For scientists who accept evolution

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I thought this quote from John Stewart Mill did justice to what's going on in this thread:


emphasis mine...


Does anyone have any comments?

Flick

It's not really relevant. This is a debate between people who know what they are talking about and can think straight and at least one person who does not and will not or cannot. It is not an exchange between two alternative views each of which has some validity in its methods.

 

[Bronze Dog]

C'mon, folks, read the sign: Don't feed the trolls.

But they're so cuuuuuute!

 

[Melendwyr]

But they're so cuuuuuute!

Have you ever actually looked at hammegk's avatar? Or more importantly, his signature file?

 

[stamenflicker]

He's got that almost exactly the wrong way round.

Care to elaborate on J.S. Mill's mistake? I'd love to see that.

Flick

 

[Taffer]

Care to elaborate on J.S. Mill's mistake? I'd love to see that.

Flick

It's not really relevant. This is a debate between people who know what they are talking about and can think straight and at least one person who does not and will not or cannot. It is not an exchange between two alternative views each of which has some validity in its methods.

Answered. Move on.

 

[Mojo]

Have you ever actually looked at hammegk's avatar? Or more importantly, his signature file?

He's now added a line claiming that the last bit was a joke. He can't resist using those strawmen, can he?

 

[stamenflicker]

It's not really relevant. This is a debate between people who know what they are talking about and can think straight and at least one person who does not and will not or cannot. It is not an exchange between two alternative views each of which has some validity in its methods.

I disagree, in part. I'm not sticking up for Hammy, that's hammy's job. It is simply two different ways of looking at the same evidence. One way (yours) is from the general principal down, and the other (hammy's and perhaps often my own) is from the observation/experience up. To say that the alternate way, looking at the experience and inferring up to a general principal negates your path there.

For the record, Mill is quite convincing of laying out good reasons to be a theorist over a pragmatist. I'm still thinking about it, but thoughts would belong in another thread.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Answered. Move on.

Someone better inform Mill if you think BSM's response even comes close.

Currently, bewildered by the unwillingness to think... I move on begrudgingly to the next thread.

Flick

 

[Taffer]

Someone better inform Mill if you think BSM's response even comes close.

Currently, bewildered by the unwillingness to think... I move on begrudgingly to the next thread.

Flick

I am bewildered by your lack of understanding of scientific methods, of the Theory of Evolution, and of logical and rational thought. Fine, move on. Be my guest.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I disagree, in part. I'm not sticking up for Hammy, that's hammy's job. It is simply two different ways of looking at the same evidence. One way (yours) is from the general principal down, and the other (hammy's and perhaps often my own) is from the observation/experience up. To say that the alternate way, looking at the experience and inferring up to a general principal negates your path there.

For the record, Mill is quite convincing of laying out good reasons to be a theorist over a pragmatist. I'm still thinking about it, but thoughts would belong in another thread.

Flick

Hammy's not dealing with evidence. He's trying to manufacture holes that don't exist and exaggerate existing soft spots. Additionally, if their are holes, they don't invalidate evolution. They're just "we don't know." Chances are, however, we have reasonable guesses for what happened during those holes.

Evolution infers from the evidence: We see lots of fossils changing over time. We see DNA and lab specimens change when we do X to them. All of these fit together very nicely in evolution, including with sciences that don't directly deal with living organisms, like astronomy and geology. Holes are just small annoyances that can be filled with new fossil discoveries. Until we find those fossils, it's not unreasonable to guess what's likely to be found in them, based on how evolution has worked for known organisms. It seems to me that to do otherwise would require positing additional entities without evidence.

 

[Mojo]

Holes are just small annoyances that can be filled with new fossil discoveries.

And in fact some of them have been. So much for the theory of evolution not having any predictive value...

 

[Bronze Dog]

And in fact some of them have been. So much for the theory of evolution not having any predictive value...

Which was one thing I was continually stressing. Any favorite examples?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

the other (hammy's and perhaps often my own) is from the observation/experience up.

Hammy has produced no evidence of either, and nor have you as far as I can see. Hence my comment on Mill.

 

[hammegk]

Which was one thing I was continually stressing. Any favorite examples?

Piltdown Man.

It is not an exchange between two alternative views each of which has some validity in its methods.

That's something we can agree on, anyway. What has been occuring is a couple of us requesting some 'evidences' that aren't maybe-mightbe-couldbe-shouldbe.



BTW, as to the last bit in my latest signature, I apologise to all those -- and that will be nearly all of you (nothing new there) -- who don't get the joke.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Piltdown Man.

Funny. A hoax debunked by evolutionists. So, what does it have to do with anything.

That's something we can agree on, anyway. What has been occuring is a couple of us requesting some 'evidences' that aren't maybe-mightbe-couldbe-shouldbe.

I have a feeling you'd be saying that if we had 99.9999999% confidence. Science deals only in degrees of maybe. Absolute certainty is something for theologists.

 

[delphi_ote]

Now we could agree, if it wasn't for the fact that the fossil record doesn't agree -- having all those lurches-to-something-totally-new with no gradient -- and everything ever seen in the petri dish, or the fly cage, never even implies a critter's ability to make such a lurch-to-new-species.

Lurch to new species? You're making things up again. You don't need any of us to contribute if you just going to write fiction.

 

[Taffer]

That's something we can agree on, anyway. What has been occuring is a couple of us requesting some 'evidences' that aren't maybe-mightbe-couldbe-shouldbe.

A 'maybe' explanation proves to answer those who say something could not possibly happen, which is exactly what it was used for here. What, specifically, do you require this evidence to show?

 

[Bronze Dog]

A 'maybe' explanation proves to answer those who say something could not possibly happen, which is exactly what it was used for here. What, specifically, do you require this evidence to show?

Yeah. The fact that we can conceive of a hereditary process by which an irreducibly complex system can form does kind of undermine the whole Behe argument... from ignorance ...and incredulity

 

[delphi_ote]

Cry me a river.

Currently, bewildered by the unwillingness to think... I move on begrudgingly to the next thread.

So as soon as the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, you bail out crying like a child? Do you ever wonder why the scientific community doesn't take your nonsense seriously? Re-read your post about 10,000 times. That's ID in a nutshell.

While I do the research for primarily selfish reasons (I love the subject,) it's pretty amazing that you would claim we're the ones not thinking. Go back through my posts and check the links. You'll find literally hundreds of scholarly literature references to read and think about. Your post was based on... a guy saying something? Congratulations on all that hard work and thinking!

 

[SezMe]

So as soon as the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, you bail out crying like a child?

I thought his post was a blatent derail. Amazingly, the thread stayed on topic and, as you said, he got his knickers in a bunch. Amazing again. Randi would be proud.