Evolutionary Science is a fairytale

[Inan3]

So, in a nutshell, correlation does not imply causation. There may be a causal relationship between the two, but that is irrelevent. That there is a correlation bewteen two variables is not in any way proof of a causal relationship between said variables.

Then why does evolution always use correlation as an argument of evidence?

 

[TheOutsider]

Can I be the first to call Poe?

No one's use of English can be this poor unless it is done intentionally, it is written in a way that an educated person writes english if he is trying to appear dumb.

The randomness of the mis-spelt words is also a bit of a give away.

Ignorant people do not write english with the grammar of a thick cartoon character all that " while he at it " stuff.

I give it 5/10

I'm pretty sure that it's a Poe too. I have a guess who it is, but I'll be quiet for now.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why does evolution always use correlation as an argument of evidence?

Because if one can postulate a causal relationship between the two variables, then the correlation becomes evidence of said relationship. For example, if I could explain how one's foot size determines one's IQ, then the correlation between the two would be evidence of such an explanation.

However, the difference between the evolutionary example and the foot size / IQ example is the following:
1) Evolution is the most parsimonious (and therefore most probable) explanation for the relevant correlations (nearly identicle ape genomes, for instance).
2) The hypothetical explanation for the correlation between foot size and IQ that posits a direct dependance between the two is not the most parsimonious. In reality, the 'true' explanation (common dependance on a third variable: age) is far more pasimonious, and far more demonstratable.

I realise this is long winded, but I want to cover my bases. Correlation does not imply causation, so you cannot use the existance of correlation as grounds for a causal relationship, but, if you can demonstrate the possibility of a causal relationship irrespective of the correlation, then you can use said correlation as evidence of said relationship.

 

[Archer93]

...you dont give the same due to our young who like an alternative in the class room. Dont want no possibility of that happening.

they just got to hear the same thing that bore them day in and day out because a few atheists get offended and want to force it on them.

They would probably like a beer and a smoke, too, but there's no possibility of that happening either. For roughly the same reason.
And if they're getting bored by hearing the same thing day in, day out
then there's a problem with the teaching methods, not the material.

Just sayin'.

 

[Inan3]

Because if one can postulate a causal relationship between the two variables, then the correlation becomes evidence of said relationship. For example, if I could explain how one's foot size determines one's IQ, then the correlation between the two would be evidence of such an explanation.

However, the difference between the evolutionary example and the foot size / IQ example is the following:
1) Evolution is the most parsimonious (and therefore most probable (Not necessarily-opinion only)) explanation for the relevant correlations (nearly identicle ape genomes, for instance).
2) The hypothetical explanation for the correlation between foot size and IQ that posits a direct dependance between the two is not the most parsimonious. In reality, the 'true' explanation (common dependance on a third variable: age) is far more pasimonious, and far more demonstratable.

I realise this is long winded, but I want to cover my bases. Correlation does not imply causation, so you cannot use the existance of correlation as grounds for a causal relationship, but, if you can demonstrate the possibility of a causal relationship irrespective of the correlation, then you can use said correlation as evidence of said relationship.

You mean like this http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec/20/research_suggests_whales_had_small_deer_ancestor/

 

[thaumaturgy]

You mean like this http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec/20/research_suggests_whales_had_small_deer_ancestor/

To flesh out Wiccan's excellent point:
Correlation can be considered necessary to prove causation but NOT sufficient. If two things are CAUSALLY related they should correlate, but because two things correlate doesn't mean they share a causal relationship. (Like the IQ and shoesize example). Even this is not necessarily wholly accurate. But it comes closer to explaining some of the underlying thought processes.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is an easy logic fallacy for Creationists to fall into.

As to what Inan's post has to do with correlation and causation I have no earthly idea.

 

[Losangeleschristian]

You mean like this http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec/20/research_suggests_whales_had_small_deer_ancestor/

I just read that article too. Man thier theory be all over the place.

I was meaning to ask Wiccan how come they only get a pound of dark matter in the whole sky but a whole galaxy only take up 10% the matter in their calculations?

how you calculate the mass of it in the sky??

 

[Losangeleschristian]

I think those people trying to make fools of us. have they ever found the Girraffe missing link? I can just imagine that poor animal trying to reach those leaves and starving to death. But somehow he keep trying until one day his neck finally long enough to reach.

 

[notto]

I think those people trying to make fools of us. have they ever found the Girraffe missing link? I can just imagine that poor animal trying to reach those leaves and starving to death. But somehow he keep trying until one day his neck finally long enough to reach.

Strawmen like this demonstrate ignornance of the theory of evolution. You need to actually understand the theory before you dismiss it. It is clear that you still carry several misconceptions about the topic that show that you are not really in a position to criticize it.

 

[MoonLancer]

I think those people trying to make fools of us. have they ever found the Girraffe missing link? I can just imagine that poor animal trying to reach those leaves and starving to death. But somehow he keep trying until one day his neck finally long enough to reach.

how about this? the long necked creatures were able to reach the most amount of leaves. Every time the longest necked creatures survived while the shorter necked creatures did not (in general).

what would happen over a long period of time (alot more then 6000 years)?

you keep thinking evolution uses big steps, when it uses little little steps over a hundreds of thousands of years.

If you ever have kids, any beneficial genetic traits and mutations they have that let them live, they will pass those on and thus every generation is slightly evolved from the next.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You mean like this http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec/20/research_suggests_whales_had_small_deer_ancestor/

I fail to see the relevance of this link.

And as a (somewhat important) aside, parsimony does equal more probable: it is a direct result of Occams Razor.

 

[Losangeleschristian]

how about this? the long necked creatures were able to reach the most amount of leaves. Every time the longest necked creatures survived while the shorter necked creatures did not (in general).

what would happen over a long period of time (alot more then 6000 years)?

you keep thinking evolution uses big steps, when it uses little little steps over a hundreds of thousands of years.

If you ever have kids, any beneficial genetic traits and mutations they have that let them live, they will pass those on and thus every generation is slightly evolved from the next.

How did the long neck creatures you mention get their long neck to begin with??

And where be the missing link for the giraffe? There be nothing else like it.

 

[Losangeleschristian]

Strawmen like this demonstrate ignornance of the theory of evolution. You need to actually understand the theory before you dismiss it. It is clear that you still carry several misconceptions about the topic that show that you are not really in a position to criticize it.

Worse than that. You not in a position to teach it.

 

[Inan3]

how about this? the long necked creatures were able to reach the most amount of leaves. Every time the longest necked creatures survived while the shorter necked creatures did not (in general).

what would happen over a long period of time (alot more then 6000 years)?

you keep thinking evolution uses big steps, when it uses little little steps over a hundreds of thousands of years.

If you ever have kids, any beneficial genetic traits and mutations they have that let them live, they will pass those on and thus every generation is slightly evolved from the next.

You forget that while the long necked creatures were eating the leaves up high the shorter necked were eating those below (where I might add the long necks could reach as well). So they both survived as we see today. God created some long necks and some short necks. They still exist today.

Not saying that there isn't some change going on but it's not usually because one couldn't reach the trees. That's just one of evolutions "TALL" tales!!!

 

[Inan3]

I fail to see the relevance of this link.

They have concluded that the whale descended from this creature just because of a few similarities. That fits correlation and causation.

 

[UncleHermit]

You forget that while the long necked creatures were eating the leaves up high the shorter necked were eating those below (where I might add the long necks could reach as well).

Right. The slightly longer-necked creatures would have access to more leaves than the slightly shorter-necked creatures. This would give them a clear advantage whenever there is a shortage of resources.

 

[Inan3]

Right. The slightly longer-necked creatures would have access to more leaves than the slightly shorter-necked creatures. This would give them a clear advantage whenever there is a shortage of resources.

Not necessarily, as I said they couldn't reach the lower leaves and every tree I've ever seen has an abundance of leaves at the top and bottom and then there are bushes and grass, etc. but "whatever" you are going to see it the way you want to see it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not necessarily, as I said they couldn't reach the lower leaves and every tree I've ever seen has an abundance of leaves at the top and bottom and then there are bushes and grass, etc. but "whatever" you are going to see it the way you want to see it.

Giraffes can reach lower leaves and grass.

 

[UncleHermit]

Not necessarily, as I said they couldn't reach the lower leaves and every tree I've ever seen has an abundance of leaves at the top and bottom and then there are bushes and grass, etc.

Actually, you said:

You forget that while the long necked creatures were eating the leaves up high the shorter necked were eating those below (where I might add the long necks could reach as well).

(emphasis mine)

I guess it was a typo, but you were actually correct with that statement. Which is why the longer-necked creatures would have an advantage.

but "whatever" you are going to see it the way you want to see it.

Am I, really?

 

[MoonLancer]

How did the long neck creatures you mention get their long neck to begin with??

many thousands of years of selection to favor long necks. The necks could have started off short like other animals but if selection through the environmental pressure selects longer necked creatures, successive generations will have longer necks.

And where be the missing link for the giraffe? There be nothing else like it.

this is easily explained with genetic drift and natural selection. read about them. you don't honestly think that all species are alive to today do you? fossilization is incredibly rare. you don't expect every single generation of living creatures to be preserved do you?

So now it is your turn to offer how god did it. What methods or mechanics? what evidence is their at all that god did it?