Invalid Arguments

[YouAreAwesome]

Thanks for the reply

1. You are aware that - in regards to traditional Western philosophy and metaphysics - this is highly iconoclastic and heretic, aren´t you?
Philosophy has always taken pride in being "pure", in having no other aim than pursuing the "truth", in not being pragmatic.
Not that that´s a problem for me - but it´s an interesting and fundamental change in paradigms.

Heh, no, not aware. Floating along in my idealistic and optimistic dreamland.

2. I still don´t think that everything you call "axiom" is within the subset of "unfalsifiable claims". E.g. the rules of logic and mathematics aren´t, in my understanding - as I have explained before. Not sure if this caveat is important to make here, but I felt it might be good to remind you of this in order to avoid basic misunderstandings.

Agree some mathematical axioms can be falsified for example if they are created for the task of building a system.

3. Trying to follow your approach "How well does this unfalsifiable claim serve its purpose?" I am wondering: Who gets to define the purpose? IOW if someone confronts me with an unfalsifiable claim, would my first question have to be: What purpose do you want this unfalsifiable claim to serve?

Yes that seems right.

Wait - it would be important to me what you mean by "system" here. Do you mean math - and is the purpose of a mathematical axiom entirely self-referential (describing the formal system that it is part of)?
(You have to bear with me, since I am an idiot in mathematics. Maybe a very simple (! ) example would help?

Sounds like you have go it. We use the natural numbers N=0, 1, 2, 3, ... for counting. N is a mathematical system. We then choose axioms to describe this system, N. Note we don't begin with the axioms, we begin with the system and then choose axioms that will most efficiently create the system.

In short, what I'm trying to explain is how we may be able to take some portion of unfalsifiable claims and falsify them to some extent by looking at how they achieve their objective; just as the axioms are chosen by how well they describe their system. Make any sense?

 

[quatona]

Heh, no, not aware. Floating along in my idealistic and optimistic dreamland.

Yes that seems right.

Ok. Let´s play that through.
So in case of "God exists", my first question would be: What purpose is this unfalsifiable claim supposed to serve?

Agree some mathematical axioms can be falsified for example if they are created for the task of building a system.

Do you understand, then, why I am not really happy with replacing "unfalsifiable claim [about reality]" with "axiom" and then focussing on axioms within the formal system mathematics that mightn´t even be unfalsifiable?

Sounds like you have go it. We use the natural numbers N=0, 1, 2, 3, ... for counting. N is a mathematical system. We then choose axioms to describe this system, N. Note we don't begin with the axioms, we begin with the system and then choose axioms that will most efficiently create the system.

Wait, you´ve lost me.
Where is the exemplary axiom in all this?
Also, you start by saying that N is the mathematical system, and end up saying that on basis of N we start creating the system N (by way of axioms).
Could you clarify?

In any case, you seem to be talking about creating a formal system, and the objective appears to be: it must be internally consistent (well, you haven´t spelled out the objective, but from the context this appears to be the objective). To me, this sounds just like definition work. A self created internally consistent formal system (as fascinating and useful as that may be) is something completely different than exploring reality. An internally consistent formal system can e.g. be completely removed from reality. In the case of N, for example, I can´t see how it describes the particularities of this reality - since there´s no reality fathomable in which it would not confirm itself. As far as I can see now (and I invite you to set me straight) it seems to just describe itself.

In short, what I'm trying to explain is how we may be able to take some portion of unfalsifiable claims and falsify them to some extent by looking at how they achieve their objective; just as the axioms are chosen by how well they describe their system. Make any sense?

As long as we are talking about creating formal systems (and axioms that merely serve the purpose of self-referentially describing the formal system they are supposed to be valid in) and making sure that they are internally consistent, it makes complete sense.
I just don´t see what all that´s got to do with epistemology (the exploration of reality out there).

 

[Everybodyknows]

One of the things that makes analytical thinking so attractive is: It allows for a clearly defined method, its rules are transparent and consistent, and its results tend to make reality look a little less blurry.
All other (more analogous) ways of perception and interpretation do not seem to come with these advantages, and once we submit them to the criteria of analytical thinking, they will have lost before the dialogue has even started.
So what we are looking for is a way to appreciate these kinds of perception/interpretation for what they can do for us (in the same way we appreciate analytical thinking and the scientific method for what they can do for us).
What we are also looking for (since we are at this point looking at things from an integrative pov ) is a way of integrating various kinds of thinking without letting them compete or try to stamp their authority upon each other.

I really like your approach, it's rather refreshing. Can you recommend any further reading on analogous thinking? I'm curious now to try it in a practical sense

The concept of e.g. "falsifiability" itself is a product of the analytical approach (which likes to operate with the binary "true vs. false"). Thus, since we don´t want analytical thinking to set the paradigms for our epistemological approach, we better not accept this concept as the superiour determinator.

This makes me wonder why you have such a problem with unfalsifiable claims in the first place. Are they only a problem in an analytical approach? Would an analogous or integrative approach possibly handle them better?

On another note. Do you see moral claims as unfalsifiable (I believe they are). E.g. x is morally wrong. An analytical system is not really useful in dealing with morality and ethics because we aren't trying to get true/false results. In this case, as you put it, a system that replaces true/false with how beneficial is it would be a much better framework.

Ok. Let´s play that through.
So in case of "God exists", my first question would be: What purpose is this unfalsifiable claim supposed to serve?

I think it might help to look at spirituality in a broader context. Spiritual/religious systems are also systems through which we filter and experience reality. Again asking ourselves how are they useful/beneficial is probably a good starting point rather than asking are they true. One might get tremendous benefit from spending some time meditating in a monastery in Tibet, but not necessarily believe in the truth claims of Buddhism.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

So in case of "God exists", my first question would be: What purpose is this unfalsifiable claim supposed to serve?

Begin with N, the set of natural numbers (counting numbers). N can be described completely with five axioms. Now make the huge leap that may just be completely unjustified but for the sake of argument stay with me... Begin with reality, R. Can R be described with axioms? Perhaps the physical constants? It seems an obvious and at this point unanswerable question, but does God help describe the system? Is God axiomatic? Is He necessary? The main point being, just because "God exists" may be unfalsifiable in the eyes of science, does not mean we should simply dismiss Him -- because first, unfalsifiable claims are sometimes helpful, and second, because seemingly unfalsifiable claims might help to describe the system. You probably already saw I was moving in this direction...

Do you understand, then, why I am not really happy with replacing "unfalsifiable claim [about reality]" with "axiom" and then focussing on axioms within the formal system mathematics that mightn´t even be unfalsifiable?

Yes, I'm hoping it's analogous but also we should remember that it is true that some axioms are elements of the "unfalsifiable claim" set.

Wait, you´ve lost me.
Where is the exemplary axiom in all this?
Also, you start by saying that N is the mathematical system, and end up saying that on basis of N we start creating the system N (by way of axioms).
Could you clarify?

Sorry, I didn't give an example of any axiom because I thought it would be confusing. I'll try and clarify...
Mathematical System: The set of natural numbers, N
Axiom 1: 0 is a natural number.
Axiom 2: For all x, where x is a natural number, x+1 is also a natural number.
Axiom 3: Etc.

The chronological order of mathematical literacy began with humanity counting. It was later that axioms were brought in to formalise the number system. In similar fashion, we begin with reality, but can we formalise reality with axioms? I have a math degree, not a philosophy degree, as much as I wish sometimes it were the other way around...

In any case, you seem to be talking about creating a formal system, and the objective appears to be: it must be internally consistent (well, you haven´t spelled out the objective, but from the context this appears to be the objective).

Yes.

o me, this sounds just like definition work. A self created internally consistent formal system (as fascinating and useful as that may be) is something completely different than exploring reality.

Perhaps...

In the case of N, for example, I can´t see how it describes the particularities of this reality - since there´s no reality fathomable in which it would not confirm itself. As far as I can see now (and I invite you to set me straight) it seems to just describe itself.

I don't follow. Are you saying there is no possible reality where N is false? The aim is to describe itself yes, just as the injection of God is meant to help describe reality.

I just don´t see what all that´s got to do with epistemology (the exploration of reality out there).

Hopefully I've explained myself?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

An analytical system is not really useful in dealing with morality and ethics because we aren't trying to get true/false results. In this case, as you put it, a system that replaces true/false with how beneficial is it would be a much better framework.

Good point.

 

[quatona]

Hey again, Everybodyknows and YouAreAwesome,
this might be my last post in this thread - not because I am tired of the conversations with you (quite the opposite!), but because I probably won´t have the time anymore to respond with due care.

I really like your approach, it's rather refreshing. Can you recommend any further reading on analogous thinking? I'm curious now to try it in a practical sense


This makes me wonder why you have such a problem with unfalsifiable claims in the first place. Are they only a problem in an analytical approach? Would an analogous or integrative approach possibly handle them better?

In analogous or integrative thinking binary questions aren´t even asked, and binary claims aren´t even made.


I´m sorry but I can´t recommend any readings. I am sure someone had these ideas before me, but as far as I can tell I completely made them up myself.
I can give you another example, though - pretty relevant to the environment in which our conversation takes place. But first off: one of the things I really appreciate about our conversations here is the fact that I could talk with two theists/Christians for a couple of pages, and the issue "Does God exist?" didn´t even come up. That´s quite remarkable and refreshing.
My example, however, will be this question. The reason I am introducing it is not that I want to discuss it with you. (In fact, to me it´s an extremely stupid and boring question). The reason is: I´d like to exemplify an analogous approach that replaces this binary claim/question/discussion.
As has been pointed out countless times, "God" is not properly defined (and thus doesn´t even lend itself to a binary discussion, to begin). But let us ignore that for a moment and look at the other operational term: "existing". We use it in so many different ways. I could give a long list of examples where most everybody would accept "it exists" - yet each of these requires and/or implies a different way of "existing". The term itself is used fluently, analogously, flexibly, dynamically. Now, if I accept e.g. that thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, movements, changes (...) exist, I see no reason whatsoever to not concede that God exists in the same way (well, actually that countless Gods exist). Gods for sure exist as ideas, concepts, thoughts, feelings....
IOW, it strikes me as completely absurd to use such an analogous term in a binary question. The question is not the binary "Does God exist?", the question is the analogous "How does God exist?".
Now, I suspect most every self-confessing theist would tell me something like "But I don´t think that God exists just as a thought or idea, I believe that God really exists."
My hypothetical response would be: "What do you mean by existing really? Last time I checked God is supposed to exist in the spiritual realm - so by really existing I´m sure you don´t mean anything like physically existing, like for example a rock.
Thoughts are products of spirit and thus exist spiritually, so how exactly do you distinguish real spiritual existence from unreal spiritual existence, and then praise the first as the best thing since sliced bread but and devalue the other as 'just...(an idea)'?".
Now, THAT would be a start of an interesting exploration not only of our beliefs but also of our thinking systems.

On another note. Do you see moral claims as unfalsifiable (I believe they are). E.g. x is morally wrong. An analytical system is not really useful in dealing with morality and ethics because we aren't trying to get true/false results.

Yeah, we touched on that shortly in the other thread. Well, Pauli´s bonmot "This isn´t right, it isn´t even wrong" comes to mind when a binary moral claim is made.

In this case, as you put it, a system that replaces true/false with how beneficial is it would be a much better framework.

Well, actually I even suggest to replace it with something else.
Personally, I have come to use the criteria "wirkmächtig" (German is my mother´s tongue, and I can´t think of a congruent English term. Closest would be something like "efficient", "effective", "affecting" but also "powerful"). So the question in the previous example would be "in which way and to which degree are (which) Gods - no matter how or as what They exist - effective (on whom)?".

I think it might help to look at spirituality in a broader context. Spiritual/religious systems are also systems through which we filter and experience reality. Again asking ourselves how are they useful/beneficial is probably a good starting point rather than asking are they true. One might get tremendous benefit from spending some time meditating in a monastery in Tibet, but not necessarily believe in the truth claims of Buddhism.

Yes, I basically agree (and, on a sidenote, it´s interesting that we can´t tell whether we see reality or actually see our own filters). However, the reason why I prefer the criteria "wirkmächtig" over the criteria "beneficial" for a starting point is: The latter carries already a value judgement with it, while the first is more observational.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I´m sorry but I can´t recommend any readings. I am sure someone had these ideas before me, but as far as I can tell I completely made them up myself.

You should totally write a book! You already have a pretty good outline summary in this thread.

The question is not the binary "Does God exist?", the question is the analogous "How does God exist?".
Now, I suspect most every self-confessing theist would tell me something like "But I don´t think that God exists just as a thought or idea, I believe that God really exists."
My hypothetical response would be: "What do you mean by existing really? Last time I checked God is supposed to exist in the spiritual realm - so by really existing I´m sure you don´t mean anything like physically existing, like for example a rock.
Thoughts are products of spirit and thus exist spiritually, so how exactly do you distinguish real spiritual existence from unreal spiritual existence, and then praise the first as the best thing since sliced bread but and devalue the other as 'just...(an idea)'?".
Now, THAT would be a start of an interesting exploration not only of our beliefs but also of our thinking systems.

That's awesome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To an extent. There are over 3 billion years of evolutionary history preserved in fossils, so evidence contradicts the idea of, say, humans being created as humans. However, there really isn't any evidence against the idea that the first life was brought here rather than formed here, and it wouldn't matter as far as the theory of evolution is concerned if that did happen.

There’s no evidence for evolution in those fossils. Every single one of them remains exactly the same from the oldest fossil found for that type, to the youngest fossil found for that type. New forms appear suddenly.

It’s what I have been trying to get you all to understand from the observational evidence. Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remain Mastiff. When the two mate a new form, the Chinook, appears suddenly. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

You simply can’t see the mating that occurred from a pile of bones. Fossil A mated with Fossil B to produce fossil C. Neither of which evolved into fossil C. I just ask you accept the empericial evidence of how we observe new subspecies to enter the species for every animal alive today, and apply that to the fossil record. Not some never observed mythical process.

I have only seen an evolution supporter bring up matters of abiogenesis before a creationist did in an evolution debate twice. Not our fault creationists want to argue about it so much.

Except without abiogenesis, you have no theory of evolution. So I would say the beginning is of utmost importance....

When I refer to the "look around you", argument, I mean inane stuff like claims that "the beauty of the sunset is evidence for god" or "I prayed for my grandma to survive a surgery and she lived, and that's evidence for god".

And when I say look around you, I mean look at how every single new form we have ever observed comes into existence. Not a single one was because A or B evolved into C, but because A mated with B and produced C. I’m pointing out the tangible, not the intangible. What they choose to do has nothing to do with my argument in the least. So why bring it up? I don’t apply what others say to you....

Disproven by the fact that two populations of E. coli, each originating from a single cell, will not retain the exact same level of genetic variety if allowed to grow with these distinctions:
1. Population one is allowed to form multiple colonies and persist via individuals from multiple colonies each generation.
2. Population 2 is reduced down to 1 colony each generation.

And remained E. coli.

By your logic, mutation never contributes to beneficial variety in cells, so the two populations that started out genetically identical will never diverge in such a way that results in an increase in variety that benefits them. Yet, we observe increases in beneficial variety.

No, no, no. Never said that once. I totally agree mutations may affect my hair color, my eye color, even what I may be able to eat. But E. coli remained E. coli. Asian remain Asian. Black bear remain black bear. Regardless of the number of mutations.

Now mate that Asian with an African and watch even a new race come into existence. Mate that black bear with another subspecies of bear and watch a new subspecies come into existence.

As a matter of fact, by your logic, these bacteria populations should inevitably die out due to the accumulation of detrimental mutations never offset by any benign ones.

Why? They are clones...... Almost all mutations are found in non-functional DNA to begin with.

Pfft, you are the one that decided to ignore the fact that we know certain breeds of dog originated from other dog breeds without crossbreeding. We know it because we ourselves did it.

I know we did, from cross breeding....... or breeding one breed for specific traits over generations. But why don’t you cite that study?

No, your statement is simply wrong and would be demonstrable as such within less than a year of growing bacteria on plates.

Which will always remain bacteria. I’ll give you a billion years, and they will still be bacteria..... As a matter of fact, I’ll give you two billion.

Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Were Africans and Asians created separately? How do you explain all the different races coming from Adam and Eve?

The same empericial way we observed over one hundred breeds of dogs from one wolf stock..... and it sure wasn’t by evolution.

I see no problem with 12 to 15 races from interbreeding, when such has given us over 100 breeds of dogs.

Keep interbreeding those races And selecting for specific traits, and we will go from 12 to 15 to over 100 too.

Adams genomes were perfect, just as everything was. Half of his chromosomes were split and used to make Eve. So we started with two distinct races with almost unlimited ability to combine in different way to produce even more variety. I don’t need mutations that can’t even make a new race, to explain what observation shows us make a new race.

This is evolutionists Achilles heel. They won’t even use the observational evidence, so stuck on mutations. What is better odds. A new species eventually from a process that we observe can cross the race or breed barrier (subspecies) or mutations, which have never been observed to do either?

It’s not new species (hypothetically) I have a problem with. Just the claims on how such might occurr (hypothetically).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey again, Everybodyknows and YouAreAwesome,
this might be my last post in this thread - not because I am tired of the conversations with you (quite the opposite!), but because I probably won´t have the time anymore to respond with due care.


In analogous or integrative thinking binary questions aren´t even asked, and binary claims aren´t even made.


I´m sorry but I can´t recommend any readings. I am sure someone had these ideas before me, but as far as I can tell I completely made them up myself.
I can give you another example, though - pretty relevant to the environment in which our conversation takes place. But first off: one of the things I really appreciate about our conversations here is the fact that I could talk with two theists/Christians for a couple of pages, and the issue "Does God exist?" didn´t even come up. That´s quite remarkable and refreshing.
My example, however, will be this question. The reason I am introducing it is not that I want to discuss it with you. (In fact, to me it´s an extremely stupid and boring question). The reason is: I´d like to exemplify an analogous approach that replaces this binary claim/question/discussion.
As has been pointed out countless times, "God" is not properly defined (and thus doesn´t even lend itself to a binary discussion, to begin). But let us ignore that for a moment and look at the other operational term: "existing". We use it in so many different ways. I could give a long list of examples where most everybody would accept "it exists" - yet each of these requires and/or implies a different way of "existing". The term itself is used fluently, analogously, flexibly, dynamically. Now, if I accept e.g. that thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, movements, changes (...) exist, I see no reason whatsoever to not concede that God exists in the same way (well, actually that countless Gods exist). Gods for sure exist as ideas, concepts, thoughts, feelings....
IOW, it strikes me as completely absurd to use such an analogous term in a binary question. The question is not the binary "Does God exist?", the question is the analogous "How does God exist?".
Now, I suspect most every self-confessing theist would tell me something like "But I don´t think that God exists just as a thought or idea, I believe that God really exists."
My hypothetical response would be: "What do you mean by existing really? Last time I checked God is supposed to exist in the spiritual realm - so by really existing I´m sure you don´t mean anything like physically existing, like for example a rock.
Thoughts are products of spirit and thus exist spiritually, so how exactly do you distinguish real spiritual existence from unreal spiritual existence, and then praise the first as the best thing since sliced bread but and devalue the other as 'just...(an idea)'?".
Now, THAT would be a start of an interesting exploration not only of our beliefs but also of our thinking systems.


Yeah, we touched on that shortly in the other thread. Well, Pauli´s bonmot "This isn´t right, it isn´t even wrong" comes to mind when a binary moral claim is made.

Well, actually I even suggest to replace it with something else.
Personally, I have come to use the criteria "wirkmächtig" (German is my mother´s tongue, and I can´t think of a congruent English term. Closest would be something like "efficient", "effective", "affecting" but also "powerful"). So the question in the previous example would be "in which way and to which degree are (which) Gods - no matter how or as what They exist - effective (on whom)?".



Yes, I basically agree (and, on a sidenote, it´s interesting that we can´t tell whether we see reality or actually see our own filters). However, the reason why I prefer the criteria "wirkmächtig" over the criteria "beneficial" for a starting point is: The latter carries already a value judgement with it, while the first is more observational.

It’s because God is Energy/Mind.

Energy has always existed and always will. It had no beginning and has no end. Everything is made from it and everything contains it, and everything will return to it.

Energy/Mind has no physical existence in and of itself, but the physical arises from it.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The same empericial way we observed over one hundred breeds of dogs from one wolf stock..... and it sure wasn’t by evolution.

I see no problem with 12 to 15 races from interbreeding, when such has given us over 100 breeds of dogs.

Keep interbreeding those races and we will go from 12 to 15 to over 100 too.

What exactly did that one wolf stock interbeed with to create new breeds? Who did Adam and Eve's offspring interbeed with tho create new races?

 

[pitabread]

Adams genomes were perfect, just as everything was.

Magic genomes apparently.

 

[quatona]

It’s because God is Energy/Mind.

I wouldn´t know why to replace "energy" and "mind" with another term, even less with a term that is so easily equivocated (e.g. with certain traditional, especially Christian, elaborate theological concepts that go far beyond this definition.). So, for the time being, I would prefer to stick to "energy" and "mind".

Energy has always existed and always will. It had no beginning and has no end. Everything is made from it and everything contains it, and everything will return to it.

Energy/Mind has no physical existence in and of itself, but the physical arises from it.

That´s possible. In any case, I think it´s a beautiful idea.

 

[quatona]

You should totally write a book! You already have a pretty good outline summary in this thread.


That's awesome.

Thank you Sir!
(Last year I have written this "book". At this point I am still hesitant to share it because it´s in need of some revision, a couple of changes and fine-tuning. But it´s in German, anyway...)

 

[Everybodyknows]

Thank you Sir!
(Last year I have written this "book". At this point I am still hesitant to share it because it´s in need of some revision, a couple of changes and fine-tuning. But it´s in German, anyway...)

I look forward to it. I hope there is an English version one day.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There’s no evidence for evolution in those fossils. Every single one of them remains exactly the same from the oldest fossil found for that type, to the youngest fossil found for that type.

-_- that legitimately is not the case; for organisms which existed for a very long time and in large numbers, it is not uncommon to see minor changes, such as larger size or an extra rib. The fossils for human evolution are so numerous with the small steps you could make a flip book out of them, and some are so highly concentrated as to have practically no "missing links" between them.

New forms appear suddenly.

Usually true, for the most part, but not always the case.

It’s what I have been trying to get you all to understand from the observational evidence. Husky remains Husky.

-_- until one breeds Australian shepherds for a few decades, breeding only the smallest of the bunch, to create the new breed, the miniature American shepherd. Seriously, dude, look up the history of dog breeds, or even just this one, and point out to me where with this particular dog breed crossing with other breeds of dog was used to produce it.

Mastiff remain Mastiff. When the two mate a new form, the Chinook, appears suddenly. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

-_- you specifically chose an extreme case in which it was actually impossible for a breed to be derived from just 1 breed of dog; Chinooks all have a male ancestor from 1917 that was a unique dog unto himself with a sketchy breed history. He was a one of a kind, it would have been impossible for a breed to be established from him alone, because dogs don't divide like amoebas. You'd be in deep doo-doo if it was possible to tell if the original Chinook was from purebred stock.

You simply can’t see the mating that occurred from a pile of bones.

XD you actually got me to look that up, and it turns out, some organisms get fossilized during the act, hahahahahahahahahahahaha Caught in the act: the first record of copulating fossil vertebrates

Fossil A mated with Fossil B to produce fossil C. Neither of which evolved into fossil C. I just ask you accept the empericial evidence of how we observe new subspecies to enter the species for every animal alive today, and apply that to the fossil record. Not some never observed mythical process.

Dude, I've never denied that that's a possible means for new species to develop. I've even independently brought it up. I disagree with your assertion that it's the ONLY way for a new species to develop, and there is evidence for alternatives. You just seem to want to ignore it.

Except without abiogenesis, you have no theory of evolution. So I would say the beginning is of utmost importance....

XD no. Without life there is no evolution, no more, no less. Doesn't matter how that life gets there. Ever notice that the abiogenesis hypothesis is significantly more recent than the theory of evolution?

And when I say look around you, I mean look at how every single new form we have ever observed comes into existence.

You mean what you aren't doing? Looking around me is why I know you are incorrect about new species only being produced via crosses, because I have actually seen it happen starting with just 1 species. In bacteria, of course, but when you know that bacteria species are organized significantly differently than eukaryotes, you realize exactly how big species transitions are in them. In case you didn't know, bacteria are grouped such that all members of the same species have at least 97% similarity in their genome. If we grouped animals the same way, humans and chimpanzees would be considered the same species. There are strains of the same bacteria species less genetically similar to each other than humans are to gorillas.

And remained E. coli.

Only because bacteria are grouped based primarily on genetic similarity.

No, no, no. Never said that once. I totally agree mutations may affect my hair color, my eye color, even what I may be able to eat.

-_- literally things which could be enough for the development of a new subspecies over time, especially the last one.

But E. coli remained E. coli. Asian remain Asian. Black bear remain black bear. Regardless of the number of mutations.

Then regardless of mutations, even if it makes me only 20% similar to humans, colored green with shiny scales and 3 eyes, I'd still be human to you.

Why? They are clones...... Almost all mutations are found in non-functional DNA to begin with.

-_- why would that matter if mutations in non-functional DNA can make it have a function. Also, that's not universally true. Mammals generally have a lot of junk DNA, but bacteria don't. Some groups of fish and practically all birds also have very little junk DNA, so for them, the majority of mutations would hit functional sequences.

I know we did, from cross breeding....... or breeding one breed for specific traits over generations. But why don’t you cite that study?

Study for dog breeding? People breeding dogs usually aren't publishing their work in Nature, dude. I just look up the history of dog breeding to find out if breeds were derived from cross breeding other breeds or not. The family trees for dog breeds that are scientific I have posted before, and you never addressed the numerous lineages that showed breeds being derived from just 1 predecessor breed. You wanna give this one a shot? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/24/article-2588177-1C8944B700000578-259_964x657.jpg

Which will always remain bacteria.

It'd take hundreds of millions of years for it to stop being bacteria, at least. Seriously, a bacteria becoming "not a bacteria" would be more ridiculous than me laying an egg that hatched a Velociraptor. Because at least that would still be animal cells producing animal cells. Seriously, bacteria grow 20 "tails", change their entire shape, and digest what was once poison, and you call that "not evolution, still bacteria". But you wouldn't say the same if a lineage of dogs gave rise to a six legged herbivore. Boggles my mind.

I’ll give you a billion years, and they will still be bacteria..... As a matter of fact, I’ll give you two billion.

Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

Big amount of change = big amount of time = bacteria becoming not bacteria
small amount of change = small amount of time = dog breeds

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is a small jump and the other is the distance between Earth and Pluto.

Also, I call extreme baloney on that "finding". Not only are bacterial fossils extremely rare, but they amount to just imprints of the basic shape. Nothing for the genetic material, organelles, etc. Basically, all they have are sulfur deposits showing that the bacteria had an aspect of their metabolism similar to ones that existed later on, no more and no less. It's not like metabolic pathways have been retained for billions of years or anything (sarcasm).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolutionary science is a belief, complete with the faith that what is believed is true.

 

[tas8831]

Evolutionary science is a belief, complete with the faith that what is believed is true.

So, is this how you admit that you don't actually know much about evolution, or science in general?

After all, this creationist with a science degree sees the truth:

The truth about evolution
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory...​

 

[tas8831]

I see no problem with 12 to 15 races from interbreeding, when such has given us over 100 breeds of dogs.

Middle easterners interbreed and produce middle easterners.



How is this possible:

middle eastern + middle eastern = Asian?


You keep talking about all these dog breeds but you refuse to educate yourself on how that is possible by your own naive "genetics."

HINT: the dogs are bred premised on their variations. It is not taking two wolves that look identical and ending up with a poodle. It is taking wolves that exhibit certain traits that are desirable, and preferentially breeding them together. The question that you ignore/refuse to acknowledge/can't understand/have no answer to is the most foundational - where does the initial variation come from?

You want to claim 'hybridization', but hybridization is the mating of DIFFERENT things, not the same things.

Asian+Asian=Asian, but Asians, according to you, are derived from pure-breeding middle easterners.

Can't happen without..... something....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Middle easterners interbreed and produce middle easterners.



How is this possible:

middle eastern + middle eastern = Asian?


You keep talking about all these dog breeds but you refuse to educate yourself on how that is possible by your own naive "genetics."

HINT: the dogs are bred premised on their variations. It is not taking two wolves that look identical and ending up with a poodle. It is taking wolves that exhibit certain traits that are desirable, and preferentially breeding them together. The question that you ignore/refuse to acknowledge/can't understand/have no answer to is the most foundational - where does the initial variation come from?

You want to claim 'hybridization', but hybridization is the mating of DIFFERENT things, not the same things.

Asian+Asian=Asian, but Asians, according to you, are derived from pure-breeding middle easterners.

Can't happen without..... something....

Doesn't science say that dogs didn't come from wolves and that they appeared 'suddenly', along with man?