Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5967
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 151 of 697 (915070)
02-09-2024 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 12:25 PM


I am extremely busy with several things, but what you have posted and keep posting contains so many egregious errors and false notions that I must respond, albeit sporadically given my limited time.
Of course you will ignore my responses since you are a creationist (and sadly a rather typical one, though at first I did hold out some hope you would be different) and ignoring information in order to maintain a saintly state of willful ignorance has proven to be a fundamental article of faith for creationists. But others will also read my responses ("visitors", AKA "lurkers", used to be reported in the "online now" entry at the top of the page), so they can benefit even though you will refuse to allow yourself to.
Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.
Your basic mistake here is to decry "jargon", which you call "arcane technospeak". Your display of ignorance about professional discourse tells me that you have never worked in any kind of a profession. Given that your arrival here bears so many of the markings of the typical Christian school/Sunday School assignment of joining a forum in order to harass "evolutionists" (a typical creationist dog whistle that creationists have always refused to ever define (again, in my nearly FORTY YEARS experience with creationists) and which was the first thing to give you away). That combined with your obvious lack of professional experience tells me that you are probably still in high school ... or maybe in some Christian college.
Yes, professionals (not just engineers or scientists) are indeed generally eager to discuss their professional work, not with the general public but rather with their peers, with others in the same profession or in related ones.
Every single profession has its own specialized terminology and language with which professionals are able to communicate with each other efficiently, rapidly, and accurately. That "jargon" is based on common training, common professional knowledge, and common work experience, things that those outside that profession would not share with the professionals. Without any such "jargon", professionals would simply not be able to communicate effectively with other professionals.
Those outside those professions will complain about the use of jargon, as you have just done, but frankly those professionals do not care that you cannot understand their clearly understandable (to them) professional discourse. They are much more concerned with doing their work.
For myself, I have worked in carpentry, construction, as a digital electronics technician, engineer (AKA "intelligent designer"), served in the US Air Force and then the Navy Reserve, so I have learned the "jargon" of those fields (indeed, we can spot stolen valor almost immediately). In addition, I have studied several other fields such that I have knowledge of their jargon. Indeed, in almost every college or military course, the first lecture consists almost entirely of defining the terminology that the course will use.
So if you are so ignorant of jargon and its vital importance, then you must not have had any professional training or experience yet.
Now, what part of that do you not understand?
Explaining the technical aspects of one's field to non-professionals is a educational task with requires special skills that most professionals do not possess (nor care to) and preparation work that few have time for even if they had any such inclination.
Now, there's nothing to stop professionals with no educational training/preparation from trying to explain their work to non-professionals, it is rarely successful and often does not end well.
For example, the last two decades of my software engineering career I worked on a product line which disciplined a cheap oscillator (AKA "CAO" for "cheap-ass oscillator") in order to make it highly precise. The motivation is that such highly precise frequency and timing outputs are needed for communication networks (such as the ones connecting cell towers thus making our cell phones possible), but making a precise oscillator is too expensive. Now how would I explain to someone at a party what I did for a living? Just explaining the leap seconds part would go over most people's heads (refer to Message 99 for the creationist claim related to leap seconds). In one case (nurse brought in by the company for flu shots), even just the word "oscillator" flew high over her head, let alone what possible use one could have for an oscillator. That is how confused most scientists would leave non-scientists they tried to explain their work to.
So for a professional to explain his work to non-professionals, he must dumb it down for them. A lot is lost (and unintentionally added) in that translation. For example, a scientist is well aware of the degree of certainty of a particular conclusion as well as all the provisions, etc, that went into that, but he cannot include (or at least properly convey) all those things so that's all lost in its "dumbing down" such that a tentative though very highly likely conclusion ends up being construed as an absolute pronouncement.
And isn't that what you creationists always complain about? Eg, from your Message 107:
K.Rose writes:
These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.
That's because you're only familiar with the dumbed-down version which has to leave out all the provisos. But when scientists do include and explain all those provisos, then it turns into an essay or book that you complain about in the OP, Message 1:
K.Rose writes:
... explanations of evolution that require an essay or a book
You don't want the actual facts but rather want it dumbed down, but when we do dumb it down for you then you complain about that. So we try to explain it to you, filling in that missing information and you complain yet again that it's turning into an essay or book! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot-Oscar?
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. What the f*** do you want? Make up your mind!
When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.
No, you're grossly and dangerously off course and we're trying to warn you. But we have to get your attention first.
From Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, on a divided interstate highway from across the median to their right a car traveling in the same direction is trying to get their attention:
quote:
"You're going the wrong way! You're going to get someone killed!"
You're going the wrong way!
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 12:25 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 9:51 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 152 of 697 (915071)
02-09-2024 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Taq
02-09-2024 6:53 PM


quote:
Here
I only see odds of certain observations.
You clearly don't understand the difference between the odds of an observation and the odds or level of doubt for a theory being true or not.
So your claim remains wild and unsubstantiated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 6:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:04 PM sensei has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 153 of 697 (915072)
02-09-2024 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by sensei
02-09-2024 6:58 PM


sensei writes:
I only see odds of certain observations.
That's exactly what you asked for:
"And how have you determined that? How have you scientifically measured this level of doubt. And how high or how low is it?"--sensei
You clearly don't understand the difference between the odds of an observation and the odds or level of doubt for a theory being true or not.
Those are one in the same. The often used p value in science refers to the chances that a random set of data will produce a false positive. In the case of the match between the independent trees of morphology and the sequence of cytochrome c that probability is 1 in 1x10^38.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 6:58 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4500
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 154 of 697 (915073)
02-09-2024 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by sensei
02-09-2024 6:39 PM


sensei in Message 142 writes:
Cute argument, but very, very weak and far from being close to being any proof.
And yet, you offer no evidence to support your assertion, and once again, supporting evidence is what we use in science.
Nowhere is there a rule that says that a pattern is proof of relationship.
Yeah, we don't need a rule when the relationships are so obvious and and especially when we get the same patterns of relationship from completely different observations.
I note that you have not offered any counter evidence.
That is made up by supporters of your theory and repeated over and over again.
Actually, it is observed by scientists and their findings are reported in scientific publications and are subject to review by their peers.
Not for real science and for real and respectable researchers.
Feel free to cite some "real science from your real and respected researchers."
sensei in Message 142 writes:
So out of all the hundreds of times you supposedly have shown me proof, this is the best you can come up with? How weak!
Tanypteryx in Message 132 writes:
You must have been shown evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution a hundred times since you've been here.
I note that you have not offered any evidence to refute my statement in Message 137
Tanypteryx in Message 137 writes:
All life falls into nested hierarchies based on morphology, but also based on genetics, and ERV positions in the genomes, and proteins produced for specific functions. The patterns in these nested hierarchies (cladograms) show clear relationships that could happen through inheritance.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 6:39 PM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 155 of 697 (915074)
02-09-2024 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
02-09-2024 4:17 PM


ICANT writes:
The problem with evolution as I see it is that it is built on a lot of assumptions.
I challenge you to name even one that is specific to evolution and not an assumption used for all of science (e.g. scientific laws are consistent through time and space).
The biggest problem evolutionist have is how life began to exist from non life.
Baloney. We don't need to know how life started in order to determine how life changed once it was here. Not one word of the theory of evolution would need to be changed if God created the first replicators that gave rise to all biodiversity through evolutionary mechanisms. Even Darwin stated that the first life could have been created, and he even suggested that there were multiple origins:
quote:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2024 4:17 PM ICANT has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 156 of 697 (915075)
02-09-2024 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by K.Rose
02-09-2024 6:40 PM


If the random, non-directed evolution of one life form to another has been observed in operation and reproduced in the lab then please share the details.
You can't handle details yet. You still need basic understanding.
Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy
Fact is absolute certainty - 100%!
In your fantasy world of snakes and ribs and super-intelligent apples this may be so. But in this universe, as she has shown us many many times, facts are tentative.
I'll accept that Evolution is well-documented and well-studied, but how accurate is it, what is its certainty? For example, if we take one of the evolution diagrams showing the myriad life forms emanating from a common ancestor, how certain are we of its accuracy?
The available evidence shows quite starkly that the ToE is considerably more accurate than your bible. The other great benefit of ToE over your fantasy tome is that as research grows we can correct the diagrams to reflect the new data. You can't do that with ANY religion without starting a bloody war.
Those diagrams are as accurate as the whole discipline of hundreds of smart guys can make them. It is the best the intellect of mankind has to offer and YOU have NO standing, intellect, education to challenge any of them.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by K.Rose, posted 02-09-2024 6:40 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 157 of 697 (915076)
02-09-2024 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
02-09-2024 4:31 PM


ICANT writes:
Science? can't find the beginning to exist of one lifeform, and you are wanting to suggest a second lifeform beginning to exist?
Apparently your parents didn't teach you about the birds and the bees. You don't know about biological reproduction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2024 4:31 PM ICANT has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 158 of 697 (915078)
02-09-2024 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taq
02-09-2024 6:56 PM


Re: Mutations Confirm Common Descent
quote:
This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry. This evidence is exactly what we would expect to see if our models are true.
This is good evidence, as I admitted before, in all honesty. And I still stand by that.
It fits the model. And that is what we look for in science.
However, it does not prove as much as you want everyone to believe it does.
Because by similar reasoning, goes like this.
We see that diet changes can happen quite a lot. But most often, it does not change from carnivore to herbivore or the other way around. Far more often, carnivor remains carnivor and herbivor remains herbivor.
So lets compare changes in diets within one species. Well, we see the same pattern, mostly changes in same type of food, instead of going from meat to plants or vice versa.
And same applies when we compare the species with its close relatives.
This is no smoking gun proof of anything here. A herbivore most often remains herbivore, because their metabolism is built in a certain way.
With mutations in DNA, it is built in a certain way so it can function. If one change in DNA changes the structure more than another change, than that change is also more likely to cause a decrimental change in function.
So bottom line is, even without your model, with two distinct species without common ancestry, the idea that the species were built in certain ways and the observations that you showed, could easily fit and be compatible as well.
If DNA was all random, then you would have a strong point. But DNA has function, by its structure also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 6:56 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:29 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 159 of 697 (915079)
02-09-2024 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Taq
02-09-2024 7:04 PM


quote:
Those are one in the same. The often used p value in science refers to the chances that a random set of data will produce a false positive.
Common mistake in statistics. Those are certainly not the same.
If I have a model where every coin toss is 50-50 random, and I find 10 successive coin tosses to be tails, those odds would be less than 0.1%.
That does not mean that my model has of 50-50 random, has less than 0.1% chance to be true. You need to go back to statistics lessons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:04 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:35 PM sensei has replied
 Message 197 by Theodoric, posted 02-09-2024 11:05 PM sensei has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 160 of 697 (915080)
02-09-2024 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by sensei
02-09-2024 7:23 PM


Re: Mutations Confirm Common Descent
sensei writes:
Because by similar reasoning, goes like this.
We see that diet changes can happen quite a lot. But most often, it does not change from carnivore to herbivore or the other way around. Far more often, carnivor remains carnivor and herbivor remains herbivor.
Where is your data? What about omnivores? What about extinctions?
Nothing you are presenting is an issue. If food runs out for carnviores then they die out. Carnivores can also move to a different area, or hunt a different species.
With mutations in DNA, it is built in a certain way so it can function. If one change in DNA changes the structure more than another change, than that change is also more likely to cause a decrimental change in function.
That doesn't mean anything. "Built a certain way" means nothing. We need to see data.
So bottom line is, even without your model, with two distinct species without common ancestry, the idea that the species were built in certain ways and the observations that you showed, could easily fit and be compatible as well.
HOW?????
First, if species were separately created why would they even use the same genetic systems? Why would they use the same tRNA's and codons, as one example? Why would we see a nested hierarchy? Why would we see an excess of transitions over transversions when comparing their genomes?
You lack data. You lack specific testable hypotheses. You lack even a meaningful understanding of what the evidence is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:23 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 161 of 697 (915081)
02-09-2024 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by sensei
02-09-2024 7:28 PM


sensei writes:
Common mistake in statistics. Those are certainly not the same.
Yes, they are.
If I have a model where every coin toss is 50-50 random, and I find 10 successive coin tosses to be tails, those odds would be less than 0.1%.
‚Äč
That does not mean that my model has of 50-50 random, has less than 0.1% chance to be true. You need to go back to statistics lessons.
That's now how it works. This is something closer to how the original Student's t-test was worked out.
You claim that you can predict the flip of a coin. After 10 tosses you correctly predict all 10 flips. The chances of you randomly choosing correct is 2^10, or 1 in 1024. Therefore, the p value is 1/1024 or 0.09765625%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:28 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:38 PM Taq has replied
 Message 165 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:40 PM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 162 of 697 (915082)
02-09-2024 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Taq
02-09-2024 7:29 PM


Re: Mutations Confirm Common Descent
quote:
First, if species were separately created why would they even use the same genetic systems?
Are you really this clueless?
Why do cars from different brands, have same systems? Because they function in the same way. How is it that you ask this question even? I really thought that you were smarter than this, out of all the active members on this board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:40 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 163 of 697 (915083)
02-09-2024 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taq
02-09-2024 7:35 PM


quote:
Yes, they are.
Lol, no they are not. If you are so clueless on this matter (especially even after I showed a clear example), you should not do science, honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:42 PM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 164 of 697 (915084)
02-09-2024 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by sensei
02-09-2024 7:36 PM


Re: Mutations Confirm Common Descent
sensei writes:
Why do cars from different brands, have same systems?
They often don't. Cars can use diesel or electric motors. They can use automatic, manual, or CVT's as their transmissions. They can use completely different software written with different machine languages.
More to the point, cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy.
You also failed to even address what I wrote. Why would separately created species need to use the same tRNA's and codons? There is no physical law that requires the relationships seen between the anti-codons on tRNA's and the amino acids attached to them. The relationship is arbitrary. So why do we see the same genetic systems when they don't have to be the same in order for life to function?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:36 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by sensei, posted 02-09-2024 7:43 PM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 165 of 697 (915085)
02-09-2024 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taq
02-09-2024 7:35 PM


quote:
Therefore, the p value is 1/1024 or 0.09765625%.
Yes, now answer this. How likely is it that the coin was indeed very close to 50% chance for heads and 50% chance for tails each toss?
Is it 0.097... %?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 02-09-2024 7:43 PM sensei has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024