Ethics of anti evolution arguments

[trophy33]

No known fact proves it.

But the disproving evidence is mounting:

This small ground beetle is rekindling debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution

A tiny insect that survived the extinction event which killed the dinosaurs throws up questions for evolutionary theory.

www.scmp.com

"Robert Shedinger, a professor of religion at Luther College in Iowa, USA, who was not involved in the research, said this could challenge Darwin’s theory."
Wow.

 

[o_mlly]

One fact to disprove evolution.

To prove a negative, that is, that TOE is in error, would be extraordinarily difficult.

That is why the burden of proof is on those who make positive claims. And science never proves anything.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But the disproving evidence is mounting:

Evolutionary stasis has been a focal point in the arguments within evolutionary biology between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, but it presents no significant barrier to the theory of evolution.

To prove a negative, that is, that TOE is in error, would be extraordinarily difficult.

Falsifying a robust scientific theory is easy. Robust theories make predictions that can be tested. If the empirical evidence contradicts the predictions, then the theory must be modified or discarded.

 

[o_mlly]

Like gravity, evolution is a term used both for a fact of nature and the scientific theory that best explains it.

The probability that any scientific theory reflects reality depends on the consensus of all scientists to be in agreement. On the issue of gravity, at least as it presently understood, consensus exists. However, on TOE, No.

 

[o_mlly]

"Robert Shedinger, a professor of religion at Luther College in Iowa, USA, who was not involved in the research, said this could challenge Darwin’s theory."
Wow.

Rather than an ad hominem, try disagreeing with his reasoning.

You do know that Chinese scientists are probably atheists, right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The probability that any scientific theory reflects reality depends on the consensus of all scientists to be in agreement. On the issue of gravity, at least as it presently understood, consensus exists.

The case of Einsteinian special and general relativity (gravity) is very analogical to that of evolution:

Status of criticism

The theory of relativity is considered to be self-consistent, is consistent with many experimental results, and serves as the basis of many successful theories like quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, fundamental criticism (like that of Herbert Dingle, Louis Essen, Petr Beckmann, Maurice Allais and Tom van Flandern) has not been taken seriously by the scientific community, and due to the lack of quality of many critical publications (found in the process of peer review) they were rarely accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals (except for a few articles by, say, Mansuripur[9] and Javanshiry[10] regarding some paradoxes in the definition of, respectively, the Lorentz force and force (general form) in special relativity). Just as in the 1920s, most critical works are published in small publication houses, alternative journals (like "Apeiron" or "Galilean Electrodynamics"), or private websites.

 

[o_mlly]

Falsifying a robust scientific theory is easy. Robust theories make predictions that can be tested.

What empirically verifiable positive predictions has TOE made in the last 100 or so years?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Rather than an ad hominem, try disagreeing with his reasoning.

You do know that Chinese scientists are probably atheists, right?

"In fact, it is in a state the researchers call “evolutionary stasis”."

Evolutionary stasis is a common phenomenon that presents no particular difficulties for evolutionary theory.

 

[o_mlly]

The case of Einsteinian special and general relativity (gravity) is very analogical to that of evolution:

Kindly explain that analogy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What empirically verifiable positive predictions has TOE made in the last 100 or so years?

Orthologous endogenous retroviruses will fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[o_mlly]

"In fact, it is in a state the researchers call “evolutionary stasis”."

That's pretty convenient. TOE is true except when it isn't. 100 million yeas of stasis for the beetle, the shark, the crocodile, the gar?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Kindly explain that analogy.

The theory of gravity is not a universal consensus among scientists. There are a few deniers. Some of them, due to the poor quality of their work, publish their work in alternative journals or websites devoted to nonconsensus ideas.

 

[o_mlly]

Orthologous endogenous retroviruses will fall into a nested hierarchy.

I can't access the link. Do you have anything predicted by TOE that laymen can observe, you know something one might find on the end of a fishing line, or a furry creature, or bird in the sky?

 

[durangodawood]

Your actions speak louder than your words.

What actions?

So far all I have from her is literally words. And some punctuation.

 

[durangodawood]

We observe that virtually all such arguments are simply
falsehoods, either made up by the poster, or, borrowed
from someone else who made them up.

How can this behaviour be consistent with
any moral code?

Ignorance goes a long way in excusing this for me.

But at some point the ignorance often becomes willful, and thats when the bad faith discussion starts. Its difficult to generalize about when that threshold gets crossed.

 

[trophy33]

Rather than an ad hominem, try disagreeing with his reasoning.

You do know that Chinese scientists are probably atheists, right?

I am not motivated to even consider his reasoning. He is a teacher of religion, not of biology, so he is out of his place, judging the impact of the beetle on the TOE.

 

[o_mlly]

I am not motivated to even consider his reasoning. He is a teacher of religion ...

So, you have no response? Thanks for your non-input.

 

[trophy33]

So, you have no response? Thanks for your non-input.

My response is obvious - the article had to quote a guy who is no expert and was not involved in the research in any way. They could not find somebody better. Some random guy from Iowa. You can hardly require us to reason with him.

 

[o_mlly]

My response is obvious - the article had to quote a guy who is no expert and was not involved in the research in any way. They could not find somebody better. Some random guy from Iowa. You can hardly require us to reason with him.

The author gives his reasoning in the article. Easy enough to dispute, if you could.

Who is "they"?

I don't require anything. But your reluctance to defeat the author's reasoning is quite telling.

 

[trophy33]

The author gives his reasoning in the article. Easy enough to dispute, if you could.

Who is "they"?

I don't require anything. But your reluctance to defeat the author's reasoning is quite telling.

There are several hypotheses why can organisms stay in their form for a long time. For example:

Frozen plasticity theory | Frozen Evolution. Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

This theory suggests a mechanism of the origin of adaptive traits in sexual organisms. The classical Darwinian mechanism of the origin of adaptive traits by natural selection can explain the evolution of such traits only under a very special situation, e.g., in a genetically homogeneous...

www.frozenevolution.com

Why you require that we must defeat (what that even means) the opinion (its not even a reasoning) of a religion teacher from some Iowa college is telling, too.