Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[Justatruthseeker]

If practically all the experts in a field believe something, it is reasonable to suppose that there must be a reason for that unanimity - I.e. that the supposedly non existent evidence has persuaded them.

We just went over this. Practically all the experts in the field believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. Their was indeed a reason for that unanimity, they all misinterpreted the evidence to fit their beliefs - instead of fitting their belief to the evidence.

Oh, I forgot. They are all involved in a grand conspiracy against Christianity, and that's why there is near unanimity.

Again - that's your strawman. Quit ignoring the data and you won't keep having to make claims that are of a logical fallacy.

We will elaborate once again.

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

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi), and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Stop with fallacious arguments - if you can back up your theory or counter mine with data, then do so - if you can't, stop wasting everyone's time with strawmen and fallacious arguments.

You don't see me arguing that because Christianity is a worldwide religion practiced by millions it must be true do you? of course not - that would be a logical fallacy on my part to do so.

 

[lesliedellow]

We just went over this. Practically all the experts in the field believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. Their was indeed a reason for that unanimity, they all misinterpreted the evidence to fit their beliefs - instead of fitting their belief to the evidence.

Ah, so the evidence exists now; they have just misinterpreted it. Perhaps you would like to give us your expert interpretation. Preferably without ad hoc hypotheses, made up to explain away inconvenient facts.

Anyway what was the evidence a Baptist like Francis Collins was trying to force into conformity with his beliefs? The conspiracy theories of creationists tend to flounder upon the rock of mainstream biologists who are Christians.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You have given no reason to ignore the natural world and what we observe except that it doesn't agree with the theory of evolution. Theories are to be adjusted to fit the data - not the data adjusted to fit the theory.

The cross-breeding you describe is entirely compatible with evolution by natural selection, but incidental to it. The TOE describes the mechanisms by which populations change over many generations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Said evolutionary "claimed facts" and natural selection never once having been observed anywhere in the natural world - but again - only in the minds of believers.

Natural selection is observed whenever a creature fails to reproduce as well as most others of its species (or when it out-reproduces most others). Evolution of new species has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

 

[durangodawood]

Ad populum is not a fallacy if your populus are learned and expert.
If they are just random people, then, sure.

 

[davedajobauk]

Except those different coloured eyes are due merely to dominant and recessive traits from two different infraspecific taxa mating - and has nothing to do with evolution at all. Just the natural recombination of different genomes into new dominant and recessive traits.

Oh, so you are saying......
that blue-eyed and brunette 'taxa', could be expected
to produce siblings, ~with differing dominant and/or recessive traits, (green-eyed blonde/red-headed)
that it is 'quite-normal' to have siblings that exceed their parents in height and stature
and to insist (perhaps) that it was due entirely, to the heritable ancestral traits despite: the features of both parents being similar [to each-other]

 

[davedajobauk]

Of course - doesn't even matter that all T-Rex remained T-Rex, all Triceratops remained Triceratops - from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. Just like all Husky remain Husky and all Asians remain Asians.

The THING about the dinosaurs, is that they have few remaining extant descendants

Yes, we are yet to find a hominid fossil, with a brain case that equals our own [for size]
and this, could happen (one day) as hominin fossils so far recovered and examined, do
in so many other respects resemble modern man / woman
whom, are taller and (on average) live-longer than, their ancestors

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course - doesn't even matter that all T-Rex remained T-Rex, all Triceratops remained Triceratops - from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. Just like all Husky remain Husky and all Asians remain Asians.

Accepting those observations would crush their beliefs - and so observations will be ignored.

How could you possibly know that all T-Rex remained T-Rex?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ah, so the evidence exists now; they have just misinterpreted it. Perhaps you would like to give us your expert interpretation. Preferably without ad hoc hypotheses, made up to explain away inconvenient facts.

Anyway what was the evidence a Baptist like Francis Collins was trying to force into conformity with his beliefs? The conspiracy theories of creationists tend to flounder upon the rock of mainstream biologists who are Christians.

I already gave it to you - you couldn't counter with any actual science and so started the ad-hominem attacks.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation (Chinook) seen in the species.

There is nothing ad-hoc about it - it is empirical observations.

At no time did the Asian or the African evolve into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stayed Asian and the African stayed African.

At no time did the Husky or the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky and the Mastiff stayed a Mastiff.

Unlike evolutionists I have no need for Ad-hoc inventions repeatedly invoked to defend that untenable scientific theory.

Triceratops mated with triceratops and produced only Triceratops. Only when Triceratops mated with another infraspecific taxa within the species did another infraspecific taxa T, Horriblis come into the record. I need not pretend other than what empirical observations have shown. I need not add ad-hoc hypothesis that in the past it occurred differently than we observe in the present.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Trying to make the agent of a mechanism another mechanism to suffice that mechanism.

Think about it

 

[lesliedellow]

I already gave it to you - you couldn't counter with any actual science and so started the ad-hominem attacks.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation (Chinook) seen in the species.

There is nothing ad-hoc about it - it is empirical observations.

At no time did the Asian or the African evolve into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stayed Asian and the African stayed African.

At no time did the Husky or the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky and the Mastiff stayed a Mastiff.

Unlike evolutionists I have no need for Ad-hoc inventions repeatedly invoked to defend that untenable scientific theory.

Triceratops mated with triceratops and produced only Triceratops. Only when Triceratops mated with another infraspecific taxa within the species did another infraspecific taxa T, Horriblis come into the record. I need not pretend other than what empirical observations have shown. I need not add ad-hoc hypothesis that in the past it occurred differently than we observe in the present.

Ah, so those few meaningless paragraphs are supposed to constitute a complete and utter refutation of the evidence for Evolution which has accumulated over the past century and a half. I get it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The cross-breeding you describe is entirely compatible with evolution by natural selection, but incidental to it. The TOE describes the mechanisms by which populations change over many generations.

Which change you and I agree is solely in your mind - since no observations of the real world indicates this happens at all - except the change within the species we observe when separate infraspecific taxa within the species mate. I understand the TOE adds ad-hoc inventions to defend it's untenable scientific theory. I understand they add the ad-hoc invention that one creature magically becomes two contrary to every single observation of how life propagates and variation happens.


The reproduction of all life falsifies their assumptions. There is no branching in the fork where one becomes two magically. There is only two different things producing something new. A+A never equals B, or C, or anything but A.


Come on - even your E coli experiments showed this to you. After countless generations and countless mutations - they remained exactly as they started - E coli. They will never become anything other than E coli.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Natural selection is observed whenever a creature fails to reproduce as well as most others of its species (or when it out-reproduces most others). Evolution of new species has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

No it hasn't.

If the Husky dies out tomorrow it will have no effect at all on the Mastiff nor the Chinook. If the Mastiff dies out tomorrow it will not effect the Husky or the Chinook either.

The lab disproves every claim you make. E coli after countless generations and mutations remained E coli - because they never receive genomes from another infraspecific taxa within the bacterial species to which they belong. Just as the Asian as long as it mates with an Asian will always remain Asian. They got Fairie Dust - that's all - claims while ignoring every single observation of how life actually reproduces.

Not to mention ignoring 70+ years of actual mutation experiments with breeding plants and animals. Which field has all but abandoned mutation as a cause of new information - except in the mind of fanatical evolutionists practicing their religion.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[lesliedellow]

Which change you and I agree is solely in your mind - since no observations of the real world indicates this happens at all

You would think, wouldn't you, that even a two year old could work out that, over time, small adaptations will pile up into a large adaptation.

And if that sounds contemptuous, it is only because I can scarcely contain my contempt.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Trying to make the agent of a mechanism another mechanism to suffice that mechanism.

Think about it

Agreed, they are trying to pretend that the natural variation we observe when separate infraspecific taxa within the species mate and wrongly apply it to evolution of one creature into two - when such has never been observed in any observation since mankind has been keeping records of life propagating.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You would think, wouldn't you, that even a two year old could work out that, over time, small adaptations will pile up into a large adaptation.

And if that sounds contemptuous, it is only because I can scarcely contain my contempt.

Yah whatever - the only reason you are outraged is because your theory is being falsified before your eyes and you are unable to defend it except with what you think is a defense (childish name calling - are you 6 btw?) but only shows your lack of any science whatsoever.

That is self contempt you are feeling and projecting onto others because you can't find any real science to defend your Fairie Dust with. But as I told you before, it's ok, I understand and do not hold it against you. I realize you are merely blinded by that glitter.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How could you possibly know that all T-Rex remained T-Rex?

Ever found a fossil of a T-Rex that wasn't a T-Rex or even one that was transforming into something different from the oldest fossil to the youngest? I didn't think so. So why are you ignoring the data and pretending they might have become something else????????

It might be a different story all together if you had observational data to back you up - but you don't. The only observational data you have is Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African does variation occur in the species. Now fit the data to the fossil record - not your pre-conceived personal beliefs that are contradicted by the observational data.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yah whatever - the only reason you are outraged is because your theory is being falsified before your Eyes

Ha, ha bloody ha. Who by? You? That is the biggest joke so far this (admittedly young) century.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ha, ha bloody ha. Who by? You? That is the biggest joke so far this (admittedly young) century.

By me? Not at all (all glory be to Him). By the actual observations of how life propagates that you feel the need to ignore for some reason??????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The THING about the dinosaurs, is that they have few remaining extant descendants

Yes, we are yet to find a hominid fossil, with a brain case that equals our own [for size]
and this, could happen (one day) as hominin fossils so far recovered and examined, do
in so many other respects resemble modern man / woman
whom, are taller and (on average) live-longer than, their ancestors

And when and IF they find it (also could not happen - but you have already assumed it has happened anyways and taken it as fact) - it will simply be another infraspecific taxa within the human species, not a separate species. Unless of course they try another Piltdown man - then of course it will be another species.

Why would we not expect different sizes and skulls as well? Are all dogs the same size and shape? All races???

Of course not.