I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Loudmouth]

One of the things bought out in the Dover trial years ago was how useless homology is to evolution. You get different trees according to which features you focus on. It's constantly is changing because it is based on human opinion (storytelling) more than on facts.

Evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thinks of it this way. The odds of me being right over the people with "professional careers" is a lot better than there was this mythological creature that had two offspring, one eventually went to Harvard the other went ape.

Says the person who thinks that two mythological characters were poofed into being by a deity and gave birth to the entire human race.

 

[Zosimus]

You have thrown out the scientific method by rejecting theories that are not falsified. You seem to think that observations that match the hypothesis mean nothing.

Observations that match the hypothesis mean nothing when said observations also match the alternative hypothesis.

And I haven't thrown out the scientific method, nor have I rejected theories that haven't been falsified.

I remain agnostic.

 

[Queller]

I don't want evolution to be true, either.

What you want doesn't factor into the equation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Observations that match the hypothesis mean nothing when said observations also match the alternative hypothesis.

The problem is that any observation will match your alternative hypothesis if you are referring to intelligent design. Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable. You also lack mechanisms for ID.

And I haven't thrown out the scientific method, nor have I rejected theories that haven't been falsified.

You reject evolution as your posts have shown.

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea man had a common ancestral with an ape is far from being proven.

Genetics has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences​

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps while only differing by a relative handful.

Now you may accept it by faith.

I accept it because of the genetic evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

The problem is that any observation will match your alternative hypothesis if you are referring to intelligent design. Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable. You also lack mechanisms for ID.



You reject evolution as your posts have shown.

I don't reject evolution. I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory and that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is an idiot who just wants to ignore facts.

Intelligent design is probably unfalsifiable. So what? Natural selection is equally unfalsifiable. Additionally, simply because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it untrue. It simply means that science is unable to pass judgement on it.

All blue chairs are blue is similarly unfalsifiable. Does that mean we should automatically reject the idea? Apparently you think so.

 

[lost999]

I don't reject evolution. I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory and that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is an idiot who just wants to ignore facts. Intelligent design is probably unfalsifiable. So what? Natural selection is equally unfalsifiable. Additionally, simply because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it untrue. It simply means that science is unable to pass judgement on it. All blue chairs are blue is similarly unfalsifiable. Does that mean we should automatically reject the idea? Apparently you think so.

I agree with evolution being unfalsfiable.

Convergent evolution;
Punctuated equalibria;

......

 

[JayFern]

I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory

If you mean the ToE it kinda is.

and that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is an idiot who just wants to ignore facts.

If you mean the ToE they kinda are.

 

[lost999]

If you mean the ToE it kinda is. If you mean the ToE they kinda are.

"Tips fedora"

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't reject evolution. I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory . . .

Then show me an alternative theory that is testable and falsifiable.

and that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is an idiot who just wants to ignore facts.

That's exactly what you do. When the evidence starts to stack against you, you trot out the claim that peer reviewed papers are always wrong so that you don't have to deal with the evidence.

Natural selection is equally unfalsifiable.

False. You can make testable predictions using natural selection, such as the prediction that bacteria with random mutations that produce antibiotic resistance will come to dominate a population in an environment containing antibiotics. The null hypothesis is described by the Hardy-Weinberg principle:

Hardy-Weinberg Principle

We can also test natural selection by comparing genomes. We should see a signal of negative selection in Ka/Ks ratios in genes. That is exactly what we see. We also see that pseudogenes are accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift, again in keeping with the Hardy-Weinberg principle.

Additionally, simply because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it untrue.

An unfalsifiable belief is not a valid scientific alternative to a supported and falsifiable theory. You do know that, don't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree with evolution being unfalsfiable.

Convergent evolution;
Punctuated equalibria;

......

How are either of those unfalsifiable?

 

[Loudmouth]

A theory cannot be supported by mountains of evidence. Attempts to do so violate logic. The best you can say about a theory is that it has been tested and so far has held up under scrutiny.

Evolution has been tested by mountains of tests, and that is why it is accepted.

However, one failed test would immediately falsify whatever pet theory you adhere to.

That's quite hilarious coming from someone who clings to an unfalsifiable belief.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't reject evolution. I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory and that anyone who doesn't believe in Darwinism is an idiot who just wants to ignore facts.

I'm sure by "Darwinism" you are referring to the TOE, so I will assume that.

I don't believe those who are capable of discerning all of the information available that supports the TOE and chooses not to accept it as being highly likely to be accurate to be an idiot.

Some may indeed be ignorant, but many just have their own agenda that is near and dear to their personal psychology, they really need to adhere to.

 

[Dizredux]

I don't reject evolution. I reject people who think that Darwinism is the only theory

OK, what other scientific is out there with some base of evidence? The current Theory of Evolution is the only one that I am aware of that has any kind of scientific support. That could change tomorrow but for now the TOE is it as far a science goes.

Intelligent design is probably unfalsifiable. So what? Natural selection is equally unfalsifiable.

Interesting since it is has been tested in the lab and in the field and has passed every test for falsification for the past 150 or so years.

Additionally, simply because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it untrue. It simply means that science is unable to pass judgement on it.

Got something right.

All blue chairs are blue is similarly unfalsifiable. Does that mean we should automatically reject the idea? Apparently you think so.

I suspect or at least hope you can do better that this.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you mean the ToE it kinda is.

If you mean the ToE they kinda are.

No and no, true, the TOE doesn't have much competition, but it does have some.

And not agreeing or supporting any given theory doesn't make one stupid.

 

[HitchSlap]

hahahahahaahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!! Now you have to show that thing coming from a rock.

This is literally what they believe, very sad.

And creationists literally believe that the god made the banana special for human consumption.

Ray Comfort on the Banana, in context [HQ] - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

And creationists literally believe that the god made the banana special for human consumption.

* Ray Comfort on the Banana, in context - YouTube *

I don't know what you got from that video, but it shows me that God gave us scientists who were able to take a fruit that was created for animal consumption and hybridize it into a fruit for our consumption as well.

 

[EternalDragon]

Evolution has been tested by mountains of tests, and that is why it is accepted.

That's quite hilarious coming from someone who clings to an unfalsifiable belief.

Your "mountains of tests" can't confirm whether or not a more advanced intelligent being created simple life forms and then went from there and designed everything else based on those same designs.

Your answer is naturedidit. As if nature can make a fish into a man.

If it were as simple as you say we would have the answers to how the universe began, how our sun formed, how the earth formed, how water got here in such a large amount, and how life started.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your "mountains of tests" can't confirm whether or not a more advanced intelligent being created simple life forms and then went from there and designed everything else based on those same designs.

What would discomfirm intelligent design?

Why would the pattern of shared features produced by intelligent design exactly match what we would expect from evolution?

Your answer is naturedidit. As if nature can make a fish into a man.

We have the transitional fossils. We have the genetic evidence that this is exactly what happened.

If it were as simple as you say we would have the answers to how the universe began, how our sun formed, how the earth formed, how water got here in such a large amount, and how life started.

We do have answers as to how stars form, planets form, how water got here. We don't know how life started or how the universe started, but unlike creationists, scientists are actually working on those questions.