Ethics of anti evolution arguments

[o_mlly]

Name calling is unseemly and it is requested that you cease or depart.

Cite the name calling that you falsely accuse me of or depart the thread.

As for proof in science, usually its the Creationists being told
over and over that science does not do proof.

Tu quoque fallacy. Looks like you didn't read the "scientist's" article. Or do you now claim he's a disguised creationist?

 

[o_mlly]

Provide facts to disprove the ToE
and collect your Nobel, and I will
say that the first non- false argument
has been made.
Meantime you’re off to ig city.

Shifting the burden of proof? Don't you think that burdening others to disprove what has not been proved is reasonable? Of course, not.

And thank you for the upgrade!

 

[o_mlly]

Nevertheless, this is an example of something that evolution predicts -- orthologous ERVs will reflect the hierarchy of common descent among related species -- that when tested empirically, confirms the prediction.

Microevolution, yes. And we didn't need Darwin to understand that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Explain how bacteria could have descendants that have functional capabilities that the bacteria did not?

Via evolution. This has been demonstrated empirically.

Experimental Evolution.

Experimental evolution is the use of laboratory experiments or controlled field manipulations to explore evolutionary dynamics.

I would point in particular to Lenski's experiment with E. coli, where the evolution of the ability to grow aerobically on citrate was enabled by multiple mutations, directly conflicting with the claims of many anti-evolutionists that such a thing is impossible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Microevolution, yes. And we didn't need Darwin to understand that.

It is nonstandard to consider the evolution of humans and other apes from a common ancestor to be microevolution.

 

[BCP1928]

And to which one of the many theories of evolution did the author improperly claim as a premise?

You can easily find out in the appropriate forum. For purposes of this discussion, the situation can be taken as hypothetical. Can you answer my question on that basis?

 

[o_mlly]

Now that you know this, if you were to knowingly deny that it is possible to falsify the theory of evolution, that would be a lie.

To deny a fact knowingly is to lie.

Logic? I do know that any scientific hypothesis (even those sympathetically elevated to be a theory) can be falsified. Especially, when one incorrectly elevates those hypotheses and theories to be scientific facts.

At last, you are making a moral argument.

 

[o_mlly]

Via evolution. This has been demonstrated empirically.

Nope. Another example of microevolution does not help the evolutionist's case for macroevolution.

I won't reply to anymore non-moral arguments in this thread.

 

[BCP1928]

Shifting the burden of proof? Don't you think that burdening others to disprove what has not been proved is reasonable? Of course, not.

And thank you for the upgrade!

It is quite reasonable--that's how science works. Consider the case of the black swan. All the swans I have ever seen are white. I can form a theory that all swans are white. I can never prove it, because I cannot examine all swans everywhere, but I can maintain that theory in the same provisional sense that all scientific theories are maintained as long as I continue to come across only white swans. However, just one black swan will disprove my theory.

 

[Astrid]

It is quite reasonable--that's how science works. Consider the case of the black swan. All the swans I have ever seen are white. I can form a theory that all swans are white. I can never prove it, because I cannot examine all swans everywhere, but I can maintain that theory in the same provisional sense that all scientific theories are maintained as long as I continue to come across only white swans. However, just one black swan will disprove my theory.

Well,theres another anti evolution argument shown
false. Maybe our friend will stop, we’ve had enough from one
donor.

 

[BCP1928]

Well,theres another anti evolution argument shown
false. Maybe our friend will stop, we’ve had enough from one
donor.

And no comment about the ethical implications of using false arguments, even hypothetically.

 

[Astrid]

And no comment about the ethical implications of using false arguments, even hypothetically.

I’m kind of disappointed.

It seemed possible someone would recognize its
a real issue, and think about it.

 

[o_mlly]

For purposes of this discussion, the situation can be taken as hypothetical. Can you answer my question on that basis?

Did you have a moral issue?

 

[BCP1928]

Did you have a moral issue?

No. I avoid making logical arguments based on premises I know to be false for merely practical reasons--inevitably they are exposed in the end.

 

[Larniavc]

Nope.

Nope a non sequitur, not a reply.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you not have a search engine where you live?

Bwaaaaaahahaha!

 

[Larniavc]

What are yours?

Master's degree level in cognitive behavioural therapy. Did you graduate in?

 

[Larniavc]

Explain how bacteria could have descendants that have functional capabilities that the bacteria did not? You cannot give to another what you do not already possess.

Nylon eating bacteria.

 

[truthpls]

Nylon eating bacteria.

Bacteria that eat nylon do not prove than man came from bacteria. No real connection. All that shows is that God's creations are resilient and adapt.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Bacteria that eat nylon do not prove than man came from bacteria.

That is not why this fact was cited.

All that shows is that God's creations are resilient and adapt.

It shows that undirected evolution can result in new functional capabilities in descendants that were not present in the ancestral population.

Once one knows this, denying that evolution can produce new functional capabilities would be a lie.

To deny a fact knowingly is to lie.
From Webster’s Dictionary 1828: “Fact”