Time to clear the decks...

[RanzB]

This does not imply that religion has to be dragged into the discussion. In fact, I see no need to.

Then you don't have to. Unfortunately, you don't get to control what others can do. Some might find it relevant, so stop whining.

 

[copacetic]

This does not imply that religion has to be dragged into the discussion. In fact, I see no need to.

Not that I am presuming to tell you what to discuss, but why are you bringing evolution into the thread? I just see no need for it

 

[Synaesthesia]

Since you have such logical, well reasoned arguments, backed up by tons of data, proving how the current understanding of evolution is completely wrong, and since you understand the true scientific method so well, why not publish an article in a respected journal outlining your alternate hypotheses, listing the evidence for them, and have your work peer-reviewed? Since the evidence is obviously in your favour, it will of course stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of pretty much every expert in the field and completely revolutionise the way biology, anthropology, medicine, biochemistry, botany and one or two other sciences are done and earn you at least one Nobel prize.

^ This

 

[Techne]

1)Sounds about right to me. High Five!

2)If 5 chimps in a group of 7 died out as a result of no.1 above in time frame A, it would cause the direction of change in the same group, now with 2 chimpies, in a different direction in later time frame B. Is that a cause? Meta-cause? It's no coincidence.

As a result of no 1? Not sure what exactly you are referring to or how and why they died out. Draw a picture, maybe I'll understand better . High five!

 

[Techne]

Then you don't have to. Unfortunately, you don't get to control what others can do. Some might find it relevant, so stop whining.

Don't you find it interesting that the chaps that have a problem with religion tend to drag discussions in natural sciences into religious-related discussions. Weird and fascinating at the same time.

 

[Geriatrix]

As a result of no 1? Not sure what exactly you are referring to or how and why they died out. Draw a picture, maybe I'll understand better . High five!

Yeah that question was convoluted, I apologise. I had to type it over 3 times because the forum crashed or something.
Anywhoo, lets try again.

The arrow is time, showing the progression of [Group] of chimps

---------A------------------B-------------C--------------D-------------->

A = 7 chimps
B = 5 chimps die because of some "kind of variation and fitness differences" between them and the two that survived. Natural selection.

Does what happened at B influence what happens to [Group] at C? Is what happened at B the cause for determining how C would go over to D in [Group]?

 

[Techne]

Yeah that question was convoluted, I apologise. I had to type it over 3 times because the forum crashed or something.
Anywhoo, lets try again.

The arrow is time, showing the progression of [Group] of chimps

---------A------------------B-------------C--------------D-------------->

A = 7 chimps
B = 5 chimps die because of some "kind of variation and fitness differences" between them and the two that survived. Natural selection.

Does what happened at B influence what happens to [Group] at C? Is what happened at B the cause for determining how C would go over to D in [Group]?

Ok, let's see. At time A, 7 chimps. Each has an intinsic potential to produce a certain amount of offspring, fitness. For arguments sake, chimps X1 to X7 has the potential to produce Y amount of offspring at time A.
X1 = 5
X2 = 1
X3 = 3
X4 = 1
X5 = 2
X6 = 5
X7 = 4

X1 to 5 were killed at time B. Does this cause a change in fitness for X6 and X7? Whatever killed them would be the cause in the chimps having different fitness differences between time A and B.

Whatever happend at B will result in a change in the potential outcomes at C, but whatever happens at C is the cause for determining how C would go over to D. Natural selection is just a descriptive term, it does not cause these things to happen, it is not a cause ot force.

That is how I see it anyway. Make sense?

 

[porchrat]

Not that I am presuming to tell you what to discuss, but why are you bringing evolution into the thread? I just see no need for it

ROFL well said! Very true.

A big +1

Now he going to argue that that is what was meant by the OP at which point you can say "this is your opinion. I disagree. I see no reason to drag evolution into the discussion.".

Worse now we are going into the definition of fitness as if evolution itself wasn't off topic enough.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

ROFL well said! Very true.

A big +1

Now he going to argue that that is what was meant by the OP at which point you can say "this is your opinion. I disagree. I see no reason to drag evolution into the discussion.".

Worse now we are going into the definition of fitness as if evolution itself wasn't off topic enough.

You're forgetting the bit where he throws in a few -isms for good measure.

 

[porchrat]

You're forgetting the bit where he throws in a few -isms for good measure.

That normally only happens just after he says your argument is fallacious.

 

[Geriatrix]

X1 to 5 were killed at time B. Does this cause a change in fitness for X6 and X7? Whatever killed them would be the cause in the chimps having different fitness differences between time A and B.

Whatever happend at B will result in a change in the potential outcomes at C, but whatever happens at C is the cause for determining how C would go over to D. Natural selection is just a descriptive term, it does not cause these things to happen, it is not a cause ot force.

That is how I see it anyway. Make sense?

Yes, but natural selection applies to the whole group, not the individuals. The group has lost out on the properties of X1-5 after event B, therefor 'causing' the group to respond to event C with only the properties from X6 & X7.

Now, I think your point is that natural selection does not result in the emergence of new properties, it's just a deadhand sorting process of determining which existing properties would go on into the next generation. Which is true.
Mutation, though, to put it very roughly, is where property emergence occurs.
Right?

 

[Techne]

Yes, but natural selection applies to the whole group, not the individuals. The group has lost out on the properties of X1-5 after event B, therefor 'causing' the group to respond to event C with only the properties from X6 & X7.

It wasn't natural selection that caused X1-5 to die. And it is not natural selection that "causes" a group to respond to some event.

Now, I think your point is that natural selection does not result in the emergence of new properties, it's just a deadhand sorting process of determining which existing properties would go on into the next generation. Which is true.

I don't see natural selection as some sort of "sorting process". It is just a descriptive term.

Mutation, though, to put it very roughly, is where property emergence occurs.
Right?

The concept of change (reduction of potentiality to actuality) is where new things come into existence and others go out of existence. Mutation is just one kind of change. So you are right, but not exhaustively.

 

[Techne]

Not that I am presuming to tell you what to discuss, but why are you bringing evolution into the thread? I just see no need for it

Oh the horror of discussing evolution in the natural science section where the OP is about true scientific method and thought...

 

[Geriatrix]

It wasn't natural selection that caused X1-5 to die. And it is not natural selection that "causes" a group to respond to some event.

No, the result of x1-5 having died but the rest not is called natural selection.

I don't see natural selection as some sort of "sorting process". It is just a descriptive term.

Describing who survives. I meant no agency behind using 'sorting' just a descriptive term from an observers POV.

 

[Swa]

It is in fact both a fact and a theory. <snip>

Go read what I posted. It appears it was meant specifically for YOU. That someone can even make a fallacious claim after it was preempted...

But why do I bother? Why not just declare God did it, and stick my fingers in my ears, like creationists do? Much easier that way. <snip>drivel</snip>

Not that garbage again. The very science you now hold up as YOUR god had its foundations in the desire to understand God's creation. Contrary to what you claim they didn't just declare "goddidit" (what a stupid moronic word) and sit back watching the world go by. No they said God made this so let us now investigate how it works so we can get closer to understanding the Creator. The only people sticking their fingers in their ears out of complete ignorance here are those that proclaim it just happened or evolutiondidit™. You have been duped on this one by your prophet Dawkins.

You lot would never be happy with any other scientific theory anyway. You say here you think its not good science, rubbish, you wouldnt know good science if it hit you in the face. What you want is for the scientists to leave a place for God in their explanation of why things happen like they do. Because evolution has no need for God, you dont like it. If there was another scientific theory, and it didnt involve God either, you would be equally unhappy.

Bull****

So dont come here telling us you dont think evolution is good science. You dont want a scientific theory anyway, just admit it.

I'll say this again. Evolution is just as bad science as ID. Even if you disproved God today I would much rather believe in aliens because evolution has been disproven to me a long time ago.

 

[copacetic]

 

[_kabal_]

Even if you disproved God today I would much rather believe in aliens because I decided that evolution is bull**** a long time ago.

FYP to what actually happened. Or you just easily believe BS, because it certainly wasnt disproved to you, not scientifically (read, with evidence)

 

[ponder]

Could not resist

 

[empirex]

I don't know why God or religion has to be dragged in YET AGAIN.

It avoids the possibility of having a real debate...

 

[Swa]

Since you have such logical, well reasoned arguments, backed up by tons of data, proving how the current understanding of evolution is completely wrong, and since you understand the true scientific method so well, why not publish an article in a respected journal outlining your alternate hypotheses, listing the evidence for them, and have your work peer-reviewed? Since the evidence is obviously in your favour, it will of course stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of pretty much every expert in the field and completely revolutionise the way biology, anthropology, medicine, biochemistry, botany and one or two other sciences are done and earn you at least one Nobel prize.

Oh there we go again with the fallacious arguments and superiority complex. Nobody I know of has ever claimed evolution is proven wrong. There is however enough evidence to cast serious doubt on the validity of the theory. You and all the scientists you look up to start from the premiss that it's a pure random process so you only see the evidence that supports this and ignores the evidence that doesn't. I want to expand on what Techne said. Just put a bunch of biologists in a room and ask them a bunch of questions then watch the disagreements follow. We don't have to publish anything because it's already been done. The 99.9% certainty of a link with chimp DNA has now been reduced to an optimistic 96% by your "own" scientists. You seem to think it can only be used as evidence for evolution because the critic is supportive of evolution. Unlucky for you then that society and even the legal system doesn't agree with you so wipe off that smug.

Neil Tyson recently said "Odd that many who embrace the discoveries of science will disagree only when results conflict with their politics or religion"

Cuts both ways.

Ok, so wait, are you having issues with the posters on this forum or the researchers in the labs?

I have issues with these couch "scientists" that make claims even real scientists don't make and can't make. It's fundamentalist religious zealots I have a problem with.