Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.

Re: Evolution

Postby Typhoon » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:39 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.


Evolution.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15349
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Typhoon » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:58 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:At this point we have no choice but to conclude that evolution is not science.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/africa/hu ... index.html

South Africa's Cradle of Humankind, an expanse of farmland and rolling hills outside Johannesburg, has already unlocked some of the great mysteries of evolution.

Quick interjection, evolutionists will always scream at me that evolution is settled science, but every time I turn around they are also proclaiming mysteries. Schizo.

The unveiling of a near-complete fossil hominid skeleton dating back 3.67 million years will only solidify the importance of the region.

"Little Foot" is the oldest fossil hominid skeleton ever found in Southern Africa, the lead scientist examining the discovery said on Wednesday.


Are you ready for the kicker?

Some scientists have given it a far more recent place on the human evolutionary tree.

This is game set match for the death of evolution.

The "evolutionary trees" that we see are determined by debate and speculation of human beings, not by an independent testing process. For example we have litmus tests for pH balance, we have DNA tests to determine paternity and we use all kinds of metering to determine voltage, wattage and current. We are awash in independent tests of all kinds of physical phenomena.

Except evolution. No such tests exist.

Therefore it is not science.

Now this is not the only article that illustrates my point, it simply words it directly and simply in my favor. When you read evolution articles you will see the same thing over and over, descent is determined by speculation and arguing by a club of authorities, not independent testing.

Science is anything that conforms to the scientific method. ANything short of that is not science. Evolution fails the test in totality.

Scientific Method:
1. Observation
2. hypothesis
3. testing

Evolution:
1. There are all these species
2. They must have descended from each other
3. ---------

There is no independent testable methodology for determining descent. As such, descent itself has not been determined. Therefore, evolution is not science.

It's just tribal chieftains sitting around arguing and speculating.


Premature celebration.

Science is not a set of fixed collection of assertions claimed to be immutable. That is dogma.
Science is an ongoing process.

Paleoanthropology is an observational science, one uses the best information one has at a given time.
As new information is uncovered, our understanding is reviewed, debated, and updated.

The age of Little Foot is a matter of ongoing analysis and debate.

Science | 'Little Foot' Fossil Could Be Human Ancestor
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15349
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:59 pm

Typhoon wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.


Evolution.

Evolution is one species turning into another species. This has never been observed or determined to happen.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:02 pm

Typhoon wrote:Premature celebration.

Science is not a set of fixed collection of assertions claimed to be immutable.

Some people make that claim. I can spend the next year posting articles on "settled science"

That is dogma.

Science is an ongoing process.

True. So far evolution has not met the criteria and should not be considered science.

Paleoanthropology is an observational science, one uses the best information one has at a given time.
As new information is uncovered, our understanding is reviewed, debated, and updated.

The age of Little Foot is a matter of ongoing analysis and debate.

[url=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/little-foot-fossil-could-be-human-ancestor]Science | 'Little Foot' Fossil Could Be Human Ancestor[/url]

Emphasis added. More cool stories.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Typhoon » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:24 pm

Lame attempt at gotchas.

Dogma claims absolutes.

Science does not. Every measurement or observation is associated with a statement of uncertainty.
whether it be the mass of an electron 0.5109989461(31) MeV/c [the numbers in () are the statistical and systematic error/uncertainty]
or the status and age of Little Foot.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15349
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:46 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Galapogos Finches Caught in the Act of Becoming New Species

still waiting on you to pull that precambrian rabbit from your hat.

Wow. Please read the article next time. This might be the worst evolution article in history.

In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.

Oops, not evolution, but breeding.

This new finch population is "sufficiently"different in form and "habits"

Lol and quotes added. In case you need this spelled out this is a subjective human opinion.

And for the hat trick.

"We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin.


So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.

Just for fun:

In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.

When people don't know the basics of their particular field it disqualifies them even further from making outrageous claims.

I think you posted the worst article in history on evolution. Please don't ever, ever, ever do that again.

Here in reality a bird turned into a bird, Bible style.

Maybe this is the worst line:

This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.

Evolution has never been observed and they admit it. Evolution is not science. Thank you Naps for providing an article on how evolution isn't science.

Just so naps doesn't miss this classic.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:58 am

dont see what the fuss is.

if a bird changing into a slightly different type of bird isnt evolution then ape turning into a human isnt either, same type of biological variation.

the observed scientific differences between chimps and humans are very small indeed.

So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.


you have shown a great resistance to caring about the details, maybe you are not interested in them.
noddy
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:47 am

I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.

Has this changed because of all the LGBTQ stuff?
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:04 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.


the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.


science isnt one person, or one faculty, their are many fields of biology and different areas of study plus their is a whole array of amateurs and existing pre genetic material all having opinions.

crudely, their are 2 camps, each of which is then furthur split into 2 camps, which has created a 5th camp of folks who dont give a crap about the squabbles of the other 4 camps.


camp a : phentoytpe people (ability to breed, shared visible physical traits)
group 1 lumpers: can they breed succesffuly
group 2 splitters: can they breed successfully and do they share enough other traits - perhaps chihuahuas and mastiffs cant breed even tho they can breed.

camp b: genotype people (how much genetic material do they share as a percentage)
also split between lumpers and splitters but this time its even messier due to the fact that some animals in the first group that can breed are actually relatively genetically different and other animals which cant breed are relatively genetically simmilar - the messy details of genetics and which genes make which changes.

this is why the 5th group has stopped caring about the word species beyond its general public usage because the only real scientific fact is how many genes they share and what traits they express and this may or may not be related to how they look/behave/breed.

in this viewpoint things are a spectrum of analog grey more than neat digital boxes of different shades and being able to breed is but one of the traits.

most non biology folks are in the first camp and arent interested in the subject matter enough to care about camp b's arguments - they will then lump or split depending on if they care about the animal in question or not - birders are notorious for splitting on appearances/behaviours/lifestyles when successful breeding is still possible.

other folks like mr p are prepared to lump all birds together as "bird".

think of the shitfight over the word planet and if pluto is a planetoid or not - all those arguments, all the passion and yet pluto is still the same lump of rock circling the sun - the significant part is the traits like being gravitationally important enough to clear your orbital, this is the actual science, the rest is squabbling.

the scientifically observable fact with the technology we have right now is the genetics is not black and white neat boxes, even if that upsets some people on moral or practical levels.
Last edited by noddy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
noddy
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Typhoon » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:40 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.


This is the rule of thumb for differentiating between species.

However, there are situations wherein it breaks down as a guide.

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Has this changed because of all the LGBTQ stuff?


Little influence . . . so far.
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 15349
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:09 am

noddy wrote:dont see what the fuss is.

if a bird changing into a slightly different type of bird isnt evolution then ape turning into a human isnt either, same type of biological variation.

Except birds may be the same species and I don't know anyone who thinks any ape is the same species as a human.

the observed scientific differences between chimps and humans are very small indeed.

Completely subjective statement.

So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.


you have shown a great resistance to caring about the details, maybe you are not interested in them.

Actually my arguments rest entirely on attention to detail, and how evolutionists never get the details right.

The honest answer is evolutionists have to identify very clearly their little boxes. As highlighted in the article above evolutionists don't even bother to define species, and if you can't define species, you cannot define speciation.

For example, some biologists will tell you that an elephant and donkey are 2 different species you because they look different and can't reproduce. Other biologists will tell you that a grizzly bear and a polar bear are different species even though they can interbreed. These are 2 incongruent definitions. They cannot be reconciled. And I can pull up endless accounts of biologists using both definitions.

These are details your side has failed at, in totality. It's not my fault in the slightest.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:24 am

noddy wrote:other folks like mr p are prepared to lump all birds together as "bird".

I tend to lump "dog" together more than "bird". The dog thing is far more demonstrable (they can all interbreed despite tremendous morphological differences). I can't get a straight answer on birds.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby NapLajoieonSteroids » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:43 am

noddy wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.


the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.


It's a matter of intelligibility. Species is a philosophical term and remains a philosophical problem. I guess what I'm sayin' is: what's the matter with organization?

Everyone always talks against it but, generally live by it (unless anyone reading this is of the extremely disorganized types-- ie beyond a messy desk.)

think of the shitfight over the word planet and if pluto is a planetoid or not - all those arguments, all the passion and yet pluto is still the same lump of rock circling the sun


Pluto used to be cool when it was a real planet.

...there is something to be said too for a popular reaction against the idea that a group of self-appointing experts can get together and determine what is and isn't a planet [the average person's sense of the cosmos] and then expects everyone to conform to their opinions and believe everything about the cosmos exactly as they believe it. Even when it makes fine, practical sense to reorganize it as such.

Thinking about that: Neil Tyson, who I believe was involved with promoting on the un-planetarian-ness of Pluto, used it as a launch pad for his official "Scientist Man" celebrity-career.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
 
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby NapLajoieonSteroids » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:08 am

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Galapogos Finches Caught in the Act of Becoming New Species

still waiting on you to pull that precambrian rabbit from your hat.

Wow. Please read the article next time. This might be the worst evolution article in history.

In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.

Oops, not evolution, but breeding.

This new finch population is "sufficiently"different in form and "habits"

Lol and quotes added. In case you need this spelled out this is a subjective human opinion.

And for the hat trick.

"We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin.


So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.

Just for fun:

In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.

When people don't know the basics of their particular field it disqualifies them even further from making outrageous claims.

I think you posted the worst article in history on evolution. Please don't ever, ever, ever do that again.

Here in reality a bird turned into a bird, Bible style.

Maybe this is the worst line:

This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.

Evolution has never been observed and they admit it. Evolution is not science. Thank you Naps for providing an article on how evolution isn't science.

Just so naps doesn't miss this classic.


hah, I didn't miss it. I read that article the other day, and you bumped this thread- so it was the perfect time to post it.

That you proceeded to fisk it out of defensiveness is your own thing, dude.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
 
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:27 am

Ooh, sorry I didn't realize that you were posting it as anti evolution , my bad.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:55 am

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.


the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.


It's a matter of intelligibility. Species is a philosophical term and remains a philosophical problem. I guess what I'm sayin' is: what's the matter with organization?

Everyone always talks against it but, generally live by it (unless anyone reading this is of the extremely disorganized types-- ie beyond a messy desk.)


organisational catagories are great, according to the wikipedia their are 28 of them for species depending on your own priorities.
noddy
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mr. Perfect » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:05 am

That fatal blow against evolution.

Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:56 pm

Me thinks evolution exists everywhere except in this thread.

Which of course proves the existence of "virtual black holes." Bodies without mass, yet which exert gravitational fields so powerful that nothing escapes their influence.

"Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." My doctoral thesis....

Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!

Every time I do the same, I get the same result. Unlimited self-validation!

Now, since, as I understand it, anyone with a doctorate degree can give anyone else a doctorate degree anytime they feel like it, so hopefully typhoon is emailing my Ph.D. or maybe even a P.H.D. to me as we speak....
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6741
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:55 am

the argument appears to be summarised at http://evolutiondismantled.com/affirmin ... consequent

the premise being that they have a gotcha, based on wordplay based on an incorrect assertation, based on pure malevolent ignorance.

it is asserted that the evolutionists believe that dna simmilarities are the primary evidence and thusly use backwards logic,

"If evolution were true, there would be DNA similarities. There are DNA similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.”
Last edited by noddy on Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
noddy
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby noddy » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:01 am

the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
noddy
 
Posts: 5633
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:59 pm

noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.

aint that nifty.

the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.


"will work" for whom? maybe not. consider the subjects you are observing.
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6741
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby NapLajoieonSteroids » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:03 pm

Simple Minded wrote:Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!


You could say I was naturally selected to produce hot air at unlimited volumes. :D
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
 
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:24 pm

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!


You could say I was naturally selected to produce hot air at unlimited volumes. :D


as a producer of both CO2 and methane, I am guilty as charged! ;)
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6741
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Parodite » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:15 pm

Ok but.. does God evolve, have an opinion? Or is he so virtual that anything goes.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Simple Minded » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:00 pm

Parodite wrote:Ok but.. does God evolve, have an opinion? Or is he so virtual that anything goes.


"Even the seemingly immortal gods survive as long as they are needed by mortal man!"

Obviously (maybe?), god, or one's concept of him/her must evolve as the believer evolves, or else the believer might outgrow the need for their god. I doubt that most longtime believers have an unchanging belief their entire lives.

Not intended in any way to prove or disprove the existence of god.

Some humans I have known have become better people after finding god, some have gotten worse. Give god the credit for the better behavior in the successful cases, but give humans the blame for the worse behavior in the unsuccessful cases?
Sometimes other people "trigger" me. More often than not though, I do it to myself.
Kinda like Marxist sex.
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6741
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science + Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest