Evolution or Creationism?

[PsychoSarah]

No first human? Ha. Too much monkey business for me to mess around with.

Change is so gradual that even if we could go back in time and trace evolution step by step, no one would be able to make a consensus on something like that.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't know what the origin of life was therefore I hold no opinion on it. I do know that cars don't reproduce, which puts us into two categories of people. The kind that thinks cars don't reproduce and the kind that thinks they might. And I very much doubt I'll be proven wrong by someone who thinks a couple of Toyota tundras will mate and produce a corolla.

All right, let's just start with the claim you have made:

"I [know] that cars don't reproduce..."

How do you know that?

Well, perhaps you'll say "Because cars don't have reproductive organs." Or you'll say "No one has ever seen a car reproduce." Or you'll say "Everyone knows that cars don't reproduce."

However in all of these cases, you are taking experiences (that are probably not even your own) from the past and using these experiences to make GENERAL claims about things that you haven't observed at all (perhaps because they are in the future).

But are you justified in doing so? What makes you think that unobserved cars will be like the cars you have observed so far?

 

[Zosimus]

We convict plenty of people of murder without an eyewitness to the murder. Have you heard of forensic evidence? Do you understand how we can test hypotheses with evidence?

I understand that such a thing is widely considered to be impossible, but I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that such a thing is widely considered to be impossible, but I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

"Forensic science is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past which is then used in a court of law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science

By widely, do you mean one company's website?

 

[Zosimus]

"Forensic science is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past which is then used in a court of law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science

By widely, do you mean one company's website?

First of all, courts of law are not places where truth is found. It is a place where reasonable doubt is encouraged, and tie goes to the defendant. It's also a place where, if the jury is not unanimous, the matter is not settled. Using these criteria someone could easily argue that the Earth might well be flat because, if 12 random people were selected, it's entirely possible that the jury would be hung.

However, let's take the standard "forensic evidence" that is offered as the cat's meow, namely fingerprints.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci.../Why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique.html

But the basic assumption that everyone has a unique fingerprint from which they can be quickly identified through a computer database is flawed, an expert has claimed.

Mike Silverman, who introduced the first automated fingerprint detection system to the Metropolitan Police, claims that human error, partial prints and false positives mean that fingerprints evidence is not as reliable as is widely believed....

And there are other problems, such as scanning fingerprints of the elderly as their skin loses elasticity and in rare conditions leaves some people with smooth, featureless fingertips....

“No two fingerprints are ever exactly alike in every detail, even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same finger....

...there are numerous cases in which innocent people have been wrongly singled out by means of fingerprint evidence.

In 2004, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly linked to the Madrid train bombings by FBI fingerprint experts in the United States.

Shirley McKie, a Scottish police officer, was wrongly accused of having been at a murder scene in 1997 after a print supposedly matching hers was found near the body....

Previous studies have shown that that experts do not always make the same judgment on whether a print matches a mark at a crime scene, when presented with the same evidence twice.

A study by Southampton University found that two thirds of experts, who were unknowingly given the same sets of prints twice, came to a different conclusion on the second occasion.
-------------------
BUT let's suppose that fingerprint evidence really were infallible. What would that accomplish? Not necessarily anything. There could be dozens of reasons for fingerprints found at the site of a crime. For example, imagine that a man needs to use his neighbor's bathroom, asks permission, and flushes the toilet. A few hours later the neighbor is killed. The man's fingerprints are found in the house, his DNA is found in the wastebasket, and he becomes the primary suspect. He may even be convicted based on that alone.

Forensic evidence is really only useful in proving what did NOT happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, courts of law are not places where truth is found. It is a place where reasonable doubt is encouraged, and tie goes to the defendant. It's also a place where, if the jury is not unanimous, the matter is not settled. Using these criteria someone could easily argue that the Earth might well be flat because, if 12 random people were selected, it's entirely possible that the jury would be hung.

It is a place where evidence is presented which was derived through the application of the scientific method. This is known as forensic science.

However, let's take the standard "forensic evidence" that is offered as the cat's meow, namely fingerprints.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci.../Why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique.html

But the basic assumption that everyone has a unique fingerprint from which they can be quickly identified through a computer database is flawed, an expert has claimed.

Already you are misrepresenting how evidence is used. The assumption is that the chances of two people sharing the same unique fingerprints is very low. If you have MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT LINES OF EVIDENCE that all point to the same suspect, each with a very low probability of a false positive, then you have a well supported hypothesis.

This means that if you have DNA, fingerprints, fibers, shoe prints, and tire prints that all tie back to the same suspect, you have very strong scientific evidence.

 

[crjmurray]

First of all, courts of law are not places where truth is found. It is a place where reasonable doubt is encouraged, and tie goes to the defendant. It's also a place where, if the jury is not unanimous, the matter is not settled. Using these criteria someone could easily argue that the Earth might well be flat because, if 12 random people were selected, it's entirely possible that the jury would be hung.

However, let's take the standard "forensic evidence" that is offered as the cat's meow, namely fingerprints.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci.../Why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique.html

But the basic assumption that everyone has a unique fingerprint from which they can be quickly identified through a computer database is flawed, an expert has claimed.

Mike Silverman, who introduced the first automated fingerprint detection system to the Metropolitan Police, claims that human error, partial prints and false positives mean that fingerprints evidence is not as reliable as is widely believed....

And there are other problems, such as scanning fingerprints of the elderly as their skin loses elasticity and in rare conditions leaves some people with smooth, featureless fingertips....

“No two fingerprints are ever exactly alike in every detail, even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same finger....

...there are numerous cases in which innocent people have been wrongly singled out by means of fingerprint evidence.

In 2004, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly linked to the Madrid train bombings by FBI fingerprint experts in the United States.

Shirley McKie, a Scottish police officer, was wrongly accused of having been at a murder scene in 1997 after a print supposedly matching hers was found near the body....

Previous studies have shown that that experts do not always make the same judgment on whether a print matches a mark at a crime scene, when presented with the same evidence twice.

A study by Southampton University found that two thirds of experts, who were unknowingly given the same sets of prints twice, came to a different conclusion on the second occasion.
-------------------
BUT let's suppose that fingerprint evidence really were infallible. What would that accomplish? Not necessarily anything. There could be dozens of reasons for fingerprints found at the site of a crime. For example, imagine that a man needs to use his neighbor's bathroom, asks permission, and flushes the toilet. A few hours later the neighbor is killed. The man's fingerprints are found in the house, his DNA is found in the wastebasket, and he becomes the primary suspect. He may even be convicted based on that alone.

Forensic evidence is really only useful in proving what did NOT happen.

It's a good thing then that no investigator ever uses just one piece of evidence to support a conclusion. A good investigator uses multiple sources of evidence to support a conclusion to avoid the very problem you think you've identified.

Edit: looks like Loudmouth beat me to it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is why you should look to science to find out how he did it.

Yes, I know that everyone thinks that if you don't buy into a mindless evolution you don't appreciate Science which is simply not true.

 

[Zosimus]

It is a place where evidence is presented which was derived through the application of the scientific method. This is known as forensic science.



Already you are misrepresenting how evidence is used. The assumption is that the chances of two people sharing the same unique fingerprints is very low. If you have MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT LINES OF EVIDENCE that all point to the same suspect, each with a very low probability of a false positive, then you have a well supported hypothesis.

This means that if you have DNA, fingerprints, fibers, shoe prints, and tire prints that all tie back to the same suspect, you have very strong scientific evidence.

You ignored the entire argument. Here's a redirect:

Studies have shown that people who are experts in the fingerprint fields often make different decisions with the same fingerprints when those same fingerprints are given to them later.

Two fingerprints taken from the same person's finger are different from each other in noticeable ways.

Many times fingerprints are graded on a point system. Therefore, an expert might be able to say that fingerprint "A" shares 7 points of coincidence with fingerprint "B." However, there has never been any study that would tell us how many people out of a million would have fingerprints that also share 7 points of coincidence with the fingerprint in question.

Even if it could be proved that the fingerprints were the same, it could never prove that the person in question committed the crime in question.

 

[Loudmouth]

You ignored the entire argument. Here's a redirect:

Studies have shown that people who are experts in the fingerprint fields often make different decisions with the same fingerprints when those same fingerprints are given to them later.

Two fingerprints taken from the same person's finger are different from each other in noticeable ways.

Many times fingerprints are graded on a point system. Therefore, an expert might be able to say that fingerprint "A" shares 7 points of coincidence with fingerprint "B." However, there has never been any study that would tell us how many people out of a million would have fingerprints that also share 7 points of coincidence with the fingerprint in question.

Even if it could be proved that the fingerprints were the same, it could never prove that the person in question committed the crime in question.

So how is it that DNA and fingerprints can point to the same person so often? How do two independent pieces of evidence point to the same suspect if they are so unreliable?

You also ignore that fingerprints are just one avenue of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I know that everyone thinks that if you don't buy into a mindless evolution you don't appreciate Science which is simply not true.

I guess we don't understand how you can appreciate something you reject.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I guess we don't understand how you can appreciate something you reject.

I reject that evolution is a mindless process with no goals or purpose. If that is rejecting Science then please explain how.

 

[Loudmouth]

I reject that evolution is a mindless process with no goals or purpose. If that is rejecting Science then please explain how.

Where is the scientific research showing that evolution has goals, purpose, and a mind guiding it?

In science, you need evidence before you can draw a conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where is the scientific research showing that evolution has goals, purpose, and a mind guiding it?

In science, you need evidence before you can draw a conclusion.

What type of evidence would show that evolution had no goal or purpose?

 

[Loudmouth]

What type of evidence would show that evolution had no goal or purpose?

What evidence shows that it does?

 

[dad]

Why should I stop doing that?

Because it is better to be honest.

All of the evidence demonstrates that the past was exactly like the present.

No evidence demos that in any way actually. The truth is that only your belief system dumped onto the evidences does that for your made up mind.

You can't show me a single observation in the fields of astronomy, physics, or geology that show anything different.

All of it can be viewed in the light of a different nature. In the case of the stars, one simple trick to kill cosmo claims dead, is to understand that time itself may not exist there, only here.

 

[Zosimus]

So how is it that DNA and fingerprints can point to the same person so often? How do two independent pieces of evidence point to the same suspect if they are so unreliable?

You also ignore that fingerprints are just one avenue of evidence.

DNA evidence is used in less than 1 percent of all criminal cases.

How do you know how many cases there are in which fingerprints and DNA evidence coincide?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/24/badforensics/

Last week, The Washington Post revealed that in 268 trials dating back to 1972, 26 out of 28 examiners within the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit “overstated forensic matches in a way that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent” of the cases. These included cases where 14 people have since been either executed or died in prison.

The hair analysis review — the largest-ever post-conviction review of questionable forensic evidence by the FBI — has been ongoing since 2012. The review is a joint effort by the FBI, Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The preliminary results announced last week represent just a small percentage of the nearly 3,000 criminal cases in which the FBI hair examiners may have provided analysis. Of the 329 DNA exonerations to date, 74 involved flawed hair evidence analysis.

While these revelations are certainly disturbing — and the implications alarming — the reality is that they represent the tip of the iceberg when it comes to flawed forensics.

In a landmark 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, aside from DNA, there was little, if any, meaningful scientific underpinning to many of the forensic disciplines. “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis … no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” reads the report.

 

[dad]

I don't know what the origin of life was therefore I hold no opinion on it. I do know that cars don't reproduce, which puts us into two categories of people. The kind that thinks cars don't reproduce and the kind that thinks they might. And I very much doubt I'll be proven wrong by someone who thinks a couple of Toyota tundras will mate and produce a corolla.

Hey, new rules on disclosure of that belief. All you have to do is admit you believe that evolution is what is responsible for man. No need to go any further into godless la la dream land.

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA evidence is used in less than 1 percent of all criminal cases.

How do you know how many cases there are in which fingerprints and DNA evidence coincide?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/24/badforensics/

Do you know how many people have been exonerated based on DNA evidence?

 

[dad]

Change is so gradual that even if we could go back in time and trace evolution step by step, no one would be able to make a consensus on something like that.

False. The issue is not how gradual change is now. You are in no position to claim it was gradual in the former nature. If you are then do it.