Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

It appears that I must spell everything out for you.

You asked whether I would object to being injected with the HIV virus. I would not object.

Do you think the correlation between HIV and AIDS is just a statistical fluke?

I would gladly take that bet because:

A) There is little reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS.

Proliferation of active HIV causes the destruction and lysis of important immune cells. Lack of these immune cells correlates with the severity of AIDS. That seems like a really good reason to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Saying "Evolution is just a theory" is sort of like saying "This is just a check for winning the powerball lottery" or "He's just got AIDS and brain cancer".

Then why call it a theory?

Why not call it the Law of Evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why call it a theory?

Why not call it the Law of Evolution?

We do have laws of evolution in population genetics which involve mathematical models of idealized populations.

You also seem to be under the false impression that theories become laws. They don't.

 

[sfs]

Then why call it a theory?

Why not call it the Law of Evolution?

For the same reason we don't call it the pumpkin of evolution, or the twinge of evolution. A law is not a theory that's been proved. A law a simple relationship between observable things -- and it's usually a simple relationship that was named a long time ago, since scientists mostly don't call things "laws" nowadays. Most named laws are known to be just approximations, while theories that have no known exceptions (like Special Relativity, say) are not called laws.

 

[Zosimus]

Do you think the correlation between HIV and AIDS is just a statistical fluke?



Proliferation of active HIV causes the destruction and lysis of important immune cells. Lack of these immune cells correlates with the severity of AIDS. That seems like a really good reason to me.

If that were true, then selenium deficiency would not be a predictor of HIV-related mortality independent of CD4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9481135

 

[Loudmouth]

If that were true, then selenium deficiency would not be a predictor of HIV-related mortality independent of CD4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9481135

What the study shows is that boosting the immune system can make up the difference caused by the damage that HIV causes. Nowhere does it say that selenium defeciency is the cause of AIDS independently of HIV.

 

[Zosimus]

What the study shows is that boosting the immune system can make up the difference caused by the damage that HIV causes. Nowhere does it say that selenium defeciency is the cause of AIDS independently of HIV.

Go back and read my post.

1. There is little reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS.
2. To the extent that HIV causes problems, it can be managed with nutrition (aka selenium).
3. A cost-effective method exists to restore normal immune system function.



"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back and read my post.

1. There is little reason to believe that HIV causes AIDS.

Only a massive amount of correlation between the presence of HIV in all AIDS patients and the fact that drugs developed to limit the amount of HIV in one's body prevents the onset of AIDS. I am sure that there is a lot of other "little reason" too.

2. To the extent that HIV causes problems, it can be managed with nutrition (aka selenium).

Yeah, right. How about some peer reviewed articles that support this claim.

3. A cost-effective method exists to restore normal immune system function.

Really? Even if it was cost effective you could make billions with this idea. You better get a move on.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemistry, Munchen.

You can find a lunatic to support almost any idea. They sometimes even come with credentials The question is can he support his claims with scientific evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

For the same reason we don't call it the pumpkin of evolution, or the twinge of evolution. A law is not a theory that's been proved. A law a simple relationship between observable things -- and it's usually a simple relationship that was named a long time ago, since scientists mostly don't call things "laws" nowadays. Most named laws are known to be just approximations, while theories that have no known exceptions (like Special Relativity, say) are not called laws.

Which is more appropriate?

1. The Law of Gravity
2. The Theory of Gravity

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is more appropriate?

1. The Law of Gravity
2. The Theory of Gravity

In modern terms what Newton provided was a theory not a mere law. Laws are very often simply observations without a mechanism or explanation. Newton explains why the force of gravity is higher on the surface of the Earth than on the surface of the Moon. His theory was incomplete, as most theories are. That does not mean they are not useful. Newton's theory got us to the Moon and back. I don't think that relativity is used in space exploration, but I could be wrong.

 

[TheBear]

Which is more appropriate?

1. The Law of Gravity
2. The Theory of Gravity

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like she's been yakking about science for a LONG time.

Look at the audience behind her.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In modern terms what Newton provided was a theory not a mere law. Laws are very often simply observations without a mechanism or explanation. Newton explains why the force of gravity is higher on the surface of the Earth than on the surface of the Moon. His theory was incomplete, as most theories are. That does not mean they are not useful. Newton's theory got us to the Moon and back. I don't think that relativity is used in space exploration, but I could be wrong.

For aiming rockets, its Newton all the way. For timing GPS signals from GPS satellites, Relativity is essential.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For aiming rockets, its Newton all the way. For timing GPS signals from GPS satellites, Relativity is essential.

Unless you are a Flat Earther, then other explanations must be cobbled up. Especially since there are no such things as satellites.

 

[The Cadet]

Really... whether or not "natural selection did it" is being tested? Now that's rich.... I wonder what your falsification criteria is for that one.

To falsify natural selection and descent with modification, you would have to demonstrate that reproduction of DNA is flawless, or that populations do not adapt to their niches. It's a legitimate falsification criteria; the fact that it's so hard to imagine it ever happening should speak volumes to the simple strength of descent with modification.

I already told you my conclusions. That Evolution theory makes no substantial predictions about the fossil record. If you find a fossil 20,30,40.. +?? million years out of stratigraphic sequence then it can be accommodated with "niches".

Thus your previous claim that "if the fossil is in the wrong strata" then Evolution theory will be falsified... is clearly very wrong.

You missed the point of the example entirely. We're looking for creatures completely out of order in the strata. For example, we know that the Homo genus is relatively recent. Everything we know about the fossil record and the tree of life indicates that we should not find anything from the Homo genus before, say, the cretaceous - there simply was nothing like us back then. We have a problem. The problem with your example is that there's simply no reason to believe that Tiktaalik or the footprints were in the "wrong" strata.

Also, "this theory is wrong" is not a conclusion. It's obvious that that's your belief, I'm asking for your conclusions. Evolution uses these to help craft a model of reality; what does your model look like?

Predictable. Whenever evolutionists are shown the flimsiness of their own theory they immediately try and deflect focus off of the theory.

It helps draw into focus just how robust the theory of evolution is, because there is no alternative. No other proposed model for prehistory even comes close to explaining the evidence. Most of them don't even qualify as actual scientific hypotheses.

Exactly. You make no real predictions about the fossil record while making vast accommodations for fossils that appear far outside of a conventional linear stratigraphic progression.

Except that evolution is not linear. As I pointed out before, sponges are one of the simplest forms of life, and come very early in the tree of life. And yet, they still exist today. When dogs diverged from wolves, wolves did not suddenly lose their niche. When tetrapods diverged from fishes, fishes did not suddenly cease to exist.

Yes. Limits on convergent similarities. That's a simple concept, isn't it? So what are they?

I'm not sure why you think there should be any.

No, I understand them perfectly. I also understand that germ theory has been accepted even though it did not pass Koch's postulates.

And this means you clearly do not understand the purpose of Koch's postulates. Koch's postulates are not some be-all, end-all determination from on high. They were a useful system for determining causation in disease, which ignored many important factors in epidemiology. Today, we know more than over 100 years ago. Koch's postulates cease to be relevant the moment they are no longer useful in describing reality, and this has been the case for a long time. That's why they were replaced in the 60s (again, you are half a century out of date) with a better model to understand causal relationships between microbes and disease.

Oh, and you want evidence that HIV causes AIDS?

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/research/pages/macs_and_wihs.aspx

The likelihood of someone with AIDS-like symptoms not being HIV positive could be chalked up almost to a statistical margin of error. People with clinical AIDS were always HIV-positive. There were no other significant correlative factors - not nutrition, not lifestyle, not drug use. The use of antiretroviral drugs designed specifically to target HIV significantly increased life expectancy among those suffering from AIDS. This sort of large-scale study establishes beyond reasonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS, with or without Koch's Postulates.

 

[lifepsyop]

Except that evolution is not linear.

Maybe you can answer a simple question then. Why do evolutionists so frequently present the linearity of stratigraphic progression + morphology as confirming evidence for "transitional" sequence? Why are they constantly focusing on the specific stratigraphic order, if, (as you yourself admit), the fossils could also be completely disordered and it would make no difference?


example: "whale evolution"

You've already conceded that if we found, say, a fully aquatic whale fossil earlier than the first Pakicetus fossil, then evolutionists would simply say it is because of "niches". That scenario would essentially be no different than the tetrapod one.

In fact, your theory predicts such fossil disorder is just as likely as fossil order.

How awkward.

 

[lifepsyop]

You missed the point of the example entirely. We're looking for creatures completely out of order in the strata. For example, we know that the Homo genus is relatively recent. Everything we know about the fossil record and the tree of life indicates that we should not find anything from the Homo genus before, say, the cretaceous - there simply was nothing like us back then.

It was already known well before the advent of modern Evolution theory that mammals only tended to appear in the upper strata, after an 'age of reptiles'. Evolution never predicted such a pattern, and couldn't have in principle.

 

[lifepsyop]

Looks like she's been yakking about science for a LONG time.

Look at the audience behind her.

LOL, that actually made me laugh out loud at work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you can answer a simple question then. Why do evolutionists so frequently present the linearity of stratigraphic progression + morphology as confirming evidence for "transitional" sequence? Why are they constantly focusing on the specific stratigraphic order, if, (as you yourself admit), the fossils could also be completely disordered and it would make no difference?

No one has ever said that the order makes not difference. You are misunderstanding the arguments that have been presented to you. What is important to realize is that the fossil record can only be explained by the theory of evolution right now. Creationists have no explanation that is either obviously wrong or eventually self contradictory.

Creationists often thing that "living fossils" harm the idea of evolution, but of course they do not. That argument is related to the "If Americans came from Europe why are there still Europeans?" argument.

example: "whale evolution"

You've already conceded that if we found, say, a fully aquatic whale fossil earlier than the first Pakicetus fossil, then evolutionists would simply say it is because of "niches". That scenario would essentially be no different than the tetrapod one.

In fact, your theory predicts such fossil disorder is just as likely as fossil order.

How awkward.

No, a fully developed whale before pakicetus would be a problem. I don't think anyone has claimed that. But pakicetus still being alive today would not be a problem. Ancestral species do not have to die out. Most would have or changed so much that they no longer look today like they did back then, but there is no requirement that this happens.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL, that actually made me laugh out loud at work.