Revealing the data behind the science of evolution

[Loudmouth]

Function always follows if there is a creator and plan involved.

Why would a creator and a plan require a nested hierarchy?

 

[Loudmouth]

I must be missing something on the link. Their main conclusions seem
to be only that the mice all came from a common ancestor and that they
have had a different series of mutations than the wild mice (not surprising).

The first two words of the title should tell you everything: "mtdna phylogeny"

A phylogeny is a nested hierarchy. These lab mice were taken to different labs where they interbred within those colonies. Over time those colonies accumulated population specific mutations. This is what creates a phylogeny, or nested hierarchy. Even you admit that evolution will produce a nested hierarchy:

". . . and that they have had a different series of mutations than the wild mice (not surprising)."--pat34lee

Population specific mutations and shared DNA from a common ancestor is what produces a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

People 'misunderstand' many facts on purpose in order to keep up
their denial of God.

What we have found, time and again, is that it is the professional creationists who misrepresent facts. I don't mean a few mistakes here and there. We are talking about large scale fraud.

What does that tell you?

 

[DLR]

Because I see no valid reason to, and more specifically because people keep coming back to "you have to have faith", and I consider faith to be a complete abrogation of critical thinking; a vice, rather than a virtue.

It is difficult for one who does not have faith to comprehend it fully. Until that time, you can spend an extraordinary amount of time here trying to make a logical argument. You will always find a a few believers here to entertain your arguments. Just know that you are humoring yourself, just as you think we are humoring ourselves in our belief. You don't have 100% of the answers in your science, and the remaining gap will be filled by our "Faith in God's Existence" trump card every time.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know. I'd have to examine their reasons to determine that.

If so, you can not use "Christian scientists believe in evolution" as a reason to support that Christians support evolution. Because you doubt those scientists to be truly reasonable persons.

 

[The Cadet]

If so, you can not use "Christian scientists believe in evolution" as a reason to support that Christians support evolution.

No, but I can use it to refute the idea that it's somehow some absurd conspiracy to drive god out of the public sphere.

 

[46AND2]

No. It is not. Faith based on logic, precisely speaking. (Logic permits assumptions, right?)
You need to walk across the first step of uncertainty. This is true for everything you do.

Faith is not based on logic. The whole point of logic is ELIMINATING as many assumptions as possible. When you say that you begin your logic with the assumption of God, you have eliminated logic from the process before you even begin.

 

[Zosimus]

I understand that perfectly well, thank you. It's just that in almost every case where life has become better, we can point directly to one of the many, many fruits of science and say, "That. That's what caused it." To accuse me here of mistaking correlation with causation is absurd; akin to wondering if there's any correlation between being hit by a baseball bat and feeling pain.

We have a higher standard of living (and thus more capital and technology) thanks to the British Agricultural Revolution. This revolution was caused by many non-scientific factors such as the Enclosure Acts, which permitted wealthy individuals to purchase public fields and privatize them, the introduction of American crops such as the potato and maize, and changes is climate.

Tell me -- why do you think that the United States and England enjoy great advances in technology whereas Cuba and North Korea do not? Is it because science doesn't work in those countries?

 

[Zosimus]

Then why do you keep asking for p values?

Why do you cite drug studies that use p values as evidence that medications don't work?

P-values is your system. You are upset because I am able to work within your system. You call foul.

P-values are not the best measure of whether a real discovery has been made. I have never once on here said, "Those p-values are not enough to make a decision." I don't care about p-values. I understand them very well, but p-values do not provide enough data to make a decision. I am concerned about the bias inherent in the system. One of the biggest biases is selection bias. Studies that suffer from selection bias are wrong 80 percent of the time. So I invariably ask: Was the study randomized? Randomization reduces or eliminates selection bias.

Please, learn to read.

 

[Loudmouth]

P-values is your system. You are upset because I am able to work within your system.

I am upset because you are being hypocritical. You use p values when it suits you, and then decry them when they support conclusions you don't like.

P-values are not the best measure of whether a real discovery has been made. I have never once on here said, "Those p-values are not enough to make a decision." I don't care about p-values.

You sure care about them when they support the conclusion that a medical treatment doesn't work.

 

[Zosimus]

How do you justify the use of the same empirical methods in the studies you claim are evidence that medical treatments don't work?

You ask this question because you cannot read. My argument has never been that medical treatments don't work. Do not put words into my mouth. My argument has invariably been that the data are not sufficient to support your claim. To the extent that randomized studies exist, the number needed to treat/vaccinate (or NNT/NNV) shows that the vast majority of those receiving the treatment receive no real benefit.

Accordingly, even if empiricism were valid, the data would still not support your claims.

 

[Zosimus]

Do you agree that both genealogy of human families, and the tree phylogeny which loudmouth provided, disregarding the mechanism for the moment, both exhibit a nested hierarchy structure?

I have no idea. I know that you claim that it is so, but I don't see the relevance. Accordingly, I have never bothered to investigate the matter. If you claim that it is so, for the moment I am content to take it on faith until it becomes an issue. I don't foresee that it will.

 

[Zosimus]

Faith is not based on logic. The whole point of logic is ELIMINATING as many assumptions as possible. When you say that you begin your logic with the assumption of God, you have eliminated logic from the process before you even begin.

This is not really true. The point of logic is not to eliminate assumptions. It's to explicitly state all the assumptions that you are using as formal premises of the logical argument.

 

[Zosimus]

I am upset because you are being hypocritical. You use p values when it suits you, and then decry them when they support conclusions you don't like.

You're upset because I can do math?! WTH?

You sure care about them when they support the conclusion that a medical treatment doesn't work.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and pretending that your system might work, only to show that even if I make that leap of faith, that the data are still not sufficient to support your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

My argument has invariably been that the data are not sufficient to support your claim. To the extent that randomized studies exist, the number needed to treat/vaccinate (or NNT/NNV) shows that the vast majority of those receiving the treatment receive no real benefit.

How did you determine that they received no real benefit?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're upset because I can do math?! WTH?

I am upset because you won't use math when it leads to conclusions you don't like.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and pretending that your system might work,

Except when it supports evolution, of course.

 

[The Cadet]

We have a higher standard of living (and thus more capital and technology) thanks to the British Agricultural Revolution. This revolution was caused by many non-scientific factors such as the Enclosure Acts, which permitted wealthy individuals to purchase public fields and privatize them, the introduction of American crops such as the potato and maize, and changes is climate.

You're right, there are numerous factors. The legal factors almost certainly played a major role, I'll freely admit that. But was that really all of it? I don't think so. When I look at the Wikipedia article for the British Agricultural Revolution, it has this to say:

The British Agricultural Revolution was the result of the complex interaction of social, economic and farming technology changes. Major developments and innovations include:[3]

• Norfolk four-course crop rotation: Fodder crops, particularly turnips and clover, replaced leaving the land fallow.[4]
• The Dutch improved the Chinese plough so that it could be pulled with fewer oxen or horses.
• Enclosure: the removal of common rights to establish exclusive ownership of land
• Development of a national market free of tariffs, tolls and customs barriers
• Transportation infrastructures, such as improved roads, canals, and later, railways
• Land conversion, land drains and reclamation
• Increase in farm size
• Selective breeding

The bolded ones (5/8) are predominately feats of empirical or scientific inquiry and the engineering that follows from it. And how about the Green Revolution? Would India be able to support a population of over a billion people without the explicitly scientific advances of genetic modification, synthetic fertilizers, and the like?

And, of course, the fact remains that you are sitting in front of a box of blinking lights that is the result of decades of intense scientific research and development in numerous fields that allows you to connect with most of the world instantaneously. And are using that box to try to convince others that the scientific method doesn't work. Can't you see a disconnect there?

Tell me -- why do you think that the United States and England enjoy great advances in technology whereas Cuba and North Korea do not? Is it because science doesn't work in those countries?

This is largely because the US and England place a very high premium on science and technology, and have for quite some time. They spend a lot of money on scientific research, on better understanding the world, and there are numerous societal institutions in the west build first and foremost around making science work better, from government institutions like NASA to institutes of learning like MIT or RPI to various awards that offer those who make particularly useful and bold strides acclaim and a substantial prize purse.

Is the same true in Cuba or North Korea? North Korea is essentially a communist dictatorship, and Cuba is also largely communist, and as we've established quite firmly in the last 50-odd years, particularly after the Iron Curtain fell, is that communism and collectivism serve as fairly significant deterrents to individual accomplishment, particularly in science. Oh, plus the inability to import from their more technologically-superior neighbors made research and development quite difficult. That's not to say these cultures haven't benefitted greatly - I have no idea where you got the idea that they haven't. Their internet speeds suck, but they have internet access. Their cars are dated, but they have cars.

The fact that some peoples are poorer than others and not everyone has equal access to all of the fruits of science does nothing to negate the incredible good the scientific method has done.

 

[46AND2]

I have no idea. I know that you claim that it is so, but I don't see the relevance. Accordingly, I have never bothered to investigate the matter. If you claim that it is so, for the moment I am content to take it on faith until it becomes an issue. I don't foresee that it will.

Ok, let's look at it this way: Is it true that human genealogies naturally form nested hierarchies?

 

[Zosimus]

How did you determine that they received no real benefit?

I took the numbers on faith and did some math.

 

[Zosimus]

Except when it supports evolution, of course.

DARWINISM!!!!