For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    *** Formal Request to Provide Evidence Supporting Stated Assertions ***

    paddoboy, I Formally Request that you provide evidence supporting the assertions you stated in your Post #910. : viewable ^^above^^, or "quoted" below :

    paddoboy, how, why or in what way was the "remark uncalled for", as you assert?

    paddoboy, and, as per your assertion that : "we all know why it was used" ;

    paddoboy, what is it that you (and indeed, all!) "know" concerning "why it was used", as you assert?

    paddoboy, please, would you provide what I have Formally Requested, please?


    When you have done that, I will provide the actual (Factual!!) reason "why" it was "used", as well as how, why or in what way that I thought (and still think!!) that it was "called for".


    *** Formal Request to Provide Evidence Supporting Stated Assertions ***
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You do get worked up.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    dmoe, you can request all you like. I am not playing your silly pedant games.
    I'm here to discuss science, and I believe the remarks by Fraggle were called for.

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    How about you show some good faith and actually counter paddoboy's claim rather than just complaining about it or demanding that he substantiate it.

    While you're at it, I will ask you, as a moderator, for a third and final time to clarify what you mean by this abbreviation:
    Which you have been directing at people.
     
  8. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    science forum(something)/moderator(something): (something,something,something)..........

    science forum administration/moderator(something): (something,something,something)..........
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    From some older posts – since I wasn’t around to participate. This begins shortly aftrer #810:

    That was my remark. Was Darwin aware of any "transitional fossils" when he posited Origin of the Species? I don't think so. So what difference does it make? His challenge was to explain the discoveries he made about the surprising creatures he found at Galapagos. What other explanation is there? None.

    I am arguing this point only because I don't see where you've laid the factual predicate for the need to produce "transitional" fossils, nor have you even defined what that means. In the past we have covered reptiles that flew, fish that "walked" (and still do), and the origins of cetaceans from primordial ungulates, among other things. So it’s not even clear why you feel there are inadequate “transitional” fossils. Furthermore, if more “transitional” forms had been found, it would seem to indicate that something is wrong, since the expectation for a “transition” (probability theory) is extremely low. (Depending on how you finally define “transitional”.)

    But this is just at the "zoo animal" level of analysis of the question of "what is transitional". What about long history of cyanobacteria (for hundreds of millions of years as the predominant species, before the Cambrian explosion). What about the late emergence of sexually reproducing forms after hundreds of millions of years of these asexual forms? What about the late emergence of multicelled colonial forms, which led to true metazoans? So far all of your concerns seems rooted in what happened very late in the history of evolution . . . which is where Darwin shows up, noting the speciation that happened in just about the last several million years or so, in one isolated dot on the map, among a few otherwise unremarkable creatures – principally a genera of bird, and two reptiles, but he noted evolution in the vegetation also. Just as Darwin's generalization about all life stems from these very few examples, only a few transitional fossile are more than enough to lead to the current theory. There simply is no other realistic explanation.

    There is no escaping the fact of what Darwin observed. The evidence is still there (what's left of it -- but all of it it was there long enough to be confirmed.) What does “transitional” fossils have to do with Galapagos? The theory begins as the explanation of living life forms, not extinct ones. So while the sediments of countless cataclysms laid a vast record of the remarkable results of finer grained changes not often preserved, it’s not laid down to the expectation of human skeptics, but merely as matter of chance. In fact it’s surprising how rich the fossil record is. But why do you insist that it’s essential to the theory that never depended on it in the first place? Go back to the actual facts about what Darwin observed and what he and his colleagues concluded about the evidence. That’s your smoking gun.

    It’s not a question of dissent, it’s a question of evidence. Anyone who completed just a little education in biology would realize that. There simply is no other explanation for what happened, and is happening, that the theory Darwin proposed—as amended by better information since then.

    A scientist who denies first principles of science without any evidence is operating out of some non-scientific basis (like religion or just gut emotion) in contradiction to the title "scientist". That’s not dissent. It’s just a case of serious technical error. Don’t confuse being egregiously mistaken with expressing dissent. That’s the common issue here (in this thread and similar threads) by posters who carry a chip on their shoulder about the adequacy of formal education. They are just criticizing a system they never bothered to explore themselves. That’s pretty lame.

    It has the story of Galapagos to stand on. No other realistic theory exists to explain Galapagos than the one Darwin proposed. You have this all backwards. You should begin with the evidence, as Darwin did, and work your way forward from there. This reluctance to offer evidence is what makes the anti-evolutionists so irrelevant.

    It’s not clear what your point is about the issue with teachers. When I went for a teaching certificate, I was surprised by the very high number of Christian fundamentalists in the program. There were very few who took more than the minimum of math a science, and I’m quite certain most of them took a dim view of evolution. They were from all disciplines, so they bonded through a prayer circle and I observed them over a period of a couple of years. When I went out to do my practical experience, I found an alarming number of them in the schools. It was very disheartening.

    No wonder then, that when the teachers were recently surveyed, an alarmingly high number gave the age of the Earth as 6,000 years, and a majority believed that if evolution is true, the God is controlling it. You can’t varnish over this. It’s a well documented phenomenon. People are simply reacting according to what their religions teach. The true scientists (the atheists) understand the problem, they all encounter it to some degree as I did, but there is nothing we can do about it.

    It makes no sense to me why you oppose the theory proposed by the observer at Galapagos, when you know there is no alternative explanation, and when you know that the origin of the anti-science argument is rooted in Christian fundamentalism.

    That’s fine, but tell us how the Galapagos finches (Darwin’s Finches) came to be, as well as the other oddities of Galapagos. Where’s the evidence to contradict Darwin? Nowhere.

    You just quoted a religious fundamentalist source. You say you’re not arguing from the religious position, so why quote them if you’re not supporting their agenda? That makes no sense to me.


    It’s not properly called a belief, nor is it accurate to conflate it with religion. It’s knowledge. The thousand of facts (or so) that Darwin meticulously documented constitute knowledge. We are bound by this knowledge (based in facts) justifiably, whereas the folks bound by their superstitious beliefs do not have any comparable justification. In the pursuit of truth, there has to be a pursuit of justification. Otherwise there is tendency to cave in to the purveyors of pseudoscience and it counterpart, the anti-science arguments like leopold is raising. How else does anyone ever tell an obvious lie from an obvious truth? (The Darwin's finches are obviously true, as are the marine iguanas and the long and short necked turtles. So is the age of the archipelago and the thousand of other related facts Darwin tied together).

    It’s the other way around. Religious propagandists are chronically singling out Evolution and attacking it in particular because it conflicts with their superstitious beliefs. They don’t attack any of the many less well proven theories of math or science. The reaction, to put them in their place, is not equivalent to holding the TOE up on a silver platter. It’s equivalent to excusing them from the dinner table for being obnoxious. Why you attack the science instead of the agitators is unclear—given that you insist you are not religiously motivated. There is some huge gaping hole in your world view that would allow you to proceed like this. What is it? No wonder so many people accuse you of being a fundie. So far it seems to me like you are doing this covertly – arguing fundamentalism while denying affiliation with them. What other possible explanation is there?

    As Grumpy noted, you again cited a fundie source. What’s up with that?

    Yes but Galapagos is not that complicated. In fact it’s pretty much common sense. How did the creatures get there (the islands popped up only recently) and why are they so different than their ancestors? For the level of this discussion (a covert religious attack on science) that’s pretty simple. But it’s also an essential fact.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    aqueous,
    for you to refer to ALL scientists as atheists is NOT true.
    there isn't a "true" scientist alive that will get up there and categorically state "THERE IS NO GOD!!!"
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yup, i did.
    i was hoping for some feedback on the material it presented, not to be labeled creationist and shitcanned.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I was going to say.... Given that 45% of Americans believe in young earth creationism.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    nor should there be a true scientist who categorically states "There is a God"
     
  14. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    And none who should claim he does exist, given the scant(almost non-existent, in fact)evidence of his existence. Either would not be scientifically valid claims. As Sagan said, save a step, or as Occam said, don't add unevidenced and unneeded entities, slice them off with a razor, trim your hypothesis down to that needed to explain all of the facts and not one shred more. Sagan never knew what we have found in the last few decades in Cosmology, some form of Big Bang theory is going to be true, the Universe, and all that is in it, had a beginning ~3.7 billion years ago. And it is likely we will never know where or what "preceded" this Universe. If you want to think that your deity was on the other side of that singularity, fine. I have no clue, except that there's no sign of him/her/it on this side of the Big Bang, so I don't think he's there, either.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    13.7 billion years Grumpy! Or latest revision puts it at 13.8 billion years.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Great post..... I had a lot of time for Sagan, and religiously watched the original Cosmos series every Sunday arvo in my country.
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Moderator Note:

    Four off-topic posts deleted.

    DMOE: I want to see one post from you, and one post only
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the subject is evolution, and i seriously doubt if god or "accumulating small changes" is the cause.
    there HAS to be an explanation for all of this . . . somewhere.
    correct, and it has NOTHING to do with any real belief, it's the nature of science itself.
    i raised this point to point out that it IS NOT a fact that there is no god although the prospects of one is, well, remote.
    frankly i find the concept of an "intelligence without substance" ludicrous.
    is it really "unevidenced"?
    a lot of what we think we know about evolution has not been proven.
    my deity?
    but now that you mentioned it, where did this "singularity" come from?
    where did the energy come from?
    there is always going to be some kind of "beginning" unless it's infinite.
    i'm beginning to believe that the universe is indeed infinite with life itself some property of that infinity.
    i will propose that science will never duplicate the living cell from the elements in regards to earths history.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Bingo!! That's what Carl was on about.
    The Singularity? We don't know. You know we don't know....but science is working on that. Perhaps just a quantum fluctuation in the pre BB foam, among many other fluctuations, some of which may have failed, some like ours, developed and evolved....We don't know.


    Infinite It may very well be, but I don't see life being a property of infinity...that doesn't make sense.
    Life is a property of the space/time from which matter and energy arose. Now there's a far more sensible approach.
    In other words life from non life through chemistry and its many varied processes.


    Like the pre BB speculative scenarios, again something currently being worked on.
    Will they have success...I say yes. In time.
     
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Moderator Note:

    DMOE: I thoroughly rebutted your faux pedantry and I am still waiting for you to elaborate upon the meaning of the abbreviation.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I just always get the feeling that anti-evolutionists are still stuck in the "irreducible complexity" mode. But of all scientific disagreements, this concept is the only one that can claim as having been settled in a court of law. This was in relation to the proposal to teach Intelligent Design (creationism} as an inevitable conclusion, instead of Darwinism.

    At issue was the bacterial flagellum which acts as a little propeller. The creationist argument is that the motor which causes the flagellum to rotate is an irreducibly complex system and no "transitional models" could ever be found because breaking the "motor" apart would leave a bunch of unusable parts which, by the very laws of evolution, never could have evolved to begin with as a complete complex system.

    Watch Kenneth Miller explain how this sort of thing can and does occur. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I just hope our current conservative sanctimonious P.M doesn't try the same thing!



    Summing up some undeniable facts as I see it.
    [1] It is a fact that there once was no life on earth or in the Universe, and that now there is.

    [2] Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation that can support fact [1]

    [3] Evolution [change over time] is observationally supported to near 100% certainty, the facts coming from 100 and more years of observational evidence.
    The factual, undeniable data supporting evolution confirm its validity to such an extent, it would be a travesty of the Intellect to not give it the certainty it warrants.

    [4] That certainty aligns with the scientific methodology and the fact that theories get more positive, more set in concrete, the more they are validated over time.
    That so far applies to disciplines such as The BB, SR/GR and Evolution and Abiogenesis.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    gould mentioned something similar about the pandas thumb.
    he proposed that all of its parts evolved all at once because the separate items would have no function without the others.
    i'm quite positive there are other similar cases.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Evolution as Fact and Theory

    by Stephen Jay Gould

    The very fact that many species are 'making the most of the hand they are dealt" speaks of the randomness of selection and the natural adaptive powers of simple and complex organisms alike. Except for our brain and ability to fashion weapons, human wouls be easy pay to for all kinds of predators.

    But never forget that nature endows organisms with all kinds of defenses, not only aggressive hunting, but also defensive camouflage., distractions by parents, arial attacks by birds. I do't believe there is a bear (other than perhaps a grizzly) who would mess a with a wolverine.
     

Share This Page