My Graduate Challenge

[Zosimus]

Your post makes no sense.

So it is all based upon assumptions of people that believe in evolution in the first place.

What's "it"? What makes you think that assumptions believe in evolution?

Even if one needs but look at dogs, cats, or humans, etc to know that mere physical differences does not constitute a species.

Even if one needs... then what?
Obviously physical differences does (sic) not constitute a species. A species is a group of organisms.

And hence THEY have incorrectly classified 90% of the fossils based upon their pre-concieved beliefs of animals evolving over time into separate species.

"They (the physical differences) have incorrectly classified 90 percent of the fossils based on their [pre-conceived] beliefs (the pre-conceived beliefs of the fossils) of animals evolving over time into separate species." I doubt that this claim is factual. Physical differences do not classify fossils, either correctly or incorrectly.

THEY fit the data to their beliefs and not THEIR beliefs to the data.

"They (the animals) fit the data to their beliefs (the beliefs of the animals) and not their beliefs (those of the animals) to the data." Why would animals do so?

If they fit their beliefs to the data - then they would understand that infraspecific taxa within the species vary widely in appearance and would have come to the logical conclusion that almost every one they label as separate species is in reality most likely a separate infraspecific taxa within the species.

"If they (the data) fit their beliefs (the beliefs of the data) to the data - then they (the beliefs) would understand that infraspecific taxa within the species vary widely in appearance and would have come to the logical conclusion that almost everyone they (the data) label as separate species is in reality most likely a separate infraspecific taxa within the species."

Well, take that problem up with the data. Why are the data not fitting their beliefs to the data?

 

[Hoghead1]

First of all, Justatruthseeker, I am having difficulty following just what points you are trying to make with some of the examples you brought in here. I don't know who Paul Marmet is, so it is irrational of you to claim I am somehow dumping on him. I don't know what you are trying to prove by bringing in the red shift? But since you did bring it up, it is my understanding it demonstrates the universe is continually expanding, hence evolving. You argue that a Husky can not and did not evolve into a Chinook. Well, do you know of any evolutionary scientist that said they did? I sure don't. On the other hand, how do you know what Huskies might evolve into, given God and a million years of evolution? How do you know what new breed of dog might emerge from the selective breeding of Huskies? You say no one has ever observed evolution. However, right now there are breeding experiments going on with foxes that demonstrate that by selective breeding you can produce foxes that become more and more like dogs. Who can say but what you can't evolve a fox into a dog? Also, evolution have been created and observed more than once in the lab. Try the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1988 University of Michigan, where you will find a paper titled "Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichiacoli." The conclusion is yes, they did arrive at a new species. Now if you want to disagree with this conclusion, go ahead. But I would have trouble believing you know more about what is a species than the scientists here do. You keep saying no Asian evolves into an African, etc. I can't see what this has to do with evolution. if Africans and Asians marry and interbreed, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that an Afro-Asian evolved from them? Also, there is considerable evidence that we all did evolve from Africans.

Who says that you have to directly observe something in the lab in order for it to be considered scientifically true? If that is your view, you might as well throw out all astronomy. Furthermore, observations in nature can rove more convincing that lab research. As far as evolution goes, the fossils are actually snapshots preserved in stone about what really went on. Conclusive evidence right there. Now unless you assume creation ex nihilo, you have to acknowledge that these later forms did somehow evolve from the earlier ones. After all, while a Chinook maybe did not come from a Husky, you have to acknowledge that it did not come out of thin are, but out of some kind of predecessor. True, nobody directly observed the Big Band, but as a believer I think it is important for you to recognize that it is also true that no one ever observed God creating in six days, either. Question is: Which has the best circumstantial evidence.

The way I approach evolution is a bit difference from science. Science starts out there; I start back here, with ourselves. I find that no thinker thinks twice, that moment we are a new self. Hence, we experience ourselves as in a continual state of evolution. This means the human species is continually evolving. You can't put your foot in the same species twice. And who can say, without being totally arbitrary, that there is some stopping point here? If the species is in a continual state of flux, who an say but what it won't evolve into a totally new species? Consider the fact that careful measurements show we have been getting taller and taller. One science estimates that if this process continues, in a hundred years or so, we could all be giants. And I certainly would consider giants to be a different species.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Justatruthseeker, I strongly suggest you read Darwin on the problem of the species and also considerable modern literature clearly pointing out problems in defining and deciding the exact criteria for being a species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suggest you start by first accepting biologists own definition of species - and then let's worry about any problems when they come up.

So tell me what is your problem in defining birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring as the same species when both the observational and DNA data matches the definition of species to a T??????

I suggest you start calling Africans, Asians, Mexicans, Caucasians, etc separate species if you really and truly believe what you say.

I suggest you start calling Husky, Mastiff, Chinook, Pug, Poodle, etc separate species if you truly believe what you say.

When you do this - then perhaps I will listen to what you have to say. But until then you are simply making excuses.

I don't think you will find a single biologist alive that is willing to even consider that the genetic differences between the races of humans makes them separate species. Yet they could find no genetic differences at all between those six types of finches that would even hint that they were separate species.

I suggest you accept the evidence and stop making excuses trying to uphold a clearly incorrect classification and simply admit it was a mistake in classification.

By refusing to do so you simply ensure that no one will believe you at all when it comes to matters that are truly important - because you can't even be trusted with the truth in such a simple little mistake in classification. No you do yourself disservice by all your double-talk and avoidance of the science itself simply to uphold a little mistake in classification. You scream to the world - we can no longer be trusted to tell the truth - because we will never admit to our mistakes even when they are right in front of our eyes and backed by DNA evidence. You scream to the world you will ignore anything that does not fit your pre-conceived beliefs - regardless if those beliefs turn out to be wrong.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Justatruthseeker, your is again to tied up with personal and unwarranted attacks for it to be a solid rebuttal in a theological discussion or for it even to be in such a discussion. Such attacks seriously damage your creditability. If you feel you have a valid point, all you have to do is make it. You don't have to insult others in the process. Incidentally, in a previous email, you asked for my credentials. I responded. Now its your turn. Just how do you see yourself qualified to sit in judgment on science?
As I pointed out before, there are recognized problems in the precise definition of a species. If you don't believe me, fine. Go check this out for yourself. I will share that one problem is that some take two species to men they cannot interbreed. However, certain breeds of dogs cannot mate either, due to major discrepancies in their sizes. On the other hand, a wolf and a dog are separate species and yet can interbreed. Apparently, you yourself have a very different definition of species from that of the scientific community and therefore use this as an argument that they cannot properly define or recognize a species.
I never said anything about the Asians and others being separate species; I simply responded to you statement that they could not evolve into each other.

Matching DNA means one species? There is only a 5 percent difference between ape genes and human genes. That is a very small difference, yet we recognize them as separate species.

So suppose you share you own definition of a species and how this differs from how the scientific classification used by the scientists you question.

They misclassified those finch as separate species? Again, what is their and your definition of a species? And even if they did blow it, there are plenty of other examples where they have accurately what is a species.

 

[Butterfly99]

I think many Young Earth Creationists begin college with a resolution to remain unyielding in their beliefs, and even view the challenges they'll encounter as an honor of sorts. Part of the problem I've encountered when learning about how science is taught from a creationist perspective is that the faulty knowledge really isn't the primary problem. It's not what they are taught, but how they are taught to think and to regard science that is far more problematic. It's like how you form muscle memory from the repetition of exercises or movements; your brain becomes accustomed to instinctively reacting to information in a certain way. New training can reform the old, but there has to be a willingness to make the effort.

I don't know how many people brought up to believe in YEC pursue a degree and profession in the life sciences. I think it's quite rare, though there are two threads I've read on here from teens with this exact dilemma.

It seems more common that a creationist will encounter problems with the science classes that are a part of the General Education Requirements. It's virtually impossible to avoid evolution and fulfill the GERs at UCLA. The inadequate preparation of creationist textbooks was at the heart of this lawsuit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Christian_Schools_International_v._Roman_Stearns

As I've mentioned before, one of my real-life friends who I befriended last summer taking a biology course that focuses on ecology and evolution at UCLA had been raised as a creationist and began college as one. She spent her first year with an attitude about it, and certain she'd never, ever, ever, ever, ever change her mind about creationism. But, over time she did. She is pursuing a degree in nursing, and science courses were a part of it. And it had a crushing impact on her faith as a whole, but eventually she was able to rebuild it.

Even at Christian colleges debates over literalism have been divisive. The faculty at Bryan College, which was named after Willing Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor in the Scopes Trial, overwhelmingly voted "no confidence" in their president last year after he issued a clarification to the statement all faculty and some students must sign to include an affirmation of Adam and Eve being "historical persons." 25% of the staff bolted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/e...er-bolstering-its-view-on-evolution.html?_r=0

And:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...ionism-makes-life-difficult-for-everyone.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ts-christian-colleges-and-their-students.html

I've never even heard of Bryan College. I didn't know any Christian colleges taught creationism. Do they teach it as science or religion? My mom went to Duke for divinity school. I asked her if they teach creationism & she said no they don't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And yet the DNA data revealed they were not isolated - but have been interbreeding from the start. Darwin just did a poor job at research and jumped to conclusions before he had all the data.

I already know this is wrong, because some of those finches have different mating rituals and mating seasons. Even if they are still biologically capable of having offspring, they won't in the wild.

It's a big deal because it is an error they refuse to admit to, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their very eyes. So if they refuse to admit to and correct this mistake - how many others are there that they also refuse to admit to and correct? If one can not be trusted in the little things - one certainly can not be trusted with the larger things.

I already informed you that the capacity to breed and produce fertile young by itself is not a species determinant in practice. Most people are just exposed to an overly simplified version of how species is applied.

The reason they refuse to admit to this mistake is as Weiner claims "that in light of the Grants' studies, the Galápagos finches now constitute the Number One example of evolution in action. "

No, not really. Even if you were right, and somehow all these finches were the same species, that wouldn't make evolution invalid. Species as a label is up to us anyways, and species designations are debated all the time. It's not an easy thing to do, categorizing all these organisms.

"The Grants' team, focusing primarily on finches of the genus Geospiza on the island of Daphne Major, discovered that various "species" not only interbreed but do so highly successfully. For example, a male G. scandens crossed with a female G. fortis, producing four children, 46 grandchildren, and "a lot of great-grandchildren""

Well sure, if you force them to do it. Lots of animals can be forced to breed and produce fertile young, but since those are artificial hybrids, they don't count. It has to occur in nature. And for them all to be the same species, hybrids should be able to mate with other hybrids indefinitely.

"These finches are clearly not showing themselves to be different species: "Life would be so much simpler if lines of animals would only keep to themselves, [evolutionist Jeremy] Searle writes, only half-jokingly. That should not be too much to ask: it is the zoologist's standard working criterion of a good species . . . . 'It is disappointing that even Darwin's finches do not seem to quite fit the bill.' " (Weiner, p. 201)."

Yeah, nature likes to thwart our efforts to categorize. Maybe because making "one size fits all" boxes is impossible.

The Grants themselves have stated:

"The discovery of superior hybrid fitness over several years suggests that the three study populations of Darwin's finches are fusing into a single panmictic population, and calls into question their designation as species." (Grant and Grant, 1992, p. 196)"

First generation hybrids of many species are more vigorous than the parents. however, the more you compound the hybrid, the more sickly the offspring. If all those finches were really the same species, you should be able to breed a hybrid with another hybrid of two different "species" of finch, and still get a healthy, fertile bird. Long run, not just short run. It also has to happen in nature, without human interference. This "hybrid vigor", was actually responsible for the green revolution, which ended in mass starvation when people made the mistake of hybridizing too much.

""The end point of speciation is the complete absence of gene exchange. Many, if not all, coexisting populations of Darwin's finches have not quite reached that point, although they function as species by remaining distinct even in the face of occasional gene exchange." (Grant and Grant, 2003, p. 970)"

This disagrees with your own position.

Occasional? It's happening so often they now appear to be fusing into one species - but since they are already interbreeding they were never separate species to begin with. What they are now terming as speciation in reverse to avoid the fact that they simply made a mistake.

Not a mistake, really, if you would stop ignoring me when I told you producing fertile offspring alone does not make a species.

https://answersingenesis.org/natura...olution-causes-darwins-finches-to-go-missing/

Don't insult my intelligence with a clearly biased source

How is it not important when they are claimed to: "constitute the Number One example of evolution in action." ?????

Because calling them that in the first place is an error. It might be one of the first documented, but it is hardly the most significant.

 

[Zosimus]

I already know this is wrong, because some of those finches have different mating rituals and mating seasons. Even if they are still biologically capable of having offspring, they won't in the wild.

You should not leap to conclusions. Some studies have suggested that hybridization is relatively common. See http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

It never ceases to amaze me how many so-called "scientists" or scientific apologists are quick to reject anything that clashes with their preconceived biases about how things work.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You should not leap to conclusions. Some studies have suggested that hybridization is relatively common. See http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

It never ceases to amaze me how many so-called "scientists" or scientific apologists are quick to reject anything that clashes with their preconceived biases about how things work.

Some hybrids are common. For example Nepenthes often have wild occurring hybrids. However, as for the finches, I said some, not all have incompatible mating habits. I would not be surprised if some of them hybridized often, but the claim being made by Justatruthseeker isn't that the species designation between some of them is blurry, but that every one of those finches is the same species. In order for that to be the case, every population of those finches must regularly interbreed and produce fertile offspring, which does not happen.

Here is one of the situations that complicates species designation fairly often: I have 5 species, 1,2,3,4, and 5 represent them. The numbers next to each other form hybrids in nature that are fertile and healthy, the ones with one or greater numbers between them have a barrier to reproduction that makes hybrids very rare between them, and the ones at opposite ends, 1 and 5, cannot breed and produce fertile offspring at all. Should 2,3, and 4 go extinct, 1 and 5 would be permanently separated as clearly different species unable to reproduce and have viable offspring. But, as the situation currently is, it is possible, though unlikely, for the species to have enough genetic drift that eventually, they can all interbreed freely and produce fertile offspring.

 

[Zosimus]

Some hybrids are common. For example Nepenthes often have wild occurring hybrids. However, as for the finches, I said some, not all have incompatible mating habits. I would not be surprised if some of them hybridized often, but the claim being made by Justatruthseeker isn't that the species designation between some of them is blurry, but that every one of those finches is the same species. In order for that to be the case, every population of those finches must regularly interbreed and produce fertile offspring, which does not happen.

Here is one of the situations that complicates species designation fairly often: I have 5 species, 1,2,3,4, and 5 represent them. The numbers next to each other form hybrids in nature that are fertile and healthy, the ones with one or greater numbers between them have a barrier to reproduction that makes hybrids very rare between them, and the ones at opposite ends, 1 and 5, cannot breed and produce fertile offspring at all. Should 2,3, and 4 go extinct, 1 and 5 would be permanently separated as clearly different species unable to reproduce and have viable offspring. But, as the situation currently is, it is possible, though unlikely, for the species to have enough genetic drift that eventually, they can all interbreed freely and produce fertile offspring.

First of all, that's not the definition of a species. In fact, there is no one set definition of a species. Even so, you are throwing around a misunderstanding of the biological species concept, which says that a species is a set of members that "actually or potentially interbreed in nature." So no, he doesn't have to prove that all members of all species regularly interbreed to suggest that all of the separately defined species might actually be one species. Arguably, all of these finches are considered different species because of a phenetic species concept or an ecological species concept. Other biologists might well define members of a group as the same species not because interbreeding occurs but because the members recognize each other as potential breeding partners. A male Chihuahua who encounters a fertile female German Shepherd will probably be unable to mate, but may well attempt to do so, qualifying these two dogs as part of the same species.

It's not impossible that Justatruthseeker is correct. It's not impossible that experts may disagree.

 

[lesliedellow]

Would intimidation play a role in his deconversion?

(In your opinion.)

If insisting that he sticks to science when he answers the questions on his exam papers counts as intimidation, yes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

First of all, that's not the definition of a species. In fact, there is no one set definition of a species. Even so, you are throwing around a misunderstanding of the biological species concept, which says that a species is a set of members that "actually or potentially interbreed in nature." So no, he doesn't have to prove that all members of all species regularly interbreed to suggest that all of the separately defined species might actually be one species. Arguably, all of these finches are considered different species because of a phenetic species concept or an ecological species concept. Other biologists might well define members of a group as the same species not because interbreeding occurs but because the members recognize each other as potential breeding partners. A male Chihuahua who encounters a fertile female German Shepherd will probably be unable to mate, but may well attempt to do so, qualifying these two dogs as part of the same species.

It's not impossible that Justatruthseeker is correct. It's not impossible that experts may disagree.

Sir, I know a weiner dog that managed to mate with a german shepard, and they are just as squat, if not more so, than chihuahuas. Where there is a will, there is a way. It made for some really cute puppies, actually.

However, I never argued that species as a designation was set in stone or easy, just that Justatruthseeker was not presenting evidence that would conclusively make all those finches the same species, and that even if he could, it wouldn't mean evolution was invalid. You can at least see how changes in categorizations have no impact on evolution as far as whether or not it is possible, yes?

 

[Zosimus]

Sir, I know a weiner dog that managed to mate with a german shepard, and they are just as squat, if not more so, than chihuahuas. Where there is a will, there is a way. It made for some really cute puppies, actually.

However, I never argued that species as a designation was set in stone or easy, just that Justatruthseeker was not presenting evidence that would conclusively make all those finches the same species, and that even if he could, it wouldn't mean evolution was invalid. You can at least see how changes in categorizations have no impact on evolution as far as whether or not it is possible, yes?

Once again you are confused about what evolution is. A textbook definition of biological evolution (i.e., one that you might find in a textbook might be) "a change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." As you can easily see, a definition or controversy about the exact meaning of the word species is quite irrelevant to biological evolution.

What you are probably referring to is neo-Darwinism (also called the modern evolutionary synthesis), which is a combination of several theories that permit someone to be an "intellectually satisfied atheist." It's a laundry list of reasonably plausible theories that explain how life might have come about without involving a Creator.

Part and parcel of neo-Darwinism is the theory of common descent. According to this theory, all life shares a common ancestor. Now if it could be demonstrated that biological evolution never leads to a new species, then this theory would immediately fail. However, it's impossible to determine whether changes in heritable traits over successive generations leads to the creation of new species unless there is a clear, objective, and universally agreed upon definition of species.

Since such a definition does not exist, it is not possible to determine whether biological evolution can or has created new species.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Once again you are confused about what evolution is. A textbook definition of biological evolution (i.e., one that you might find in a textbook might be) "a change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." As you can easily see, a definition or controversy about the exact meaning of the word species is quite irrelevant to biological evolution.

I don't misunderstand, I was attempting to make that point. I suppose exposure to Justatruthseeker has caused me to pick up a bit on the bad habit of unclear wording. But I also do not think that he presented sufficient evidence to mark all those finch species as the same either.

What you are probably referring to is neo-Darwinism (also called the modern evolutionary synthesis), which is a combination of several theories that permit someone to be an "intellectually satisfied atheist." It's a laundry list of reasonably plausible theories that explain how life might have come about without involving a Creator.

The hilarious part about people bringing up neo-Darwinism is, their explanations of it are so inconsistent, that I am not entirely sure what people mean when they bring it up anymore. Yes, I view the modern version of the theory as the one that should be recognized as most valid, if that is what you are suggesting.

Part and parcel of neo-Darwinism is the theory of common descent. According to this theory, all life shares a common ancestor.

I actually disagree with that, personally. While it may seem likely, I view it as entirely plausible that the pre-life replicating units were so similar as to give the illusion of a common origin, along with the fact that bacteria like to pick up proteins and incorporate them into themselves.

Now if it could be demonstrated that biological evolution never leads to a new species, then this theory would immediately fail. However, it's impossible to determine whether changes in heritable traits over successive generations leads to the creation of new species unless there is a clear, objective, and universally agreed upon definition of species.

Fair enough, although I could argue that the species designation in and of itself is irrelevant, and alternative scopes of degrees of change could be considered valid. For example, percentage of genes changed to a different function over time. After all, for evolution to be incapable of having Chimps and Humans come from a common ancestor, the genetic difference between the two must not be able to build up over time, yes?

Since such a definition does not exist, it is not possible to determine whether biological evolution can or has created new species.

Well, while species is hard for most people to grasp, the higher up categories usually do not have this problem.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't misunderstand, I was attempting to make that point. I suppose exposure to Justatruthseeker has caused me to pick up a bit on the bad habit of unclear wording. But I also do not think that he presented sufficient evidence to mark all those finch species as the same either.

The hilarious part about people bringing up neo-Darwinism is, their explanations of it are so inconsistent, that I am not entirely sure what people mean when they bring it up anymore.

Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do. –Lynn Margulis.

Yes, I view the modern version of the theory as the one that should be recognized as most valid, if that is what you are suggesting.

Well, no scientific theory is valid. Validity doesn't apply to inductive arguments–they are all invalid! Certainly neo-Darwinism is the current scientific consensus.

I actually disagree with that, personally. While it may seem likely, I view it as entirely plausible that the pre-life replicating units were so similar as to give the illusion of a common origin, along with the fact that bacteria like to pick up proteins and incorporate them into themselves.

I have no particular thoughts on this matter.

Fair enough, although I could argue that the species designation in and of itself is irrelevant, and alternative scopes of degrees of change could be considered valid. For example, percentage of genes changed to a different function over time. After all, for evolution to be incapable of having Chimps and Humans come from a common ancestor, the genetic difference between the two must not be able to build up over time, yes?
Well, while species is hard for most people to grasp, the higher up categories usually do not have this problem.

Well, I have observed endless arguments between Darwinists and Christians as to whether so-called "macroevolution" occurs vs. "microevolution." As I understand it, many Christians argue that although genetic changes occur, the initial product is a dog and the end product is still a dog thus neo-Darwinism fails. Darwinists, however, claim that macroevolution has been observed and thus cannot be denied. Darwinists usually define macroevolution as so many changes in an organism that a new species is created.

This leads me back to my previous point: Without a clear, objective, and universally accepted definition of "species," it is impossible to determine whether macro-evolution occurs.

 

[lesliedellow]

Validity doesn't apply to inductive arguments–they are all invalid! Certainly neo-Darwinism is the current scientific consensus.

Now is that a fact? Well, since mathematics is probably the only field in which a wholly deductive approach is possible, that leaves us in something of a quandary, doesn't it?

 

[Zosimus]

Now is that a fact? Well, since mathematics is probably the only field in which a wholly deductive approach is possible, that leaves us in something of a quandary, doesn't it?

Yes, that's right! And that's why agnosticism is the only logical response to the realization that all inductive arguments are invalid. So repent of your evil ways and join the church of agnosticism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, that's right! And that's why agnosticism is the only logical response to the realization that all inductive arguments are invalid. So repent of your evil ways and join the church of agnosticism.

If all inductive arguments are invalid, you had better not count on the Sun rising tomorrow.

 

[Zosimus]

If all inductive arguments are invalid, you had better not count on the Sun rising tomorrow.

José has worked for the company for 5 years. José has never been absent. Therefore, induction argues that José is more likely to show up for work tomorrow than ever before. However, José smokes, eats lots of salt, and eats lots of saturated fat. Induction argues that these things lead to heart attacks, therefore, induction argues that José is more likely to be dead tomorrow than he was yesterday.

Accordingly, induction argues that it is both more likely and less likely that José will show up for work tomorrow. What a great tool! Maybe we should plan our whole lives around something that regularly contradicts itself.

 

[lesliedellow]

José has worked for the company for 5 years. José has never been absent. Therefore, induction argues that José is more likely to show up for work tomorrow than ever before. However, José smokes, eats lots of salt, and eats lots of saturated fat. Induction argues that these things lead to heart attacks, therefore, induction argues that José is more likely to be dead tomorrow than he was yesterday.

Accordingly, induction argues that it is both more likely and less likely that José will show up for work tomorrow. What a great tool! Maybe we should plan our whole lives around something that regularly contradicts itself.

What a truly spurious argument. Since José's diet implies only that Jose has a higher probability of dying at a younger age than the population mean, yoour argument is cow dung. Maybe you should check out some elementary probability theory in the form of Baye's Theorem.