Are some people just too stupid to understand atheist arguments?

[EGarrett]

Highly un-PC thread here...and I hesitate to ever make statements about people's intelligence (usually there's no point)...but I would like to talk a little about the relationship between religious belief (or lack thereof) and intelligence. Granted, it's difficult to separate intelligence from education or social class...but we can still examine what evidence we have.

According to an informal poll last year...members of Mensa are twice as likely to be atheists as the general population. Mensa is of course, a group selected entirely for IQ scores and not education, social class etc. I also have run into a number of "theists" lately who have completely frustrated me when I try to explain things to them...especially when I mention the idea of logic or something that is fallacious. Whereas with some people, if you mention or explain that something is fallacious...it will 'click' with them pretty quickly and they will either move on to another argument or at least try to explain why what they're saying isn't what I said it was...these people don't do either. They just continue arguing as though you had barely said anything...then a few moments later they repeat the same fallacy.

Unfortunately, even though I pride myself on being able to explain anything in clear terms...I'm starting to get the overwhelming feeling that they're just too stupid to get through to...given the limited amount of time that you have in discussions...and no way to force them actually try to understand what you're saying.

It seems obvious that the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to be non-religious.

[JoeEllison]

I don't know that it is a matter of intelligence, as much as it is a complete an utter inability to apply that intelligence to matters involving religion. You'll find someone who is as bright as anyone you can think of, and the moment they find out you're an atheist, they'll say "well, you can't disprove God, so atheism is a religion" or something equally idiotic.

It is more of an intellectual blind spot than anything else. Of course, religious people seem to have plenty of those blind spots, which makes them seem really stupid.

[Giraffe107]

I think it also has more to do with 'ways' of thinking rather than IQ intelligence. For example, a friend of mine has a higher IQ than me- but his maths ability is much lower than mine (we were in the same advanced mathematics class in school). From my experience, it seems as though some people are not able to think things through rationally/logically. I see it more as the way you think, and how you have been trained by those around you.

[X]

I wouldn't call it unintelligence, either. As Joe Ellison said, it's a blind spot.

When people are raised from childhood being told repeatedly that god is all-knowing and all-loving, that the Bible is the true word of this god, and that god exists, it doesn't occur to anyone that alternative options legitimately exist.

Yes, they know about other faiths, and past god beliefs, but they also know that theirs is right. They've been told this every week for as long as they can remember, after all. At most, they'll rationalize it by saying something like "god is too mysterious to know intimately" or "all faiths are correct".

So when they meet somebody who doesn't follow anything they've been told is acceptable (and most theists are not told atheism is acceptable), it fires up a danger response, and they become closed to your opinion on the matter, for fear it might damage their cherished beliefs.

Just my $0.04

[Herzblut]

Are some people just too stupid to understand atheist arguments?
What are "atheist arguments"?

[pchams]

Dawkins addresses this in "The God Delusion" if briefly, for those who haven't read it.

[pchams]

What are "atheist arguments"?
I would guess, literally, arguments against theism, although I won't presume what the OP meant. Sounds a bit like a strawman ;)

[dirtywick]

Where do you all go to get into these random religious debates?

Anyway:

The type of person that's going to actually sit there and debate people they don't know about religion on the side of religion is already kind of stupid. I'd assume that most of the sensible folk would avoid the whole debacle off the jump because it's pretty much a waste of time, but they'd also have to realize that the belief they hold isn't based off of logic and facts, therefore countering any logical points is impossible. So, why bother?

Whereas the idiots that don't know any better sit there and spout stupid and think they're winning the debate. You won't convince them otherwise because they're stupid. Go check out the CT boards here or the Loose Change boards to see that live.

But be honest, when you have these debates, are you out to have a discussion or to prove people wrong? For real, I'm not the smartest guy around but even I can pick up when somebody is looking to talk down to me and not interested in what I say but rather in proving what I say is stupid, at which point as far as I'm concerned we're done talking and things will turn a lot more confrontational than fruitful communication. I'm not saying you do that, or maybe you do it without realizing it, I'm just saying it happens.

[Vic Vega]

I know someone who has a degree in aeronautical engineering. She now works as an IT consultant. Very bright woman. She is a Christian and doesn't believe in evolution.

I have a friend who worked with me (in IT) who went to Villanova on a full scholarship and graduated with an Astronomy degree. This guy is one of the smartest people I've ever met. We got on the subject of god. I said that I didn't believe in god and I was sure that he'd say the same. He said that he didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, but he did describe a force that could only be described as god-like.


Go figure...


People are weird. :jaw-dropp

[pchams]

Where do you all go to get into these random religious debates?

Anyway:

The type of person that's going to actually sit there and debate people they don't know about religion on the side of religion is already kind of stupid. I'd assume that most of the sensible folk would avoid the whole debacle off the jump because it's pretty much a waste of time, but they'd also have to realize that the belief they hold isn't based off of logic and facts, therefore countering any logical points is impossible. So, why bother?

Why bother?
Well, of course it can be interesting. Seems people have done it for millenia.
Secondly, when so many people base their decisions on faith, it's important to question it. When world decision makers do this, it can affect us all.
When people of faith convince the young with untruths, I think it is probably worth discussing.
You?

[fishkr]

So far all the arguments against your highly politically incorrect idea are just anectdotal. :)

But take a look at the U.S. Congress - I'll have to start peeling back pages, but I read somewhere a while back the IQ spread between Dems and Reps is about 30 points on average. Correlation between religious beliefs and parties is obvious.

Gotta look into it though.

[dirtywick]

Why bother?
Well, of course it can be interesting. Seems people have done it for millenia.
Secondly, when so many people base their decisions on faith, it's important to question it. When world decision makers do this, it can affect us all.
When people of faith convince the young with untruths, I think it is probably worth discussing.
You?

I figure it's not really my place. I do think it's interesting some of the time when it's not a talking down who can mock the other guy better match or trying to "win" an argument but an actual discussion with mutual respect. But you're not going to see that too often, especially with people you don't know. Which is why I say why bother; are you going to call people who's opinions your respect stupid? I don't think those are the people the OP is talking about.

For real though, it's not like you're really expecting to hear "oh, you're right!", are you?

[pchams]

For real though, it's not like you're really expecting to hear "oh, you're right!", are you?

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease". :)

When there is only one wheel in the race, what then?
The goal is to get people to think, and sometimes, some will change their opinions.
Which forum do you think you are posting on. The JREF promotes critical thinking. I don't know how to do that without questioning the entrenched dogma.

[dirtywick]

I think there's a difference between thinking critically and getting in arguments.

[pchams]

I think there's a difference between thinking critically and getting in arguments.
Fine, I'll accept that, but you may as well buy a cabin in the woods and sit on your hands waiting for the world to end at the hands of those who take action on their faith. False dichotomy I know, but I have met people who won't vote for the same reason.
Even Mohandas Ghandi produced arguments to further a purpose.

[dirtywick]

To be fair, I'm not really in a position to have a global impact with my thoughts on religion, and the little Korean lady handing out JW pamphlets on the bus isn't going to end the world. Those are the types of situations I'm talking about.

I'm not saying never put out your thoughts, but rather little discretion will save you a lot of headaches, because you know that lady isn't going to listen to a word you're saying but she'll argue with you until your stop. Why bother, you see what I'm saying?

[pchams]

To be fair, I'm not really in a position to have a global impact with my thoughts on religion, and the little Korean lady handing out JW pamphlets on the bus isn't going to end the world. Those are the types of situations I'm talking about.

I'm not saying never put out your thoughts, but rather little discretion will save you a lot of headaches, because you know that lady isn't going to listen to a word you're saying but she'll argue with you until your stop. Why bother, you see what I'm saying?

Yes. I see what you're saying, and choose to disagree. Don't forget, there are others on the bus.
Death of a thousand cuts.
If one doesn't speak up, one lets others speak for them.

[Herzblut]

I would guess, literally, arguments against theism, although I won't presume what the OP meant. Sounds a bit like a strawman ;)
Hmm, I don't argue against theism per se because the truth of atheism doesn't automatically generate any arguments against religious faith. And I dislike to be taken in by some post-9/11 anti-religious paranoids from the U.S.

[TuftedPuffin]

The problem is, this argument is based not just on a moral matter, but on a matter of fact:whether or not people are converted by the described efforts. I'm not aware of any reasonably scientific studies on the matter (though I'm far from knowledgeable in this area), so I would have to say that until someone figures out how people get converted, we really won't know.

[dirtywick]

Yes. I see what you're saying, and choose to disagree. Don't forget, there are others on the bus.
Death of a thousand cuts.
If one doesn't speak up, one lets others speak for them.

That's cool. Personally I don't have the time or inclination for all of that, but I'm glad some people do.

[pchams]

Hmm, I don't argue against theism per se because the truth of atheism doesn't automatically generate any arguments against religious faith. And I dislike to be taken in by some post-9/11 anti-religious paranoids from the U.S.

What is "the truth of atheism"?
I don't understand the truth of non-belief. The truth of non-stamp collecting.
Perhaps your world belief is threatened by those questioning such faith?

[Herzblut]

What is "the truth of atheism"? ;)
Truth of the proposition "God does not exist".

[pchams]

Truth of the proposition "God does not exist".

We are born with no such proposition. It is instilled.
Many gods over the years were instilled in childrens' minds.
The Abrahamic god only being one of the most recent.

There is no proposition without first, the creation of such entity in a human mind.
So "God does not exist" does not exist without first the creation of said god and the positive claim.

[danielk]

Correlation between religious beliefs and parties is obvious.
So? How many prominent Democrats can you name who aren't religious?

Their beliefs may be more liberal but it's still woo. Sometimes even more so, since liberal believers tend to amass even more contradictions than conservative ones.

[Herzblut]

We are born with no such proposition. It is instilled.
Many gods over the years were instilled in childrens' minds.
The Abrahamic god only being one of the most recent.

There is no proposition without first, the creation of such entity in a human mind.

I don't think any kind of image of god is created in one's mind, it's more the history of and foundation of the religion, its moral codes and central messages. God itself is hardly imaginable. In any case, what you call "instill" is a basic human right named "freedom of religion". Parents who want to educate their kids in a religious manner are free to do so. I don't see how that can be any subject to debate from a secular humanist standpoint. Human rights must be respected.


So "God does not exist" does not exist without first the creation of said god and the positive claim.
Sure. And that positive claim is abundant, has always been and will always be, most probably. If the goal is to move a society towards secularity, Western Europe seems to be the best subject to study on how to do that. Agressive, anti-religious stances are definately not part of the plan.

[El Greco]

I know someone who has a degree in aeronautical engineering. She now works as an IT consultant. Very bright woman. She is a Christian and doesn't believe in evolution.

I can see how an uneducated person can be very bright and not believe in evolution. I can also see how a very bright educated person can believe in God. But I can't figure out how a very bright educated person doesn't believe in evolution, in the 21st century.

[pchams]

I don't think any kind of image of god is created in one's mind, it's more the history of and foundation of the religion, its moral codes and central messages. God itself is hardly imaginable. In any case, what you call "instill" is a basic human right named "freedom of religion". Parents who want to educate their kids in a religious manner are free to do so. I don't see how that can be any subject to debate from a secular humanist standpoint. Human rights must be respected.


Sure. And that positive claim is abundant, has always been and will always be, most probably. If the goal is to move a society towards secularity, Western Europe seems to be the best subject to study on how to do that. Agressive, anti-religious stances are definately not part of the plan.

What you are talking about is tribal culture. Something we humans probably needed to evolve to this point.
What I mean by "instill" is not in anyway freedom of religion. It is brainwashing of children. We have history to observe, and we shouldn't be so proud. I think we can be less violent.
Anti-religious stances are exactly what we need, as this is our evolution.
The religionist stances have run their course, and done their damage.

It is time to stand up for humanist ideals.

As to the ridiculous atheists' proposition:
I just can't imagine you walking around saying purple mosquito walruses don't exist. Really they don't!
Welcome to lock up.

[Herzblut]

What you are talking about is tribal culture. Something we humans probably needed to evolve to this point.
What I mean by "instill" is not in anyway freedom of religion. It is brainwashing of children. We have history to observe, and we shouldn't be so proud.

The last sentence contradicts the rest of your statement somehow. I could actually put it as a response to it. Again: you might call religious education, being a part of religious freedom, however you want to but you will not remove it.


I think we can be less violent.

Religious education is a negative indicator for committing violence.


Anti-religious stances are exactly what we need, as this is our evolution.
The religionist stances have run their course, and done their damage.

Good luck! :D


As to the ridiculous atheists' proposition:
I just can't imagine you walking around saying purple mosquito walruses don't exist. Really they don't!
Don't be silly. Nobody claims such nonsense. BTW, I'm neither shouting "God does not exist" in public places. Nobody would give a ****. Well, some might mercifully throw a coin into my hat, religious people probably.

[Beerina]

So? How many prominent Democrats can you name who aren't religious?

Their beliefs may be more liberal but it's still woo. Sometimes even more so, since liberal believers tend to amass even more contradictions than conservative ones.

Worse, most of 'em on both sides of the aisle are probably lying about believing. To their power-hungry mindsets, lying that they believe is just one of the manipulations of the masses you do in your quest for power.

[Tanstaafl]

I can see how an uneducated person can be very bright and not believe in evolution. I can also see how a very bright educated person can believe in God. But I can't figure out how a very bright educated person doesn't believe in evolution, in the 21st century.


It's strange, but it seems to happen. I have a former cow-orker, who is a very bright software engineer. I don't really know how good an education he got in biology, probably only in high school. But judging by his arguments he only gets science information now from places like Answers in Genesis. He clearly avoids seeing any real science for fear it will threaten his beliefs. It takes some effort to maintain this level of ignorance, but there are many creationist authors working hard to protect believers from science.

[Big Les]

Not all, not even most, religious people are stupid, but most stupid people are religious.

For the rest it's a case of ignorance, often wilful ignorance. As an analogy, I have serious problems understanding mathematical concepts, and don't see the utility of bothering to try. It frustrates me and needlessly complicates my view of the world, so by and large I ignore it. But if a sit down and apply myself, I can make sense of at least some of it, enough to realise that there's something going on that might be beyond my ken and won't practically be much use to me, but is nonetheless an objective way of analysing the real world.

Maybe that's too tortured an analogy, based on the fact that I like to think I'm not stupid. Or maybe I am stupid when it comes to maths, and lots of religious people are stupid when it comes to the aspects of science that confound them.

[billydkid]

Umm, yeah.

[schlitt]

I have often pondered this matter (relating to the OP) and in my opinion a large proportion of people do not have the capacity to grasp many concepts vital to the argument against religion.

There are three main categories which i believe most people are able to understand fully, usually what happens is they try to convey that they understand, but disagree with your perspective. When the real case is, they are failing to grasp to subtleties and logical ramifications of your point. I think this is a failing in being able to see connections in the premise with other known facts, and therefore failing to extrapolate correctly the needed logic required for reaching the desired conclusion.

These categories are:

-Free will and determinism.

-Grasping the concept of eternity/vast expanses of time.

-The interrelation between matter and perceived reality.

I think intelligence has a huge role to play, yet it is such a dispersed and inherently indefinable thing.
People often regard someone who acheived good marks at college and who has a PhD as being intelligent. However his/her percieved intelligence is only relative to the activities required to complete his/her studies. This person could be lacking hugely in other cognitive areas.

Assuming in an argument there is a truth, lets say the argument is 2 + 2 = 4, if someone argues it is 3, and continues to argue this even when shown evidence that it is 4 through provable mathematics, the real issue is that the person is failing to understand/grasp the concept. If they did understand, they would come to the correct conclusion.
This applies with most arguments, it is a case of one of the parties failing to grasp the necessary data with which to form the correct conclusion.

[Mobyseven]

It is more of an intellectual blind spot than anything else. Of course, religious people seem to have plenty of those blind spots, which makes them seem really stupid.

Quoted for truth.

[schlitt]

I agree, Joe, Moby, but what is it that causes those blindspots?
Lack of capacity?
Willful ignorance?

Personally i think a large portion would be lack of capacity.

[A Christian Sceptic]

-Free will and determinism.

-Grasping the concept of eternity/vast expanses of time.

-The interrelation between matter and perceived reality.


I'd love to hear your arguments based on these three items. Are these arguments against God? Or a particular God? Or any Gods?

But if you think I'm too stupid I understand.:rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

It seems obvious that the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to be non-religious.
You seem to be confusing intelligence and level of education in your soap box style internet post.

I will also point out the archetypical tension between "love" and "reason," two primal forces pulling against each other (put to music nicely by Rush on their Hemispheres album), are modelled on observed human behavior over the millenia. Joe E somewhat alludes to that point earlier, from a different direction.

DR

[schlitt]

But if you think I'm too stupid I understand.:rolleyes:

Considering you have gone this many years failing to grasp them, there is a good possibility of that. ;)

They do not relate specifically to a particular god, but are logical perspectives of reality which throw a spanner into the works of many purported theological truths.

[MilwaukeeMike]

You could look at religion like playing the odds at a casino.

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does really exist and you get into "heaven." +

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does exist, but not the God you worshiped and you go to hell. -

20% chance that after spending your entire life not believing in God, God does really exist, you go to hell. -

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does not exist, your life is simply over when you die. I.E. No afterlife =

20% chance that after spending your entire life not believing in God, God does not exist, your life is simply over when you die. (No after life) =

40% chance of eternal damnation...... 60% chance of either salvation or no negative consequences after you die.

Believe in God
66.67% chance of salvation….
33.33% chance of damnation…

Don’t believe in God
50% chance of no negative outcomes after death.
50% chance of damnation

It seems the more logical path would be to believe in God because the odds are better.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Considering you have gone this many years failing to grasp them, there is a good possibility of that. ;)

Oh, OK. Well then, nevermind.

[A Christian Sceptic]

They do not relate specifically to a particular god, but are logical perspectives of reality which throw a spanner into the works of many purported theological truths.

Many or all purported theological truths?

[schlitt]

Oh, OK. Well then, nevermind.

I am more than happy to discuss these things with you in another thread?

[schlitt]

Many or all purported theological truths?

Many.

For an obvious example consider judgement by a creator relating to fairness and determinism.

[danielk]

The problem with threads like this one is that many religious believers generally think the same way about unbelievers as we do about them.

Also, I don't think atheism is hard to understand. Theology is hard to understand. You need to be really intelligent to be able to endlessly engage in twists of thought without ever being bored. And that just to make ends meet.

I think the real main ingredient is a desire to keep observable reality and your thought model of the world in sync. Of course it helps to not be dumb, but I don't think it is necessary to have much more than average intelligence to understand atheism. Plus, you don't even need to understand it in order to be one. :)

[A Christian Sceptic]

I am more than happy to discuss these things with you in another thread?

OK - start another thread. Maybe just keep it with those three examples. I would find it fascinating.

[grayman]

You could look at religion like playing the odds at a casino.

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does really exist and you get into "heaven." +

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does exist, but not the God you worshiped and you go to hell. -

20% chance that after spending your entire life not believing in God, God does really exist, you go to hell. -

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does not exist, your life is simply over when you die. I.E. No afterlife =

20% chance that after spending your entire life not believing in God, God does not exist, your life is simply over when you die. (No after life) =

40% chance of eternal damnation...... 60% chance of either salvation or no negative consequences after you die.

Believe in God
66.67% chance of salvation….
33.33% chance of damnation…

Don’t believe in God
50% chance of no negative outcomes after death.
50% chance of damnation

It seems the more logical path would be to believe in God because the odds are better.

Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager) (more info here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#pascal)).

As Greydon Square (http://www.myspace.com/greydonsquare) points out, you can apply that to any of the many gods that humans have created through history. Even FSM. :)

[danielk]

I have to admit that the repeated use of Pascal's wager is actually pretty good evidence in favor of the thesis in the thread title. For some reason it's a favorite that just won't die out.

[verisimilidude]

Is someone by definition stupid if they choose not to apply the scientific method to validate (or invalidate) their own religious beliefs? I don't think so. It reflects more upon their own value system. That is, they have made a conscious choice to accept as true a system of beliefs that in some very personal way is consistent how they already perceive reality, despite the lack of objective evidence to support it.

I've had so many religious people tell me that they see evidence of God's existence "everywhere". They do not define "evidence" in terms of any scientifically measurable, empirical data. It is purely a subjective and superficial interpretation of the objects and events which they encounter every day.

I don't know how to explain the phenomenon, but evidently it is a very human one, albeit not universal. And to attribute this common trait to simply "stupidity" is in my book no less a subjective and superficial observation of the most fascinating of all objects, i.e., the human mind.

[Silentknight]

I can only speak from my own experience, but even an understanding of what atheism is has proven to be an "intellectual blind spot" among many people. This may have to do with the popular misconceptions about atheism. Usually when I tell someone I'm an atheist, I immediately end up having to define it for them and then defend that definition.

I've gotten people who think that an atheist is someone who asserts that there is no God. They cannot grasp why I would want to have open discussions about people's faith, believing that this behavior is highly offensive, and that political correctness is of utmost importance. They confuse intellectual honesty with arrogance. They think that disagreeing with someone's beliefs is the same as making a personal attack. They say that atheism is a religion that requires faith. Because they do not understand how anyone could possibly be moral without God telling them what not to do, they have accused me of being self-righteous.

To be honest, I've also been sorely tempted to use the word "stupid" to describe them, but intellectual laziness / apathy / dishonesty might be a better term. There are just some topics that many people have not given much thought to, so they latch on to the popular misconceptions because all the thinking has already been done for them.


Also, regarding the person who posted Pascal's Wager-- *points* HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[EGarrett]

You seem to be confusing intelligence and level of education in your soap box style internet post....Granted, it's difficult to separate intelligence from education or social class...but we can still examine what evidence we have.

According to an informal poll last year...members of Mensa are twice as likely to be atheists as the general population. Mensa is of course, a group selected entirely for IQ scores and not education, social class etc.

[MilwaukeeMike]

I have to admit that the repeated use of Pascal's wager is actually pretty good evidence in favor of the thesis in the thread title. For some reason it's a favorite that just won't die out.

I'm neither arguing for or against atheism. I'm simply pointing out the probabilities since it hadn't been mentioned yet. Fortunately, I like to visit threads discussing topics I haven't discussed or viewed yet; this is my first time discussing anything of this nature. Yet because you would rather try and bring somebody down instead of bringing other useful pieces of information to the table, I've wasted five minutes my life writing all of this. Maybe the problem here is not Pascal's Wager being brought up for the "first time" in this thread, but actually the discussion between god and atheists. This general idea has been beat like a dead horse repeatedly on JREF; along with other topics such as global warming and the reason for going to war in Iraq. The arguments between atheists and believers has not changed for, lets see, 2008 years. (At least for Christianity) If people keep starting threads about this topic, then the same ideas are going to be brought up in the course of discussing the topic. Stop reading threads on the same topic if you are tired of reading the same ideas about that topic. If bringing certain informational points to a discussion is a form of stupidity, than JREF is the central hub of "stupid" on the internet.

P.S. - - For future reference, I would rather be called unintelligent to my "face" (computer screen) than for you to disguise it.:mad:

[MilwaukeeMike]

Is someone by definition stupid if they choose not to apply the scientific method to validate (or invalidate) their own religious beliefs? I don't think so. It reflects more upon their own value system. That is, they have made a conscious choice to accept as true a system of beliefs that in some very personal way is consistent how they already perceive reality, despite the lack of objective evidence to support it.

I've had so many religious people tell me that they see evidence of God's existence "everywhere". They do not define "evidence" in terms of any scientifically measurable, empirical data. It is purely a subjective and superficial interpretation of the objects and events which they encounter every day.

I don't know how to explain the phenomenon, but evidently it is a very human one, albeit not universal. And to attribute this common trait to simply "stupidity" is in my book no less a subjective and superficial observation of the most fascinating of all objects, i.e., the human mind.

I agree with you. If anything, I want people to follow a moral and ethical life, if being religious is the path that gets them there, so be it. I know plenty of hard working, very tolerant, non-racist, loving, kind, gentle, forgiving Christians in my community who would welcome any atheist here into their homes for whatever help they need. They would never question their beliefs. I understand there are some religious wackos out there, but that can be said about religion, political party, government, so on. So to completely bunch every person who is religious into a category that makes them less of a person is absolutely unacceptable.

How about instead of discussing a topic that no one will have the answer to until they die, why don't we discuss why you became an atheist. When you became religious? Stories? People you know? So on. The argument between atheism, god, and stupidity is one that can't be answered and will only lead people to fall back into their stereotypical defensive posture, spouting out rhetoric, bias, and opinion that is more appropriate for Billo's show than JREF.:confused:

[Robin]

Believe in God
66.67% chance of salvation….
33.33% chance of damnation…

33.33% chance of damnation…
66.67% chance of spending eternity with the kind of sick mind that could come up with such an obscene idea….

Seems the ethical choice is disbelief.

[bpesta22]

Oddly enough the only society / association for IQ researchers had its conference just last week. Three or so poster sessions were on the relationship between belief and IQ. All three had data showing an inverse relationship.

For those who've debated re IQ here, I found out the James Flynn is a "rabid atheist"

Coincidentally, I have a data set in on about 450 people measuring IQ, basic information processing and then surveying belief, religiosity and spirituality.

Haven't yet looked at the data, but I'm happy the topic seems timely!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Highly un-PC thread here...and I hesitate to ever make statements about people's intelligence (usually there's no point)...but I would like to talk a little about the relationship between religious belief (or lack thereof) and intelligence. Granted, it's difficult to separate intelligence from education or social class...but we can still examine what evidence we have.

I despise religion and I do not believe that macro-evolution is supported scientifically. What does this make me?

According to an informal poll last year...members of Mensa are twice as likely to be atheists as the general population. Mensa is of course, a group selected entirely for IQ scores and not education, social class etc. I also have run into a number of "theists" lately who have completely frustrated me when I try to explain things to them...especially when I mention the idea of logic or something that is fallacious. Whereas with some people, if you mention or explain that something is fallacious...it will 'click' with them pretty quickly and they will either move on to another argument or at least try to explain why what they're saying isn't what I said it was...these people don't do either. They just continue arguing as though you had barely said anything...then a few moments later they repeat the same fallacy.

You are forgetting that Mensa is self selected.

Unfortunately, even though I pride myself on being able to explain anything in clear terms...I'm starting to get the overwhelming feeling that they're just too stupid to get through to...given the limited amount of time that you have in discussions...and no way to force them actually try to understand what you're saying.

Have you considered that you may be have come to an incorrect conclusion?

It seems obvious that the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to be non-religious.

Curious that most intelligent people throughout history have been religious. What do you think accounts for this?

[danielk]

I'm neither arguing for or against atheism. I'm simply pointing out the probabilities since it hadn't been mentioned yet.
Trust me, it has been mentioned. That's probably the understatement of the year. It isn't a forum thing actually. Pascal's Wager just happens to be the most favorite argument against atheism, from what I've seen in the wild (read: all over the Internet).

Maybe the problem here is not Pascal's Wager being brought up for the "first time" in this thread, but actually the discussion between god and atheists.
I'm a bit confused by your choice of words. It's logically impossible to have a discussion between god and atheists. Note that I'm not trying to be facetious; I really didn't get what you wanted to say.

Stop reading threads on the same topic if you are tired of reading the same ideas about that topic. If bringing certain informational points to a discussion is a form of stupidity, than JREF is the central hub of "stupid" on the internet.
It appears you're getting worked up about something you don't like about the forum, but I'm not sure if I should feel addressed. I wasn't complaining about the frequent reiteration of a specific argument on this forum. Please say so if I misinterpreted what you said.

For future reference, I would rather be called unintelligent to my "face" (computer screen) than for you to disguise it.:mad:
Sorry. I didn't intend to insult anyone in particular; I just noticed that someone quoted someone else using Pascal's Wager and I made a snarky remark about it. Again, I didn't mean to insult you or anyone else personally.

It appears that you are simply not familiar with Pascal's Wager. I'm a bit too tired to elaborate on it right now, but you could just look it up anyway. Once you're familiar with the argument and its peculiarities (short story: it backfires big time on multiple levels), you'll probably understand our reaction. :) If I'm in the mood for a religious "fight", I love nothing more than for the theist to use Pascal's Wager. It really is that bad. :p

[Achán hiNidráne]

It seems the more logical path would be to believe in God because the odds are better.

Yaaaaawn. Pascal's Wager. Been there, done that, not playing.

I see that other posters have been faster on the draw than I on this one.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I despise religion and I do not believe that macro-evolution is supported scientifically. What does this make me?


To answer this question honestly would be a violation of forum policy.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To answer this question honestly would be a violation of forum policy.

What a wonderful example of an intelligent and reasoned answer.

[Mobyseven]

I agree, Joe, Moby, but what is it that causes those blindspots?
Lack of capacity?
Willful ignorance?

Personally i think a large portion would be lack of capacity.

I honestly don't know. If I had to hazard a guess I would say that it is because religious indoctrination is so effective that many people are unable to even contemplate a real skeptical analysis of their religion - it falls outside of anything they can even conceive of. Also possible is the credo consolans viewpoint - people who refuse to examine their belief because it is comforting to them, people who wouldn't get through the day without believing in a 'higher power'.

But when all is said and done, I'm still guessing. Guesses informed by basic observation, so they're more likely to be true than, say, "Believers believe because they receive death threats on a daily basis from men in black suits," but still not any kind of guess I'd put money on in a bar bet.

[Furi]

£0.02 (and adding very little that hasn't already been said.)

I don't think it is a matter of intelligence, just reason, if it tended to intelligence then their would be a sort of nice grey area in the average intel range that would show different probabilities than at the other ends of the curve (it also depends on the definition of intelligence, I think anyone that can do spatial reasoning is pretty damned clever)

As has been pointed out by others, I know many V Intelligent weel Educated people that are Theist, they just hit the "LA LA LA Not Listening ... nooo you endanger my soul go away foul demon" the moment anything that questions their belief in god, (they may just be playing the numbers)

one guy has degrees in one of the Engineering Physics disciplines maths Quals, and Lectures on 3D Game design, he is used to logic, practicality, numbers etc, whilst agnostic he also accepts every bit of woo there is, from the paranormal, Homeopathy and nearly all CTs, his motto is that if it didn't exist no-one would have thought of it, and that all is working to a design of unknown origin.

I also find that a lot of people with these blind areas that they will not look at with the critical eye they cast over everything else, also tend not to be able to joke about themselves either (or take a joke directed at themselves).

quick joke
3 suicide Bombers walk into a bar,
full story at 9

[Tricky]

I despise religion and I do not believe that macro-evolution is supported scientifically. What does this make me?
Uneducated in natural science.

You are forgetting that Mensa is self selected.
No, there is a test. Anybody can take it. Anyone who can pass it is allowed in Mensa.

Curious that most intelligent people throughout history have been religious. What do you think accounts for this?
The culture in which they were raised. Most intelligent people throughout history have believed in the specific religion of their region. These regional religions tend to directly contradict the religions of other regions. What do you think accounts for that?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Uneducated in natural science.

I have a full understanding of the theory. It is a weak scientific theory which does not use the scientific method.


No, there is a test. Anybody can take it. Anyone who can pass it is allowed in Mensa.

Self selected by those who choose to take the test.


The culture in which they were raised. Most intelligent people throughout history have believed in the specific religion of their region. These regional religions tend to directly contradict the religions of other regions. What do you think accounts for that?

Exactly what your wrote.

This fact is in dispute with the premise that "believers" are necessarily not intelligent.

[Tricky]

I have a full understanding of the theory. It is a weak scientific theory which does not use the scientific method.
If you think it does not use the scientific method, then I have a hard time believing you have a full or even good understanding of the theory, or of the scientific method. The theory is supported by more data than perhaps any other theory other than gravity. I use it every day at my work and it is almost completely reliable. The few instances where we have found anomalies have been due to human and/or sampling error.

Self selected by those who choose to take the test. You can elect to be out, but you can not elect to be in, thus it is not self-selected. You cannot "decide" to be smart (although you can decide to be educated, which helps make you more intelligent.) For my own part, I've never taken a Mensa test because I do not approve of their goals.

I This fact is in dispute with the premise that "believers" are necessarily not intelligent.
If you look at the thread title, that is not the premise. The premise is not that "believers" are necessarily less intelligent, but that as a group they are less intelligent. I do not doubt that a sampling of a large number of theists and atheists would support the premise that statistically, the atheist group had more intelligence (Like this study (http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/explorations/2004/clark.pdf)). That does not mean that any given individual of either group is intelligent or unintelligent.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you look at the thread title, that is not the premise. The premise is not that "believers" are necessarily less intelligent, but that as a group they are less intelligent. I do not doubt that a sampling of a large number of theists and atheists would support the premise that statistically, the atheist group had more intelligence (Like this study (http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/explorations/2004/clark.pdf)). That does not mean that any given individual of either group is intelligent or unintelligent.

Interesting study. I doubt we can glean much from the study as there were only 6 atheists that participated.

[ponderingturtle]

Highly un-PC thread here...and I hesitate to ever make statements about people's intelligence (usually there's no point)...but I would like to talk a little about the relationship between religious belief (or lack thereof) and intelligence. Granted, it's difficult to separate intelligence from education or social class...but we can still examine what evidence we have.

According to an informal poll last year...members of Mensa are twice as likely to be atheists as the general population. Mensa is of course, a group selected entirely for IQ scores and not education, social class etc. I also have run into a number of "theists" lately who have completely frustrated me when I try to explain things to them...especially when I mention the idea of logic or something that is fallacious. Whereas with some people, if you mention or explain that something is fallacious...it will 'click' with them pretty quickly and they will either move on to another argument or at least try to explain why what they're saying isn't what I said it was...these people don't do either. They just continue arguing as though you had barely said anything...then a few moments later they repeat the same fallacy.

Unfortunately, even though I pride myself on being able to explain anything in clear terms...I'm starting to get the overwhelming feeling that they're just too stupid to get through to...given the limited amount of time that you have in discussions...and no way to force them actually try to understand what you're saying.

It seems obvious that the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to be non-religious.

I think this is somewhat flawed. As arguements for and against theistic beliefs of all kinds that do not make testable claims about the world, these arguements are fundamentaly emotional and aesthetic arguments.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you think it does not use the scientific method, then I have a hard time believing you have a full or even good understanding of the theory, or of the scientific method. The theory is supported by more data than perhaps any other theory other than gravity. I use it every day at my work and it is almost completely reliable. The few instances where we have found anomalies have been due to human and/or sampling error.

Could you please point out a study which replicates macro-evolution?

[ponderingturtle]

I can see how an uneducated person can be very bright and not believe in evolution. I can also see how a very bright educated person can believe in God. But I can't figure out how a very bright educated person doesn't believe in evolution, in the 21st century.

Well there are two reasons. One is that they have never studied it. The other is that they can not accept their belief to be wrong.

The ones who are able to be attacked in any real manner are the ones who claim the physical evidence supports them. If they make no such claims that this is just one more untestable religious idea.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You can elect to be out, but you can not elect to be in, thus it is not self-selected. You cannot "decide" to be smart (although you can decide to be educated, which helps make you more intelligent.) For my own part, I've never taken a Mensa test because I do not approve of their goals.

Education does not make one more intelligent. Intelligence is inherent in the same manner that physical strength is inherent. One can train the mind as one can train the body but there are limits. Education is dependent upon the leader of the lesson.

educere = to lead forth

[Big Les]

Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time; an artificial distinction in my view. But what exactly are you asking for evidence for? Speciation? We have that evidence, along with buttload more (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

[Furi]

Could you please point out a study which replicates macro-evolution?

Which particular ever evolving and specialising defintion of creationist Macro-evolution do you mean?

what level of evolution would you require, extreme specialisation or speciation*, do you want to see my yeast ferms evolve into a primate suddenly.

*Had to look at that, the words are too similar.

[Tricky]

Education does not make one more intelligent. Intelligence is inherent in the same manner that physical strength is inherent. One can train the mind as one can train the body but there are limits.
Since what we are talking about is relative intelligence, it doesn't matter that there are limits. There is little doubt that many factors, including education and other forms of mental training, can increase intelligence relative to others as measured by any available tests.

Brains, like muscles, become stronger when you exercise them.

[grayman]

I have to admit that the repeated use of Pascal's wager is actually pretty good evidence in favor of the thesis in the thread title. For some reason it's a favorite that just won't die out.

Also, regarding the person who posted Pascal's Wager-- *points* HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I hope you understand that I was pointing out that Milwaukee Mike was incorporating Pascal's Wager.

[Tricky]

Could you please point out a study which replicates macro-evolution?
If you think that replication of an effect is necessary to show that it exists, then your understanding of the scientific method is badly flawed.

Would you say that tectonics is a poor theory because we cannot replicate building a mountain range?

[ponderingturtle]

You could look at religion like playing the odds at a casino.

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does really exist and you get into "heaven." +

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does exist, but not the God you worshiped and you go to hell. -

20% chance that after spending your entire life not believing in God, God does really exist, you go to hell. -

20% chance that after spending your entire life living the way your religion deems, God does not exist, your life is simply over when you die. I.E. No afterlife =

20% chance that after spending your entire life not believing in God, God does not exist, your life is simply over when you die. (No after life) =

40% chance of eternal damnation...... 60% chance of either salvation or no negative consequences after you die.

Believe in God
66.67% chance of salvation….
33.33% chance of damnation…

Don’t believe in God
50% chance of no negative outcomes after death.
50% chance of damnation

It seems the more logical path would be to believe in God because the odds are better.

Um This is entirely wrong. Assuming equal probabilities Both sides have a 50% chance of there being nothing after death.

They differ in the remaining percentage. Assuming that there is only a 50% chance that you believe in the right god(given the numbers of gods this seems unlikely) they would have a 25% chance of damnation and a 25% chance at salvation.

Then you need to further vet it by the chances that they achieved the requirements by their belief system for salvation and so on.

The first flaw in this is that there are more than two mutually exclusive definitions of god. There are also many definitions of what is needed to be saved.

Then there are all the religions that do not use damnation and salvation.

There is also the issue of what a god would think of you believing in no gods vs believing in the wrong one and which is worse, that might fall in the atheists favor.

[Furi]

Would you say that tectonics is a poor theory because we cannot replicate building a mountain range?

you could always use the skin on top of a yummy egg custard, Plus you get to eat your model afterwards...

[normdoering]

According to an informal poll last year...members of Mensa are twice as likely to be atheists as the general population.

There's a blogger by the name of Vox Day who claims to be a member of Mensa and he's one of the most screwed up Christians I've ever read. I've written about him a couple times on my own blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/ugly-and-vile-spin-some-christianists.html
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/religions-war-on-science-part-1.html
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-morality.html

[normdoering]

What are "atheist arguments"?

What you get when you type "atheist arguments" into Google.

[Piscivore]

Education does not make one more intelligent. Intelligence is inherent in the same manner that physical strength is inherent.

Yeah, not at all. Unless you can show me a baby that can bench press 200lbs or factor polynomials, that is.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Trust me, it has been mentioned. That's probably the understatement of the year. It isn't a forum thing actually. Pascal's Wager just happens to be the most favorite argument against atheism, from what I've seen in the wild (read: all over the Internet).

Only if the same people mention it on the hundreds of threads about this topic. This is the first time I have mentioned anything remotely similar to Pascal's wager on any thread based on this topic.


I'm a bit confused by your choice of words. It's logically impossible to have a discussion between god and atheists. Note that I'm not trying to be facetious; I really didn't get what you wanted to say.

You can between believing and not believing in god, essentially what I was trying to say. If not, this topic should not be brought up on JREF because it is impossible to discuss.


It appears you're getting worked up about something you don't like about the forum, but I'm not sure if I should feel addressed. I wasn't complaining about the frequent reiteration of a specific argument on this forum. Please say so if I misinterpreted what you said..

I am not upset about anything other than you basically calling me unintelligent because I brought something up you feel is mentioned to often on JREF. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that. Nonetheless, the same arguments are going to be acknowledged if the same topics are routinely beat dead on thread after thread.


Sorry. I didn't intend to insult anyone in particular; I just noticed that someone quoted someone else using Pascal's Wager and I made a snarky remark about it. Again, I didn't mean to insult you or anyone else personally.

Sorry, I read too much into what you wrote.

It appears that you are simply not familiar with Pascal's Wager. I'm a bit too tired to elaborate on it right now, but you could just look it up anyway. Once you're familiar with the argument and its peculiarities (short story: it backfires big time on multiple levels), you'll probably understand our reaction. :) If I'm in the mood for a religious "fight", I love nothing more than for the theist to use Pascal's Wager. It really is that bad. :p


I'm aware of Pascal's wager, yet never mentioned it in my posts. I simply came up with some simple odds, somewhat jokingly, and applied them to religion.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Um This is entirely wrong. Assuming equal probabilities Both sides have a 50% chance of there being nothing after death.

They differ in the remaining percentage. Assuming that there is only a 50% chance that you believe in the right god(given the numbers of gods this seems unlikely) they would have a 25% chance of damnation and a 25% chance at salvation.

I'm going to stick with my numbers, I like them better. :) Besides I won't argue with somebody over something that can never be proven either way. I was somewhat jokingly making that post, as I made sure not to mention Pascal's wager in my original post.

Then you need to further vet it by the chances that they achieved the requirements by their belief system for salvation and so on.

The first flaw in this is that there are more than two mutually exclusive definitions of god. There are also many definitions of what is needed to be saved.

Then there are all the religions that do not use damnation and salvation.

Oooppss I forgot reincarnating as a dog. My bad...

There is also the issue of what a god would think of you believing in no gods vs believing in the wrong one and which is worse, that might fall in the atheists favor.

We can't even prove he/she/it exists... Let's not start to assume how God would think...:eek:

[ponderingturtle]

I'm going to stick with my numbers, I like them better. :) Besides I won't argue with somebody over something that can never be proven either way. I was somewhat jokingly making that post, as I made sure not to mention Pascal's wager in my original post.

So you will stick with the numbers that show that you really have no idea about probability and mathmatics around probability works?


We can't even prove he/she/it exists... Let's not start to assume how God would think...:eek:

That is a fundamental issue here, if you accept this premise you need to accept one definition of god(why would it please a god to be believed in in an abstract fashion that over not being believed in?)

[Silentknight]

I hope you understand that I was pointing out that Milwaukee Mike was incorporating Pascal's Wager.
I know. I saw that the first time. I was laughing at the person who originally posted it, not the one who quoted it.


Anyway, the problem with the Wager is that it assumes a false dichotomy between Christianity and "everything else." Given the vast number of religions and deities humans have ever believed in, the Judeo-Christian God is just as unlikely to be real as any of the others. It's even far more likely that nobody has quite gotten it right, since every religion has its share of contradictions.

If that's the case, then non-belief is actually the safest bet. If a real deity happens to exist, it would probably be more pissed off at a Christian, for example, than at an atheist. After all, atheists treat all religions and gods with the same regard. A Christian however not only denies the true god, he also has the audacity to worship a false god.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time; an artificial distinction in my view. But what exactly are you asking for evidence for? Speciation? We have that evidence, along with buttload more (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

I am asking for replicable science. Without this we do not have "good" science.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Which particular ever evolving and specialising defintion of creationist Macro-evolution do you mean?

Observation is the beginning step of "good" science. Evolution is not past the hypotheses stage despite being called theory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Since what we are talking about is relative intelligence, it doesn't matter that there are limits. There is little doubt that many factors, including education and other forms of mental training, can increase intelligence relative to others as measured by any available tests.

Brains, like muscles, become stronger when you exercise them.


Yes; but education does not involve exercise of the mind necessarily, in fact it can be the reverse. Education is a method of being lead. Where one is lead depends on the leader.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Would you say that tectonics is a poor theory because we cannot replicate building a mountain range?


As a matter of fact, yes. I do think that tectonics is a bad scientific theory.

Sure it may be correct, but to hold something as virtually indisputable without moving past step 2 of the scientific method is bad science.

[skeptical]

I have a full understanding of the theory. It is a weak scientific theory which does not use the scientific method.

Jerome, I'm sorry, but whatever and whoever you've read that told you this is simply incorrect.

This is OT, but I can't let this slip past. Evolutionary theory is as well supported, and more well supported, than many other well established scientific theories. It does differ in some respects from say, particle physics, in that it is a historical science, like geology. But that does not mean it does not follow the scientific method. That statement is simply wrong, and anyone who told you that is either lying or ignorant, or both.

As for being weak, I could offer many pieces of information supporting common descent, but in the interest of brevity I'll pick 3 strong examples:

1) Human chromosome 2 - humans have 23 pair, other apes have 24, HC2 is a fusion of 2 chromosomes from an ape-like ancestor.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

2) Human broken vitamin C gene - broken in humans and apes, works in virtually every other mammal, would work if ours was not broken in a specific way

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

3) Cytrochrome c - every cell needs the cy enzyme to function, however it has many different amino acid sequences that "work" to produce it, experiments show that it still functions normally after replacing cy from one species with that from another. The amino acid sequence for cy is identical in humans and chimps, for no apparent reason other than common descent. Shared habitat cannot account for it because cy sequence is closer between humans and porpoises than between porpoises and sharks, but this difference is nicely accounted for by evolutionary theory. (humans and porpoises are both mammals)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html (section 4.1)

IMO, these 3 pieces of evidence all by themselves are enough to convince any person willing to be convinced that humans and apes have a common ancestry. But if that is not enough, there is mountains more from genetics alone, and mountains after that from the geological record.

The evidence is overwhelmingly compelling to all but those who have theological or other preconceptions that will not allow them to accept it.

I would urge you to take a long hard look at the FAQ's at talkorigins, and also see if you can get a copy of "the making of the fittest" by Carroll and "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by Prothero. The first is probably in your local library, the second is brand new, but may be there as well.

[skeptical]

As a matter of fact, yes. I do think that tectonics is a bad scientific theory.

Sure it may be correct, but to hold something as virtually indisputable without moving past step 2 of the scientific method is bad science.

Jerome, seriously, please stop using whatever sources it is you are using for your science education. Plate tectonics is a bad theory? Are you serious?

Have you heard of sea floor spreading?

Sea floor spreading - we SEE, as in, right now, this minute, ocean floor spreading out at the oceanic rifts, we can measure this spreading. Because the earth's magnetic orientation has shifted many times in the past (north and south flip), we can use this information to see that it has been spreading uniformly over the entire duration of the spread. (i.e. we see parallel lines of magnetism on each side of the rift)

If we date the rocks near the rift, they data to current time, as we move away from the rift, the rocks get progressively older until we reach the "zone of subduction" where the crust is subducted into a sea floor trench. (those rocks date to about 200 million years, which is about how long ago the current supercontinent began separating)

This process is driven by convection cells breaking the crust, moving it out in each direction, and then "sucking" it back down into the deep sea trenches. It is a very well understood and well documented process.

Good grief man, if you take the continental shelf of South American and Africa and match them you get > 90% match. There are fossils that are only found in Southern SA and Africa, the glacial deposits from those areas match, etc.

Plate tectonics explains why mountain ranges are where they are, they explain why volcanoes exist where they are. It is one of the greatest unifying theories in geology in the past 100 years.

How in the world can you look at this and say that plate tectonics is a bad theory? I'm baffled. :confused:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, I'm sorry, but whatever and whoever you've read that told you this is simply incorrect.

I prefer to discern reality on my own.

This is OT, but I can't let this slip past. Evolutionary theory is as well supported, and more well supported, than many other well established scientific theories. It does differ in some respects from say, particle physics, in that it is a historical science, like geology. But that does not mean it does not follow the scientific method. That statement is simply wrong, and anyone who told you that is either lying or ignorant, or both.

You have stated nothing here out side of evolution is good science because evolution is well supported.

Then you name call.

Tsk Tsk.

As for being weak, I could offer many pieces of information supporting common descent, but in the interest of brevity I'll pick 3 strong examples:

Let me know when you get past the observational stage of the scientific method.

1) Human chromosome 2 - humans have 23 pair, other apes have 24, HC2 is a fusion of 2 chromosomes from an ape-like ancestor.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

Observation

2) Human broken vitamin C gene - broken in humans and apes, works in virtually every other mammal, would work if ours was not broken in a specific way

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

Observation

3) Cytrochrome c - every cell needs the cy enzyme to function, however it has many different amino acid sequences that "work" to produce it, experiments show that it still functions normally after replacing cy from one species with that from another. The amino acid sequence for cy is identical in humans and chimps, for no apparent reason other than common descent. Shared habitat cannot account for it because cy sequence is closer between humans and porpoises than between porpoises and sharks, but this difference is nicely accounted for by evolutionary theory. (humans and porpoises are both mammals)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html (section 4.1)

Observation

IMO, these 3 pieces of evidence all by themselves are enough to convince any person willing to be convinced that humans and apes have a common ancestry. But if that is not enough, there is mountains more from genetics alone, and mountains after that from the geological record.

Observations are the first step in the process.

The evidence is overwhelmingly compelling to all but those who have theological or other preconceptions that will not allow them to accept it.

Accepting observation and hypothesis as sound scientific theory is a violation of the scientific method.

I would urge you to take a long hard look at the FAQ's at talkorigins, and also see if you can get a copy of "the making of the fittest" by Carroll and "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by Prothero. The first is probably in your local library, the second is brand new, but may be there as well.


Presenting a multitude of observations and a hypothesis provides nothing for anyones understanding of a sound falsifiable scientific theory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, seriously, please stop using whatever sources it is you are using for your science education. Plate tectonics is a bad theory? Are you serious?

I think you need to understand the scientific method a bit better. As I said before I discern for myself.

Have you heard of sea floor spreading?

Yep

Sea floor spreading - we SEE, as in, right now, this minute, ocean floor spreading out at the oceanic rifts, we can measure this spreading. Because the earth's magnetic orientation has shifted many times in the past (north and south flip), we can use this information to see that it has been spreading uniformly over the entire duration of the spread. (i.e. we see parallel lines of magnetism on each side of the rift)

Observations

If we date the rocks near the rift, they data to current time, as we move away from the rift, the rocks get progressively older until we reach the "zone of subduction" where the crust is subducted into a sea floor trench. (those rocks date to about 200 million years, which is about how long ago the current supercontinent began separating)

Observations

This process is driven by convection cells breaking the crust, moving it out in each direction, and then "sucking" it back down into the deep sea trenches. It is a very well understood and well documented process.

Hypothesis based on observation

Good grief man, if you take the continental shelf of South American and Africa and match them you get > 90% match. There are fossils that are only found in Southern SA and Africa, the glacial deposits from those areas match, etc.

Observation

Plate tectonics explains why mountain ranges are where they are, they explain why volcanoes exist where they are. It is one of the greatest unifying theories in geology in the past 100 years.

Hypothesis

How in the world can you look at this and say that plate tectonics is a bad theory? I'm baffled. :confused:

I can say this because we have nothing more than observation and hypothesis.

[skeptical]

I am asking for replicable science. Without this we do not have "good" science.

You are missing the point. Observing "micro" evolution is the SAME as observing "macro", because the mechanisms are exactly the same. At the genetic level, there is no separation between species A and species B, those are man made differences. There are only genetic sequences that lead to different proteins that lead to different morphologies. That's it, nothing more.

You can manipulate the gene sequences of any organism to make it the equivalent of another organism. You can add limbs, new organs, better eyes, etc. just by twiddling genes. Mutations, gene duplication, retrovirus genes, etc can all do this as well, and there is no known mechanism by which such gene twiddling could be stopped at some artificial boundary between "chimp" and "human" or "rat" and "bat", and in fact, under selection pressure such changes are inevitable.

Besides which, in many cases the fossil record is complete enough to say we _have_ "observed" "macro" evolution. The recent discovery of tiktaalik filled a nice niche in fish evolution, and we now have many specimens of a species that is unarguably intermediate between tetrapod and fish:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Evolutionary theory involves evidence from historical sciences like paleontology and geology, but that does not make it any less "science".

[Tricky]

I am asking for replicable science. Without this we do not have "good" science.
Fine, it is easily replicable. Just make a survey of the current species on earth and then another in 100,000 years. I promise that you will have witnessed macroevolution.

As a matter of fact, yes. I do think that tectonics is a bad scientific theory.

Sure it may be correct, but to hold something as virtually indisputable without moving past step 2 of the scientific method is bad science.
And your entire criticism of it is that it cannot be reproduced in your lifetime? If not, what other criticisms do you have. I'm truly curious as to what your idea of the scientific method is. Could you outline these steps for us? I'm always interested in learning.

Education is a method of being lead. Where one is lead depends on the leader. Interesting. Would you argue then, that it is impossible to learn anything unless you have a leader?
Observation
Not just observation. Hypothesis first, then prediction based on that hypothesis, then observation. If the observations fit the predictions, then that is a bit of evidence that the hypothesis was correct. The more observations that fit with the predictions, the more likely it is that the hypothesis is correct. At some point, the predictions are so reliable that they can be incorporated into a theory. This is the case with both evolution and tectonics.

[skeptical]

I prefer to discern reality on my own.

You have stated nothing here out side of evolution is good science because evolution is well supported.

Then you name call.

I wasn't name calling, I was calling it like it is. Whatever sources you are using, they are wrong. I wasn't saying you are lying or ignorant, I said your sources are. Big difference.


Presenting a multitude of observations and a hypothesis provides nothing for anyones understanding of a sound falsifiable scientific theory.

Ummm, what definition of scientific theory are you using, exactly? Yes, evolutionary theory is full of observations, and then hypothesis are made, and then they are TESTED, and then they are CONFIRMED. That is science.

The HC2 was an observation AFTER PREDICTION FROM HYPOTHESIS. We knew that humans had 23 and chimps had 24 way before we knew why. It was HYPOTHESIZED that there was either a fusion or a fission, we looked for the data (observation), we found the data supported a fusion and not a fission, and therefore the hypothesis was CONFIRMED through TESTING.

We HYPOTHESIZED from morphology that humans and chimps were related long before we had DNA evidence. We HYPOTHESIZED that we would find genetic evidence supporting this hypothesis, and we found it, plenty of it. That is CONFIRMATION.

Evolutionary theory is tested hundreds of times a day, if we found for example that frogs had genetic similarities greater to humans than chimps, its in trouble. We look, we don't find it. If we found a precambrian rabbit, the geological record is in trouble, we don't find it. Hypothesis after hypothesis has been made, the observations to test it have followed and time after time the tests have shown that evolutionary theory is correct.

How, exactly, is that not science?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You are missing the point. Observing "micro" evolution is the SAME as observing "macro", because the mechanisms are exactly the same.

Observation is the first step of good science.

Taking one step west does not put me in California.

[skeptical]

I think you need to understand the scientific method a bit better. As I said before I discern for myself.

Right. Well, I'm always willing to learn something that my philosophy of science teacher didn't know, so let's have at it.


I can say this because we have nothing more than observation and hypothesis.

Wrong. Wrong and double wrong. It was hypothesized for many years that somehow the continents had once been together, but had broken apart. A 5 year old could look at a map and see that SA and Africa looked like parts of a jigsaw puzzle. What no one knew was a mechanism. Alfred Wegner collected mounds of evidence in the 30's, but what he didn't have was a mechanism.

Then sea ranges were OBSERVED, from that it was HYPOTHESIZED that the crust was spreading, further observations were made and it was discovered that it WAS spreading. Hypothesis tested, hypothesis confirmed.

Then the question was "how"? A hypothesis was proposed that it was convection cells, but then you would have to have "plastic" rocks and a certain depth, and you would have to have zones of subjduction. Seismology provided the evidence of "plastic" rocks at a certain depth, as well as the heat, the zones of subduction of the deep see trenches were then found. Hypothesis tested, hypothesis confirmed.

Now, explain to me again how that is not science.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fine, it is easily replicable. Just make a survey of the current species on earth and then another in 100,000 years. I promise that you will have witnessed macroevolution.

Now you are thinking!


And your entire criticism of it is that it cannot be reproduced in your lifetime? If not, what other criticisms do you have. I'm truly curious as to what your idea of the scientific method is. Could you outline these steps for us? I'm always interested in learning.


1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

Evolution has not moved passed this stage.

4. Perform experiment and collect data

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)



Interesting. Would you argue then, that it is impossible to learn anything unless you have a leader?

Of course not.

My argument is that education is not a path to intelligence.

[Tricky]

Let's not start to assume how God would think...:eek:
Why not? Every religion makes some assumptions about how God thinks. Without them, religion would be totally useless as a way of making people act morally. In fact, without it, God would have no characteristics whatsoever.

[skeptical]

Observation is the first step of good science.

Taking one step west does not put me in California.

No, but it is ridiculous to state that it is "unscientific" for someone to say if you keep taking steps you won't end up in California unless a mechanism is observed that would stop you from getting there.

[skeptical]

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

Evolution has not moved passed this stage.

4. Perform experiment and collect data

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

What are you on about? Evolutionary theory is supported by thousands of observation-hypothesis-confirmation processes that have been performed over the past 150 years or so. Every DNA similarity that is found after looking for it, every fossil that is predicted and found exactly in the strata that is where it is supposed to be, every grouping of organisms by clade based on morphology and confirmed by DNA is an example of confirmation of a hypothesis. Time and time after time exactly the sort of process you are describing has been performed, and all of them support common descent.

Do you really think that evolutionary biologists are not performing experiments, collecting results, refining their hypothesis, publishing papers, etc.

This is getting more confusing by the second.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ummm, what definition of scientific theory are you using, exactly? Yes, evolutionary theory is full of observations, and then hypothesis are made, and then they are TESTED, and then they are CONFIRMED. That is science.

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.

The HC2 was an observation AFTER PREDICTION FROM HYPOTHESIS. We knew that humans had 23 and chimps had 24 way before we knew why. It was HYPOTHESIZED that there was either a fusion or a fission, we looked for the data (observation), we found the data supported a fusion and not a fission, and therefore the hypothesis was CONFIRMED through TESTING.

Please explain how the conjecture that there must have been fusion or fission is evidence that there was fusion.

You do understand that they were searching for one or the other and not the third option that neither occurred?

We HYPOTHESIZED from morphology that humans and chimps were related long before we had DNA evidence. We HYPOTHESIZED that we would find genetic evidence supporting this hypothesis, and we found it, plenty of it. That is CONFIRMATION.

Similarity does not denote relation.

Evolutionary theory is tested hundreds of times a day, if we found for example that frogs had genetic similarities greater to humans than chimps, its in trouble. We look, we don't find it. If we found a precambrian rabbit, the geological record is in trouble, we don't find it. Hypothesis after hypothesis has been made, the observations to test it have followed and time after time the tests have shown that evolutionary theory is correct.

How, exactly, is that not science?

You have yet to present anything other than observation and hypothesis masquerading as theory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What are you on about? Evolutionary theory is supported by thousands of observation-hypothesis-confirmation processes that have been performed over the past 150 years or so. Every DNA similarity that is found after looking for it, every fossil that is predicted and found exactly in the strata that is where it is supposed to be, every grouping of organisms by clade based on morphology and confirmed by DNA is an example of confirmation of a hypothesis. Time and time after time exactly the sort of process you are describing has been performed, and all of them support common descent.

Do you really think that evolutionary biologists are not performing experiments, collecting results, refining their hypothesis, publishing papers, etc.

This is getting more confusing by the second.


Observing an observation is what you are hanging your hat on?

How is any of what you state above either testable or falsifiable?

[skeptical]

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

Evolution has not moved passed this stage.



Let me try this another way.

When Darwin published "origin of species" in 1859, let's say that was the overarching hypothesis of common descent, and it was based on his observations collected in his travels. (steps 1 -3)

Every day since then, scientists have been making further predictions based on his original hypothesis, and collecting the data to test these predictions based on the initial hypothesis. They have been following EXACTLY the steps you laid out, testing the hypothesis, publishing, refining, etc. Many new pieces of evidence have come to light to support the original hypothesis, DNA for example was completely unknown and yet the data supports the original hypothesis incredibly well and is excellent confirmation of the original hypothesis.

So, how, exactly, is this not following the scientific method? For that matter, how is it not following the steps that you just listed?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, but it is ridiculous to state that it is "unscientific" for someone to say if you keep taking steps you won't end up in California unless a mechanism is observed that would stop you from getting there.

The point is you are taking a couple of steps west and claiming you are in California whist all can see you are standing a stones throw from the Atlantic ocean.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, how, exactly, is this not following the scientific method? For that matter, how is it not following the steps that you just listed?

The hypothesis is not testable or falsifiable and therefore it is not "good" scientific theory.

[Tricky]

Now you are thinking!





1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

Evolution has not moved passed this stage.

4. Perform experiment and collect data

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


You are absolutely dead wrong. (For one thing, observations come first before you ask questions, otherwise you wouldn't have any idea what questions to ask.) Perhaps you are not aware that experiments are performed in natural and earth science, but I assure you they are. For example, you might ask the question, "How do the contents of the seas change from mostly cartliginous fish in the Devonian Period to mostly bony fish in the Pennsylvanian Period?"

The hypothesis would be, "Macroevolution occurs in which more bony fish species replace cartiliginous fish species".

The prediction would be, "If this is true, look at the ocean sediments in the time span between the Devonian and the Pennsylvanian and you should see a gradual trend toward more bony species with numerous transitional forms."

The experiment would be to go into the field and painstakingly sift through the Devonion to Silurian sediments and search for fish fossils. The result of the experiment would be that indeed numerous transitional fossils are found and they are progressively more bony types as you sample younger and younger strata. The conclusion of the experiment would be that the hypothesis is verified.

This experiment can be repeated by numerous people in numerous locations.

And you know what? This experiment has been done many times by many people in many places.

You want another prediction? I predict that numerous transitional fossils will yet be discovered and that the vast majority, though not 100%, will support the lineages that have been proposed.

This is how science works when you can't perform an experiment that takes 100,000 years. If you still think that's "bad science", then it is unlikely that anything I or other scientists can say to convince you. You are far too intelligent for that kind of education.

[skeptical]

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.

Ok, I agree



Please explain how the conjecture that there must have been fusion or fission is evidence that there was fusion.

It's not, finding centromeres and telomeres where they would be if a fusion had occurred and where they shouldn't be if a fusion had NOT occurred is evidence of a fusion. You would know that if you had bothered to read the link I posted.


You do understand that they were searching for one or the other and not the third option that neither occurred?

Are you serious? If I am looking for something, then by definition I am also looking to see if that something is NOT there. I cannot look in my drawer for red socks and not also be looking to see if red socks are NOT there. One entails the other. Your statement is nonsensical.


Similarity does not denote relation.

Say what? I'm sorry, that is even more nonsensical. DNA similarity is EXACTLY evidence of relation. In fact, there is no such thing as relation outside of DNA similarity. The only reason we know people are related is via DNA. I assume you don't doubt the validity of paternity tests?


You have yet to present anything other than observation and hypothesis masquerading as theory.

Wrong yet again. If a hypothesis is made that a chromosome fusion occurred, and then data is collected that confirmed that hypothesis, that is the scientific method. If we had NOT found a fusion in human chromosomes, we would have had a very difficult time explaining why humans had 23 and chimps had 24 if we are so closely related. That was a very good case when the hypothesis of common descent could have been disproven, but it was not.

The fact that is has NOT been disproven does not mean that it hasn't been CAPABLE of being disproven and that it hasn't been repeatedly tested thousands upon thousands of times.

[skeptical]

The point is you are taking a couple of steps west and claiming you are in California whist all can see you are standing a stones throw from the Atlantic ocean.

No, no, no. I am taking a few steps west, and then I say, if I keep walking, and there is no mechanism in place to stop me at some arbitrary boundary, eventually I will reach California.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

[skeptical]

The hypothesis is not testable or falsifiable and therefore it is not "good" scientific theory.

Jerome, this is simply, completely, wrong.

If a fusion had not been found in human chromosomes, common descent would have been in big trouble.

If we found protein sequences in other animals that were closer to human than chimps, CD would be in trouble.

If we found a rabbit (or other mammal) in precambrian rocks, CD is in BIG trouble.

IF we found animals that had a completely different genetic code, or one whose DNA did not fit it into the cladistic family it should be in, CD is in big trouble.

If we found a mechanism that prevented small changes in DNA accumulating over time into large changes, CD is in big trouble.

There are hundreds or thousands of ways CD could be falsified. It just HASN'T been, that is a world of difference.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, no, no. I am taking a few steps west, and then I say, if I keep walking, and there is no mechanism in place to stop me at some arbitrary boundary, eventually I will reach California.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

Yes, you are claiming that in the unknown 3000 miles there will not be an encumbrance in the progress of your journey based on the fact that you have taken a few steps west.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, this is simply, completely, wrong.

If a fusion had not been found in human chromosomes, common descent would have been in big trouble.

If we found protein sequences in other animals that were closer to human than chimps, CD would be in trouble.

If we found a rabbit (or other mammal) in precambrian rocks, CD is in BIG trouble.

IF we found animals that had a completely different genetic code, or one whose DNA did not fit it into the cladistic family it should be in, CD is in big trouble.

If we found a mechanism that prevented small changes in DNA accumulating over time into large changes, CD is in big trouble.

There are hundreds or thousands of ways CD could be falsified. It just HASN'T been, that is a world of difference.


If we observed an extraterrestrial in Precambrian rock...

See the game?

Nothing is tested, and because the theory is not testable it is also not falsifiable in a manner which does not present silly claims as evidence of potential falsification.

[skeptical]

Yes, you are claiming that in the unknown 3000 miles there will not be an encumbrance in the progress of your journey based on the fact that you have taken a few steps west.


ARRRRGH! No, I'm not. I said "if no mechanism exists to stop me" and "if I keep walking". Ok, so let's assume that we agree on that point, and then we have to LOOK FOR A MECHANISM TO STOP ME.

So, we look. We don't see one. Further more, we find pictures of people like me who start walking where I started, and then we find a picture of them in Kansas, but now they are walking with their child, then no more pictures of them but pictures of their child walking in Colorado with _their_ child, and then we find a picture of that child in California. And from that we conclude that if I could but walk fast enough, I could get to California, even though we don't see a "single" person walking there, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that a "person" could walk there.

That is "micro" DNA changes leading to "macro". We can trace large DNA changes leading to new species, and we can trace speciation through the fossil record.

Again, please take a look at "the making of the fittest", it does an excellent job of going over some of our best evidence of DNA tracing, and it is well written to boot.

[skeptical]

If we observed an extraterrestrial in Precambrian rock...

See the game?

Nothing is tested, and because the theory is not testable it is also not falsifiable in a manner which does not present silly claims as evidence of potential falsification.

Are you even reading what I wrote? I specifically showed you that if the fusion of the chromosome had not been found, that would be a BIG problem for CD. That is NOT a silly claim, it was an easily testable claim, and a lot was riding on its discovery. No fusion, then its hard to explain why we have 23 and chimps have 24.

And you are fundamentally misunderstanding the point of finding the precambrian rabbit example. ANY fossil that was found in the wrong strata could cause serious issues for CD, if certain fish fossils were found where they shouldn't be, if certain amphibian or reptile or mammals were found where they shouldn't be. There are thousands upon thousands of types of fossil finds that could cause serious issues for CD, but they haven't been found despite 150 years of fossil hunting. Not one.

That is not a game. That is not silly.

What about the proteins? What about the other DNA differences? Are you just ignoring everything that you cannot answer? Don't you think that is being a bit disingenuous?

I have given you numerous examples of how CD could be falsified, you are simply not discussing in good faith if you are not going to consider them all.

[skeptical]

If we observed an extraterrestrial in Precambrian rock...

See the game?

Nothing is tested, and because the theory is not testable it is also not falsifiable in a manner which does not present silly claims as evidence of potential falsification.

It's getting late for me, so I will sign off and leave you with this:

"It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief"

Taken from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

I would ask you to read the FAQ's at talkorigins, see what they have to say and then draw your own conclusions. I have a feeling you have been reading sources that are terribly misleading you.

ETA: BTW, if you primary reasons for your rejection of the evidence are religious or moral, we can discuss that too, suffice it to say that there are religious people who accept evolution and accepting evolution does not lead to moral decay despite assertions to the contrary. Don't know if those are issues for you, "I'm just saying..."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

ETA: BTW, if you primary reasons for your rejection of the evidence are religious or moral, we can discuss that too, suffice it to say that there are religious people who accept evolution and accepting evolution does not lead to moral decay despite assertions to the contrary. Don't know if those are issues for you, "I'm just saying..."



I am emphatically against religion. It is a tool used to control the individual. I have no moral qualms with evolution, and I think it maybe correct. Yet the fact does remain that it is not good science to make observations and declare each new observation as a test and further evidence of "good" science.


Repeating the same step over and over again will not get you to California. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Wizard's first rule.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I am asking for replicable science. Without this we do not have "good" science.

No, you're asking for the Magratheans to create a second Earth, run the program again the same way and see if evolution makes humans.

That's not how science works.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Jerome, this is simply, completely, wrong.

If a fusion had not been found in human chromosomes, common descent would have been in big trouble.

If we found protein sequences in other animals that were closer to human than chimps, CD would be in trouble.

If we found a rabbit (or other mammal) in precambrian rocks, CD is in BIG trouble.

IF we found animals that had a completely different genetic code, or one whose DNA did not fit it into the cladistic family it should be in, CD is in big trouble.

If we found a mechanism that prevented small changes in DNA accumulating over time into large changes, CD is in big trouble.

There are hundreds or thousands of ways CD could be falsified. It just HASN'T been, that is a world of difference.

JDG's been given lists with numerous examples previously in other threads. His response is hand waving and non-sequitors.

I've given you my list a number of times but you have never addressed any of them. The assertion is yours so you need to support it with facts or admit you cannot.
Explain how a shrimp with a backbone fits the phylogenetic tree.
Explain how an iguana with mammary glands fits the phylogenetic tree.
Explain how a human with a chitenous exoskeleton fits the phylogentic tree.
Explain how a trout with fur fits the phylogenetic tree.

You've made your claim about "anything" fitting into evolutionary theory without evidence so it's time to put up or shut up.

Oh come on JDG. I've given you plenty of exampes, you've been given genetic definitions, at this point trying to play semantic and gotcha games it really bordering on pathetic.

I'm going to type this in bold for only one reason - since you made the original assertion.

Since you asserted any new being discovered would be fit into the phylogenetic tree it's time for you to finally put up or shut up and explain how a fish with fur, a lizard with boobs, an anemone with a vertebrate brain or a human with a chitenous exoskeleton would fit into the phylogenetic tree.

Whether they exist or not, it's your assertion that should they exist, they would fit into evolutionary theory and not falsify it. Please, finally, evidence that assertion and explain why rather than just reassert it.

Maybe if I post them here we can come up with a Larsen's list to keep posting for him.

[Big Les]

It seems Jerome wants the moon on a stick.

[ponderingturtle]

Observation is the first step of good science.

Taking one step west does not put me in California.

Then you must hate all physics as it depends on observations as well. So now Newtons theory of gravity is a poor theory because the only support it has is observations?

[ponderingturtle]

Now you are thinking!





1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

Evolution has not moved passed this stage.


Also General Reletivity. Sure you get observations of clocks in space and all that but so what those are just observations.

[ponderingturtle]

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.


There have been many of these in DNA.

Also many in the fossil record.

Therefore I predict that you are either a troll or someone with their head lodged firmly in their rectum.

[ponderingturtle]

It seems Jerome wants the moon on a stick.

No I think he just wants the attention.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Therefore I predict that you are either a troll or someone with their head lodged firmly in their rectum.

The irony here is tasty considering the thread title.

Thanks for the reasoned intelligent thought.

[Furi]

Repeating the same step over and over again will not get you to California. ;)

Strange, my average Step across differing terrain carrying a backpack (taking into account simpsons rule) is around 750mm and I take a little over 2 steps in a 3 second period, Walking 8 hours a day (with breaks)

(8*60*60) = 28kS (28000 seconds) per walking day
(28000/3)*2 = 18666 steps
18666 * 750 = 13999500 mm or approx 14km

strangely enough I use 14k to be my minimum radius goal for long (in excess of 2 week) Hike destinations for my next tent pitch.

I am not too sure where you plce your start and destination points and probable route over mountain ranges are but even if I allow a full days rest out of 6 (averages 11.5km a day average, and is also a good practice, allows you to replenish repair and relax) I am sure you could calculate my approximate progression or probable location at a time after my start date.

That being the case, if you know that I arrived in SanFrancisco on a certain date and you know I was seen starting in Boston, you have a time frame, you may even be able to deduce my route and find further evidence of my transit at given times.

In which case I have performed your arbitrary goal taking only insignificant sequential progressive steps, and have even overcome obstacles such as those big ( but not tectonically formed :rolleyes:) mountain ranges, and other inhospitable terrain (How I could afford to take 427+ days off, or get a visa for that time is a different matter)

[ponderingturtle]

The irony here is tasty considering the thread title.

Thanks for the reasoned intelligent thought.

See my prediction is accurate, this all supports my theory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Strange, my average Step across differing terrain carrying a backpack (taking into account simpsons rule) is around 750mm and I take a little over 2 steps in a 3 second period, Walking 8 hours a day (with breaks)

(8*60*60) = 28kS (28000 seconds) per walking day
(28000/3)*2 = 18666 steps
18666 * 750 = 13999500 mm or approx 14km

strangely enough I use 14k to be my minimum radius goal for long (in excess of 2 week) Hike destinations for my next tent pitch.

I am not too sure where you plce your start and destination points and probable route over mountain ranges are but even if I allow a full days rest out of 6 (averages 11.5km a day average, and is also a good practice, allows you to replenish repair and relax) I am sure you could calculate my approximate progression or probable location at a time after my start date.

That being the case, if you know that I arrived in SanFrancisco on a certain date and you know I was seen starting in Boston, you have a time frame, you may even be able to deduce my route and find further evidence of my transit at given times.

In which case I have performed your arbitrary goal taking only insignificant sequential progressive steps, and have even overcome obstacles such as those big ( but not tectonically formed :rolleyes:) mountain ranges, and other inhospitable terrain (How I could afford to take 427+ days off, or get a visa for that time is a different matter)


I believe you have not been following the metaphor.


Taking the same step and not moving beyond the same step does not move one forward.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

See my prediction is accurate, this all supports my theory.

Of course it does.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There have been many of these in DNA.

Also many in the fossil record.

Therefore I predict that you are either a troll or someone with their head lodged firmly in their rectum.

I thought I could help you out with your understanding of the words we are using.

falsifiable: ability to be proven or declared false

false: not genuine

testable: ability to to undergo a test

test: a critical examination, observation, or evaluation

Now with these definitions in mind could you explain how TOE is "good" science when it is neither testable nor falsifiable?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Also General Reletivity. Sure you get observations of clocks in space and all that but so what those are just observations.

That would be a prediction concerning a future event. Creating the circumstance in which the future event can occur is the test. Depending upon the measurements the theory could be either falsified or more evidence is established for its usefulness.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then you must hate all physics as it depends on observations as well. So now Newtons theory of gravity is a poor theory because the only support it has is observations?

In physics we test. The ability to make measurements during a test is what allows the hypothesis the ability to be falsified.

[danielk]

I think this thread should be split. Mods, anyone?

[Furi]

I believe you have not been following the metaphor.


Taking the same step and not moving beyond the same step does not move one forward.

Since when does progressive change, require an elective reversion to the previous state after the change has been made, so that the same progression can be made again.

you may as use the metaphor, "Sitting with your thumb up your backside, won't get you to CA but will give you a smelly thumb.".

[Henners]

If someone just said "Meds", count me in.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Since when does progressive change, require an elective reversion to the previous state after the change has been made, so that the same progression can be made again.

The metaphor was concerning the scientific method and the fact that evolution theory has not progressed beyond the observational and hypothesis stages. Repeating the observational stage a multitude of times does not move the theory any further along the path of "good" science.

[Henners]

The metaphor was concerning the scientific method and the fact that evolution theory has not progressed beyond the observational and hypothesis stages. Repeating the observational stage a multitude of times does not move the theory any further along the path of "good" science.


Rubbish.

Hypothesis: The geological column and phylogeny are independent.

Test: Take every new fossil reported over the next month, and pin them to the geological column. If their arrangement is biologically organised according to modern phylogeny, that disproves the hypothesis.

Result: unknown, as yet. (Ha, bloomin' ha.)

However, JdaG, how about a small bet? Just to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Can you stretch to $1,000?

You don't actually understand how hypothesis testing works JdaG, do you, or even enough science to give Entamoeba hystolitica a decent meal?

[ponderingturtle]

I thought I could help you out with your understanding of the words we are using.

falsifiable: ability to be proven or declared false

false: not genuine

testable: ability to to undergo a test

test: a critical examination, observation, or evaluation

Now with these definitions in mind could you explain how TOE is "good" science when it is neither testable nor falsifiable?

There are all kinds of ways that genetics could have easily disproven common desent, as it happened every time something new was discovered in genetics it supported common descent.

There is now a dirrect fossil link between land mamals and whales. Something else that was predicted would be found. See Xanthopan morgani praedicta for a species that was predicted to exist decades before it was found.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Shocking. It's been a number of hours since skeptical posted his list of potential falsifications for evolution and a number of more hours with previously posted potential falsfications for evolution and yet, despite responding to a number of other posts JDG has yet to respond to our lists or even try to.

Shocking!

[ponderingturtle]

That would be a prediction concerning a future event. Creating the circumstance in which the future event can occur is the test. Depending upon the measurements the theory could be either falsified or more evidence is established for its usefulness.

And so can evolution. Speciesisation has been directly observed so that is something that the theory predicts and was demonstrated. As it was at a smaller level it is rather like the predictions of GR being observed on small levels.

[ponderingturtle]

In physics we test. The ability to make measurements during a test is what allows the hypothesis the ability to be falsified.

And those are observations. See collapsing the wave function and that jaz. A test is just a controled observation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hypothesis: The geological column and phylogeny are independent.

You are starting with two man-made organizations (hypothesis) and using them to test another hypothesis?

Test: Take every new fossil reported over the next month, and pin them to the geological column. If their arrangement is biologically organised according to modern phylogeny, that disproves the hypothesis.

The act of you "pinning" them where you see fit is not an accurate measurement. Can you not see you have set up an unfalsifiable fallacious test.

Result: unknown, as yet. (Ha, bloomin' ha.)

Here you are incorrect because the fossil will determine the column and the column determines the fossil. Measurements are not determining anything here. You are determining where to place each observation on your scale based on the hypothesis. This is the antithesis of science.

However, JdaG, how about a small bet? Just to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Can you stretch to $1,000?

Send me the cash, I will hold it for you. ;)

You don't actually understand how hypothesis testing works JdaG, do you, or even enough science to give Entamoeba hystolitica a decent meal?

How exactly does the presentation of a particular organism into the discussion evidence that I do not understand science?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Shocking. It's been a number of hours since skeptical posted his list of potential falsifications for evolution and a number of more hours with previously posted potential falsfications for evolution and yet, despite responding to a number of other posts JDG has yet to respond to our lists or even try to.

Shocking!

Stating mythical circumstances is not potential falsification.

Potential falsification from the results of controlled tests is science.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And those are observations. See collapsing the wave function and that jaz. A test is just a controled observation.

You are now beginning to understand!

[ponderingturtle]

You are now beginning to understand!

I always understood, it is you who seem to be arbitrarily limiting science to labratory sciences instead of historical sciences.

[Furi]

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

Evolution has not moved passed this stage.

4. Perform experiment and collect data

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Could I ask how Finding expected links after hypothesising their existance, and through data collection & Interpretation of gathered information from experimental results (such as the finding of expected common genetic sequences and characteristics as was suggested by the original hypothesis) doesn't cover stages 4,5 & 6

Or do you insist that any form of Data collection would just be a flavour of observation and info gathering and therefore would be back at step 2?

or do you believe that extracting info from any existing source is Stage 2 observation as opposed to Experimental Observation,

if that is the case an experiment to measure solar power ouput over a period of time to see if mean solar energy differs during the magnetic cycle would not have Experimental data collection and analysis but mere hypothesis and observation and therefore of no scientific merit, until we can create multiple solar enviroments under controlled conditions?

incorrect data and flawed method can still be determined the results and methodology can still be replicated, it can still be falsified if the hypothesis is incorrect, if it is not falsifiable then it stands as a good working theoretical model, unless further observational data spuds the exhaust.

(I might have to reword this I am full of Cold and suppressants and a bit fuzzier than normal, Damn Evolution and your fast evolving Virii and baccilli)

[Henners]

You are starting with two man-made organizations (hypothesis) and using them to test another hypothesis?


As I thought, and as you have just exhibited, "hypothesis testing" is just a wee phrase you think makes you look smart - but you would look far smarter if you understood it




The act of you "pinning" them where you see fit is not an accurate measurement. Can you not see you have set up an unfalsifiable fallacious test.



On the contrary. We are talking about fossils that have not been discovered yet.

How can you possibly make that claim.

I'm afraid it looks like bluster.




Here you are incorrect because the fossil will determine the column and the column determines the fossil. Measurements are not determining anything here. You are determining where to place each observation on your scale based on the hypothesis. This is the antithesis of science.



Well that statement is simply false. You are stating that a fossil's position in biological phylogeny is determined by its position in the geological column.

How exactly does that work?

How does the age of the sediment that a fossil died in, go back in time and affect its physical form when it was born?

Do you actually understand what utter rot that is?

How can you claim to know what the antithesis of science is - if you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't actually know what science is.

What does, "That is the antithesis of science," mean, anyway.

You'll be explaining about the antithesis of Geography, next, will you?




Send me the cash, I will hold it for you. ;)



I'm sure we can find someone to hold it. Randi might even want to, unless he wants a piece of the action too.

Are you up to the bet or not?

It's a serious question. I like taking money off mugs.




How exactly does the presentation of a particular organism into the discussion evidence that I do not understand science?

It is not presented as evidence that you don't understand science, and I would not want to present any such evidence. Why would I bother, when you are doing so well, yourself.

Have you looked up "Wedge Strategy" on Wikipedia? Apparently there are a bunch of moronic creationists out there trying to cast doubt on science for religious reasons.

They're a bunch of plonkers.

I hope they aren't friends of yours.

[skeptical]

I believe you have not been following the metaphor.


Taking the same step and not moving beyond the same step does not move one forward.

Now you are just being disingenuous and changing the example. We both know that "taking a step" meant taking a step forward, i.e. walking towards CA. That was an analogy to a small change in DNA, aka "micro" evolution. You have already agreed that "micro" evo happens.

A change in DNA is a "step forward", you have changed from your original spot because the new organism has "moved" from the original organism the same way a step has moved you from your original physical location. Taking a step in the same spot would imply NO change in the next generation, which is just plain silly and demonstrably false.

Therefore, the remaining parts of the analogy hold.

[skeptical]

I am emphatically against religion. It is a tool used to control the individual. I have no moral qualms with evolution, and I think it maybe correct. Yet the fact does remain that it is not good science to make observations and declare each new observation as a test and further evidence of "good" science.

For someone who is "against religion", you are doing a pretty good job of repeating creationist claims. For example, I have never seen someone who is not a creationist claim that evolutionary theory is "not falsifiable", although I have seen plenty of creationists make that claim.

What is your source for this claim, if it is not AIG or some other creationist front?

BTW, making an observation after a specific prediction of what the observational results will be, IS A TEST OF A THEORY.

You don't seem to understand the difference between just willy nilly making observations vs making specific observations after predicting what the results of the observations will be, and then confirming the prediction.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Why not? Every religion makes some assumptions about how God thinks. Without them, religion would be totally useless as a way of making people act morally. In fact, without it, God would have no characteristics whatsoever.

Fine, I think God would be a Dallas Cowboy fan!

[MilwaukeeMike]

So you will stick with the numbers that show that you really have no idea about probability and mathmatics around probability works?



That is a fundamental issue here, if you accept this premise you need to accept one definition of god(why would it please a god to be believed in in an abstract fashion that over not being believed in?)

What's your occupation, if I may ask?

[skeptical]

Jerome,

Let me try this yet another way, here are the steps you listed as applied to the discovery of the fused human chromosome 2:

1. Define the question
Are humans and chimps related? (defined by Darwin 150 yrs ago)

2. Gather information and resources (observe)
Lots of morphological information gathered, indicating common ancestry between humans and chimps. Once DNA was discovered, long after the original hypothesis, it was discovered that humans had 23 chromosomes and chimps had 24.

3. Form hypothesis
If humans and chimps are related, there should be evidence of a fusion in the human chromosomes where 2 chromosomes in a common ancestor fused into 1 to account for the fact that humans have only 23 while chimps have 24.

4. Perform experiment and collect data
Examine the human chromosomes, look to see if there is a chromosome that has extra telomeres (ends of a chromosome) and extra centromeres (center of a chromosome)

5. Analyze data
Just such a chromosome was found. HC2 shows evidence of extra telomeres and extra centromeres, G-banding of the single HC2 lines up exactly with 2 separate chimp chromosomes when lined up side by side.

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
The interpretation is that this is very strong confirmation of a fusion event in the human chromosomes, verifying the hypothesis that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and explaining why humans have 23 yet chimps (and other apes) have 24

7. Publish results
Published in peer reviewed scientific journals

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Many times. There are biology courses where students perform this exact analysis and can see the matching g-bands for themselves, lining up human chromosomes and chimp chromosomes

Now, please point out which step in this process doesn't meet your requirements and explain why the discovery of a chromosome fusion is "not following the scientific method".

[epeos76]

In response to the OP (and admittedly without reading the intervening throwing of mud and pulling of pig tails), No.

In response to applying psychologists measure of that mystical quality 'g' to do any work outside its peculiarly limited bailiwick, keep your *@#% leeches away from me.

[Tricky]

Fine, I think God would be a Dallas Cowboy fan!
Good good. Now let us examine this particular concept of God. Without exception, fans want their team to win. (That is what it means to be a fan.) So assuming that God has any power at all, He could control something as apparently chaotic as the bouncing pattern of a prolate spheroid in a way that would make His team win.

Over the next few weeks, we can perform a test of this concept of God. This test can be repeated annually.

Of course, you realize your religion is in direct conflict with lots of other religions, such as Hokulele's Patriotheistic Pantheon.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Good good. Now let us examine this particular concept of God. Without exception, fans want their team to win. (That is what it means to be a fan.) So assuming that God has any power at all, He could control something as apparently chaotic as the bouncing pattern of a prolate spheroid in a way that would make His team win.

Over the next few weeks, we can perform a test of this concept of God. This test can be repeated annually.

Of course, you realize your religion is in direct conflict with lots of other religions, such as Hokulele's Patriotheistic Pantheon.

Hahaha, well said!:D

[articulett]

Clearly, creationists are too stupid or too seeped in faith to understand the weight of evolutionary facts... however they tend to give great credibility written to bronze age herdsman with a penchant for animal sacrifice, sexism, and other barbarism.

I've never heard a coherent reason for believing in any immaterial entities--not gods, demons, thetans, fairies, ghosts, souls, angels, or any of the the other invisible forms of consciousness that people have invented over the eons. I think it's very obvious that the brightest amongst humans use skepticism for gaining knowledge-- not faith... and that those who seep their head in faith too long, guarantee their inability to reason. While there is certainly a lot of overlap, I think the higher the I.Q., the more likely a person is to have no god beliefs. Unfortunately, I.Q. has a high degree of heritablity, which is unfortunate, because the less intelligent spawn at greater rates, infecting their lower I.Q.'d spawns with their lower I.Q. memes.

I've been wondering if there are any smart, funny creationists-- those on the far right politically/religiously. Can anyone think of any? I'm talking as right as Bill O'Reilley or more... those who think Bush is doing a good job... people who are proud to be people of "faith"--they think faith is good for something.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What is your source for this claim, if it is not AIG or some other creationist front?

I do not read creationist literature.

The source is logical reasoning of the circumstance based upon what is generally deemed "good" science.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now you are just being disingenuous and changing the example. We both know that "taking a step" meant taking a step forward, i.e. walking towards CA.

I was the one who created the metaphor!

It is ridiculous for you to accuse me of being disingenuous because you did not understand the metaphor.

[skeptical]

I do not read creationist literature.

The source is logical reasoning of the circumstance based upon what is generally deemed "good" science.

That is a non answer. I ask again, what is your source for your claim that evolution is not falsifiable. Are you claiming you came up with that all on your own out of the blue?

ETA: You could also just give your sources for your definitions of "good" science

[skeptical]

I was the one who created the metaphor!

It is ridiculous for you to accuse me of being disingenuous because you did not understand the metaphor.

Ok, show me where I'm wrong. If "taking a step" in your analogy is not a small change in DNA, aka "micro" evolution, and "taking enough steps to get to CA" is not large changes in DNA, aka "macro" evolution, what are they?

Explain it to me.

[articulett]

Ok, show me where I'm wrong. If "taking a step" in your analogy is not a small change in DNA, aka "micro" evolution, and "taking enough steps to get to CA" is not large changes in DNA, aka "macro" evolution, what are they?

Explain it to me.

I think Jerome might be a kid... and if he's not a kid, he's a stunning example of affirming the question in the OP as well as my sig.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is a non answer. I ask again, what is your source for your claim that evolution is not falsifiable. Are you claiming you came up with that all on your own out of the blue?

My very own mind. Try using yours instead of relying on others to think for you. Your complete misunderstanding of where I am coming from and your choice to pigeon-hole me prevent you from thinking about the subject.

[schlitt]

I think the answer to the thread title is a resounding yes.
Has been illustrated in this, and many other threads.
And has logical reasoning when you consider intelligence variation in general.

The only tricky part is defining "stupid" more specifically. Superficially the all encompassing term does the trick however.

Oh and Articulett, your sig is intrinsically linked with this topic. Best study ever. ;)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ok, show me where I'm wrong. If "taking a step" in your analogy is not a small change in DNA, aka "micro" evolution, and "taking enough steps to get to CA" is not large changes in DNA, aka "macro" evolution, what are they?

Explain it to me.


The metaphor is: The journey (scientific method) is not complete (peer tested) when one has only taken a couple steps (observation, hypothesis) towards California (peer tested science).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think Jerome might be a kid... and if he's not a kid, he's a stunning example of affirming the question in the OP as well as my sig.

Your contribution to the thread is insults? Great display of intelligence.

[skeptical]

Potential falsification from the results of controlled tests is science.

Evolutionary theory HAS made falsifiable predictions, and COULD have been falsified, see my post #151 that explains in detail how the discovery of the fused human chromosome follows the exact standard you previously laid down, AND meets your criteria of a "controlled" test. The examination of the chromosomes were made in lab conditions to test a previously predicted hypothesis that a fused chromosome should exist. It doesn't get much more controlled than that.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think the answer to the thread title is a resounding yes.
Has been illustrated in this, and many other threads.
And has logical reasoning when you consider intelligence variation in general.

The only tricky part is defining "stupid" more specifically. Superficially the all encompassing term does the trick however.

Oh and Articulett, your sig is intrinsically linked with this topic. Best study ever. ;)


Thanks for parroting insults. A great display of intelligence and reasoned thought. A wonderful addition to the thread.

[skeptical]

The metaphor is: The journey (scientific method) is not complete (peer tested) when one has only taken a couple steps (observation, hypothesis) towards California (peer tested science).

Ok, then your metaphor makes no sense. It made much more sense to me when I thought you were talking about micro vs macro. And, seeing that you made the statement immediately after I said that macro and micro are the same thing just on different time scales, I would hope I could be forgiven for misunderstanding the analogy.

In any case, evolutionary theory has been tested time after time after time. I have given you numerous examples of how evolutionary theory could have been falsified and you have not even attempted to explain why those examples do not suffice to show you are wrong.

Why are those examples not sufficient?

[schlitt]

Thanks for parroting insults. A great display of intelligence and reasoned thought. A wonderful addition to the thread.

How is what i wrote insulting?

I simply answered the question with my opinion.

[skeptical]

My very own mind. Try using yours instead of relying on others to think for you. Your complete misunderstanding of where I am coming from and your choice to pigeon-hole me prevent you from thinking about the subject.

Ok then. What are your references for your background in evolutionary theory. You must have read _something_ that explained what evolutionary theory is, and explained its methods. This would be a necessary first step to using your own mind to come up with the idea that it is not falsifiable. You would also have to have read something about philosophy of science, so I would be interested in hearing what references you have read in that area as well.

And no, I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. It just seems very strange to me that you claim to have come up with this idea on your own, and yet this idea is very prevalent in creationist circles, and non-existent among people who are willing to accept the evidence of evolution, i.e. people who do not have a theological agenda

Do you not think that it is a bit strange that the only people who have the same opinion of evolutions falsifiability that you do come from groups you claim you despise?

[articulett]

Your contribution to the thread is insults? Great display of intelligence.

So, I take it you're not a kid?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Evolutionary theory HAS made falsifiable predictions, and COULD have been falsified, see my post #151 that explains in detail how the discovery of the fused human chromosome follows the exact standard you previously laid down, AND meets your criteria of a "controlled" test.

You do understand that the option fusion or fission in this instance is the assumption. The test assumed that the DNA was either changed by fission of fusion. If we see X it is fission and if we see Y it is fusion. Do you not see how this is not a test which could possibly falsify TOE?

[skeptical]

My very own mind. Try using yours instead of relying on others to think for you. Your complete misunderstanding of where I am coming from and your choice to pigeon-hole me prevent you from thinking about the subject.

Also, I would really appreciate a response to my post #151. I took the trouble to go through the exact steps you laid out as "good science" for the discovery of the fused chromosome, so it would be appreciated if you could be kind enough to explain what step in the process doesn't work and why its discovery doesn't count as "good science".

[skeptical]

You do understand that the option fusion or fission in this instance is the assumption. The test assumed that the DNA was either changed by fission of fusion. If we see X it is fission and if we see Y it is fusion. Do you not see how this is not a test which could possibly falsify TOE?

Jerome, you are missing the point here, and I am going to assume its because I have not explained it properly.

Let me step through it step by step:

Step 1: The hypothesis was that a fusion, or possibly a fission, had occurred. This hypo was made because it was a known data point that humans had 23 chromosomes and chimps had 24.

Step 2: The TEST is to see if this was in fact the case. The reason this is a TEST of common descent is because if humans and chimps are NOT related, then there should NOT be a fusion NOR a fission event detected because the reason that humans have 23 chromosome and chimps 24 would be because they are NOT related.

So, to repeat, if a fusion or fission was NOT detected, then CD is in trouble, because then it looks like the chromosome difference is because humans and chimps are NOT related. In other words: NO FUSION OR FISSION = NO CD

Step 3: Make the observation, observe the fusion, confirmation of hypothesis

At step 3, the observation could have gone either way. It was quite possible that the chromosomes could have had NEITHER a fusion NOR a fission. That was entirely possible. It just happened that they FOUND a fusion. Either a fusion or a fission would have been evidence FOR CD, but there is NO reason absent CD to find EITHER of them.

To use your terminology, yes, they were looking for either X or Y, BUT THEY COULD HAVE FOUND NEITHER OF THEM.

It is not like the test must have found either X or Y, it could have found both NOT X and NOT Y. In fact, most chromosomes do not show EITHER X or Y, which is why finding either of them is strong evidence for CD.

That is why it is a test that could have potentially falsified CD, and that is why confirming the hypothesis is such strong evidence FOR CD.

Is it clear now?

ETA: Just to be accurate, I should have said 23 and 24 PAIRS of chromosomes, 46 and 48 total.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ok then. What are your references for your background in evolutionary theory.

What are yours?

You must have read _something_ that explained what evolutionary theory is, and explained its methods. This would be a necessary first step to using your own mind to come up with the idea that it is not falsifiable. You would also have to have read something about philosophy of science, so I would be interested in hearing what references you have read in that area as well.

A goodly amount of evolutionary reference I use comes from Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/). I choose to discern from the facts presented, not adhere to the conclusions drawn.

Shall I list all the subjects I have studied and list all the books I have read in my lifetime?

And no, I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. It just seems very strange to me that you claim to have come up with this idea on your own, and yet this idea is very prevalent in creationist circles, and non-existent among people who are willing to accept the evidence of evolution, i.e. people who do not have a theological agenda.

The idea that TOE is not "good" science has zero bearing on what did happen. I honestly do not know what happened. I do know that TOE is presented as scientific theory without meeting the standards of a "good" scientific theory.

Do you not think that it is a bit strange that the only people who have the same opinion of evolutions falsifiability that you do come from groups you claim you despise?

No, I know many people from many backgrounds that have thoughts on multiple subjects that do not fit the dichotomy of A or B.

You should study human group psychology to better understand the need many people have to "fit" within group thought processes.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Also, I would really appreciate a response to my post #151. I took the trouble to go through the exact steps you laid out as "good science" for the discovery of the fused chromosome, so it would be appreciated if you could be kind enough to explain what step in the process doesn't work and why its discovery doesn't count as "good science".

I answered in post #171, apparently we cross posted. :)

[articulett]

You do understand that the option fusion or fission in this instance is the assumption. The test assumed that the DNA was either changed by fission of fusion. If we see X it is fission and if we see Y it is fusion. Do you not see how this is not a test which could possibly falsify TOE?

No... apes have 48 chromosomes with a particular banding pattern... we have 46... we've known that if we descend from a common ancestor that the ancestor must have had 48... 2 of which fused some time after the split... or perhaps even caused the split... and that is exactly what we found when we finally mapped the genomes... not only do the banding patterns match:

But we see exactly what happened to the chromosomes over time...

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739

zi8FfMBYCkk
uMtowduvxN8

If we didn't find this fusion... evolution would have been falsified... you can listen to the experts in the field and quit pretending you have any expertise. I even gave you links! It's easy! Smart people are educating you for free.

And Schlitt was not insulting you... he was affirming my observations... you really would be well served to learn the difference between facts supported by evidence and opinions supported by blather, faith, nuttery, propaganda, and the like. What in the world brought you to a skeptic's forum, and does anyone other than you consider yourself a "skeptic"?

[skeptical]

What are yours?

I asked you first. :)

But, I already listed a couple of good refs: "The making of the fittest" and "Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters". I also use talk origins.


A goodly amount of evolutionary reference I use comes from Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/). I choose to discern from the facts presented, not adhere to the conclusions drawn.

Interesting. So, there is a FAQ that discusses how evolution is falsifiable there. I posted it earlier. Where does the author go wrong?


Shall I list all the subjects I have studied and list all the books I have read in my lifetime?

Only if you feel the need. I was just curious.


The idea that TOE is not "good" science has zero bearing on what did happen. I honestly do not know what happened. I do know that TOE is presented as scientific theory without meeting the standards of a "good" scientific theory.

So, you "know" this, and you are not prepared to be shown otherwise? Or, you "know" it, but you could be convinced if simply presented with good evidence. If the latter, may I suggest my previous post explaining why your idea that the discovery of a chromosome fusion was not a potential falsification is incorrect?

No, I know many people from many backgrounds that have thoughts on multiple subjects that do not fit the dichotomy of A or B.

Well, I do find it strange. I find it strange for the simple reason that I have never encountered anyone who make creationist type claims who is not a creationist, and I have been on lots of boards and read lots of papers on both sides. I would be very interested to hear if you know any other person who is NOT a creationist who claims that evolution is not falsifiable, because I don't know any.


You should study human group psychology to better understand the need many people have to "fit" within group thought processes.

I have studied psych, I minored in it. I understand group dynamics very well. I also realize that some people accept things simply because an authority says it, in fact lots do that. But you are not conversing with one, and there are many people who fully accept the evidence of evolution who fall into the same camp who are not impressed by arguments from authority.

[skeptical]

I answered in post #171, apparently we cross posted. :)

Please see my post #173. :D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You are digging your own idiot hole here... you have a chance to be on the same page as the smart people instead of parroting creationists while pretending not to be one. Your credibility is in as much trouble as your intelligence, it appears.

And Schlitt was not insulting you... he was affirming my observations... you really would be well served to learn the difference between facts supported by evidence and opinions supported by blather, faith, nuttery, propaganda, and the like. What in the world brought you to a skeptic's forum, and does anyone other than you consider yourself a "skeptic"?

I was responding to your initial point until I read the above. You are a true believer and are not interested in talk, only opportunities for insult. Good luck with that.

[articulett]

more: 3sKScsbhOd4

Even creationist, Behe, accepts common descent.

[Tricky]

I was responding to your initial point until I read the above. You are a true believer and are not interested in talk, only opportunities for insult. Good luck with that.
Well, Articulette does tend to react strongly, but the simple fact is that there are a lot of scientists here and overwhelmingly, they agree that you are wrong. You made some silly statements about evolution being "bad science" and you seem to feel it is more important to defend your initial statement than to admit you were wrong, even in the face of massive amounts of evidence.

So of course, people get frustrated with you. Is that what you want? Do you take these angry outbursts at your intransigence as some kind of Pyrrhic victory?

Many people here have showed you how evolution is good science, by any definition of science but your own, which seems to require experiments that can be conducted quickly and in a laboratory. As such, you seem to be succumbing to the Hollywood version of scientists, who wear white coats and have test tubes lying around everywhere. I assure you, there are many kinds of science which utilize evidence that is already there and doesn't need to be recreated in a lab. Evolution, tectonics, cosmology, archeology, these are all real sciences. Good sciences. Your denial of them may succeed in angering a few people, but it won't do anything to change how science works. You would do better to learn how science works than to deny its methodologies because of some ridiculous issue of pride.

[articulett]

I was responding to your initial point until I read the above. You are a true believer and are not interested in talk, only opportunities for insult. Good luck with that.

I thought it was harsh too... that's why I deleted it... but it was too late... I hope you at least watched the videos... if you want to talk about a topic and have some recognized expertise... you really ought to be current on your knowledge... you simply aren't. And, of course you are angry-- people call you on your BS here... they probably just ignore you in real life. But this is a skeptic's forum... participation is optional. Rational discussions require evidence-- you don't seem to have any... and you are an example of the OP stupidity in my opinion... and, apparently, others. You can't see it, because you imagine yourself having expertise, you do not have. You can't see that you are all over the place with your arguments... move goal posts and can't seem to follow conversations the way everyone else does... and it would make me mad too if I was that way-- and someone pointed it out. But I would take the opportunity to improve via the hints I got. The woo never do. Perhaps you have evidence to show otherwise?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I thought it was harsh too... that's why I deleted it... but it was too late... I hope you at least watched the videos... if you want to talk about a topic and have some recognized expertise... you really ought to be current on your knowledge... you simply aren't. And, of course you are angry-- people call you on your BS here... they probably just ignore you in real life. But this is a skeptic's forum... participation is optional. Rational discussions require evidence-- you don't seem to have any... and you are an example of the OP stupidity in my opinion... and, apparently, others. You can't see it, because you imagine yourself having expertise, you do not have. You can't see that you are all over the place with your arguments... move goal posts and can't seem to follow conversations the way everyone else does... and it would make me mad too if I was that way-- and someone pointed it out. But I would take the opportunity to improve via the hintsI got. The woo never do. Perhaps you have evidence to show otherwise?

Do you have a hard time getting along in the real world?

:boggled:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, Articulette does tend to react strongly, but the simple fact is that there are a lot of scientists here and overwhelmingly, they agree that you are wrong. You made some silly statements about evolution being "bad science" and you seem to feel it is more important to defend your initial statement than to admit you were wrong, even in the face of massive amounts of evidence.

To call my arguments silly is to discount reason and revert to base thought. Why in the world would I admit I was wrong when I have yet to be shown the unreasonableness of my thought?

So of course, people get frustrated with you. Is that what you want? Do you take these angry outbursts at your intransigence as some kind of Pyrrhic victory?

Those that become frustrated or angry when dealing with those that are in disagreement have much greater problems than I.

Many people here have showed you how evolution is good science, by any definition of science but your own, which seems to require experiments that can be conducted quickly and in a laboratory. As such, you seem to be succumbing to the Hollywood version of scientists, who wear white coats and have test tubes lying around everywhere. I assure you, there are many kinds of science which utilize evidence that is already there and doesn't need to be recreated in a lab. Evolution, tectonics, cosmology, archeology, these are all real sciences. Good sciences. Your denial of them may succeed in angering a few people, but it won't do anything to change how science works. You would do better to learn how science works than to deny its methodologies because of some ridiculous issue of pride.

Restating the TOE is "good" science does not make it so. I will continue to hold my reasoned thoughts until I am shown incorrect by reason. A multitude of observations does not take the scientific method past the hypothesis stage. I am not having this talk to convert any to my thoughts. I am here to test my own thoughts.

[Silentknight]

I admit I've tried to follow this thread even after it degenerated into a flamewar. There's something that I'm very confused over, and yes, it does relate to how Jerome's arguments sound practically identical to creationist arguments. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying that this discussion begs the same questions that have come to mind when I've heard such arguments before.

Even though we can observe adaptation and speciation, we obviously can't recreate 3 billion years of evolution in the lab or via computer simulation. Does that necessarily mean evolution is unscientific? The Big Bang theory is based on a backwards extrapolation of our observations of expansion, but we haven't recreated the Big Bang in any particle accelerator. Should we reject that as well? What about gravity? We can clearly observe and test its effects, but we can't create artificial gravity, and we still don't understand the basic mechanisms behind the force. Is that junk science too? :confused:

[articulett]

Do you have a hard time getting along in the real world?

:boggled:

Nope. But I thank JREF for that. I can get my frustrations out on idiocy here, and it allows me to be more pleasant to others not purposefully inflicting their woo.

That's because this is a SKEPTIC's forum... people are respected according to things like intelligence, conversational style, humor, evidence, education... and we get to bait the woos who come here to inflict their woo upon others. People can't help being stupid... but people can help inflicting it on others on a skeptic's forum. Skeptics like to hang out with other skeptics. Woo, should hang out with other woo--- or..."when in Rome..."

[Tricky]

Do you have a hard time getting along in the real world?

Articulette admitted to an error of judgment.
I thought it was harsh too... that's why I deleted it...

It was an admission of making a mistake and there was an attempt to correct it. Such behavior indicates a marked ability to deal with the real world and one's own foibles.

Do you have this ability? Will you admit that you are incorrect when you call evolution "bad science"?

[articulett]

Restating the TOE is "good" science does not make it so. I will continue to hold my reasoned thoughts until I am shown incorrect by reason. A multitude of observations does not take the scientific method past the hypothesis stage. I am not having this talk to convert any to my thoughts. I am here to test my own thoughts.

And what evidence might convince you that evolution is good science or is true? Because there is NO evidence for any alternate theory. If there was, I'm sure scientists everywhere would be eager to examine it. But not understanding something is not evidence of something else.

I suspect that, like most creationists (who usually deny being creationists) that no evidence will change your mind. Even Behe accepts common descent. He is a definite creationist (though he will deny it as well and prefer the term "intelligent design proponent".) But most theists accept evolution... the only ones with real problems who can't ever seem to get enough evidence (while showing no curiosity in the evidence nor any ability to grasp the evidence) are people with fundamentalist type religious beliefs. Muslim fundies and Christian fundies for the most part. Even Catholics accept evolution... I don't know if you are waiting for you guru to tell you if it's okay--but that's what it sounds like to me. Because as far as the rest of the world and the scientific community is concerned it is one of the most robust and explanatory theories in science...

I take it, you ignored the videos so you can pretend that you know what the chromosome 2 fusion is about so you can continue to pretend that evolution is not falsifiable.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Even though we can observe adaptation and speciation, we obviously can't recreate 3 billion years of evolution in the lab or via computer simulation. Does that necessarily mean evolution is unscientific? The Big Bang theory is based on a backwards extrapolation of our observations of expansion, but we haven't recreated the Big Bang in any particle accelerator. Should we reject that as well? What about gravity? We can clearly observe and test its effects, but we can't create artificial gravity, and we still don't understand the basic mechanisms behind the force. Is that junk science too? :confused:

Here we go!

I am exactly saying that TOE is similar in validity to the big bang theory. Both are theoretical in the common sense of the word, not the scientific sense of the word. The point I am making is that TOE is not on the level of science such as gravity which is testable and potentially falsifiable. Of course we do not discount the hypothesis, but we should also not claim hypothesis are on the level of scientific theory without following the correct steps of the scientific method.

I think many are confused by the different meanings of certain words when used in different contexts. Maybe I have failed to exactly delineated the meaning of the words I use. I assumed that most here would understand the meaning based on context.

[Darth Rotor]

Here we go!

I am exactly saying that TOE is similar in validity to the big bang theory. Both are theoretical in the common sense of the word, not the scientific sense of the word. The point I am making is that TOE is not on the level of science such as gravity which is testable and potentially falsifiable. Of course we do not discount the hypothesis, but we should also not claim hypothesis are on the level of scientific theory without following the correct steps of the scientific method.

I think many are confused by the different meanings of certain words when used in different contexts. Maybe I have failed to exactly delineated the meaning of the words I use. I assumed that most here would understand the meaning based on context.
This thread has taken on a rather odd drift since EG's original barb, which leads me to ask:

Since when is TOE an Atheist Argument?

One is not required to be an Atheist to take a position "pro" evolution. Any Deist or Agnostic can take the position without being any atheist.

EG's OP question: Are some people just too stupid to understand atheist arguments

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It was an admission of making a mistake and there was an attempt to correct it. Such behavior indicates a marked ability to deal with the real world and one's own foibles.

Do you have this ability? Will you admit that you are incorrect when you call evolution "bad science"?


I certainly admit when I am shown to be incorrect by reason. When I am shown to be incorrect I look upon that as a gift from the presenter. I would never continue to present what I was incorrect about, particularly not in the next breath.

You should reread your friends writings after her "admission of mistake" and determine by reason if she was only posturing for effect.

[articulett]

Here we go!

I am exactly saying that TOE is similar in validity to the big bang theory. Both are theoretical in the common sense of the word, not the scientific sense of the word. The point I am making is that TOE is not on the level of science such as gravity which is testable and potentially falsifiable. Of course we do not discount the hypothesis, but we should also not claim hypothesis are on the level of scientific theory without following the correct steps of the scientific method.

I think many are confused by the different meanings of certain words when used in different contexts. Maybe I have failed to exactly delineated the meaning of the words I use. I assumed that most here would understand the meaning based on context.

Wrong. TOE is one of the most robustly supported theories and is the basis for all our vaccinations, paternity testing, genetic testing, and so forth... perhaps your ignorance is what keeps you from understanding this. It is accepted by all scientists to an overwhelming degree except for a few who have strong religious reasons for not accepting it. If you followed the Dover trial (which I'm sure you ignored), you would see that the reason things like the Big bang and so forth aren't problematic is because they don't directly impact religious creation stories. Evolution puts a monkey wrench in creation stories--for christians it's "original sin"-- the reason god killed his kid (who was him). Religious fundies recognize that once people understand evolution... original sin is called into question.... which is the whole fear and nuttiness many religions are based on. Of course Muslims have their own "intelligent design" theories... as do Moonies and Raelians. The only people who have an amazingly hard time getting enough evidence to accept or even understand evolution are people with religious brainwashing reasons for "not getting it". Prove me wrong. That's a falsifiable statement. Where are the non-religious people who accept evolution? The vast majority of religious people accept it... only a small fundamental minority sound like you.

[Tricky]

To call my arguments silly is to discount reason and revert to base thought. Why in the world would I admit I was wrong when I have yet to be shown the unreasonableness of my thought?
You never responded to my example of the kind of experiment that the science of evolutions performs. It addressed all your points. What is unreasonable is to require that for science to be good is that it be reproducible during a human life span. Macroevolution, by definition takes many many generations, yet you insist on a quick test. Is this what you call reasonable?

Those that become frustrated or angry when dealing with those that are in disagreement have much greater problems than I.
You think so? Emotions are quite normal. Some of the greatest scientists in history exhibit them, especially at those who ignored evidence and reason.
Restating the TOE is "good" science does not make it so.
Whoa are you talking to here? I've made no TOE statements. I've made specific statements about specific disciplines, those I'm familiar with. Your summary dismissal without adequately defending your reasons is much farther away from "good science" than any of the examples you've been given.


I will continue to hold my reasoned thoughts until I am shown incorrect by reason.
You will quite obviously hold them long after they have been shown to be incorrect by reason. Reason has been given. You have rejected or ignored it.


A multitude of observations does not take the scientific method past the hypothesis stage. If a prediction is made and an observation satisfies that prediction, do you continue to call it nothing more than "observation"? At what point do you agree that the question has been answered? Do you agree that an observation, even one made on evidence that is old, but until recently undiscovered, that fulfills a prediction is a verification of the hypothesis? If not, why not?


I am not having this talk to convert any to my thoughts. I am here to test my own thoughts.
LOL. You compare your thoughts to your thoughts and make conclusions which exclude any evidence presented to you apart from your own thoughts? My, for a person who claims to be able to tell bad science from good, you have a novel idea of what "testing" means.

[Darth Rotor]

Wrong. TOE is one of the most robustly supported theories and is the basis for all our vaccinations, paternity testing, genetic testing, and so forth... perhaps your ignorance is what keeps you from understanding this. It is accepted by all scientists to an overwhelming degree except for a few who have strong religious reasons for not accepting it. If you followed the Dover trial (which I'm sure you ignored), you would see that the reason things like the Big bang and so forth aren't problematic is because they don't directly impact religious creation stories. Evolution puts a monkey wrench in creation stories--for christians it's "original sin"-- the reason god killed his kid (who was him). Religious fundies recognize that once people understand evolution... original sin is called into question.... which is the whole fear and nuttiness many religions are based on. Of course Muslims have their own "intelligent design" theories... as do Moonies and Raelians. The only people who have an amazingly hard time getting enough evidence to accept or even understand evolution are people with religious brainwashing reasons for "not getting it". Prove me wrong. That's a falsifiable statement. Where are the non-religious people who accept evolution? The vast majority of religious people accept it... only a small fundamental minority sound like you.

I don't think you understand the point he is making, nor do you grasp that you are not arguing with a position he has taken.

Nowhere has Jerome rejected Evolution, nor Science. He is being pedantic about theories and hypotheses in his quibble over micro and macro evolution.

Note: How you consider evolution the father of vaccinations I'd like to see, given Pasteur's not being Darwin, but I'd be interested in your elaboration on that. I might see a new wrinkle I'd not seen before, which can be refreshing.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This thread has taken on a rather odd drift since EG's original barb, which leads me to ask:

Since when is TOE an Atheist Argument?

One is not required to be an Atheist to take a position "pro" evolution. Any Deist or Agnostic can take the position without being any atheist.

EG's OP question: Are some people just too stupid to understand atheist arguments

DR

I responded to this statement:
Highly un-PC thread here...and I hesitate to ever make statements about people's intelligence (usually there's no point)...but I would like to talk a little about the relationship between religious belief (or lack thereof) and intelligence. Granted, it's difficult to separate intelligence from education or social class...but we can still examine what evidence we have.

With:
I despise religion and I do not believe that macro-evolution is supported scientifically. What does this make me?
among other points.

This was the point many decided to follow and the talk degenerated into my lack of intellect and probable creationist background. :jaw-dropp

[danielk]

This thread seems to have turned into a mirror of the Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution debate on the falsifiability of the Theory of Evolution, which is already close to thirty pages by now. No need to rehearse it all again.

[Darth Rotor]

I responded to this statement:


With:

among other points.

This was the point many decided to follow and the talk degenerated into my lack of intellect and probable creationist background. :jaw-dropp
OP recrafted, based on the drift:

Are some people too stupid to know what argument they are engaged in? :cool:

Given EG's opener, and thus the thread's tone from the outset, why not have some fun with the "panties bunched" crowd? :D

DR

[Darth Rotor]

This thread seems to have turned into a mirror of the Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution debate on the falsifiability of the Theory of Evolution, which is already close to thirty pages by now. No need to rehearse it all again.
You may be right, but this in the Internet.

Endless repitition is an imbedded feature of The Endless September. ;)

DR

[UnrepentantSinner]

Stating mythical circumstances is not potential falsification.

Potential falsification from the results of controlled tests is science.

As noted, you do not understand how science operates outside of a beaker. The lists you've been provided are things that would utterly falsify common descent.

Even though we can observe adaptation and speciation, we obviously can't recreate 3 billion years of evolution in the lab or via computer simulation. Does that necessarily mean evolution is unscientific? The Big Bang theory is based on a backwards extrapolation of our observations of expansion, but we haven't recreated the Big Bang in any particle accelerator. Should we reject that as well? What about gravity? We can clearly observe and test its effects, but we can't create artificial gravity, and we still don't understand the basic mechanisms behind the force. Is that junk science too? :confused:

I pointed out the problem with the demands on evolution he's making back on page 3 or 4.

No, you're asking for the Magratheans to create a second Earth, run the program again the same way and see if evolution makes humans.

That's not how science works.

[articulett]

I don't think you understand the point he is making, nor do you grasp that you are not arguing with a position he has taken.

Nowhere has Jerome rejected Evolution, nor Science. He is being pedantic about theories and hypotheses in his quibble over micro and macro evolution.

Note: How you consider evolution the father of vaccinations I'd like to see, given Pasteur's not being Darwin, but I'd be interested in your elaboration on that. I might see a new wrinkle I'd not seen before, which can be refreshing.

DR

I didn't say "father"-- I said basis... Do you know how vaccines work? Do you know how we make them? Do you know how we decide to make this seasons flu vaccine?

And, although Jerome is all over the place-- he has rejected evolution and science or rather feels that one is not the other...

I don't know what he thinks or believes... but he sounds identical to all the creationists I've come in contact with with the same lack of interest on any current developments while pretending to have expertise on the subject. He's the one who side tracked this discussion. And I found it supportive of the OP. Moreover, I find him disingenuous at best. In my experience, creationists are the most intractable woo. They believe they will be "rewarded" for faith... that they can know something via "faith".

Read what he wrote about the chromosome 2 fusion (fission--ha)... and you tell me he's not imagining expertise where he has none. And you tell me if you think he sounds any different than any creationist... and if so, in what way. To me, they all pretend to understand science and be interested in it... but they have NO interest in current development, and they would flunk the biology class I teach.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As noted, you do not understand how science operates outside of a beaker.

The prediction of observations without controls does not equate to controlled repeatable tests.

These two things do not carry the same scientific weight.

The fact that only in the dissemination of TOE does this fact seem not to matter intrigues me a great deal.

[articulett]

I will bow out... I think it's futile to talk with creationists who preach here... I just like to pop in and leave a few facts around for those who are actually curious about the topic. Moreover, I like to highlight such threads and keep the bumped up so that people can see what scientific ignorance does to thinking.

Wasn't Jerome the one who derailed the other thread as well... we have some woo that are very keen on preaching it seems... and always the same sort religious right wing propaganda from what I see.

[danielk]

I don't know what he thinks or believes... but he sounds identical to all the creationists I've come in contact with with the same lack of interest on any current developments while pretending to have expertise on the subject. He's the one who side tracked this discussion. And I found it supportive of the OP.
Jerome isn't religious. I don't agree with him on evolution either, but you aren't helping things.

[dirtywick]

You never responded to my example of the kind of experiment that the science of evolutions performs. It addressed all your points. What is unreasonable is to require that for science to be good is that it be reproducible during a human life span. Macroevolution, by definition takes many many generations, yet you insist on a quick test. Is this what you call reasonable?

Isn't this the entire reason there's so few ways to falsify it?

I see where Jerome is coming from. If I wanted to test gravity, I could get a vacuum and drop something and it'll fall at the same rate every time, easy and verifiable test that really anyone with a gradeschool education can follow. With evolution? Not so much. What are you supposed to do? Dig through every inch of the Earth's crust looking for a single oddity? Like searching the universe for God kind of, isn't it?

Look though, that doesn't mean TOE is bad science, or even wrong! The totality of evidence is strongly in favor of it to the point where it's silly to dispute it. Just that there's no "do this, and evolution happens" experiment (notice how no one disputes the validity of gravity?) So don't lump me in with creationists. I'm just saying, I get where he's coming from is all and I'm inclined to agree, at least as far as the TOE really needs one of those experiments to cement it's validty. Unless there's a reproducable experiment you can do that I don't know about, in which case I'm just ignorant of it and would gladly like to be corrected so I can reference it later.

[epeos76]

Yes, THIS is the thread for calling names and inventing character flaws.

There is irrefutable evidence that smugness is inversely related to IQ. Fortunately, there is also good anecdotal evidence that the smug have less sex. Perhaps we can expect a world filled with open-minded dunces vigorously doing what bunnies do.

[Tricky]

Isn't this the entire reason there's so few ways to falsify it?
There are countless ways to falsify it. All it takes is for the observations to contradict the predictions.

I see where Jerome is coming from. If I wanted to test gravity, I could get a vacuum and drop something and it'll fall at the same rate every time, easy and verifiable test that really anyone with a gradeschool education can follow. With evolution? Not so much. What are you supposed to do? Dig through every inch of the Earth's crust looking for a single oddity? Like searching the universe for God kind of, isn't it?
You're right that it is quite hard to come up with data in the natural sciences. You do have to scrabble in dirt for a long time. But the collection is no less rigorous and no less legitimate. After all, what is the difference in a result produced in a laboratory that no-one has ever seen before, versus a fossil pulled out of the dirt that no-one has ever seen before?

I thinke Jerome believes that scientific experiments all happen quickly, like in the time it takes to do a chemistry lab. He probably doesn't realize that some experiments take multiple lifetimes to complete. The person who had the original hypothesis is long dead before the results are in. This can be true in all sciences, but it is especially true in the sciences where data collection requires such painstaking, butt-grinding work, like chipping out fragile fossils from rocks. Most digs last years and that's just to collect a tiny amount of data. Yet, over the years, so much data has been collected to support evolution that it would take a kind of scientific blind spot to deny it.

I wish you could simply drop your rock hammer and a missing link would appear. It would be so much easier. In my opinion, Louis Leakey is as much or more of a hero than Louis Pasteur. You don't have to live in a tent in the Serengetti just to find microbes. You don't get as much glory either.

Look though, that doesn't mean TOE is bad science, or even wrong! The totality of evidence is strongly in favor of it to the point where it's silly to dispute it.
I assume that by TOE you mean a Grand Unification Theory. I'm not sure what that means exactly. The sciences tend to blend into one another. This is nothing new. Science is itself a TOE, but all the TOE really is can be summarized in two words. Science works. Let it work, and it will all tie together. Calling that a TOE might be pleasing to journalists and non-scientists, but to those of us who work with science every day, it is sort of, "Eh? So what?" Of course, every new link is exciting, but the fact that the scientific method works is not exactly hot off the presses.

Just that there's no "do this, and evolution happens" experiment (notice how no one disputes the validity of gravity?) So don't lump me in with creationists. I'm just saying, I get where he's coming from is all and I'm inclined to agree, at least as far as the TOE really needs one of those experiments to cement it's validty. Unless there's a reproducable experiment you can do that I don't know about, in which case I'm just ignorant of it and would gladly like to be corrected so I can reference it later.
Like evoluton, the TOE (if you must call it that) is not a single thing that can be validated by a single experiment. Each tiny little aspect of it must be validated and evaluated for how it fits into the big picture (or TOE). If it doesn't fit, you still don't throw TOE out, you modify it to account for what you've learned.

Well, I ramble. Dreamland for me. And when we scientists dream of dinosaurs, it's not a nightmare.:D

[UnrepentantSinner]

I assume that by TOE you mean a Grand Unification Theory. I'm not sure what that means exactly.

TOE = Theory of Evolution, not Theory of Everything.

[articulett]

Jerome isn't religious. I don't agree with him on evolution either, but you aren't helping things.

Don't believe everything you're told. Many people who go out of their way to assert their "atheist credentials" or their lack of theism are covering. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. And most creationists won't refer to themselves as a creationist either... this is because they feel their arguments will be taken more seriously if they don't have faith behind it.

Really. The more you're around, the more you will see. And NOTHING "helps" it. That's why I use them for my amusement. You're free to waste you're time trying to clue them in, now that I've put them on ignore. I predict that you one day you will say, "gee, articulett, you were right"...:zzw:

[articulett]

duplicate due to wireless problems
:sulk:

[articulett]

Yes, THIS is the thread for calling names and inventing character flaws.

There is irrefutable evidence that smugness is inversely related to IQ. Fortunately, there is also good anecdotal evidence that the smug have less sex. Perhaps we can expect a world filled with open-minded dunces vigorously doing what bunnies do.

Well, Darwin said that "ignorance more often begets confidence"-- and my sig study agrees. So that evidence suggests that theists are the smuggest. And I guess that makes sense, since they believe they have accessed higher truths via subjective means that no scientist is able to measure or verify in any way... nor distinguish from a delusion. And increasing studies show that that is NOT proportional to I.Q.-- that is, as I.Q. goes up, religiosity goes down. So, it appears that the facts (yes, those are the things we use to support assertions around here) do not support your observations.

As to your bunny reference... that seems to make more sense in your head than it does in writing. Theists tend not to be open minded to facts... except to facts they can use to twist to support the belief they imagine is true. And a lot of emotions, semantics and rhetoric of course (what else can you use when you don't have facts, eh?) So, again, you assertion fails. (And the reference actually involved facts and who participates in family planning and to what extent-- not sexual activity, btw.)

Hmmm... bold arrogant assuptions... no facts... semantic hyperbole...judging others while pretending to be nonjudgmental-- let me guess what category you belong to...

my inner knowingness tells me... you're a THEIST... perhaps even a creationist.

[autumn1971]

I haven't read even close to this entire thread, but I can settle the whole thing now by a single minor alteration to the title of the OP.

(Discuss amongst yourselves the influence of a single deletion event on the functionality of the OP)

If I delete from the title of the OP the final prepositional phrase, the title of the OP reads "Are some people just too stupid"

Yes. Yes they are.

[epeos76]

Good guess on the theist thing. Creationism? Not so much, but you might be able to convince me.

About that ignorance equals confidence line? Yeah, see I was oh so playfully reversing that very claim in the same (logically flawed) way you appear willing to reverse the claim that as IQ goes up religiosity goes down.

You know, a lot of other things could generate confidence, and a lot of other things correlated to IQ could cause religiosity to go down. Income comes to mind as a first cut.

I've seen plenty of dolts properly shredded here for making the claim that because some smart person believed in god, Presto! god is therefore True. I think you should ask yourself why you are so willing to stand up for the reverse argument. The fact that lots of smart people disbelieve in god is not evidence that disbelief in God is related to flawed reasoning.

Oh, and if you link to a study showing the IQ- god belief correlation, I will grudgingly review it in the spirit of even handedness. As a general principle, I think IQ is both boring and widely misused. Outside of psychology it generally makes an appearance to explain why the explicator is so much better than the explainee.

Non-psych. people who talk about it tend to believe theirs' is pretty special. Without, I notice, taking into account the effect of applying a bell curve to 6B+ human beings.

ETA - I really like that part about the secret creationists hidden amongst us. I have perfect faith that you are just the gal to hunt out these fiends.

[danielk]

Don't believe everything you're told. Many people who go out of their way to assert their "atheist credentials" or their lack of theism are covering. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. And most creationists won't refer to themselves as a creationist either... this is because they feel their arguments will be taken more seriously if they don't have faith behind it.
Even if you are right, such speculation is pointless.

Really. The more you're around, the more you will see. And NOTHING "helps" it. That's why I use them for my amusement. You're free to waste you're time trying to clue them in, now that I've put them on ignore. I predict that you one day you will say, "gee, articulett, you were right"...:zzw:
Oh my. First, I haven't expressed any belief that Jerome will "come around". That's simply not the point, and I'm not even trying to "clue him in". Second, I think it is perfectly possible to be non-religious and not accept evolution as a scientific theory. It's rare but it happens. I understand his argument but I think he's wrong.

In the end I don't care whether he's religious or not. It has no bearing on the argument at hand.

[Henners]

I do not read creationist literature.

The source is logical reasoning of the circumstance based upon what is generally deemed "good" science.

Deemed "good" science by whom?

(a) Not by 99.999% of the Biologists on the planet.

(b) By creationists.

(c) By you.

It rather makes the comment "I do not read creationist literature" look like something from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[dirtywick]

There are countless ways to falsify it. All it takes is for the observations to contradict the predictions.

Right, but nobody knows how, when, or what those observations will be. Doesn't that make it awfully difficult to design an experiment with the express purpose of falsification? Just kind of poking around in bedrock for decades and seeing what comes out seems awfully random (to me, anyway, I'm sure there's more to it than that).

Of course, what else do you do?

That's where I'm feeling what Jerome is saying.


You're right that it is quite hard to come up with data in the natural sciences. You do have to scrabble in dirt for a long time. But the collection is no less rigorous and no less legitimate. After all, what is the difference in a result produced in a laboratory that no-one has ever seen before, versus a fossil pulled out of the dirt that no-one has ever seen before?

I thinke Jerome believes that scientific experiments all happen quickly, like in the time it takes to do a chemistry lab. He probably doesn't realize that some experiments take multiple lifetimes to complete. The person who had the original hypothesis is long dead before the results are in. This can be true in all sciences, but it is especially true in the sciences where data collection requires such painstaking, butt-grinding work, like chipping out fragile fossils from rocks. Most digs last years and that's just to collect a tiny amount of data. Yet, over the years, so much data has been collected to support evolution that it would take a kind of scientific blind spot to deny it.

I wish you could simply drop your rock hammer and a missing link would appear. It would be so much easier. In my opinion, Louis Leakey is as much or more of a hero than Louis Pasteur. You don't have to live in a tent in the Serengetti just to find microbes. You don't get as much glory either.

Right, I feel what you're saying here too. But I think the difference between producing something in a lab no one's seen and a fossil no one's seen is that I can go back to the lab and reproduce that again and again and again if necessary, whereas you'll only find the fossil once and then it's on to another site with a completely different set of variables introduced. I'm confident though that in time someone will figure out a way to prove evolution irrefutably in a lab and be able to do it over and over under identical conditions so everyone can see it live.

But until then, I think Jerome has a point. A fairly minor and insignificant point, but you've got to give props when they're due.

That's not to say anything more than a reproducable experiment would be a great leap in the advancement of the theory, and in my opinion, what it'll take to legitimize it beyond any doubt, not just extremely reasonable doubt.

[Henners]

Yes, THIS is the thread for calling names and inventing character flaws.

There is irrefutable evidence that smugness is inversely related to IQ. Fortunately, there is also good anecdotal evidence that the smug have less sex. Perhaps we can expect a world filled with open-minded dunces vigorously doing what bunnies do.

Quite the contrary. Read the paper referenced in Articulett's sig.

Smugness is the inevitable consequence of incompetence.

Incompetent people believe themselves to be more competent than they actually are.

Generally, I have found - not mentioning any names - that they think a couple of minutes Googling is in some way equivalent to thousands of hours in an academic environment.

[Henners]

Right, I feel what you're saying here too. But I think the difference between producing something in a lab no one's seen and a fossil no one's seen is that I can go back to the lab and reproduce that again and again and again if necessary

You think that lab experiments produce exactly the same results every time?

Where did you get that idea?

Could you please tell me where and when this extraordinary phenomenon took place?

It's a new one on me.

[dirtywick]

You think that lab experiments produce exactly the same results every time?

Where did you get that idea?

Could you please tell me where and when this extraordinary phenomenon took place?

It's a new one on me.

Not really the point, but my earlier example of gravity, any object, and a vacuum to measure the speed at which gravity will accelerate an object on Earth seems like an apt example. Hardly extraordinary.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Even if you are right, such speculation is pointless.


Oh my. First, I haven't expressed any belief that Jerome will "come around". That's simply not the point, and I'm not even trying to "clue him in". Second, I think it is perfectly possible to be non-religious and not accept evolution as a scientific theory. It's rare but it happens. I understand his argument but I think he's wrong.

In the end I don't care whether he's religious or not. It has no bearing on the argument at hand.

She's a lot smarter than everyone (at least according to her) so you'd better just accept that if she says he's a Creationist, it means he is, even if he says he isn't. ;)

[Mobyseven]

Your contribution to the thread is insults? Great display of intelligence.

Technically, according to the MA it is against forum rules to ridicule the poster, but not against forum rules to ridicule the argument made by the poster. This certainly makes sense, however you have yet to take steps towards anything that could be considered an argument in any sense of the word, instead preferring the automatic negation of others arguments with all the finesse and wit of a monkey at a keyboard with only two keys on it: "No!" and "Enter".

In order to stay within the MA I will point out that when you do make an argument, it is likely to be worthy of ridicule, and at that time I will respond appropriately.

[danielk]

She's a lot smarter than everyone (at least according to her) so you'd better just accept that if she says he's a Creationist, it means he is, even if he says he isn't. ;)
Yeah, I noticed she can be a bit cross at times. Ahem. I'll better refrain from further comment, as I don't want to provoke her wrath. ;)

[Tricky]

TOE = Theory of Evolution, not Theory of Everything.
Oh, well, that's very different.

Never mind.

[skeptical]

The prediction of observations without controls does not equate to controlled repeatable tests.

These two things do not carry the same scientific weight.

The fact that only in the dissemination of TOE does this fact seem not to matter intrigues me a great deal.

Jerome, I would appreciate a response to my post #173. Is it clear now why the discovery of the chromosome fusion was a falsifiable prediction?

[skeptical]

The prediction of observations without controls does not equate to controlled repeatable tests.

These two things do not carry the same scientific weight.

The fact that only in the dissemination of TOE does this fact seem not to matter intrigues me a great deal.

The "problem" you identify is true for any observation that cannot be duplicated under laboratory conditions. This would be true for observations in, at a minimum, Geology, Astronomy, and certain branches of Physics. About the only scientific discipline I can think of that can duplicate ALL of the observations it is based on in a lab is Chemistry, and there may even be examples I can't think of in Chemistry.

It is unclear to me on what basis you make the argument that observation from a "controlled" experiment is better than an observation made under "uncontrolled" conditions. What matters is what the observation reveals about the world, and whether it conforms to a previous hypothesis. In both cases, the data point of interest, the observation, would appear to be the same. You seem to be saying that any observation outside of a lab is somehow "tainted", but it is not at all clear to me why you believe this.

You appear to have a very constrained view of what makes "good" science. Needless to say, under your conception there is much more than just ToE that is not "good" science. I will also point out that there ARE "controlled" observational confirmations of ToE and CD, the chromosomal fusion detection is just 1, I could list many others. In fact, ALL DNA confirmations are under lab conditions, and given that the DNA evidence alone is sufficient to demonstrate CD, it is difficult to see why this evidence shouldn't "count" under your criteria.

You seem to be singling out ToE as not meeting your criteria of "good" science, when many other disciplines also fail to meet your criteria, and when in fact many observational confirmations of ToE DO meet your criteria. Why is that?

[Tricky]

Right, but nobody knows how, when, or what those observations will be. Doesn't that make it awfully difficult to design an experiment with the express purpose of falsification?
No, not at all. The design part is fairly easy. It is the execution part that can be tough. When you're looking for "missing links", your experiment design consists of finding a spot of the exact right stratigraphy with a promising depositional environment (i.e. good for preservation of fossils) that can be accessed by a "dig" team. The difficult part comes from the fact that often these spots are located in some nasty, inaccessible part of the world. If you plan to live there for a while and have the tools you need available, you almost have construct a small village.

This is exactly the sort of "experiment" Louis and Mary Leaky performed when they journeyed to the Olduvai Gorge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge). Had they discovered hominid fossils that were obviously more closely related to something besides apes, that part of evolution would have been falsified.

Just kind of poking around in bedrock for decades and seeing what comes out seems awfully random (to me, anyway, I'm sure there's more to it than that).

Of course, what else do you do?
Yes, much more than that. You're basically talking about the data collection. The science is quite involved and incredibly fascinating.

That's where I'm feeling what Jerome is saying.
Oh, I know what he is saying. Like so many, he is unaware of all the science that goes into paleontology. My only problem with him is that unlike so many others, explaining things to him does not seem to affect his understanding of it. He will make the same uneducated statement even after there has been education.

Right, I feel what you're saying here too. But I think the difference between producing something in a lab no one's seen and a fossil no one's seen is that I can go back to the lab and reproduce that again and again and again if necessary, whereas you'll only find the fossil once and then it's on to another site with a completely different set of variables introduced.
Not really. For a large number of fossils, reproducing the experiment means making good records of it. You define the exact age, depositional environment, signs to look for etc. and another researcher can go to an entirely different location and reproduce what you've done. No, unlike some lab sciences, it doesn't happen every time, but enough so that it's reproducibility is not in question.

I'm confident though that in time someone will figure out a way to prove evolution irrefutably in a lab and be able to do it over and over under identical conditions so everyone can see it live.
I've been talking about paleontology, but what you describe is done routinely in genetic laboratories. You can track specific genes from one family to another and sometimes identify the points where they appear and disappear in the lineage. But this sort of evidence won't convince Jerome. No, he requires nothing less than a large-scale evolutionary event to occur within his lifetime, preferably on a Thursday afternoon when he has no other appointments. ;)

Well maybe what you propose is possible in the very distant future, like we can speed up the generations to where apes can produce offspring within three seconds after birth, but I'm afraid that day is a long way away. I don't think we can have it ready for him by Thursday.


But until then, I think Jerome has a point. A fairly minor and insignificant point, but you've got to give props when they're due.
I think I have. I have acknowledged when he's made accurate statements. For example, his description of "how science works" is right in some particulars, but horribly wrong in others. He understands why falsification is important, but he does not seem to grasp that falsification can occur in ways other than laboratory experiments. No amount of patient explanation seems to alter this stance.


That's not to say anything more than a reproducible experiment would be a great leap in the advancement of the theory, and in my opinion, what it'll take to legitimize it beyond any doubt, not just extremely reasonable doubt.
As a scientist, I don't believe that anything is "beyond any doubt". To do so would amount to saying, "I will not look at any more evidence". Of course, there are theories that are so well supported that the likelihood of finding sufficient conflicting evidence is so low as to be negligible. So for practical purposes you can say it is "proved", but this is just a kind of shorthand. Nothing is ever 100% proved in science. That is reserved for math and logic.

[Furi]

As a scientist, I don't believe that anything is "beyond any doubt". To do so would amount to saying, "I will not look at any more evidence". Of course, there are theories that are so well supported that the likelihood of finding sufficient conflicting evidence is so low as to be negligible. So for practical purposes you can say it is "proved", but this is just a kind of shorthand. Nothing is ever 100% proved in science. That is reserved for math and logic.

If a lot of this textual tussling with JDG is because science might only prove 100-1/∞% and so can not prove anything absolutely, I will start looking for a Spang with Pan Internet Protocol.

[ponderingturtle]

What's your occupation, if I may ask?

Roughly mechanical engineer with background in physics.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Deemed "good" science by whom?

(a) Not by 99.999% of the Biologists on the planet.

(b) By creationists.

(c) By you.

It rather makes the comment "I do not read creationist literature" look like something from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

I think you see the boogy-man in your closet.

I have stated that I am not a creationist and I have zero desire to have others think what I think. If I wanted to back-slap I could find many places to post. What a boring world it would be if all thought alike.

What is my stated reason for writing on this forum? Hint: I have told all in this thread.

[Foster Zygote]

Oh, well, that's very different.

Never mind.

"Never mind."

[UnrepentantSinner]

Tricky and skeptical, great responses. I've noticed a pattern amongst all evolution deniers be they religious or not, and that's they try and claim science is only that which can fit into a beaker, make vinegar and baking soda produce a "volcano" on a bench, and do so every time vinegar and baking soda are mixed together in a beaker on a bench.

That's not how the vast majority of science works and they just can't seem to accept or understand that.

I've made the Magrathea argument a number of times over the years, but for folks who claim biology isn't science since we cannot make mice give birth to iguanas, you're failing to understand how the scientific method works in the majority of scientific studies. We cannot have the Megratheans create an Earth II and have evolution run it's course. There are certain areas of scientific study that simply are outside of the vinegar and baking soda in a beaker on a bench level of study.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Henners]

Not really the point, but my earlier example of gravity, any object, and a vacuum to measure the speed at which gravity will accelerate an object on Earth seems like an apt example. Hardly extraordinary.

If it's not really the point, then why did you bother to make it? Do you like hearing the sound of your own keyboard?

the speed at which gravity will accelerate an object on Earth seems like an apt example

Rubbish.

That statement is Physics psychobabble, tommyrot, and baloney.

If you have an exact answer to it, please supply it.

If you cannot supply it, the inevitable conclusion is that you are simply stringing words together without knowing what they mean - as you clearly are.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong, incidentally. This has been known since before you were born, and this is despite the fact that repeatable experiments had been used to verify it.

Maybe you should get an education.

[Henners]

I think you see the boogy-man in your closet.

I have stated that I am not a creationist.

That is part of the wedge strategy of the ID camp.

Your whole approach to this discussion is a perfect example of the Lord Nelson approach to debate.

First you set out your point of view. Then you are give about a half dozen reasoned explanations of why your point of view is incorrect.

You signularly fail to deal with any of these points, preferring to cling to your original position, for no good reason, even though its foundations have been removed, and everyone else knows that is has crashed to the ground - apart from you, who still imagines that it is floating in mid-air like a mirage.

When you are asked to take a closer look, you carefully raise your telescope to the eye that has the patch on it and announce, "I see no ships".

Big deal.

I have already dealt with your nonsensical ideas, and offered an opportunity for you to put your money where your mouth is.

Well?

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't say "father"-- I said basis... Do you know how vaccines work? Do you know how we make them? Do you know how we decide to make this seasons flu vaccine?

BUt the only real way vaccines are based on evolution is the need for regular changes to the flu shot. They have no real relevence to say the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine.

[skeptical]

Why is this so hard to understand?

Ironically enough, read Jerome's sig, particularly the 2nd sentence.

[dirtywick]

If it's not really the point, then why did you bother to make it? Do you like hearing the sound of your own keyboard?


Rubbish.

That statement is Physics psychobabble, tommyrot, and baloney.

If you have an exact answer to it, please supply it.

If you cannot supply it, the inevitable conclusion is that you are simply stringing words together without knowing what they mean - as you clearly are.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong, incidentally. This has been known since before you were born, and this is despite the fact that repeatable experiments had been used to verify it.

Maybe you should get an education.

What's with the hostility?

I have an education; it's just not in that field. That doesn't make me an idiot, so don't talk down on me like I am.

I was thought if Physics class in high school that the acceleration due to gravity is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. You can repeat and verify that, right? I mean, you'll never get 5 or 3 or 100 right?

Now, the reason why it's not the point: You know well and good there's plenty of examples of experiments you can do more than once to produce the same results. Combine two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and you won't get steel. This is a non-issue and avoids the actual point I was making.

Well maybe what you propose is possible in the very distant future, like we can speed up the generations to where apes can produce offspring within three seconds after birth, but I'm afraid that day is a long way away. I don't think we can have it ready for him by Thursday.

Couldn't something be done with bacteria or perhaps an insect with a short lifespan? That'd be the type of experiment that would be really convincing, or at least a lot less abstract.

[Henners]

What's with the hostility? What's with dismissing a perfectly valid point of mine out of hand?

I have an education; it's just not in that field. That doesn't make me an idiot, so don't talk down on me like I am.
I went on to a knitting forum once and told them all they couldn't knit. I claimed that my science degrees showed I was intelligent and asked them not to talk down to me and that I was perfectly entitled to say what I wanted about how to purl.

Frankly, I looked a bit of a prat.

There you go.
I was thought if Physics class in high school that the acceleration due to gravity is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. You can repeat and verify that, right? I mean, you'll never get 5 or 3 or 100 right?


But in your earlier post you were talking about the speed due to gravity.

Now you are talking about acceleration.

You are aware that speed and acceleration are not the same thing, aren't you?

I hope you don't think that pointing that out is talking down to you.

I mean, just because you don't know anything about the thing that you are pretending to know something about doesn't make you stupid, right? Maybe you think I'm stupid?

You have stated (a) that you don't know the exact figure for the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, but only an approximate value.

Yet you have also claimed (b) that experiments in Physics can be repeated and show exactly the same results time after time.

Now, would it be talking down to you if I were to explain why both (a) and (b) cannot possibly be true at the same time, and that your position is untenable by virtue of its absurdity?

[Furi]

Couldn't something be done with bacteria or perhaps an insect with a short lifespan? That'd be the type of experiment that would be really convincing, or at least a lot less abstract.

I regularly specialise my yeast for brewing, back when I was doing masses of brewing, I had nearly 25 specialised yeasts, with traits I needed, Hi Attenuation Taste, Flock, etc but the bulk where more suited to the specific types of mash, so types for Porters, Stouts, Pales, Brown ales, Biscuits, etc.

after quite a few ferms and further specialisation my High test Porter yeast could pretty much brew out a 40litre Ogre juice Mash (VDark OG1100 lowish Hop Content) in about 2 half days, the same yeast when pitched into a Light IPA mash (Pale OG1040 High Hop Content) would fail miserably, In some cases where the yeast has been through maybe 60 brews and has a desired characteristic, I have managed to propagte them back to a more general work but keeping the high flock for example, but even using 200ml propagation mashes that tends to have quite a high failure rate,

This type of natural selection due to growth in a designed enviroment get handwaved as mere specialisation or micro evolution, they normally ask me to get back to them when my yeast turns into a photosynthesising plant or grows legs etc.

[dirtywick]

What's with dismissing a perfectly valid point of mine out of hand?

Because, as I explained, it's distracting from the point I was making without refuting it.



I went on to a knitting forum once and told them all they couldn't knit. I claimed that my science degrees showed I was intelligent and asked them not to talk down to me and that I was perfectly entitled to say what I wanted about how to purl.

Frankly, I looked a bit of a prat.

There you go.

Fair enough.



But in your earlier post you were talking about the speed due to gravity.

Now you are talking about acceleration.

You are aware that speed and acceleration are not the same thing, aren't you?

I hope you don't think that pointing that out is talking down to you.

I mean, just because you don't know anything about the thing that you are pretending to know something about doesn't make you stupid, right? Maybe you think I'm stupid?

You have stated (a) that you don't know the exact figure for the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, but only an approximate value.

Yet you have also claimed (b) that experiments in Physics can be repeated and show exactly the same results time after time.

Now, would it be talking down to you if I were to explain why both (a) and (b) cannot possibly be true at the same time, and that your position is untenable by virtue of its absurdity?

Speed = Acceleration * Time.

I don't think you're stupid, so perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong:

The acceleration due to gravity of an object varies depending on elevation. However, at the same elevation it does not vary. On all points on the Earth's surface it is very close to 9.8m/s^2, so without knowing the elevation this is a best estimate.

If you have a vacuum in your garage you can figure out what the acceleration due to gravity is at that particular point. Thereafter, each object you drop in that particular vacuum at that particular spot will fall at the same rate of acceleration (or, if you want, you could calculate it's speed with some simple math!) every time.

That is how both a and b can be true at the same time.


Now, my turn for two questions. This is an experiment that can be repeated with exactly the same results every time, yes or no? Does a single poor example mean that there are no experiments that produce exactly the same results every time?

[dirtywick]

I regularly specialise my yeast for brewing, back when I was doing masses of brewing, I had nearly 25 specialised yeasts, with traits I needed, Hi Attenuation Taste, Flock, etc but the bulk where more suited to the specific types of mash, so types for Porters, Stouts, Pales, Brown ales, Biscuits, etc.

after quite a few ferms and further specialisation my High test Porter yeast could pretty much brew out a 40litre Ogre juice Mash (VDark OG1100 lowish Hop Content) in about 2 half days, the same yeast when pitched into a Light IPA mash (Pale OG1040 High Hop Content) would fail miserably, In some cases where the yeast has been through maybe 60 brews and has a desired characteristic, I have managed to propagte them back to a more general work but keeping the high flock for example, but even using 200ml propagation mashes that tends to have quite a high failure rate,

This type of natural selection due to growth in a designed enviroment get handwaved as mere specialisation or micro evolution, they normally ask me to get back to them when my yeast turns into a photosynthesising plant or grows legs etc.

Huh. I think that's pretty convincing. Pretty cool stuff, thanks!

[Henners]

Because, as I explained, it's distracting from the point I was making without refuting it.


This is a false statement. It was dealing with a different point that you were making - which is why I asked you why you were making the point if you wanted to have it ignored.



Speed = Acceleration * Time.

I don't think you're stupid, so perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong:


That is how both a and b can be true at the same time.



Now, my turn for two questions. This is an experiment that can be repeated with exactly the same results every time, yes or no? Does a single poor example mean that there are no experiments that produce exactly the same results every time?

Sorry, I don't really see the problem here.

You are claiming that two things can both be approximately the same at the same time as they are exactly the same. Make up your mind please.

Experiments don't produce exactly the same results every time.

They just don't.

I've asked for an example, you haven't given one, just a pile of bluster.

From this I conclude that you don't know what you are talking about, but are just making it up.

Fiction, in other words, to be polite.

[Foster Zygote]

What's with the hostility?

I have an education; it's just not in that field. That doesn't make me an idiot, so don't talk down on me like I am.

I was thought if Physics class in high school that the acceleration due to gravity is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. You can repeat and verify that, right? I mean, you'll never get 5 or 3 or 100 right?

Now, the reason why it's not the point: You know well and good there's plenty of examples of experiments you can do more than once to produce the same results. Combine two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and you won't get steel. This is a non-issue and avoids the actual point I was making.



Couldn't something be done with bacteria or perhaps an insect with a short lifespan? That'd be the type of experiment that would be really convincing, or at least a lot less abstract.

This is demonstrated every day around the world. In pharmacology and agriculture (particularly where insects and disease are concerned) for example.

[dirtywick]

Well it's an ancillary point. The whole reason I wanted to avoid it was because, in retrospect, combining two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen produces a water molecule every single time would have been a better example of an a quick and easy way of showing "this is how this science works", which I feel that evolution could use to squash the chatter about it.*

As to the rest of the post:

Simple yes or no answer is all that's required.

If you have a vacuum at a particular elevation and drop two objects in it, a bowling ball and a feather, will they accelerate at the same rate?


*I think the yeast example above is it, though. Is yeast multi-cellular? A multi-cellular organism would be about as good as it gets IMO.

[dirtywick]

This is demonstrated every day around the world. In pharmacology and agriculture (particularly where insects and disease are concerned) for example.

That's why I asked if there was some kind of example I wasn't aware of. I think the yeast example was a good one and enough for me personally. I just didn't know is all.

[Tricky]

Couldn't something be done with bacteria or perhaps an insect with a short lifespan? That'd be the type of experiment that would be really convincing, or at least a lot less abstract.
One would think it would be convincing, but for some reason, it doesn't convince people who are determined to remain unconvinced. Defining macroevolution in bacteria doesn't convince them, because regardless of how different one bacterium is from another, they will argue "it's still a bacterium" and thus, won't accept it as macroevolution. They want the bacterium to become an amoeba or something. Even though they have fast life cycles, such a major morphological leap takes a much longer time than we have available.

Also, bacteria and protozoa use a slightly different classification than organisms which have genetic exchange at every generation (with some exceptions). One of the ways species are defined is by whether or not individuals (for whatever reason) interbreed. Obviously, when creatures breed by cell fission, that can't be determined.

Long-term experiments with fruit flies and other fast-breeding species have produced organisms which not only don't and can't interbreed, they barely resemble the original organisms. But since they are still flies, this isn't accepted by deniers as evidence. And don't even get me started on crop plants, some of which look nothing like the scraggly herbs they descended from.

Creationists, of course, argue that any intervention of man to "speed things up" is proof that God had to do the same thing. Fortunately, JDG is not one of those, so that wouldn't be his claim.

But really, this is exactly the kind of experiment you're talking about. Luther Burbank et. al. essentially put natural selection to the test by killing all the poorer competitors, making selective pressure 100% effective. In nature, it's effectiveness is far far less. As a result, we are eating things today that didn't exist fifty years ago.

[Foster Zygote]

That's why I asked if there was some kind of example I wasn't aware of. I think the yeast example was a good one and enough for me personally. I just didn't know is all.

My apologies. It was not my intent to seem aggressive.

[dirtywick]

No, my bad Foster Zygote. And thanks for bringing up agriculture, I should have realized that much earlier, I'm a little disappointed in myself now haha

Long-term experiments with fruit flies and other fast-breeding species have produced organisms which not only don't and can't interbreed, they barely resemble the original organisms. But since they are still flies, this isn't accepted by deniers as evidence. And don't even get me started on crop plants, some of which look nothing like the scraggly herbs they descended from.

With flies too? That's cool stuff! I'll have to look that up later, sounds very interesting.

I agree now, I don't think Jerome has much of a point in light of this. These are the types of reproducable experiments I was talking about. Thanks for pointing that out, guys.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Long-term experiments with fruit flies and other fast-breeding species have produced organisms which not only don't and can't interbreed, they barely resemble the original organisms. But since they are still flies, this isn't accepted by deniers as evidence. And don't even get me started on crop plants, some of which look nothing like the scraggly herbs they descended from.


How long have we been studying fruit flies as an example of genetic transfer?

How many new species were created?

How many genetic mutations were beneficial to the original species?

Examples of genetic change do not evidence TOE.

[danielk]

How long have we been studying fruit flies as an example of genetic transfer?
Why would this matter? And would you prefer a shorter or a longer observation?

How many new species were created?
Who cares, as long as new species were created at all. By definition, distinct species are made up of biological organisms who can no longer interbreed.

How many genetic mutations were beneficial to the original species?
Irrelevant, because the problem implicitly posed by your question, i.e. whether there are enough beneficial mutations to get speciation going, is already answered by the outcome of the experiment: New species have evolved, therefore the necessary amount of beneficial mutations must have occurred to make this possible.

Examples of genetic change do not evidence TOE.
In the conspiracy section this sentence would have earned you a stundie. Of course genetic change is evidence for evolution, if the changes fit the theory time and again. Speciation has been observed for populations of fruit flies. What's your point?

[Darth Rotor]

I didn't say "father"-- I said basis... Do you know how vaccines work? Do you know how we make them? Do you know how we decide to make this seasons flu vaccine?
Yes, thanks. Perhaps for another thread, I don't see Pasteur as dependent on Darwin, but I'd be interested to see how you lay that out.

He sounds identical to all the creationists I've come in contact with with the same lack of interest on any current developments while pretending to have expertise on the subject.
Your desire to pigeon hole someone who has explicitly stated he rejects religion seems to detract from the discussion, but enough, Jerome has indeed been stubborn during this conversation.

It's part of his charm.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why would this matter? And would you prefer a shorter or a longer observation?

I believe we have had plenty of time studying fruit flies; although more data is always better, to evidence that genetic mutations do not create new survivable species.


Who cares, as long as new species were created at all. By definition, distinct species are made up of biological organisms who can no longer interbreed.

See, with TOE you need two new opposite sex species created with the same genetic mutation at the same time that can breed to extend the lineage. We have yet to see this with fruit flies.


Irrelevant, because the problem implicitly posed by your question, i.e. whether there are enough beneficial mutations to get speciation going, is already answered by the outcome of the experiment: New species have evolved, therefore the necessary amount of beneficial mutations must have occurred to make this possible.

Of course it is relevant, if the genetic mutation does not benefit the new species natural selection will remove that species and mutation from the equation. Dead creatures that do not breed no not pass their genetics.


In the conspiracy section this sentence would have earned you a stundie. Of course genetic change is evidence for evolution, if the changes fit the theory time and again. Speciation has been observed for populations of fruit flies. What's your point?

That would be my second nomination. I did not win the first time and my post was not in the CT section. Please, feel free to nominate me again. I have never won an internet contest!


BTW, genetic mutation must be beneficial at some point for TOE to be reality. According to TOE natural selection chooses which mutations are most beneficial to survive.