What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Astrid]

Son, you post no evidence. Ever. But you sure enjoy hootin' and hollerin' at me if I don't. You delight in making me waste my time to feed you things you will ignore. I believe you know exactly what you're doing and you do it on purpose. So save the righteous indignation. If you ever actually want to learn something I'll be happy to show you.

"Making you"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is, you are extremely narrow minded. Try stepping outside the Evolution paradigm and feel the freedom.

I am far from narrow minded. You are confusing not being so open minded that one's brain falls out with being narrow minded. Is it bad idea to jump off of a 900 foot cliff without some sort of protection? Yes, gravity is a fact. Denying evolution is no different than denying evolution and it can have very negative effects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Making you"?

I am not sure if @Phred has posted evidence, but it would be easy enough for him to. The problem is not only isn't there any scientific evidence for creationism, the creationists here will refuse to even learn what qualifies as evidence and why.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me one thing in the Bible that proves it was written by someone with knowledge exceeding that of someone here on Earth. One.

I'll give you a whole book: the book of Revelation.

I love the way Chuck Missler describes the Bible as " a message from outside the universe, written in spread-spectrum design and immune to hostile jamming."

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not sure if @Phred has posted evidence, but it would be easy enough for him to. The problem is not only isn't there any scientific evidence for creationism, the creationists here will refuse to even learn what qualifies as evidence and why.

That's why I ask people what they are expecting us to give them? an ion trail? time crystals? plasma cloud? cosmic microwaves? residual radiation?

What exactly would constitute evidence of creatio ex nihilo?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I ask people what they are expecting us to give them? an ion trail? time crystals? plasma cloud? cosmic microwaves? residual radiation?

What exactly would constitute evidence of creatio ex nihilo?

That is the burden of proof that lies upon creationists. They cannot seem to find any.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the burden of proof that lies upon creationists.

Actually it isn't. They aren't bound by the rules of the scientific method like you guys are.

They cannot seem to find any.

I wonder why? maybe none was generated?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it isn't. They aren't bound by the rules of the scientific method like you guys are.

LOL! That is why the burden of proof is upon them.

I wonder why? maybe none was generated?

So it did not happen. I think that you are right.

 

[dlamberth]

They aren't bound by the rules of the scientific method like you guys are.

I think this attitude has a lot to do with the down of America.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think this attitude has a lot to do with the down of America.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Are you implying that the scientific method keeps America great?

 

[o_mlly]

You appear fixated on species needing to be an exact measurement to be of scientific value.

AP: Rule #3.

 

[Astrid]

I am not sure if @Phred has posted evidence, but it would be easy enough for him to. The problem is not only isn't there any scientific evidence for creationism, the creationists here will refuse to even learn what qualifies as evidence and why.

Nobody is obligated to respond to garbage.

 

[o_mlly]

I think they're both instrumental and both play causal roles - crudely put, mutations supply the variation and the environment does the selection; both are necessary for evolution.

In the animal kingdom, every sexual reproduction is a mutation. The vast majority do not confer a bendfit. Rather than causal to evolution, the mutations are merely happenstance. Yes, w/o mutation no evolution can occur but elevating what chance provides as causal is like saying a pair of dice caused the player to roll snake eyes.

Evo theories face a time problem. I know some evo's simply hand-wave it away but it remains an issue. Hypotheses that address the time-problem in evolution substitute directed rather than random mutation. The idea of self-organizing principle in nature is one such candidate. Unlike a random assumption, a directed assumption would elevate the mutations themselves to be causal.

I don't really agree that's the case. 'Species' is a category we've devised to account for the discovery that there is a point at which populations are intrinsically sufficiently different, in some specified context, to be treated separately.

It's just another way we divide up the continua of the discovered world into useful categories; child, youth, adult, and elderly is another set of arbitrary categories - but just because the age ranges differ according to culture or individual opinion doesn't mean they're of little value in rigorous applications - as long as they are defined and used consistently within those applications - for example, a demographic census.

Categorizing things is useful to focus thinking. However, many evos believe that “species” are discovered rather than invented often referring to the Tree of Life as representlng reality. Presently, I read biologists currently float 26 different definitions for "species". The necessary consensus that would make the term meaningful, as previously noted, will come from the molecular biologist.

Which evolution theories did you have in mind? Scientific theories are the well-accepted results of the repeated successful testing of scientific hypotheses, so they would necessarily fit your criteria.

Please feel free to address the evolution theory that you believe can best be defended as empirical.

 

[Astrid]

AP: Rule #3.

Over and over, nonsensical posts about how
the impossibilityof a precise definition for
"species" is a big problem for science.

Please tell us the correct adjective for said
behaviour.

 

[o_mlly]

It may appear that way today, and many scientists may make that presumption, but as far as I am aware, there has always been the understanding that some aspects of nature may be inherently random, and there has always been a debate between those that think it's wholly deterministic and those that think that true randomness exists. The debate continues in the different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The fundamental principle of science is to follow the evidence, and empirical evidence suggests that, at the macro scale, nature is, generally, deterministic - with a few ambiguous exceptions that can have significant macro-scale effects, such as radioactive decay (a QM effect).

Philosophers of science would I think disagree. Yes, empiricism is another fundamental principle to science but "Determinism" is listed as the #1 principle. The most recent studies of QM physicists at the theoretical level suggest that one cannot so easily dismiss the events at the micro level as having little to no affect at the macro level. Nothing at the macro level exists that is not constituted by the micro.

If you're suggesting that the idea that consciousness per se can directly affect the material world, the evidence and the QM formalism suggests it can't. The idea was abandoned by mainstream physicists long ago. Confusion between and misunderstanding of the 'measurement problem', the 'observer effect', and the use of the term 'observer' in QM thought experiments has provided fertile ground for quantum mystics and woo merchants. The outcomes of quantum measurements may be probabilistic, but they strictly follow the Schrodinger equation.

I disagree. Schrodinger's equation provides the math for the wave function and the range of possibilities (not probabilities) at decoherence. We have as far as I know no math equation that explains the collapse of the wave to the particle state. This is not my field but what I read is not published by "woo merchants".

 

[Ophiolite]

This is not my field but what I read is not published by "woo merchants".

I would be interested in links to a couple of examples.

 

[Astrid]

View attachment 300855

Philosophers of science would I think disagree. Yes, empiricism is another fundamental principle to science but "Determinism" is listed as the #1 principle. The most recent studies of QM physicists at the theoretical level suggest that one cannot so easily dismiss the events at the micro level as having little to no affect at the macro level. Nothing at the macro level exists that is not constituted by the micro.


I disagree. Schrodinger's equation provides the math for the wave function and the range of possibilities (not probabilities) at decoherence. We have as far as I know no math equation that explains the collapse of the wave to the particle state. This is not my field but what I read is not published by "woo merchants".

Nice list of the aspects of sensible
thinking.
Amusing to note that religious thinking
Is antithetical to all of it.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

View attachment 300855

Philosophers of science would I think disagree. Yes, empiricism is another fundamental principle to science but "Determinism" is listed as the #1 principle. The most recent studies of QM physicists at the theoretical level suggest that one cannot so easily dismiss the events at the micro level as having little to no affect at the macro level. Nothing at the macro level exists that is not constituted by the micro.


I disagree. Schrodinger's equation provides the math for the wave function and the range of possibilities (not probabilities) at decoherence. We have as far as I know no math equation that explains the collapse of the wave to the particle state. This is not my field but what I read is not published by "woo merchants".

I was going to ask where you got this very strange list, but I found it.
Rachel_Cope7 has made a bunch of term flashcards at Quizlet https://quizlet.com/rachel_cope7 which seem to have to do with exercise training and some other odd stuff, but nothing that indicates any expertise in philosophy of science.
She may not be a "woo merchant" but you need better sources than this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the animal kingdom, every sexual reproduction is a mutation.

No; sexual reproduction combines existing alleles from each parent; it doesn't change them, it simply recombines them. Mutations can and do occur in association with sexual reproduction, but it is not itself a kind of mutation.

The vast majority do not confer a bendfit.

True.

Rather than causal to evolution, the mutations are merely happenstance. Yes, w/o mutation no evolution can occur but elevating what chance provides as causal is like saying a pair of dice caused the player to roll snake eyes.

Seriously? you're suggesting that chance events aren't causal? I thought you'd be in the camp that requires effects to have causes...

It seems to me that a stray ricochet from a drive-by or a tree falling on your head as you walk by can cause your demise, a lightning strike can cause your house to burn down, and a mutation can cause cystic fibrosis. I'd appreciate an explanation of how that isn't the case.

Evo theories face a time problem. I know some evo's simply hand-wave it away but it remains an issue. Hypotheses that address the time-problem in evolution substitute directed rather than random mutation.

Claims that evolution has a 'time problem' are usually a result of not understanding how evolution itself works and/or not understanding the genetic control of development. But please describe or link to some scientific (i.e. testable) hypotheses involving directed evolution.

The idea of self-organizing principle in nature is one such candidate.

Self-organisation is a well-accepted aspect of physical, chemical, biological, ecological, and other processes; it is noteworthy for being a route to undirected emergent order (that's kind of what 'self-organisation' means).

... many evos believe that “species” are discovered rather than invented often referring to the Tree of Life as representlng reality. Presently, I read biologists currently float 26 different definitions for "species".

It's a moot point whether species are invented or discovered, semantic quibbling. We discover a significant difference between populations so we invent labels or categories to identify and distinguish them. I've already explained why differing definitions are in use.

The necessary consensus that would make the term meaningful, as previously noted, will come from the molecular biologist.

It won't make it any more arbitrary, and unfortunately, it's not as simple as deciding that some particular number of genetic differences between populations will determine when a new species has arrived.

Please feel free to address the evolution theory that you believe can best be defended as empirical.

I'm only aware of one scientific theory of evolution - originated by Darwin & Wallace, which developed into the modern synthesis, and more recently, evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), and the extended evolutionary synthesis.

This theory satisfies all the criteria you mentioned, is supported by ~150 years of multiple independent lines of evidence, is the best tested scientific theory around, is generally acknowledged to be foundational to modern biology, and has many practical applications in medicine and industry.

So, what other theories did you have in mind?

Also, you said you were a scientist; may I ask what field you work in?

 

[Astrid]

I was going to ask where you got this very strange list, but I found it.
Rachel_Cope7 has made a bunch of term flashcards at Quizlet https://quizlet.com/rachel_cope7 which seem to have to do with exercise training and some other odd stuff, but nothing that indicates any expertise in philosophy of science.
She may not be a "woo merchant" but you need better sources than this.

That is a very odd source. Is there, btw, a rule about
giving a link to cut n paste stuff?
All of it seemed reasonable to me except for that
weird definition for parsimony.