous i.e. not scientific, may be found to be truth in the future.

---

But that's the way science works: You show your evidence that indicates what we thought was true wasn't and then they give you the Nobel Prize. Every scientist dreams of the Big Discovery (C) that overturns everything. They'll name it after you.But notice the important point: You have to show your evidence. You have to define your terms, describe your experiment, detail your process, and analyze the results. It's not enough to simply assert that your proclamation is "logical."That's why we ask you specific questions: To get you to show your work. That's why the OP is such a caricature with no basis in reality.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Poisoning the well is illogical.

---

Then why do you do everything can to poison it? The very title of this thread is poisoning the well. Your description of "the atheist" is that he is a prick.

quote:

---

A person's knowledge of a subject is irrelevant to an argument, according to logic.

---

In the sense that the argument from authority is invalid, yes. But that fact doesn't mean authority is meaningless. What it means is that those who know something about a subject are more likely to have something useful to say than those who know nothing.Any first grader can say 1 + 1 = 2, but it takes a mathematician to tell you WHY that's true. If we're going to have an actual discussion, if we're going to hope to do more than make a bunch of declarative statements at each other, it will require us to actually know something about what we're saying. That necessarily requires training in the subjects which we're talking about.

quote:

---

In the battle between evolution and creation for example, you can have an expert scientist versus a man off the street, and if the argument is over the truth then the man on the street can win, if he is more logical and perceptive.

---

"Perceptive"? What do you mean by that? What you call "perceptive," I call "expertise." Logical truth is not the same as actual truth. Logical truth depends upon assumptions. X may very well imply Y, but if X isn't true, then Y will never actually happen, even though Y is logically implied by X.A person who has no expertise cannot know that.

quote:

---

When it comes to information about evolution, the expert will know more, but this is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the truth-value of evolution.

---

Indeed. Again, the argument from authority is not valid. But again, this does not mean authority is meaningless. Authority will allow the expert to bring forth the evidence, describe the experiments, and show you the work involved in why we have come to the conclusion that we have.

quote:

---

Example; an expert in Harry Potter, who can recite nay information on it, versus a man who only knows the name, "Harry Potter". Does this mean that the expert is correct, that Harry Potter isn't fiction?

---

What "expert in Harry Potter" has ever said it wasn't fiction?You're arguing a strawman. I understand why: You want to be able to have somebody say that you said something correct. By getting an admission of truth to be applied to your argument, it will then allow you to engage in a logical fallacy that other parts of your argument are also true.Notice what happened? You stated a logical truth: An "expert" who claims Harry Potter isn't fiction is wrong.However, logic isn't enough. You need "expertise" to know that nobody has ever claimed Harry Potter is something other than fiction.Congratulations: You just proved that which you were trying to deny.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Whereas the Big Bang theory can still be regarded as incredulous, by a Theist who certainly does know what the theory says.

---

Knowing what the theory says and actually understanding it are two different things. As the quote from A Fish Called Wanda went:Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.Any first grader can tell you that 1 + 1 = 2. But they cannot tell you why.Now, does this mean that the Big Bang should be accepted as dogma? Of course not. But it does mean that if you are going to declare it to be wrong, you're going to have a great deal of work ahead of you to justify the claim. "I don't believe it" is not sufficient.

quote:

---

Evidence for theories in itself is not that important because of the fallacy of exclusivity.

---

Showing that you truly do not understand what evidence nor what the nature of science is. Science never claims that something is 100% known. Since science is, by its very nature, an observational process and since it is impossible to observe everything, we can never, ever know anything with 100% certainty. It may very well be that our models are 100% correct, but we can never know that because all it takes is one observation to throw it all away and we cannot observe everything.You are absolutely right that correlation is not causation. But in order for you to show that all the evidence indicating that the correlation actually is because of causation, you're going to have to come up with more than "I don't believe it." You need to explain why there is a disconnect and devise a way to test that claim.

quote:

---

This means that one impressive falsifying evidence can trump a thousand pieces of evidence.

---

Indeed. That's the very point behind science. You seem to think that you've come across something never thought of before. In direct contradiction to your implication, that is the very point behind scientific research: To make the observation that changes the way we view the world.When you do this, they give you the Nobel Prize.

quote:

---

So one falsifying evidence of the Big Bang could come to pass in a year or two, like it did for steady state.

---

Indeed. Do you have any indication that such an observation is coming? I notice that you are missing a tremendous point that comes along with that:You need to account for all the observations we made that led us to the conclusion we had before.Aristotelian kinematics said that objects in motion come to rest. After all, if you push an object along, it comes to rest.Newtonian kinematics directly contradicts that: Objects in motion remain in motion. But how can that be since we can clearly observe objects coming to rest? Simple: Motion continues until the object is acted upon by another force. When you push something along, friction acts upon the object, bleeding it of the energy it is using to remain in motion.But Einsteinian kinematics directly contradicts that: Objects in motion never come to rest. But how can that be since we can clearly observe objects coming to rest? Simple: It is only "at rest" with respect to you. There is no "universal" reference frame in which an object can be declared "at rest." There is only the local reference frame and all that can be said is that the object is not moving with respect to certain other objects within that local frame.So if you're going to claim that the Big Bang is incredulous, it is not enough to simply say, "I don't believe it." It is not enough to insist that, "There may be an observation that overturns our theories." You need to come up with something that explains why it is we see the cosmic background radiation; that indicates that the further we look back in time, the hotter we see the universe to be; that the universe is expanding; etc.Theories may change, but observations never do. It is our observations that generate our theories. If you're going to come up with a new one, you have to include all the observations we've already made.

quote:

---

THIS IS WHY we don't place our faith in theories. For GENUINE logical reasons!

---

Indeed. But you once again show that you have clearly missed the entire point of science: It understands that it can never declare "truth." The best it can hope for is "accurate."Newtonian kinematics is wrong. At every level. At every speed. So why do we still teach it? Because for the overwhelming majority of scenarios in which we need to do kinematic work, it is accurate and simple. The discrepancy between the Newtonian answer and the observed results for everyday actions is so small as to require amazingly sensitive equipment in order to detect.But when dealing with other scenarios...GPS, for example...that discrepancy is significant. We can actually see the difference between what the theory claims and what is observed. And it is because the theory is no longer accurate that we discard it in favor of a more accurate theory.That is the job ahead of you: Where is your evidence that our theory is inaccurate? Note, I'm not saying it isn't inaccurate. Remember: Nothing in science is ever declared "true." I simply want to know why you would say it isn't. "I don't believe it" is not sufficient. "A new observation could make us throw it away" is not sufficient.It seems to work. Why should we doubt what seems to work?Note: Before you respond, please try to understand the difference between observations that make us rethink details and observations that make us rethink the entire structure. Two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi is a 2 is not the same thing as arguing over whether or not pi is an integer.That's part of the reason why "I don't believe it" is not sufficient. You're arguing that pi is an integer.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Why does such an obviously superior rational being feel the need for such statements?

---

You tell us. You're the one that poisoned the well from the very start with the title of this thread and your very first post.It would seem you have no trouble dishing it out but are quite affronted when made to take it.

quote:

---

Can we remain rational and friendly? I would prefer it.

---

Time for you to apply your logic: The winning strategy is to play "tit-for-tat with forgiveness." You started off with an arrogant, poison-the-well argument and you got one in return. If you recognize that this is a bad strategy, perhaps you should change your action and instead respond with the humility you pretend to express.

quote:

---

I am not out to get you.

---

Said the man who started off by calling others "arrogant."

quote:

---

Calm down, take a stress pill and think things over.

---

You do realize that HAL was a homicidal maniac when he said that, right? That Dave was doing the right thing by shutting HAL off, right? That the only way for Dave to complete the mission was to stop HAL, right?Are you sure you want to associate yourself with HAL?[and the quote is, "Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."]

quote:

---

It is not my fault that Informed Theists exist

---

Indeed. And Ken Miller and the rest of the Catholic church doesn't have a problem with evolution. The contention has nothing to do with theism.It has to do with the active denial of evidence, a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of science, and an inherent inability to argue points with honesty and integrity.

quote:

---

and that they annoy you in this manner, for being so able to produce a can of whoop-ass on yo' baba,.

---

(*chuckle*)If that is true, why haven't you published? Your claim is quite literally Nobel Prize level stuff. If you can justify your assertions, you will change the very nature of biology around the world.What are you waiting for?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

There have been computer programs that simulate the ToE. Logically, this doesn't prove the ToE actually happened, it just means that it will work on a computer program, and it therefore a clever human invention.

---

Here's an experiment you can do in the comfort of your own bio lab. The experiment is not expensive and the supplies can be easily acquired from almost any biological supplies storehouse.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.So since we can see evolution happen right in front of our eyes, why would you have us deny it?Or are you saying the bacteria are actually human inventions?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to Straggler:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually what annoys me are pseudo-intellectual bullshitters who make illogical and evidently inferior arguments whilst posturing with philosophical terms that they barely understand, who are at the same time continually congratulating themselves on how clever they are and declaring that any perceived flaws with their fallacious arguments are the reult of everyone else being unable to comprehend the insightfulness of the position that they have convinced themself must be flawless because they are too much smarter than everyone else for it not to be.

---

​

In other words; "mike, you corrected my error

---

See, this is exactly what Straggler was talking about: You think you corrected an error, but you didn't. You think you understand the philosophical term you put forward, but you don't. You think that if you can force an admission of agreement with you, then that will necessarily mean that your argument has at least a grain of truth to it.I'll see your "fallacy of exclusivity" (which is more commonly called "Questionable Cause") and raise you a "fallacy of association."

quote:

---

I am afraid I am not able to insult you as my beliefs dictate that I am not to sin against you even if you insult me.

---

Is lying for god not a sin? From Message 41, which was a post of yours to Straggler: Do you really want me to go through your posts? The very title of this thread is an insult. The first two posts, which you made, are nothing but insults. You complain about "poisoning the well" but seem to have ignored the fact that you start off precisely by doing that which you are railing against.

quote:

---

Some advice: Your posts seem to be a bit hyper.

---

Didn't you just say you were barred from insulting him?

quote:

---

Infact I am not clever in many areas and subjects.

---

Have you considered the possibility that this is one of those areas and subjects?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Ad logicam is the error of taking a person's argument, and saying; "That's a popular refuted argument, therefore we reject your conclusion".

---

Incorrect. "Ad logicam" is the error that because the logical process is fault, then the conclusion is necessarily false. For example:Because the sky is blue, 2 + 2 = 4.The conclusion, "2 + 2 = 4," is true but the logical justification for it is false. To claim that the conclusion is false because the justification for it is false is a logical error.You seem to have forgotten that you're dealing with a mathematician. If you're going to try and dazzle me with bullshit, it had better be good bullshit.

quote:

---

I did not mention a specific person.

---

Neither did I. Surely you're not saying that insults can only be directed at specific people and not at archetypes, stereotypes, or even (*gasp!*) strawmen, are you?

quote:

---

I find the more informed they actually are, the less ad hominem content their posts contain.

---

You said it. Have you considered applying this wisdom to your own posts?

quote:

---

Even have a go at taking the piss at creos

---

Why would I want to insult people?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Let me clarify. I ONLY CLAIMED the part you agreed with, I did not state that authority is meaningless.

---

Let's not play dumb. Shall we? Let's not pretend what you were talking about is simply recognizing the truth value of an isolated statement and not about the process. After all, what was the point of "logical and perceptive" if not to refer to process?

quote:

---

"A person without expertise cannot know that" is a silly claim, as I do know it.

---

Except you don't. You misstated what "argumentum ad logicam" is.

quote:

---

I shown that false premisses can have a true conclusion.

---

Indeed, but the problem is that the conclusion is not justified by the premises. Until you can justify your conclusion, we cannot know if it is true or false because false premises can lead to any conclusion you wish. You do know how to draw the truth table for X -> Y, yes?

quote:

---

If I knew that, why wouldn't I know the simple point you state.

---

Because you don't know logic. You even misstated your own premise.

quote:

---

Anyone knows why a syllogism is sound,. Because it is valid and true.

---

But valid syllogisms require the premises to be true. You're arguing about a completely different property: That implications off false premises can lead to true conclusions. What you're ignoring is that they also lead to false conclusions. That is, false premises lead to any conclusion you wish. You do know how to draw the truth table for X -> Y, yes?And since you have brought up the syllogism, your failure to comprehend logic shows. Take, for example, the following syllogism:Some X are Y.
Some X are not Y.
Therefore, all X are either Y or not Y.This is not a valid syllogism for it requires there to be an X in the first place which has not been established. Abelard has a good discourse on it. Have you read it?

quote:

---

Infact, the burden of proof rests on the claimant.

---

Indeed. That is why the Big Bang is considered the dominant theory for the expansion of the universe. All of the evidence points to it, it makes testable predictions, and so far there isn't anything to make us throw it away in favor of a more accurate theory.

quote:

---

But I do. Stating what evidence is and how science works doesn't prove I don't.

---

It is when you get it wrong.

quote:

---

Ofcourse, the observation of the higgs boson mass particle.

---

Um...the observation of the Higgs boson would be confirmation of the Big Bang. I asked if you had any indication of an observation that would falsify it. That is, after all, what you were claiming: We're looking for the Higgs because our current model of particle physics, which is part and parcel of the Big Bang, suggest that there ought to be a Higgs boson.

quote:

---

Ofcourse, this is very basic, and is understood by most people at EvC.

---

Not, apparently, by you.

quote:

---

If science can never declare truth, why would it's accuracy affect my beliefs, that deal with truth?

---

Because accuracy is an ever-increasing trait. Your claims violate things that we have observed and declare models that we know to be accurate to be wildly off. It is akin to a claim that no, pi is really an integer.

quote:

---

Biology? How so.

---

Good question. For all my statements regarding people not conflating evolution with cosmology, I went and wandered off the ranch.If you'll be so kind, I shall retract the statement and replace it with the more correct one:If that is true, why haven't you published? Your claim is quite literally Nobel Prize level stuff. If you can justify your assertions, you will change the very nature of physics around the world.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Don't you know that the whole point is to show you why an appeal to authority is fallacious?

---

Since nobody on the science side of things has made an appeal to authority, one wonders why you have brought it up.

quote:

---

The problem is that a theory is not a proven truth, but infact a scientific theory.

---

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

quote:

---

Knowing the hypothetics of the ToE, as an expert - doesn't mean it happened historically.

---

And thus, we see the reason why: You don't know what a theory is.The reason why we have the theory is because we have the fact of it happening. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. The reason why the theory of evolution exists at all is because there was already established the fact of evolution.We have seen evolution happen right in front of our eyes. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the fact of evolution.

quote:

---

It means, by inference, you can soundly conclude that you are more able to know the ToE, and it's details.

---

But the only reason for the theory to exist in the first place, and this is the part you are skipping over, is because there was a fact that required a theory. Raw facts without any theoretical framework in which to place them are pretty worthless things.The entire point of science is to work with facts that create theories which will help you find more facts that can then be used to work the theory and so on.Any changes we have to the theory of evolution will not change the fact that evolution happened. What it will do is change the mechanisms by which evolution happened. Whether gravity is curvature of space-time, a force carried by gravitons, invisible rubber bands, or hordes of tiny angels pushing and pulling on things, the fact that gravity exists will not change.There is no denying the reality of evolution. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. You can run experiments that will show it happening right in front of your eyes.The only question is how.Question: Do you hold gravity to be as tenuous a concept as evolution? After all, evolution is more solidly based than gravity. We know what the effect of gravity is, but we still have no idea how it happens. We don't have a mechanism. We cannot manipulate it to make it do what we want it to. Contrast this with evolution where we do know how it happens (at least in part). We do have a mechanism. We can directly manipulate it to make it do what we want it to do.So is gravity "just a theory" or is it, to use your word, "truth"?

quote:

---

If we PRESUME negation through ignorance

---

Since we don't, let's not.

quote:

---

then spontaneous generation experts, in their day, would have been correct, that maggots could appear on dead bodies, from "nothingness", or that steady state is true.

---

You are confusing a mechanism with an observation. We can observe raw meat giving rise to maggots. That observation will never change. What was in question was the mechanism by which it happened. "Spontaneous generation" claimed that meat just did this as a property of meat. Well, there's a way to test this: Isolate the meat so that the only thing that can act upon it is its own devices and see what happens.Lo and behold, nothing happens. Now, that doesn't negate the observation. We have seen raw meat give rise to maggots right before our eyes. So since the observation is still true, it must be our mechanism that is not accurate. And, of course, that's what changes: It isn't the meat doing it on its own...it's the flies we're not seeing laying eggs on the meat that's doing it.

quote:

---

Can't you see the obvious error?

---

Yes. That's why we're trying to help you to see your error. It's obvious and we all see it.You don't.

quote:

---

Rhrain, you said science is accurate, not "true". That's exactly my point here. How can you be so obtuse?

---

Because I understand what science is.You don't.Quick: Is evolution a fact or a theory?Hint: It's a trick question.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

the appeal is enough to show how favouring the expert's opinion is not sound.

---

And if you could show an example of such, this conversation might be more fruitful. Since nobody has, one wonders why you brought it up in the first place.

quote:

---

This powerful argument from logic is all I require, to dispose of your waffle in a sharp and painful way.

---

Except it doesn't say what you think it says. As I said before, you think you corrected an error, but you didn't. You think you understand the philosophical term you put forward, but you don't. You think that if you can force an admission of agreement with you, then that will necessarily mean that your argument has at least a grain of truth to it.I'll see your "fallacy of exclusivity" (which is more commonly called "Questionable Cause") and raise you a "fallacy of association."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

So you agree that it is not necessarily true that a conclusion is false, if the premisses are false?

---

Of course...but do you know what you're overlooking?Quick: Draw the truth table for X -> Y. You do know how to do that, yes?

quote:

---

No, I am saying that to commit ad logicam, you have to infer that a person's argument is not true because YOU conflate it with another argument.

---

But that isn't argumentum ad logicam. As I told you before, argumentum ad logicam is assuming the conclusion is false because the process is false. You do know how to draw the truth table for X -> Y, yes?

quote:

---

Behe, is wrong, therefore there is no intelligent design, because you're basically arguing irreducible complexity

---

And if you could find anybody who ever said such a thing, you might have a point. Since nobody has, one is left wondering why you have brought it up.

quote:

---

No, it's logical notation, that a conclusion isn't false because the premisses are.

---

Nice try, but that's my correction to you. Here is your statement...from this very post, I might add: That isn't argumentum ad logicam. Instead, it's a variation of strawman: Arguing a point different from the one that was made.

quote:

---

You are infact arguing the exact same thing now, and still saying I am incorrect.

---

Incorrect. I am still saying the exact same thing I always have. I am simply pointing out that you haven't been arguing against argumentum ad logicam. That phrase has been coming out of your mouth, but none of the examples you have given are examples of it.Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about. You think you corrected an error, but you didn't. You think you understand the philosophical term you put forward, but you don't. You think that if you can force an admission of agreement with you, then that will necessarily mean that your argument has at least a grain of truth to it.I'll see your "fallacy of exclusivity" (which is more commonly called "Questionable Cause") and raise you a "fallacy of association."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I think though, that my position is that you still have to argue that the information came from mutation in the past.

---

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.Why would you have us deny what we can prove in less than a week's time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I don't think abiogenesis is movin the goalposts though, because it is a heck of a big claim that matter would arrange itself to become something more than matter.

---

Huh? Then you deny your own existence? You take in water, which is mere "matter," oxygen which is also mere "matter," and a whole bunch of other dead material and convert it into living matter that makes up your own body. What makes you think it is impossible?

quote:

---

Therefore logically, evolution has a bearing on abiogenesis, BECAUSE it claims that ALL organisms came from a simpler common ancestor, which removes the need to explain a "modern" organism.

---

Incorrect. Evolution is compatible with every method of genesis you care to name. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extra-terrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method you can imagine. So long as that first life did not reproduce perfectly from one generation to the next, evolution is completely satisfied.Evolution doesn't care where life comes from, so why would you claim it requires abiogenesis?Are you saying god is incapable of making life that evolves?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

100% of the evidence shows deformity and disease

---

Incorrect. Over 90% of all mutations are neutral and have no effect.But at any rate, even your claim is wrong. The E. coli experiment proves it. Evolution right in front of your eyes not once but twice, both times toward survival and improved fitness.

quote:

---

only mutational LOSS is advantageous. (Just NS basically.)

---

Incorrect.Your immune system proves you wrong. It is designed to mutate and increase in complexity. So many structures in our genome exist because of duplication, increasing the "information."Why would you have us deny it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Over 90% of all mutations are neutral and have no effect.

---

​

I said that 100% of the evidence shows disease and deformity as the effects of mutation.

---

And I said you were incorrect. Disease and deformity are rarely the effects of mutation. Please let us not play dumb. While mutation can cause disease, let us not pretend that you were merely pointing out a single range of opportunities among several.The overwhelming majority of all mutations are neutral in effect and are never noticed. Those that do cause a reduced fitness will be selected against while those that result in an increased fitness will be selected for. Since most are neutral, they are subject to drift and quite often become fixed in a population because there is no pressure to stop them from propagating.

quote:

---

You don't know what "proof" is, or the claims of the ToE then.

---

Mutation resulting in increased fitness? Wasn't that what you were railing against? Let us not play dumb.

quote:

---

The logical equivalent example of evolution defined according to the full claims of the ToE would require a change in the morphology of the E.coli. --It's design, physically--.

---

And that's precisely what you were shown. That's why they're given a different name. They're a different kind of bactierum from what we started with.Oh! You were expected ostriches hatched from alligator eggs! I'm so sorry, but evolution doesn't claim that. In fact, if you could show that, you'd destroy evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Fitness, even change such as blindness in the dark, only shows micro-evolution.

---

You say that as if "micro-evolution" was not evolution.If 1 + 1 = 2, why doesn't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?You have been shown many times the data showing larger morphological changes. And if you want even more dramatic changes, the fossil record is crystal clear. The only difference between this "micro-evolution" you sneer at and this "macro-evolution" you claim doesn't exist is the time scale. The experiment I have repeatedly asked you to do for yourself takes under a week. Surely you weren't expecting something Spielbergian, were you?

quote:

---

If there is new information in a gene pool that creates a new morphology then evolution is proven.

---

And what part of duplication isn't "new information"?Oh, that's right! You're about to claim that if you start with "a," then ending with "aa" isn't actually an "increase in information" because it's just the same thing repeated. And then you're going to claim that if you start with "a," then ending with "b" isn't actually an "increase" in information because you still have the same number of informational bits. All the while, you will deliberately and specifically ignore that if you start with "a" and then go to "aa" and then go to "ab," you have done precisely what you claim cannot be done: Increase "information."

quote:

---

I believe in natural selection, because i agree that the fittest will survive. Hpw is that the equivalent of saying that every organism is from a common ancestor?

---

Because in order for there to be a "fittest," there needs to be variation for the selection to act upon. Diversity comes from ancestry. Given the extreme changes in environment that have occured during the very long time life has been on this planet, if there hadn't been common ancestry, life would have died out a long time ago. At the very least, we would not see the megaflora and fauna that we do.But, methinks you are saying this not because you actually do accept natural selection but rather because you have become wise to the corrections you have received over the years pointing out how you continually ignore selection ("disease and deformity as the effects of mutation").

quote:

---

Logically, you have not proved evolution because a reduction of information over time does not add up, it removes. This is what we see in organisms.

---

Incorrect. What we see in organisms is that the genome is constantly in flux, moving any which way you care to name. We can see duplication all the time. Those nice, big strawberries you had the other day? They're the result of duplication of the entire chromosome.Wait for it..."Duplication is not an 'increase in information,'" right?

quote:

---

Breeding dogs gets you dogs with less information.

---

Incorrect.Phylogenetic relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog
C Vil*, JE Maldonado, and RK Wayne
Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA *Corresponding author at: Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen 18D, S-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: Carles.Vlila@bmc.uu.se You need to do your homework. This requires looking through actual science journals.

quote:

---

I believe you are a very determined person, therefore I think it's futile to debate you.

---

I would agree with that. I keep providing evidence to back up my claims. I will refute all statements you make with specifics and examples that you can verify for yourself if you would only take the time to do so.What have you got other than bald assertion?

quote:

---

To "prove" evolution logically, you need the logical equivalent of it's claims, SHOWN.

---

And the E. coli experiment does exactly that. Faced with this, you shift the goalposts and demand ostriches from alligators, which evolution does not claim.

quote:

---

The adaptation of micro-organisms, given their speed of regeneration, is not impressive.

---

Why? I see you want sparkles and special effects.

quote:

---

How is it that you can only ever show me micro-organisms.

---

Incorrect. We show you new species, new genera, even new families being created. I keep bringing up the E. coli experiment because it is something you can do on your own in very little time for very little money. If you want more spectacular changes, you're going to have to expend more time and effort to see the results.Do you have a generation to spend watching a population of organisms change their morphology? Some biologists do and you have been shown their work previously. You will, of course, deny this, but it does leave the question I have asked of you many times, all of which you have never answered:When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you conducted a bio experiment?And you have the gall to complain that you haven't been shown evidence?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.