Considerations for science

[Gottservant]

8) Anything in process or development can only be completely understood when one grasps the past of the process or development and the future or where or why it is going there (which can never actually be fully known until we actually arrive at that place)

I think 8) makes the most sense (and is basically the truth about the meaning of discernment) 9) follows on neatly from that too, but is more complicated than the summary suggests

 

[pshun2404]

Yes I agree 9 presents with a bit more complication but I think what is said is based on a historical perspective...some things that were (in times past) accepted by science as established fact, have now been shown to be obsolete, only primary, or just plain incorrect! Therefore it is safe to say we should stay open to possibilities because some of what science NOW accepts as fact or pretty much established truth will also one day be shown to be amiss or only basic to a greater more precise understanding. Would you agree with that?

 

[Gottservant]

I wasn't so concerned about science moving on, as the notion of a "norm"

Although a norm is maintained within the context of established knowledge, actually once you step outside that context, shifting away from the "norm" is exponentially more difficult, much less changing it

It's something I don't think Evolutionists have ever really grasped, (for example) changing forms doesn't present a challenge, it is absurdly more information expensive.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well first off this is the conclusion of philosophers and historians of science so more appropriately what do they mean? But I can provide one example. The Leakys at the Olduvia gorge found stone tools near some footprints (which lack any semblance to the separated big toe or lower thumb joint common to apes), near to this was a stone monolithic structure and about a football field away (at least 750 feet) they found a few remains of a young Ape…all their measurements, timeline calculations, chemical analyses were correct but in their conclusion they ASSUMED the ape or their family must have made the tools and used them and that the footprints were an example of Australopithicene evolution.

Now despite the physical analysis the conclusion was abstract and contained an unconscious bias….

a) It was just as likely what they had found was evidence of early Sapiens or Erectus and some ape they had killed or even eaten.

b) Being already convinced that no humans lived this far back they could not consider it (a lot of evidence of early humans has been re-interpreted under this assumption….absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence)

Imagine if 100,000 or 1,000,000 years from now all that existed here was my functional toilet and a few footprints and a football field away the researchers found the remains of a dog….would it be sound to conclude the dog or his family made or used this toilet? Perfect analogy!

Imagine too if you will, that one can not find skeletons of chimpanzee in the fossil record near as old as man. And then one finds 3 teeth that could have gotten there in many ways - and then one speculates that this means Chimpanzees were around at the same time, and so must be earlier too, even if their skeletons can not be found. Or we could conclude that around this time the chimpanzee breed came about from what we know occurs by direct observation of the natural world, by two different breeds of the same Kind mating and producing a third breed. Came into the record just as we observe different breeds that come into the record as per observation of nature itself. And could understand why skeletons of them are not found near as old as man.

Imagine not having to throw away everything known about how reproduction actually works to pretend things happened differently at one time long ago.

Or we can imagine the Husky or English Mastiff evolved into the Chinook and pretend two different breeds didn't just mate instead.

Imagine too that never having seen a dog one stumbles upon their skeletons, and over the years digs them up. One then perhaps honestly believes (even though it is incorrect) the skeletons show a progressive evolution of species changing into other species. Gaps seem present in places where new breeds suddenly sprang into the record, excuse me I mean evolved into other species and the links are just missing.

Bias to ones belief is what enables some to ignore how we see reproduction works in the observable world. To then pretend it happens other than 100 plus years of animal and plant husbandry has shown is inconceivable. Different breeds of the same Kind merely mate and produce a new breed. Nothing has ever been observed to evolve into another species - merely infraspecific taxa.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I wasn't so concerned about science moving on, as the notion of a "norm"

Although a norm is maintained within the context of established knowledge, actually once you step outside that context, shifting away from the "norm" is exponentially more difficult, much less changing it

It's something I don't think Evolutionists have ever really grasped, (for example) changing forms doesn't present a challenge, it is absurdly more information expensive.

Changing forms presents no challenge at all. One merely has to accept what we know occurs. The Chinook is the result of two different breeds within the same Kind, English Mastiff and Husky mating and producing a new breed, not one of them evolving into the Chinook.

But you are correct about shifting the norm, let alone changing it. How one falsifies something that the evidence doesn't fit to begin with is quite challenging, especially when how we know reproduction works is ignored.

 

[The Cadet]

Or we can imagine the Husky or English Mastiff evolved into the Chinook and pretend two different breeds didn't just mate instead.

Please either address the numerous problems others have pointed out with this example or stop using it. Thank you.

 

[Gottservant]

Changing forms presents no challenge at all. One merely has to accept what we know occurs. The Chinook is the result of two different breeds within the same Kind, English Mastiff and Husky mating and producing a new breed, not one of them evolving into the Chinook.

But you are correct about shifting the norm, let alone changing it. How one falsifies something that the evidence doesn't fit to begin with is quite challenging, especially when how we know reproduction works is ignored.

I don't like this ("whatever"(?)).

You posit that forms can be changed, with the correct breeding, as if both the end result and appropriate selection pressures are known and controlled, or that it can be refined until this is the case (which is delusional, if taken to the extreme, as you seem to imply).

Furthermore, saying as much does not even begin to address that Evolutionists think this happens by accident, with the exact same efficacy (in so much as you change nothing, having discovered the process you believe is at work, as though "it only" needs to be discovered, when that in itself was a process not conducted Evolutionarily).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please either address the numerous problems others have pointed out with this example or stop using it. Thank you.

What numerous problems? That you don't want to consider it at all?

That it is a controlled environment just like the controlled environments biologists use when they attempt to mutate E coli into something other than E coli and fail? The only problem with it is it shows how wrong your theory is, so of course you want to ignore it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't like this ("whatever"(?)).

You posit that forms can be changed, with the correct breeding, as if both the end result and appropriate selection pressures are known and controlled, or that it can be refined until this is the case (which is delusional, if taken to the extreme, as you seem to imply).

Furthermore, saying as much does not even begin to address that Evolutionists think this happens by accident, with the exact same efficacy (in so much as you change nothing, having discovered the process you believe is at work, as though "it only" needs to be discovered, when that in itself was a process not conducted Evolutionarily).

But then I am not postulating that the Chinook evolves from a Husky or a Mastiff like evolutionists insist happens only in the past with fossils.

I am not the one postulating that the Chinook which appears in the record overnight has many transitional forms - that we just haven't found them yet.

Nor am I the one postulating that past breeds happened any differently than we observe them today happening.

What is delusional is asking others to believe reproduction works any differently than is observed around us. breeds mating with different breeds within the same Kind and producing new breeds. It is not my fault evolutionist's misconstrue the fossil record and instead propose things never once observed. That is delusional in the extreme.

Evolutionists don't believe it happens at all, what are you talking about? They believe one species morphs over time into another species, despite the fact you have evidence right before your eyes of the exact opposite. That two breeds mate and produce a new breed. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff "evolved" into the Chinook.

In the real world in neither plant or animal breeding has anything but two infraspecific taxa being crossed resulted in a new infraspecific taxa. Yet you conclude in the fossil record despite what we know happens, that somehow one thing evolves into something else, instead of being propagated as we see in the real world. This is what extreme delusion is: ignoring how you know it happens for how you want to believe it happened.

So we do agree on one thing - someone is indeed suffering from self-imposed delusion in the extreme, and now asks me to ignore over 100 years of plant and animal breeding so they can continue to pretend reproduction worked differently in the past.

 

[pshun2404]

So we do agree on one thing - someone is indeed suffering from self-imposed delusion in the extreme, and now asks me to ignore over 100 years of plant and animal breeding so they can continue to pretend reproduction worked differently in the past.

I get the same notion when I consider another of their assumption based conclusions...even though we KNOW that non-living matter NEVER becomes living matter and all that has been observed, can be demonstrated, and tests prove say that living things ONLY come from previously living things most Evolutionary biologists still ASSUME that at least some point in the past dead matter became alive by the consequence of random chemical accident...

Paul

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So we do agree on one thing - someone is indeed suffering from self-imposed delusion in the extreme, and now asks me to ignore over 100 years of plant and animal breeding so they can continue to pretend reproduction worked differently in the past.

I get the same notion when I consider another of their assumption based conclusions...even though we KNOW that non-living matter NEVER becomes living matter and all that has been observed, can be demonstrated, and tests prove say that living things ONLY come from previously living things most Evolutionary biologists still ASSUME that at least some point in the past dead matter became alive by the consequence of random chemical accident...

Paul

Delusion is powerful. I was told earlier heavily controlled environments were not valid in deducing nature, then told in the same post that heavily controlled environments were perfectly fine when it came to E coli. That somehow E coli remaining E coli was proof of evolution.

And in that delusion conveniently forget that proteins require DNA and RNA. That DNA requires proteins and RNA. And that RNA require proteins and DNA. That one by itself is completely useless. That all 3 must exist at the same time with the ability to integrate and work together. As every experiment has shown - proteins by themselves do nothing at all. No matter how many are produced in the lab, they just sit there and do absolutely nothing.

 

[pshun2404]

Delusion is powerful. I was told earlier heavily controlled environments were not valid in deducing nature, then told in the same post that heavily controlled environments were perfectly fine when it came to E coli. That somehow E coli remaining E coli was proof of evolution.

And in that delusion conveniently forget that proteins require DNA and RNA. That DNA requires proteins and RNA. And that RNA require proteins and DNA. That one by itself is completely useless. That all 3 must exist at the same time with the ability to integrate and work together. As every experiment has shown - proteins by themselves do nothing at all. No matter how many are produced in the lab, they just sit there and do absolutely nothing.

That is a fact...also there is no free floating DNA...(anywhere we have ever seen)...

As for organisms demonstrated in the geo-column Charles Darwin himself admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“.

When we actually look at what is there “…A SPECIES DOES NOT ARISE GRADUALLY BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION OF ITS ANCESTORS, IT APPEARSALL AT ONCE FULLY FORMED“ – Stephen J. Gould

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is a fact...also there is no free floating DNA...(anywhere we have ever seen)...

As for organisms demonstrated in the geo-column Charles Darwin himself admitted that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“.

When we actually look at what is there “…A SPECIES DOES NOT ARISE GRADUALLY BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION OF ITS ANCESTORS, IT APPEARS ALL AT ONCE FULLY FORMED“ – Stephen J. Gould

There is a lineage - that points back to the original pair of each Kind. The breeds after those arise in the record abruptly, because they are produced by two breeds of whatever kind we care to discuss. The gaps are not gaps and the links are not missing. It is merely what we have always observed. The sudden appearance of a new breed within the Kind. It appears all at once fully formed - just as the Chinook appeared all at once fully formed.

If they were consistent we could liken Kind to species - but knowing Lions and Tigers interbreed and produce offspring, yet refusing to fix the error of their classification, we would have to be inconsistent ourselves. We could liken it to family - but birds don't have a family classification, so that inconsistency can't be used either.

But really, that sudden appearance of new breeds in the fossil record is not surprising or mysterious at all, if one just uses real life as an example.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a lineage - that points back to the original pair of each Kind. The breeds after those arise in the record abruptly, because they are produced by two breeds of whatever kind we care to discuss. The gaps are not gaps and the links are not missing.

How did you determine this?

How do you determine from looking at a fossil whether it appeared abruptly or not? What features tell you this? How do you determine when you have exhausted the number of species in the fossil record?

It is merely what we have always observed. The sudden appearance of a new breed within the Kind. It appears all at once fully formed - just as the Chinook appeared all at once fully formed.

So you are saying that one day a wolf popped a Chihuahua out?

Also, how do you determine if two species come from the same kind?