Fine Tuning

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because this confirms what other people have said since the world began. So I believe it.

By "other people", you off course mean the people who happen to also say things that you can rhyme with your particular religion... Which would result in a minority of people.

The vast majority of people weren't of the abrahamic faith and told creation stories which were radically different to yours.

And mormonism by itself... well... that's like... what... 2 centuries old?

Mormons believe in continuous revelation and so it is unimportant to us what other Christians believe

That's quite typical of theists. What people who disagree with you believe, is not interesting.

We do not rely of speculation, debate, doctoral guesses etc. We rely on direct revelation, directly from the source.

Actually, you rely on the word of humans who claim to have received "revelations".

Creation is obviously not a myth, since we are obviously here.

Obviously, when we refer to "creation myths", we do not mean any generic idea of "origination".

Does that sound familiar?

It sounds familiar, but it is applied wrongly.

I always hear from atheists that only have 'chance' to depend on

"only chance"? In your opinion, you mean.

, tell me that obviously that 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chances happened because we are here.

I can't speak for other "atheists" who supposedly said such a thing. But I certainly never said that.

Well some silly creation stories are mythical, but one of them is true, and explains the fine tuned constants nicely.

No religious creation story explains anything. It merely asserts.

Q: Why are the constants what they are?
Answer: "cause that's how god made 'em"
Q: "why does human chromosome 2 look like a fused chromosome 2 & 13 from chimps?"
Answer: "cause that's how god made it"

It explains nothing.

Our conversation is about the origin of the universe.

Yes. Which is unknown. You seem to be consistently forgetting that it is you here who claims to have the answer - not me.

The bible creation story is primarily about the earth and the heavens around the earth, not the origin of the universe. That is information that is unknown to Christians, or scientists, or Creationists, or Atheists.

Awesome. So, what now?

You can intellect all over the place, all you want, but JS learned first hand.

Religious claim.

No intellectual, mind-bending theories to try to explain. Just a simple conversation of pure truth. They did not talk about the origin of the universe. That is still unknown.

So stop talking as if you know.

 

[Peter1000]

TagliatelliMonster, post: 70774754, member: 391173"]By "other people", you off course mean the people who happen to also say things that you can rhyme with your particular religion... Which would result in a minority of people.

The only experience I am talking about is other people have seen God, and received instructions from Him. My religion has nothing to do with other people seeing God and receiving instructions. Although, if I did not feel that JS fit into the long line of prophets that have talked with God and received instrutions from Him since the world began, then I would not be a Mormon.

And mormonism by itself... well... that's like... what... 2 centuries old?

Time is irrelevent. Truth is the important concept.

That's quite typical of theists. What people who disagree with you believe, is not interesting.

I did not say is was uninteresting, that is why I am on these chat rooms. But what I said was, it was unimportant what they believe because they do not have the whole truth.

Actually, you rely on the word of humans who claim to have received "revelations".

That is the way it has been done since the beginning of time. God appears, and speaks to a 'human' prophet and he tells and writes of the event and we believe it or not.


You too believe in humans who claim to have 'a theory' about something. So we all depend on humans for the information we have. I'm not sure why that is so surprising.

Obviously, when we refer to "creation myths", we do not mean any generic idea of "origination".

So are you just referring to the bible's creation story. It doesn't seem like you are equating 'creation' with 'origination'?

It sounds familiar, but it is applied wrongly.

In your opinion. For me it is applied perfectly.

"only chance"? In your opinion, you mean.

I have asked you for a different process than 'random chance', but you only indicate that 'you don't know', which I understand and appreciate. But what you have to understand is that most people that I talk to about the origin of the universe, they are all in for a 'chance happening'. When we start to discuss the astronomical odds associated with that 'random chance', they get offensive and go on the attack about my religion.


Actually, 'the random chance theory' has lost some ground in the last 5 years, especially since our hero Stephen Hawking came up with the multiverse concept and a lot of people are flocking to him for an alternative to 'simple, mindless, completely random chance'.

They know how silly it looks to hang on to that position. If I were in that situation, I would go your direction and my position is 'we dont know how the universe originated'.

No religious creation story explains anything. It merely asserts.


Q: Why are the constants what they are?

Answer: "cause that's how god made 'em"

Q: "why does human chromosome 2 look like a fused chromosome 2 & 13 from chimps?"

Answer: "cause that's how god made it"


It explains nothing.

Has science been able to answer these 2 questions? As the years go by, it seems like a clear alternative that a Superior Being with the knowledge to set the constants in order to produce life is a clear alternative to 'I dont know'.


You don't think that God can use a same type of chromosomal set up in monkeys as well as humans? Just because monkey dna is around 70% (which is a debatable number) like to human dna, does not prove that humans came from monkeys. What it proves is God used similar dna structures for humans and monkeys. That is all it proves.

Yes. Which is unknown. You seem to be consistently forgetting that it is you here who claims to have the answer - not me.

You are right about that, I do claim to have the answer, and it fits nicely with the finely tuned constants.

So stop talking as if you know.

We know who originated the universe. How he did it is unknown, except He did leave a fingerprint, and that is the finely tuned constants. There is no way that hundreds of finely tuned constants came about and work together in a building effort than by a Superior Being that had the knowledge to manipulate the elements of the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You too believe in humans who claim to have 'a theory' about something

False, and this is the core of it all.

No, I most certaintly do not simply "believe" what Einstein had to say about relativity.
I most certainly do not simply "believe" whatever a scientists says about atomic theory, germ theory of desease, evolution theory, plate tectonic theory, etc etc etc.

Every one of these theories is independendly verifiable and it DOES NOT in any way require me to put "faith" in any of these people or whatever books they wrote.

Not even by a long shot.

That's the difference between religion and science.

 

[Peter1000]

False, and this is the core of it all.

No, I most certaintly do not simply "believe" what Einstein had to say about relativity.
I most certainly do not simply "believe" whatever a scientists says about atomic theory, germ theory of desease, evolution theory, plate tectonic theory, etc etc etc.

Every one of these theories is independendly verifiable and it DOES NOT in any way require me to put "faith" in any of these people or whatever books they wrote.

Not even by a long shot.

That's the difference between religion and science.

Interesting you would put 'evolution theory' in with 'atomic theory', and 'germ theory', and 'tectonic theory'. The last 3 are fairly testable and falsifiable. But 'evolution theory' has so many holes in it that to try to test or falsify is impossible. I'm sure there are a few things that can be tested or falsified, but the start of life from non-life certainly cannot be. So if you cannot explain the beginning, so what if you think you know the middle or ending. I will give you an example of what I am saying tomorrow.

 

[Peter1000]

system error

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm satisfied that fine tuning is not an issue.

It is known that relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics and that both fields of study must be invoked to describe an event that occurs on a small scale and yet involves a very large amount of mass. In particular, the Big Bang occurred in a region of space smaller than an electron (because that was all the space in the universe and thus that was all available space) and involved all matter in the universe, meaning that it is such a large amount of mass that relativity cannot be ignored unless relativity is unequipped to describe that much mass.

So in sum we have an event that must be described either by physics that we don't yet have or by an amalgamation of physics that are currently incompatible. This means that any conclusion or computer simulation is simply not correct, and this is known, undisputed fact. Yet the majority of theists cite the current scientific conclusions and claim that fine tuning is the only alternative to chance, completely ignoring the fact that this is still an open question.

Therefore I find theists to be generally dishonest in regards to this topic. My conclusion stated here is due entirely to my own research because no theist has openly admitted what is happening here. The theists who are honest simply haven't bothered to work this issue out.

I welcome a theist to challenge my conclusion but I am done with actively seeking for an answer to this issue.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Interesting you would put 'evolution theory' in with 'atomic theory', and 'germ theory', and 'tectonic theory'. The last 3 are fairly testable and falsifiable. But 'evolution theory' has so many holes in it that to try to test or falsify is impossible.

Evolution is predicated on thousands of lines of critically robust evidence from a dozen convergent fields of study. That is precisely why it is ascribed the status of Theory. You don't know what you're talking about.

Case in point,

I'm sure there are a few things that can be tested or falsified, but the start of life from non-life certainly cannot be.

Evolution pertains to the variety of life, not the origin.

If you can't even correctly identify what the subject is, you have blatantly never studied it in any meaningful fashion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting you would put 'evolution theory' in with 'atomic theory', and 'germ theory', and 'tectonic theory'. The last 3 are fairly testable and falsifiable.

So is the first. It is ridiculously falsifiable.
For example:
- Find a mammal with feathers
- Find an amphibian with hair
- Find a mammal in the pre-cambrian
- Find any non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then a primate.

Or to put it in general terms: find something that breaks the pattern of nested hierarchies. This, right out the gates, translates into billion potential ways of falsification.

If it's wrong... it should be fairly easy to show that it is wrong.

But 'evolution theory' has so many holes in it that to try to test or falsify is impossible.

This shows that you are actually pretty ill-informed about the theory.

I'm sure there are a few things that can be tested or falsified, but the start of life from non-life certainly cannot be.

Evolution theory doesn't address the origins of life. Evolution is an explanation of the process that existing life is subject to.

To evolution, it matters not how life came to be.

So if you cannot explain the beginning, so what if you think you know the middle or ending.

Well then we know the beginning and ending...
You don't like knowledge?

Life exists and we can study it. It's how we trippled life expectancy, so I'ld consider that quite worth it.

 

[mark kennedy]

So is the first. It is ridiculously falsifiable.
For example:
- Find a mammal with feathers
- Find an amphibian with hair
- Find a mammal in the pre-cambrian
- Find any non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then a primate.

Or to put it in general terms: find something that breaks the pattern of nested hierarchies. This, right out the gates, translates into billion potential ways of falsification.

If it's wrong... it should be fairly easy to show that it is wrong.

What about an impossible burden of proof?

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

This shows that you are actually pretty ill-informed about the theory.

It's not a theory, it's an assumption.

Evolution theory doesn't address the origins of life. Evolution is an explanation of the process that existing life is subject to.

Which means creation could have started the process, which is still the best explanation.

To evolution, it matters not how life came to be.

Unless it's miraculous::

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

Well then we know the beginning and ending...
You don't like knowledge?

Life exists and we can study it. It's how we trippled life expectancy, so I'ld consider that quite worth it.

The strides made to improve life wasn't the result of Darwinism but rather genetics:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome, Nature 2001)​

The philosophy of natural history you are passing off as science is actually supposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about an impossible burden of proof?

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

Point?

It's not a theory, it's an assumption.

No, it's not. It is a theory. And a very solid one, at that.

Which means creation could have started the process

As I said, it doesn't matter to evolution what processes kick started life.
Evolution is about the process that already existing life is subject to.

, which is still the best explanation.

Bare claims aren't explanations.

Unless it's miraculous::

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
​

​

No, not even then. Again, it matters not to evolution theory how life came to be.
Extra-dimensional aliens, natural processes, undetectable fairies, your particular god of choice,... it matters not. Evolution kicked in once life existed.

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

Universal common descent of life is a genetic fact and not an assumption.

Evolution theory explains the process behind this fact.
If you refute evolution theory tomorrow, by the way, that genetic fact still remains.

A lot of people think that common ancestry of life is part of the "theory". It's not.
Rather, it's one of the facts explained by the theory.

The strides made to improve life wasn't the result of Darwinism but rather genetics:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome, Nature 2001)​

To quote the evangelical christian and biologist Francis Collins "In biology, nothing makes sense except in light of evolution theory".

The guy I was responding to was claiming that it was a "waste of time" to study species and the processed that existing life is subject to.

The philosophy of natural history you are passing off as science is actually supposition.

Facts are facts are facts.

As I have said in the post you are replying to... Evolution theory is ridiculously falsifiable. There are billions of potential ways in which it could be shown wrong.
If it's so wrong... why can't it be shown to be so wrong?

 

[mark kennedy]

Point?

An effect with no cause.

No, it's not. It is a theory. And a very solid one, at that.

It's an assumption, nothing more.

As I said, it doesn't matter to evolution what processes kick started life.
Evolution is about the process that already existing life is subject to.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, it's not some nebulous naturalistic assumption.

Bare claims aren't explanations.

My point exactly!

No, not even then. Again, it matters not to evolution theory how life came to be.

Then what if God created life?

Extra-dimensional aliens, natural processes, undetectable fairies, your particular god of choice,... it matters not. Evolution kicked in once life existed.

Yes I know, even if it was fully formed at creation which is still the only real explanation.

Universal common descent of life is a genetic fact and not an assumption.

It's an a priori assumption.

Evolution theory explains the process behind this fact.

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature.

If you refute evolution theory tomorrow, by the way, that genetic fact still remains.

If you remove the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means biology remains unchanged.

A lot of people think that common ancestry of life is part of the "theory". It's not.

That's because it's an assumption not a theory.

Rather, it's one of the facts explained by the theory.

It's not a theory, or an hypothesis, it's a myth.

To quote the evangelical christian and biologist Francis Collins "In biology, nothing makes sense except in light of evolution theory".

God created life, he had to forget that tenant of the Christian faith to make that statement. Unless you remove the naturalistic assumptions with regards to natural history.

The guy I was responding to was claiming that it was a "waste of time" to study species and the processed that existing life is subject to.

Speciation is nothing compared to animalia and plantia cells having a common ancestor.

Facts are facts are facts.

Which you say without any reference to an actual fact.

As I have said in the post you are replying to... Evolution theory is ridiculously falsifiable. There are billions of potential ways in which it could be shown wrong.

Yet there is never an acceptance of the inverse logic that is intuitively obvious. If not nature at the point of origin then God.

If it's so wrong... why can't it be shown to be so wrong?

Because it's an a priori fact. All the facts get arranged around the naturalistic assumptions that are perfectly fine beyond the point of origin which was miraculous.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An effect with no cause.

Still no idea what your point is, or how that comment relates to that quote...
Sounds pretty random.

It's an assumption, nothing more.

Nope.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, it's not some nebulous naturalistic assumption.

These changes happen in certain ways according the certain rules. Known as the evolutionary process, detailed in evolution theory.

Then what if God created life?

About the same as if God didn't. It doesn't matter to evolution theory.

It's an a priori assumption.

No. Facts are not assumptions.

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature.

The phenomena is explained by the theory.
Sheesh man, do you even think things through before posting these comments?

If you remove the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means biology remains unchanged.

Again, common ancestry is a genetic fact.
Facts are facts are facts.

You don't have to like them. Denying them however is not really a good idea.

God created life, he had to forget that tenant of the Christian faith to make that statement. Unless you remove the naturalistic assumptions with regards to natural history.

Your religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to science. Sorry.
Educated people like Francis Collins understand that.

Which you say without any reference to an actual fact.

It's called phylogenetics.

Because DNA is hereditary and comes with inheritable mutations every generation, we can compare genomes and determine common ancestry. That allows us to map species out according to such comparisions.

The result is the above tree fo life.

Common ancestry is a fact of genetics.

Yet there is never an acceptance of the inverse logic that is intuitively obvious. If not nature at the point of origin then God.

That's not how falsifiability works.
That's rather a false dichotomy combined with an argument from ignorance.
Quite literally the god of the gaps.

Because it's an a priori fact. All the facts get arranged around the naturalistic assumptions that are perfectly fine beyond the point of origin which was miraculous.

lol!!!

Right, right.... amphibians with hair or mammals with feathers actually really exist, but 'them evolutionists' are hiding them.

Hahaha.

It's hard to pretend to take you seriously.

 

[Peter1000]

Still no idea what your point is, or how that comment relates to that quote...
Sounds pretty random.



Nope.



These changes happen in certain ways according the certain rules. Known as the evolutionary process, detailed in evolution theory.



About the same as if God didn't. It doesn't matter to evolution theory.



No. Facts are not assumptions.



The phenomena is explained by the theory.
Sheesh man, do you even think things through before posting these comments?



Again, common ancestry is a genetic fact.
Facts are facts are facts.

You don't have to like them. Denying them however is not really a good idea.



Your religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to science. Sorry.
Educated people like Francis Collins understand that.



View attachment 189202

It's called phylogenetics.

Because DNA is hereditary and comes with inheritable mutations every generation, we can compare genomes and determine common ancestry. That allows us to map species out according to such comparisions.

The result is the above tree fo life.

Common ancestry is a fact of genetics.



That's not how falsifiability works.
That's rather a false dichotomy combined with an argument from ignorance.
Quite literally the god of the gaps.



lol!!!

Right, right.... amphibians with hair or mammals with feathers actually really exist, but 'them evolutionists' are hiding them.

Hahaha.

It's hard to pretend to take you seriously.

Ok. I would like to know if it is possible to test and unfalsify the following evolutionary process:

Science says the first life on earth was bacteria. This bacteria was a single celled microbe that had no nucleus (prokaryote).

How did a single-celled prokaryote evolve into a multi-celled, nucleus bearing eukaryote? Can we test for that in our science laboratories today, so that we can falsify or unfalsify this supposed evolutionary process?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. I would like to know if it is possible to test and unfalsify the following evolutionary process:

Science says the first life on earth was bacteria. This bacteria was a single celled microbe that had no nucleus (prokaryote).

How did a single-celled prokaryote evolve into a multi-celled, nucleus bearing eukaryote? Can we test for that in our science laboratories today, so that we can falsify or unfalsify this supposed evolutionary process?

Good question. I reckon scientists would examine current DNA, extrapolate backwards to the point of divergence, hypothesize mutations that could account for it, predict how such mutations would be expressed in fossilized microbes, and then test this idea against the fossil record.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok. I would like to know if it is possible to test and unfalsify the following evolutionary process:

Science says the first life on earth was bacteria. This bacteria was a single celled microbe that had no nucleus (prokaryote).

How did a single-celled prokaryote evolve into a multi-celled, nucleus bearing eukaryote? Can we test for that in our science laboratories today, so that we can falsify or unfalsify this supposed evolutionary process?

The "how" really is a different question.

Phylogenies enable us to determine common ancestry.
It doesn't enables us to be able to trace "mutation by mutation" how any given species gave rise to another species.

Having said that, my knowledge on microbiology / molecular biology is pretty limited and that sounds like a really technical question.

This would also be the hardest to investigate... Because organisms from that time are microscopic and, after 3 billion years, it's pretty safe to say that you won't be finding them alive and well under a rock for study either.

Multi-celled organisms are much easier. I suggest you start your journey there.

In Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale", he actually takes the approach of starting in the present and working his way back into time.

It's a nice illustration on how things get rather foggy, especially so to the layman, once we reach the point of pre-multi-celled organisms.

However, you'ld be surprised at the level of knowledge science has acquired concerning those time periods and developments.

 

[Peter1000]

Good question. I reckon scientists would examine current DNA, extrapolate backwards to the point of divergence, hypothesize mutations that could account for it, predict how such mutations would be expressed in fossilized microbes, and then test this idea against the fossil record.

Good answer, except here are some interesting scientific terms you used:
1) I reckon... which means you don't know and you are guessing.
2) scientists would...., which means they haven't or you are unaware that they have or haven't.
3) extrapolate... Which means they are trying to fit current data into past history because there is no data for past history, so the next best thing is to extrapolate current data. Rather scientific, but not real, and again guessing with best info. available.
4) Hypothesize... Again, to hypothesize is to guess, theorize, with the best information possible, we try to come up with the best answer, whether it is correct or not.
5) ...mutations that could account for it... The word 'could' means don't know exactly but the best I can say is it 'could'.
6) Predict.... Another word for 'we guess', because we do not know for sure, so we predict what did happen.
7) Test this reckoned, extrapolated, hypotesized, predicted, could be data and see what we come up with, and then after a while, and we pressure scientists to come to our consensus, we will call it a fact, and anyone that does not go along with this fact will be labeled a right wing, religious, nut wack.

I am sorry, though, for blasting what I feel is a sincere response to my question. Thank you for that. But it is in scientific language that is nothing more than, 'could' of, 'would' of, 'should' of, but didn't. It does not inspire confidence. But I do apologize anyway.

 

[Peter1000]

TagliatelliMonster:

Phylogenies enable us to determine common ancestry.

Phylogenies have to do with determining an organisms characteristics such as height, eye color etc.

Phylogenies are very, very difficult to construct the furthur back you go. Therefore, you hear the words,
'fairly accurate' and 'by inference', 'we can only do our best', 'it is extremely difficult', 'missing link', etc., etc.

In fact, it is impossible once you get past 5000 years ago, into the foggy make-up of evolutionary modern man.

Anyway the idea that we can figure out after a few thousand years ago who was our next to nearest ancestor by some phylogenic evolutional model is a rediculous study, let alone go back a billion years and start trying to piece together the phylogenies, you are just kidding yourself if you think that is science.

Like I say, even if we start with multicelled animals, your phylogienic evolutionary model is full of holes. It is just a good guess, and very difficult to test and to unfalsify. But that doesn't matter unless we are talking about a Superior Being, then it matters.

However, you'ld be surprised at the level of knowledge science has acquired concerning those time periods and developments.

I certainly would be surprised to find any solid data or solid evidence of worms eventually becoming dinosaurs, for instance. We don't know how invertabrates got back bones. Oh there are lots of theories, but none that are testable or unfalsifiable. But, again, unless we are talking about God, that doesn't matter. I think you would be surprised at the small amount of solid, no question knowledge science has acquired about those time periods. Very little.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Good answer, except here are some interesting scientific terms you used:
1) I reckon... which means you don't know and you are guessing.
2) scientists would...., which means they haven't or you are unaware that they have or haven't.
3) extrapolate... Which means they are trying to fit current data into past history because there is no data for past history, so the next best thing is to extrapolate current data. Rather scientific, but not real, and again guessing with best info. available.
4) Hypothesize... Again, to hypothesize is to guess, theorize, with the best information possible, we try to come up with the best answer, whether it is correct or not.
5) ...mutations that could account for it... The word 'could' means don't know exactly but the best I can say is it 'could'.
6) Predict.... Another word for 'we guess', because we do not know for sure, so we predict what did happen.
7) Test this reckoned, extrapolated, hypotesized, predicted, could be data and see what we come up with, and then after a while, and we pressure scientists to come to our consensus, we will call it a fact, and anyone that does not go along with this fact will be labeled a right wing, religious, nut wack.

I am sorry, though, for blasting what I feel is a sincere response to my question. Thank you for that. But it is in scientific language that is nothing more than, 'could' of, 'would' of, 'should' of, but didn't. It does not inspire confidence. But I do apologize anyway.

No need to apologize. By all means, be a smart ass. But it's generally a good idea to be correct if you choose to take that path. Your definition of hypothesize puts your foot squarely in your mouth.

Aside from that, use of "coulda woulda shoulda" terms is just honesty because we don't actually know and we are just providing a testable idea. By contrast, I don't assert to know that I will rule a planet with my wife after I die.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TagliatelliMonster:
Phylogenies have to do with determining an organisms characteristics such as height, eye color etc.

No. Wikipedia:

In biology, phylogenetics /ˌfaɪloʊdʒəˈnɛtɪks, -lə-/[1][2] (Greek: φυλή, φῦλον - phylé, phylon = tribe, clan, race + γενετικός - genetikós = origin, source, birth)[3] is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) – a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the "end," or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.

Phylogenies are very, very difficult to construct the furthur back you go. Therefore, you hear the words,
'fairly accurate' and 'by inference', 'we can only do our best', 'it is extremely difficult', 'missing link', etc., etc.

It's called intellectual honesty. Science is the practice of finding out how stuff works. It does not deal in certainties. In no natural science field, especially at the frontiers of that field where hypothesis are being developped and tested, you will find any other language.

In fact, it is impossible once you get past 5000 years ago, into the foggy make-up of evolutionary modern man.

Not at all

Anyway the idea that we can figure out after a few thousand years ago who was our next to nearest ancestor by some phylogenic evolutional model is a rediculous study,
let alone go back a billion years and start trying to piece together the phylogenies, you are just kidding yourself if you think that is science.

lol

argument from incredulity.

The thousands, if not millions, of scientists who do exactly that every single day, kind of disagree with your layman's, creationist, opinion.

Like I say, even if we start with multicelled animals, your phylogienic evolutionary model is full of holes.

Off course it is. We haven't sequenced every genome of every species yet. It's why we still train geneticists and molecular biologists who engage in original research - to learn more.

None of this means that what we currently know, is wrong.

It's, again, the same in every other field of science. There are more holes in the theory of gravity then there are in evolution theory.

There is a LOT left to learn. And all those things that we have yet to learn, are currently "holes" in our knowledge. You say this as if it is a problem for science... I don't get that.... holes in our knowledge is the exact reason why we do science: to plug those holes with knowledge!!

It is just a good guess, and very difficult to test and to unfalsify.

It's actually ridiculously easy to test and potentially falsify.
Evolution theory, by its nature, makes an ENORMOUS amount of testable predictions. And I do mean ENORMOUS. And it has to do with the prediction of nested hierarchies.

The pattern of distribution of genes/traits in context of evolution has to make sense in context of a family tree.

This means that it predicts that you will NOT find mammals with feathers. No amphibians with hair. No reptiles with inner ear bones.

There are a few known exceptions to this with non-sexual reproduction / horizontal gene transfers.

However, a reptile with an inner earbone, for example, could not be explained by those mechanisms.

Neither could the DNA of a cat that shares more ERV's with humans then chimps do.
There's literally a bazillion potential ways to falsify evolution in this way, all of which are rather easy to test:

1. Name a trait or gene sequence, any trait or gene sequence, that evolved in branch X.
2. That trait or gene sequence, should not show up in any other branch.

But that doesn't matter unless we are talking about a Superior Being, then it matters.

I'll take superior beings into account, once you can demonstrate that such beings exist and have to be taken into account.

I certainly would be surprised to find any solid data or solid evidence of worms eventually becoming dinosaurs, for instance. We don't know how invertabrates got back bones. Oh there are lots of theories, but none that are testable or unfalsifiable. But, again, unless we are talking about God, that doesn't matter. I think you would be surprised at the small amount of solid, no question knowledge science has acquired about those time periods. Very little.

Maybe you should google "evolution of vertebrates".

But again, I'ld like to point out that "how did x evolve" and "did x evolve", are two different questions.

 

[devolved]

False, and this is the core of it all.

No, I most certaintly do not simply "believe" what Einstein had to say about relativity.
I most certainly do not simply "believe" whatever a scientists says about atomic theory, germ theory of desease, evolution theory, plate tectonic theory, etc etc etc.

Every one of these theories is independendly verifiable and it DOES NOT in any way require me to put "faith" in any of these people or whatever books they wrote.

Not even by a long shot.

That's the difference between religion and science.

That's actually not true from the basic philosophical underpinning that makes all of what you say quite problematic. The difference between science and religion is in methodology and how far the claims are separated and "shielded" from the sources.

Religions generally limit the access to the first-hand experience, but plenty of sciences do the very same thing... so you are left in the dry believing whatever you are being told is independently verified. So, let's be a bit more honest on this point. There's an obvious difference between science and religion, but for most people there isn't... unless all of them rushing to the labs and conducting QM experiments. But, that's not the case. What most people understand about science is a second-hand knowledge that they trust is correct based on the dots they connect about data. In such, their methods differ from religious people in that there's more available data to connect those dots.