Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[Atheos canadensis]

Can you not actually go back and read my responses concerning the fear/bias within the 'scientific' community? I've not said anything about fraud.

First, you missed this part:

I know that you don't accept the premise (the consilience is real) so I'm trying to first make sure you understand the conclusion (common ancestry). Can you not muster the courtesy to respond to a simple question? Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct answer.

As for fraud, this was implied when you stated that the reason for the consilience between morphological and molecular data was "fear of reprisal", i.e. researchers are reporting this consilience where no consilience exists to avoid mainstream backlash. This would be fraud.

 

[justlookinla]

First, you missed this part:

I know that you don't accept the premise (the consilience is real) so I'm trying to first make sure you understand the conclusion (common ancestry). Can you not muster the courtesy to respond to a simple question? Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct answer.

I have answered directly in an earlier post concerning fear and intimidation in the 'science' community. "Consilience" is tarnished by the fear/intimidation present in the 'science' environment. Humans being apes is an example.

As for fraud, this was implied when you stated that the reason for the consilience between morphological and molecular data was "fear of reprisal", i.e. researchers are reporting this consilience where no consilience exists to avoid mainstream backlash. This would be fraud.

If you wish to use the term fraud, that's your choice.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I have answered directly in an earlier post concerning fear and intimidation in the 'science' community. "Consilience" is tarnished by the fear/intimidation present in the 'science' environment. Humans being apes is an example.



If you wish to use the term fraud, that's your choice.

Please link the post in which you "answered directly" this question:

Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I would appreciate a direct answer to this question as it has been asked multiple times now.

As for fraud, how would you characterize the deliberate falsification of research findings?

 

[justlookinla]

Please link the post in which you "answered directly" this question:

Post #254.

We see various forms of coercion and fear within the Darwinist environment. Speaking out, differing, questioning, having contrary views is a carrier killer.

Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I would appreciate a direct answer to this question as it has been asked multiple times now.

I've articulated a reason...more than once now. See above.

As for fraud, how would you characterize the deliberate falsification of research findings?

I've not claimed fraud. You introduced the word.[/QUOTE]

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Post #254.
I've articulated a reason...more than once now. See above.

No, you've stated that you think the consilience doesn't actually exist. My question is whether you understand the significance of this consilience. So again:

Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I've not claimed fraud. You introduced the word.

Why are you so reluctant to directly answer questions? Please tell me how you would characterize the deliberate falsification of research.

 

[justlookinla]

No, you've stated that you think the consilience doesn't actually exist. My question is whether you understand the significance of this consilience. So again:

Can you articulate a reason that such consilience is not evidence of a real pattern of relatedness beyond simply asserting that the consilience doesn't exist?

I've referenced my post, as you asked, and the REASON in my last post.

Why are you so reluctant to directly answer questions?

I've directly answered the questions more than once now.

Please tell me how you would characterize the deliberate falsification of research.

It's the subjective nature of the process that's in question.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've referenced my post, as you asked, and the REASON in my last post.



I've directly answered the questions more than once now.

You haven't. You have repeated that you think consilience is reported due to mainstream pressure. You have not explained why this consilience would not be evidence for real patterns of relatedness. Please explain, without merely reiterating your belief that the consilience is misreported, why this consilience would not be evidence for real patterns of relatedness

It's the subjective nature of the process that's in question.

I find it astounding that you can't answer a simple question. You cannot provide an answer for how you would describe deliberately falsified research?

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't. You have repeated that you think consilience is reported due to mainstream pressure. You have not explained why this consilience would not be evidence for real patterns of relatedness. Please explain, without merely reiterating your belief that the consilience is misreported, why this consilience would not be evidence for real patterns of relatedness

Right, it's my belief for the reasons I've given. I don't know what else to tell you.

I find it astounding that you can't answer a simple question. You cannot provide an answer for how you would describe deliberately falsified research?

Subjective and biased conclusions. As I've said, over and over and over and over.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Right, it's my belief for the reasons I've given. I don't know what else to tell you.

You could try answering the actual question. What does consilience imply about the validity of the patterns of relatedness we have inferred? This is not a question addressing why that consilience is reported so please do not respond with why you think it is reported.


Subjective and biased conclusions. As I've said, over and over and over and over.[/QUOTE]

So you would not go so far as to say they have deliberately misrepresented their findings then?

 

[justlookinla]

You could try answering the actual question. What does consilience imply about the validity of the patterns of relatedness we have inferred? This is not a question addressing why that consilience is reported so please do not respond with why you think it is reported.

The why affects the validity of the subjective view.

So you would not go so far as to say they have deliberately misrepresented their findings then?

I'd go as far to say what I've said in the previous posts over and over and over.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Here's my best attempt replying to a thread I don't fully comprehend

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The why affects the validity of the subjective view.

It certainly does affect the validity of the view. But that's not what I'm asking you. If you would just give a direct answer to the question I'm asking then we could stop going in circles.

What does consilience imply about the validity of the patterns of relatedness we have inferred?

I'd go as far to say what I've said in the previous posts over and over and over.

Simple yes or no: do you think researchers have deliberately misrepresented their findings?

 

[justlookinla]

It certainly does affect the validity of the view. But that's not what I'm asking you. If you would just give a direct answer to the question I'm asking then we could stop going in circles.

What does consilience imply about the validity of the patterns of relatedness we have inferred?

See my previous, repeated, answer concerning subjectivity.

Simple yes or no: do you think researchers have deliberately misrepresented their findings?

A simple look at my previous answer to this question would give you the answer.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

See my previous, repeated, answer concerning subjectivity.



A simple look at my previous answer to this question would give you the answer.

So you refuse to give a direct answer to the question regarding the implications of molecular and morphological consilience. Very well. At least we have established that you cannot refute the conclusions of such consilience. All you've done is assert without support that it doesn't exist. I guess that implicit concession will be sufficient.

EDIT for people who might read this one day:

According to some quick math it took justlookinla about 2500% more keystrokes to refer me to a previous post than to actually just answer yes or no to a simple yes or no question. I see people do this a lot (on both sides of the issue). It is always stupid and it usually makes me suspect that the perpetrator is uncomfortable with clarifying their position (regardless of whether they are a creationist or someone who accepts evolution) and are therefore not confident in their ability to support their position.

 

[justlookinla]

So you refuse to give a direct answer to the question regarding the implications of molecular and morphological consilience. Very well. At least we have established that you cannot refute the conclusions of such consilience. All you've done is assert without support that it doesn't exist. I guess that implicit concession will be sufficient.

I've asserted that classifying humans as apes is subjective.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've asserted that classifying humans as apes is subjective.

Indeed you have. But you have failed to refute the implications of this consilience and are thus left with nothing but mere unsupported assertion that it is illusory. You refuse to provide such a refutation because you can't. This is apparently not as uncomfortable a situation for you as it would be for me.

 

[justlookinla]

Indeed you have. But you have failed to refute the implications of this consilience and are thus left with nothing but mere unsupported assertion that it is illusory. You refuse to provide such a refutation because you can't. This is apparently not as uncomfortable a situation for you as it would be for me.

Not trying to make you uncomfortable, I'm simply giving you my view.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Not trying to make you uncomfortable, I'm simply giving you my view.

I have no reason to feel uncomfortable. I have actually provided support for my position. I just meant that if I were in the position you were in, i.e. being unable to mount a counterargument pertinent to the actual point being made, I would not be content to evade it as you have done be refusing to address it.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Indeed you have. But you have failed to refute the implications of this consilience and are thus left with nothing but mere unsupported assertion that it is illusory. You refuse to provide such a refutation because you can't. This is apparently not as uncomfortable a situation for you as it would be for me.

There isn't a realistic answer on the final evolution of humans and how they magically became so unlike their ancestors in such a short time. The gradual evolution idea does not suffice and scientists know it even though it's assumed.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

There isn't a realistic answer on the final evolution of humans and how they magically became so unlike their ancestors in such a short time. The gradual evolution idea does not suffice and scientists know it even though it's assumed.

I think there are a number of palaeoanthropologist who would disagree with you. Regardless, this is not the issue I was addressing. I was trying to get Justlookinla to produce a counterargument to my claim that the consilience between morphological and moleculr data sets is good evidence for common descent.