Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Generically reasonable statements, but far from accepted definitions of the terms and as you say parsimony is just wrong.That is a very odd source. Is there, btw, a rule about
giving a link to cut n paste stuff?
All of it seemed reasonable to me except for that
weird definition for parsimony.
No; sexual reproduction combines existing alleles from each parent; it doesn't change them, it simply recombines them. Mutations can and do occur in association with sexual reproduction, but it is not itself a kind of mutation.
True.
Seriously? you're suggesting that chance events aren't causal? I thought you'd be in the camp that requires effects to have causes...
It seems to me that a stray ricochet from a drive-by or a tree falling on your head as you walk by can cause your demise, a lightning strike can cause your house to burn down, and a mutation can cause cystic fibrosis. I'd appreciate an explanation of how that isn't the case.
Claims that evolution has a 'time problem' are usually a result of not understanding how evolution itself works and/or not understanding the genetic control of development. But please describe or link to some scientific (i.e. testable) hypotheses involving directed evolution.
Self-organisation is a well-accepted aspect of physical, chemical, biological, ecological, and other processes; it is noteworthy for being a route to undirected emergent order (that's kind of what 'self-organisation' means).
It's a moot point whether species are invented or discovered, semantic quibbling. We discover a significant difference between populations so we invent labels or categories to identify and distinguish them. I've already explained why differing definitions are in use.
It won't make it any more arbitrary, and unfortunately, it's not as simple as deciding that some particular number of genetic differences between populations will determine when a new species has arrived.
I'm only aware of one scientific theory of evolution - originated by Darwin & Wallace, which developed into the modern synthesis, and more recently, evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), and the extended evolutionary synthesis.
This theory satisfies all the criteria you mentioned, is supported by ~150 years of multiple independent lines of evidence, is the best tested scientific theory around, is generally acknowledged to be foundational to modern biology, and has many practical applications in medicine and industry.
So, what other theories did you have in mind?
Also, you said you were a scientist; may I ask what field you work in?
When creationists are wrong, they are wrong; but when a scientist is wrong, people can (and do) die.If one can't concede such an obvious error it may be a sign of incapacity to ever be wrong about anything.
A trait btw that does not go with being a scientist, however universal it may be of creationists.
Generically reasonable statements, but far from accepted definitions of the terms and as you say parsimony is just wrong.
That should make us easy to spot.Another error unlikely to be conceded.
Admission of even the smallest and least relevant of errors is nearly impossible for the creationist mindset.
Scientific principles are not presuppositions, axioms, or assumptions.Philosophers of science would I think disagree. Yes, empiricism is another fundamental principle to science but "Determinism" is listed as the #1 principle.
I agree - who dismissed "events at the micro level as having little to no affect [sic] at the macro level"?The most recent studies of QM physicists at the theoretical level suggest that one cannot so easily dismiss the events at the micro level as having little to no affect at the macro level. Nothing at the macro level exists that is not constituted by the micro.
The Schrodinger equation describes the evolution of the wave function; the square of the wave function at some point tells you the probability of a measurement observing the system at that point (Born rule).I disagree. Schrodinger's equation provides the math for the wave function and the range of possibilities (not probabilities) at decoherence.
The collapse of the wave function is an ad-hoc addition to the quantum formalism, and although there are numerous hypotheses for mechanisms of wave function collapse, there are formulations that do not require it. It's historically a consequence of treating the measurement apparatus as a purely classical system, so it is possible (likely, even) that it is an artefact of the observer's perspective - as quantum systems, both measurement apparatus and observer will become entangled with the observed system, with all that entails.We have as far as I know no math equation that explains the collapse of the wave to the particle state. This is not my field but what I read is not published by "woo merchants".
I was puzzled by - the statement that, "Physical laws control" rather than describe; the question asking what theories might be a candidate for a scientific hypothesis; the idea that if randomness means ignorance then we must be ignorant of processes where randomness is involved (almost all, in the real world!); and the idea that random events are "instrumental but not causal".I'd stick with that weird statement about mutation/ sexual
reproduction if our hero would deign to respond to a awful Asian
girl.
If one can't conced such an obvious error it may be a sign of incapacity
to ever be wrong about anything.
A trait btw that does not go with being a scientist,
however universal it may be of creationists.
I was puzzled by - the statement that, "Physical laws control" rather than describe; the question asking what theories might be a candidate for a scientific hypothesis; the idea that if randomness means ignorance then we must be ignorant of processes where randomness is involved (almost all, in the real world!); and the idea that random events are "instrumental but not causal".
Strange science indeed...
Perhaps... maybe he'll tell us what kind of scientist he is.If our friend said he is a scientist, he is using some definition
that no real researcher would accept.
Perhaps... maybe he'll tell us what kind of scientist he is.
Nobody is obligated to respond to garbage.
I was going to ask where you got this very strange list, but I found it.
I guess I have a dorky sense of humor but this scene popped into my head and I kept laughing at the thought of Phred replying to you with it
Philosophy of Science 101.
Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other.
As noted, QM challenges the principle. We await evo's to catch up on their reading.
That's interesting - I don't recall it ever being called anything but the talus bone in my studies.I asked a "doctor" where to find the astragalus
bone and he got mad.
That's interesting - I don't recall it ever being called anything but the talus bone in my studies.
Then show me one.You don’t know what a “missing link” is.
Do you have a picture of your mother. She is the missing link between you and your maternal granparents. If you have a picture of one of those grandparents, she or he is the missing link to one set of great grandparents. It's not rocket science.Then show me one.
Then she's not "missing," is she?Do you have a picture of your mother. She is the missing link between you and your maternal granparents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?