The light of evolution: What would be lost

[lesliedellow]

Begging that facts be taken as fact based on authority ( a known fallacious argument)

I do believe you mean the argument from inappropriate authority. Do you think it would be fallacious to assume that a brain surgeon knows what he is talking about when he speaks of brain surgery? Perhaps you would prefer to take your advice from Joe the taxi cab driver before undergoing brain surgery.

Pretending you know what anyone doesn't do for a living

Sorry. I am not pretending.

 

[The Cadet]

and the only way we will ever do that is by comparing modern humans who are exposed to it and who do not get the disease to people who do get it. That breakthrough will come from directly examining THEIR genome not their relationship to chimpanzees.

See, this is where you're wrong, and where evolution is phenomenally useful. Without common ancestry, there is no reason to believe that, say, medical experiments on mice would have any analogy to medical research on humans. There's no reason to believe that we could use chimps as surrogates for studying infectious diseases. But we know that this research is useful and fruitful. Heck, the first post details a major medical advancement made due to research on chickens! An advance that would make no sense if common ancestry were false.

This is where creation just falls flat. Evolution is not just some "idea" people hold for no reason. It's a useful tool. It's a predictive model for understanding the world. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be used the way it is. Do you know what "The light of evolution" in the title is referencing?

 

[MikeEnders]

I do believe you mean the argument from inappropriate authority.

Nope I mean authority. Whenever you base an argument or a conclusion merely upon the authority of a person you have entered into a fallacious argument from authority.

Do you think it would be fallacious to assume that a brain surgeon knows what he is talking about when he speaks of brain surgery?

No but i think a brain surgeon saying he is right about how the brain evolved because he is a brain surgeon is TOTALLY fallacious because thats what is CLASSIC fallacious reasoning. For goodness sake go do some reading on fallacious reasoning and come back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

you have provided nothing to this thread but fallacious reasoning

Perhaps you would prefer to take your advice from Joe the taxi cab driver before undergoing brain surgery.
.

Perhaps you can lay down and let a taxi cab driver operate on you because he says he is a biologist. Its totally foolish in this day and age to take any and everything a doctor says to you because they are doctors. Intelligent patients still go home and verify many things for themselves not rely on authority as you do.

Sorry. I am not pretending.

sure you are. maybe you should read what you responded to before you respond to it. Anyone claiming they know what profession someone is NOT in on this board isn't being terribly honest. Well maybe not POTUS bu then you never know either.

So yep you are definitely pretending if you claim to KNOW what I don't do for a living

 

[MikeEnders]

Without common ancestry, there is noreason to believe that, say, medical experiments on mice would have any analogy to medical research on humans.

Thats quite lot of nonsense and I have a weekend to go enjoy. None of you have proven anything especially since SF fudge has come to light. Under a creationist framework we would expect to see similar designs across many different animals. So any and every creationists would still do studies with other animals. SO your claim that there would be no reason to believe there would be an analogy is not only utterly false its OBVIOUSLY false.

totally bogus

I know of no creationist Doctor or scientists that has had any issue whatsoever of deducing lessons from other animals to relate to how our bodies work . None and they do so from a design inference. You are making "no other reason but common ancestry' up in your head to suit your argument. Its not the least bit rational considering what creationist hold to.

 

[The Cadet]

Under a creationist framework we would expect to see similar designs across many different animals.

Yes, we would. And if we didn't see similar designs, creationist framework would still be able to claim that it predicted it. And this is kind of the clincher. Under a creationist framework, we would expect literally anything. We can make no testable predictions, because no matter what the outcome is, "God did it" shores up any error.

I know of no creationist Doctor or scientists that has had any issue whatsoever of deducing lessons from other animals to relate to how our bodies work . None and they do so from a design inference.

Of course they did. A design inference which simply cannot reasonably be made without the common ancestry of evolution.

 

[MikeEnders]

can make no testable predictions, because no matter what the outcome is, "God did it" shores up any error.

Yawn.......the same old refrain. its like a number of you go to the same choir and learn to sing the same tune. IF creationists would just say the outcome is God did it then why is practically every branch of science founded by a creationist? Why would they bother?

its time you guys got some new material. The same old rhetoric is worn out and easily rebuffed. Design from a designer created a rich framework for the founding of just about every science..

 

[lesliedellow]

Nope I mean authority. Whenever you base an argument or a conclusion merely upon the authority of a person you have entered into a fallacious argument from authority.

In that case yopu have come up with a "fallacy" which is all your very own creation.

 

[lesliedellow]

Intelligent patients still go home and verify many things for themselves not rely on authority as you do.

Now is that a fact? Then in the absence of a training which would allow you to meaningfully verify anything, I wouldn't give much for your life expectancy.

 

[The Cadet]

Yawn.......the same old refrain. its like a number of you go to the same choir and learn to sing the same tune. IF creationists would just say the outcome is God did it then why is practically every branch of science founded by a creationist? Why would they bother?

To take the example of geology: because people at the time made specific claims about reality based on the bible. Claims that actually were testable and falsifiable (assuming you don't just go the typical YEC apologist route of assuming that God just made it look like that with magic because reasons - that came later). They had faith, and wanted to confirm it with real evidence. They were sure they'd find that evidence, and that they could confirm their faith. And they couldn't. They failed.

Most branches of science predate the significant achievements in those branches. How would someone know that flood geology is asinine without the fruits of geology? How would people know that the "prime mover" argument is horrible before cosmology?

its time you guys got some new material. The same old rhetoric is worn out and easily rebuffed. Design from a designer created a rich framework for the founding of just about every science..

And yet, every branch of science has abandoned the hypothesis, because it's not scientific.

Look, it's simple. Name me a universe which your god could not have created.

 

[MikeEnders]

In that case you have come up with a "fallacy" which is all your very own creation.

In that case you can't read . Need the link again? Sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

truth is never settled by an appeal to a person's authority. Truth is determined by facts. An expert in the field is valued for his grasp of his facts not his claim that he establishes fact because he is an authority. Authorities can be wrong but in your world where you beg for authority as proof of being correct authorities would never be corrected by facts because according to you only certain people own and control them.

 

[MikeEnders]

Now is that a fact? Then in the absence of a training which would allow you to meaningfully verify anything, I wouldn't give much for your life expectancy.

What would you know of anyone's life expectancy? You are just chock full of assumptions like you know anything about people you don't know. Intelligent people research their own doctors, their medicines and question. Research has shown those patients do a lot better who participate in their own treatment and ask questions rather than just "ummm...errr....well he is the doctor so". By your argument you are the one to have a shorter life expectancy because apparently the first Neuro surgeon you meet will be your guy because well "he's a neurosurgeon!"

 

[MikeEnders]

Look, it's simple. Name me a universe which your god could not have created.

One in which you are a God. I am absolutely certain thats outside of his ability. Case closed.

Most branches of science predate the significant achievements in those branches.

Yeah because founding a science is such a insignificant thing. Laws of physics and motion....PhffffT who needs em.

 

[lesliedellow]

What would you know of anyone's life expectancy? You are just chock full of assumptions like you know anything about people you don't know.

I know where imagining yourself to be the ultimate polymath will get you.

 

[sfs]

I was able to get my hands on the paper SFS presented as a practical application that would be lost if not for macro evolution and I must say even I am a bit surprised by the distortion made of this paper (although its slightly more credible now that SFS is associated with it and because of it is trying desperately to hype its importance).

Here's what I wrote about the paper: "For example, we use that information in searching for recent episodes of positive natural selection in the human genome. That, in turn, can tell us about important regions of the genome for various health-related traits. We used this approach to help identify candidate regions responsible for resistance to cholera (or for reduced severity) in this paper."

Yeah, that's some pretty desperate hyping going on there.

 

[sfs]

and the only way we will ever do that is by comparing modern humans who are exposed to it and who do not get the disease to people who do get it. That breakthrough will come from directly examining THEIR genome not their relationship to chimpanzees. This is how genetic disease research is being done by thousands of researchers around the world - Running comparative analysis against larger and larger databases in MODERN HUMANS. This is how we have isolated many genes related to disease so claiming that we would never be able to isolate genetic predispositions to cholera without macroevolution is utter nonsense. You fudged the claim.

I fudged no claim. In this study, given the sample size we had and the resources available to us, we could not do a whole-genome association study. The reason the study is interesting -- and why it was published in a fairly high impact journal -- is that we were able to use natural selection to focus on promising candidate genes, obtain useful biological insights, and get supporting evidence from a small association study. It would have been lovely to start off with a genome-wide study with 20,000 patients, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

False equivalence reasoning. We have all of that by testing what exists now in present form without any reference to historical relationships.

Red herring -- it would help if your responses addressed the matter under debate. You dismissed the cholera research as not practical in these terms: "THERE IS ZILCH, NADA NOTHING Of any practical application in the paper to treat Cholera. No specific (and note the word specific) genes are isolated, no treatment or vaccine is proposed in it or even expected to be proposed from it." That's what I was responding to: the claim that a study that doesn't have immediate practical results is of no practical value. That claim is wrong.

 

[sfs]

On an anonymous forum where identities are not verified

I told you my identity and gave you my email address so you could verify it. It's easy to check that the address I gave you does in fact belong to the scientist in question (e.g. I was the corresponding author on this paper, and my email address is given there). You could verify my identity with 30 seconds of typing -- if you wanted to.

 

[MikeEnders]

The reason the study is interesting -- and why it was published in a fairly high impact journal -- is that we were able to use natural selection to focus on promising candidate genes,

Thanks for the admission and it only makes my point stronger. It isn't about breakthrough in treating cholera, It didn't isolate and tell us the genes to target.It gives no workable data to finding a cure or treatment. Its more about using natural selection than anything else and it doesn't demonstrate any practical thing that would be lost without macroevolution theory because in the end we will still have to do the very same larger study not on chimpanzees but on modern humans to get the answer we need that I said from the start and you tried to handwave away from.

Thats why its a COMPLETE fudge although it s obvious you will never admit it (which doesn't surprise me in the least). The entire reason for this thread is to show something that is useful and would be lost if in fact we did not have macroevolution theories yet You tried to sell this paper as the answer even though studies that have nothing to do with CHimpanzees but modern humans is what will give us the answer to a practical treatment.

That's what I was responding to: the claim that a study that doesn't have immediate practical results is of no practical value. That claim is wrong.

In addition to everything else you must have no idea of what the word practical means. Its YOUR claim that is wrong. IF another wider and larger study focusing on modern humans has to be done to get a practical treatment for cholera than only in your dreams can you present this paper as a practical application that would be lost if we do not adhere to macroevolution.

 

[MikeEnders]

I told you my identity and gave you my email address so you could verify it. It's easy to check that the address I gave you does in fact belong to the scientist in question (e.g. I was the corresponding author on this paper, and my email address is given there). You could verify my identity with 30 seconds of typing -- if you wanted to.

Wow. You are supposedly a scientist and can't think something so simple through?????? Let me see if I walk you through this slowly.

Okay I take that 30 seconds to verify the email is legit and I find out the right name is associated with it. Greeaaat!!. Now Please tell the class how that verifies that the person behind the SFS account at CF is in fact the same person?? I've explained this to you before and you STILL can't get it.

You can verify there is a Barack Obama in the white house, You can have the right email address so ummm that proves that a user named BAOBAMA on CF is in fact the president of the United states.

SHeesh thats some really poor logic and evidence assessment skills you got going there.

30 seconds???? LOl.......NO. I would have to track down an official telephone number, be transferred to the right extension and then have to see if I can make contact with the actual person and ask them if they are on CF.

and for what? to verify that they have some attachment to a paper (that like 20 other people do for various reasons ) that does nothing to support the claim made for it because no practical application can be drawn from the study anyway as you claimed. Try again.

 

[crjmurray]

Wow. You are supposedly a scientist and can't think something so simple through?????? Let me see if I walk you through this slowly.

Okay I take that 30 seconds to verify the email is legit and I find out the right name is associated with it. Greeaaat!!. Now Please tell the class how that verifies that the person behind the SFS account at CF is in fact the same person?? I've explained this to you before and you STILL can't get it.

You can verify there is a Barack Obama in the white house, You can have the right email address so ummm that proves that a user named BAOBAMA on CF is in fact the president of the United states.

SHeesh thats some really poor logic and evidence assessment skills you got going there.

30 seconds???? LOl.......NO. I would have to track down an official telephone number, be transferred to the right extension and then have to see if I can make contact with the actual person and ask them if they are on CF.

and for what? to verify that they have some attachment to a paper (that like 20 other people do for various reasons ) that does nothing to support the claim made for it because no practical application can be drawn from the study anyway as you claimed. Try again.

In about two minutes you could verify his identity over the phone. If you're not willing to do that, then you should probably stop accusing him of lying.

 

[MikeEnders]

you should probably stop accusing him of lying.

Where? Claiming someone said something they never said should be bannable offense. I have said I have no idea who he is nor do I care and that someone saying they are someone on an internet forum is meaningless. Never ever said he was or was not who he claimed to be. As it turned out it means nothing anyway because like it or not the paper he pointed to once I found it to read does not live up to his attempt to present it as evidence for what was claimed. Classic bait and switch

Meanwhile the logic you are trying to invoke is ridiculous nonsense.. What? we are now going to go around calling to verify who everyone is by phone on an internet forum. LOL.....why? extra time during the summer? Whats your number? We can start with you??

Anyway Nice try at trying to set up mod action because you don't like your comrade being shown to be in error but I said nothing about anyone lying. ON the bright side you at least extended the time to two minutes from 30 seconds he claimed . Silver lining and all that. It would take several minutes to look up the right number to call and verify it. stop begging you get to tell me how to spend my time chasing down the authors of appear that still present nothing as what was claimed.

begging like that will always be denied.