For scientists who accept evolution

[hammegk]

What does interest me is why you need to present the fundies' arguments as if they were true?

Er, True? Unknown. Alternative viewpoints that don't accept the science-by-astonishment assertion that since we as evolutionists can't think of any other mechanism for The Origin of The Species than a mysterious black box we'll name "natural selection", that MUST be the answer.

Shout loud enough, and the fact that there is no way to specify any fossil as being an intermediate form, rather just a line of critters that died out, will be overlooked.

At the microbiology level, even though we can explain all we see by mutation & inheritance, we choose to pretend we are seeing "evolution" ignoring the fact that nothing resembling speciation (other than by some arbitrary definition) is happening.

 

[Mojo]

Alternative viewpoints that don't accept the science-by-astonishment assertion that since we as evolutionists can't think of any other mechanism for The Origin of The Species than a mysterious black box we'll name "natural selection", that MUST be the answer.

As distinct from the science-by-incomprehension assertion that because you don't understand the evidence or arguments for evolution it MUSTN'T be the answer.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Er, True? Unknown. Alternative viewpoints that don't accept the science-by-astonishment assertion that since we as evolutionists can't think of any other mechanism for The Origin of The Species than a mysterious black box we'll name "natural selection", that MUST be the answer.

Shout loud enough, and the fact that there is no way to specify any fossil as being an intermediate form, rather just a line of critters that died out, will be overlooked.

At the microbiology level, even though we can explain all we see by mutation & inheritance, we choose to pretend we are seeing "evolution" ignoring the fact that nothing resembling speciation (other than by some arbitrary definition) is happening.

OK, what's your alternative to evolution?

Bear in mind that if there isn't an alternative to a theory that already works, it's probably because that theory is correct.

 

[hammegk]

As distinct from the science-by-incomprehension assertion that because you don't understand the evidence or arguments for evolution it MUSTN'T be the answer.

Feel free to point out some basic science related to our discussion of intermediate forms that isn't maybe-couldbe-mightbe-shouldbe.

I disagree that I don't 'understand' the science; I just think the conclusions drawn are not supported by the actual data.

Bear in mind that if there isn't an alternative to a theory that already works, it's probably because that theory is correct.

That is a fact not in evidence, especially for the un-falsifiable narrative we call Theory of Ev. And refresh my memory. What else that purports to be 'hard science' is unable to make any actual predictions? And, if it doesn't make predictions, what separates it from butterfly collecting?

 

[Mojo]

Feel free to point out some basic science related to our discussion of intermediate forms that isn't maybe-couldbe-mightbe-shouldbe.

Plenty has already been presented, and the fact is that there's an enormous amount of evidence, accepted by pretty much the entire scientific community, supporting the theory of evolution. It's just that you don't seem to like it. What sort of evidence would you require?

 

[Melendwyr]

Plenty has already been presented, and the fact is that there's an enormous amount of evidence, accepted by pretty much the entire scientific community, supporting the theory of evolution. It's just that you don't seem to like it. What sort of evidence would you require?

He'd demand that you produce fossil evidence of every single creature in an evolutionary line of descent showing the transformation from one set of characteristics to another.

And if you provided that, he'd accuse you of embracing monism and ignore everything you'd said.

 

[Mojo]

I'm half expecting him to ask for their birth certificates as well.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

That is a fact not in evidence, especially for the un-falsifiable narrative we call Theory of Ev. And refresh my memory. What else that purports to be 'hard science' is unable to make any actual predictions? And, if it doesn't make predictions, what separates it from butterfly collecting?

I see that you ignored the part of my post that required you to use your brain and offer your own opinion instead of copying secondhand fundie nonsense.

You have once again asserted something that you have been shown repeatedly to be untrue.

It seems you have not the faintest idea of what you are arguing for and only the vaguest notion of what you are arguing against. I assume that your only purpose is to yank the chains of those who know more about this than you do.

 

[hammegk]

Couldn't think of an answer to my question?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Couldn't think of an answer to my question?

How's he supposed to answer:

What else that purports to be 'hard science' is unable to make any actual predictions? And, if it doesn't make predictions, what separates it from butterfly collecting?

The questions are loaded, no? If he answers, he agrees with you that the TOE is unable to make predictions.

You like to ask, but not answer.

 

[Bronze Dog]

That is a fact not in evidence, especially for the un-falsifiable narrative we call Theory of Ev. And refresh my memory. What else that purports to be 'hard science' is unable to make any actual predictions? And, if it doesn't make predictions, what separates it from butterfly collecting?

I'm largely a layman, and I was able to tell you two methods of falsification. It also makes predictions about what fossils could be found. I'm sure some of the others here know more about the latter than I do.

 

[hammegk]

"Also, if properly designed artificial life programs start coming up with consistent negative results, that'd probably be good enough."

I thought that statement was pointed towards abiogenesis. You said I was wrong. What is the falsification principle of evolution you are suggesting?

"Anachronistic fossils" are a red herring. Some revision of narrative might be required.

If a T-rex fossil contained homo sap bones in its' stomach, that might be difficult, I'd agree. I predict that one won't be happening.

 

[drkitten]

If a T-rex fossil contained homo sap bones in its' stomach, that might be difficult, I'd agree. I predict that one won't be happening.

Of course. So would any evolutionist predict that it won't be happening. But you yourself have identified a way that evolution could be falsified....

 

[hammegk]

Or, we just noticed that predicting anachronistic fossils is a meaningless side-track -- which is how I see it.

 

[drkitten]

Or, we just noticed that predicting anachronistic fossils is a meaningless side-track -- which is how I see it.

Goodness, a theory that makes testable predictions. How... meaningless!

 

[hammegk]

For anachronistic fossil prediction: Testable, I suppose. Meaningful in term of falsifiability, I doubt.

Can't someone propose a better means of falsifying Theory of Ev than this pap?

 

[drkitten]

For anachronistic fossil prediction: Testable, I suppose. Meaningful in term of falsifiability, I doubt.

First Banana : "I predict that <such and such> will never be found."
Second Banana : "Oh, yeah? Well here it is!"

Definitely sounds like falsifiability -- and falsification -- to me.

You're digging yourself further and further into a hole.

Evolution is a theory that makes testable predictions (you've made one yourself). Evolution can be falsified by the simple expedient of finding something that evolution predicts will not be found (because it doesn't exist). This makes it entirely different from the "just-so story" you lyingly like to paint it as:

Evolution, "The Origin of the Species", remains a just-so-story ready for the next (meaningless) revision.

The Origin remains a narrative account of wishful thinking with all actual evidence pointing in the wrong directions.

Now, to keep all this on the up & up scientifically, how would we falsify either just-so narrative?

That is a fact not in evidence, especially for the un-falsifiable narrative we call Theory of Ev. And refresh my memory. What else that purports to be 'hard science' is unable to make any actual predictions?

If a T-rex fossil contained homo sap bones in its' stomach, that might be difficult, I'd agree. I predict that one won't be happening.

For anachronistic fossil prediction: Testable, I suppose.

 

[hammegk]

"Can't someone propose a better means of falsifying Theory of Ev than this pap?"

Your turn, again.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Let's try this again before I conclude that your level of debating honesty is exactly that of Kumar;

OK, what's your alternative to evolution?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Duplicated during Darat's "maintenance"