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.
Please. Stop being obtuse. I know you aren't anywhere near as dumb as you are pretending. By playing that game it suggests you think I am that dumb.Then she's not "missing," is she?
You do realize that every missing link found produces two more missing links, don't you?
As I reflected on your post an astounding though occured to me. AV might actually be serious about his challenges. I have always presumed they were a form of trolling, which would be consistent with AV's general online persona. But what if he actually thinks they are penetrating attacks on atheist thought? Surely not?You are not fooling anyone. How many "challenges" have you posted? I have never seen one that was not garbage and refuted on the first page. Usually in the first response the thread was effectively dead.
Post 748 please.Please. Stop being obtuse.
I consider my Apple Challenge to be my single most ... to borrow some of your words ... penetrating attack on scientific thought.As I reflected on your post an astounding though occured to me. AV might actually be serious about his challenges. I have always presumed they were a form of trolling, which would be consistent with AV's general online persona. But what if he actually thinks they are penetrating attacks on atheist thought? Surely not?
And yet you've decided to join us in the Physical and Life Sciences forums... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯No, your "bad". You have shown the uncanny ability to grasp the obvious. That which cannot be proven must be presumed. Think about it.
The "flying monkeys" are flooding my email with their usual drivel. The lonely crudman above is just an example.
Some wonder why atheists often frequent Christian web sites but the opposite is quite rare. Lurk an atheist website for the answer: they eat their own. I suppose they export their venom here to troll the threads in vain attempts to buff up their egos. Misery loves company. Sartre was right, for the atheist, “Hell is other people”.
Thanks, Frank, others missed the point. You do know that in the set of "many", "one" is always an element?Not a mutation but many mutations.
Who said it was "bad"?Why is that a bad thing? The vast majority of mutations are neutral and neutral mutations that accumulate in genomes have an important long-term impact on the evolution.
Better look up that particular fallacy, Frank. It doesn't mean what I think you apparently think it means.Another argument from ignorance.
Who is us? The sub-forum is "Creation & Evolution". Are you a closet creationist?And yet you've decided to join us in the Physical and Life Sciences forums... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's a questionable take on reality:Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award.
This is a science sub-forum and we are meant to be having a scientific discussion about a scientific topic. Why would you make use of the common meaning of a word when that word has a much more specifically defined meaning in science? Very odd.Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.
That's a questionable take on reality:
This is a science sub-forum and we are meant to be having a scientific discussion about a scientific topic. Why would you make use of the common meaning of a word when that word has a much more specifically defined meaning in science? Very odd.
- Can you substantiate your claim that most PhD candidates never write their these on the problems of evolutionary theory?
- If you claim that "most" candidates do not do so, you implicitly concede that some do. My gut feel is that that 90% of those studying a subject will lack the intellect to conceive of a sound and serious objection to theory. Or perhaps they would lack the arrogance to think they have yet learned enough of what's inside the box to think out side it.
- All that said, my perception of PhD research is that it addresses what is unknown in a field. i.e. it addresses a problem with current theory. So, in that sense, all PhD candidates are investigating a problem.
Using jargon is one of the features of a snow job, but many other techniques can be used to construct one. I think it's used in the UK as well.It's an odd combo of pseudo-sophisticated
vocab., (is that called snow job? American
idiom plz?) and utter garbage seemingly made
up "on the fly".
Yes. It certainly isn't a noun. That would be mutation(s).Isn't "mutate(s)" a verb?
No. I genuinely don't know why @o_mlly would phrase things as they did. That's why asked them.You may be blurring the distinction between
"odd" and "ignorant".
You do like word games, but it was you who dismissed the many.Thanks, Frank, others missed the point. You do know that in the set of "many", "one" is always an element?
That is what you implied.Who said it was "bad"?
Why is that a problem for you?Frankly, we do not know in the moment, or perhaps many generations later, whether a mutation was beneficial or detrimental.
You are wrong. If you disagree you need to tell us why?Better look up that particular fallacy, Frank. It doesn't mean what I think you apparently think it means.
No problem - though I'm more likely to see it and respond if you quote the post you're responding to - that gives me a forum alert.Sorry for the late reply.
Not under the definition of 'mutation' in biology. As is often the case, some words have specific definitions in specialist domains, independent of their common usage.Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.
If you're referring to (pseudo)random events, their unexpectedness or unpredictability doesn't make any difference to the nature of their causality, either in Aristotlean philosophy or any other.There are four causes to any effect -- material, efficient, formal and final. The material cause -- the matter -- defines only what the thing came from and is instrumental to the effect. The efficient cause is the reason that the thing came to be.
It means order emerging from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance or direction. Popular examples are starling murmurations or schools of fish. The patterns generated by cellular automata like Game of Life, or fractals like the Mandelbrot Set are also examples.What does "undirected emergent order" mean?
Not really. Emergent properties may not be predictable from those of the subsystems, but they have observable causes (the interactions of the subsystems). The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is rather ambiguous - it's more the case that the behaviour of the whole is quite different from that of its parts. See Emergence."Emergent" properties are those that have no observable cause. "Emergent" implies the whole is somehow greater than its parts. Philosophically, claiming an "emergent" property violates First Principles, ie., Principle of Sufficient Reason. How does adding the modifier "undirected" clarify the "emergent" assumption? "Emergent", like "random", admits of ignorance.
I don't see your point - it makes no difference scientifically whether natural laws are God's will, Sauron's will, or brute fact.Putting that place-marker into play in order to push the model farther to improve our understanding of natural laws is fine until others forget that it was just a place-marker. Of course, theists know that natural laws are nothing more than God's will.
So, I ask again - what are these other theories of evolution? I can't make any comment about them unless you tell me what they are. If you're unwilling or unable to name or describe them you can point to them with a reference or link.Yes, a majority of scientists accept one of the evo theories. Their consensus though should not be surprising. Claiming a consensus of scientists as evidence for the likelihood of evolution is like walking into Raymond James Stadium on game day and asking, “Who’s for the Chiefs?” Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award. And, of course, we do not allow them to appeal to immaterial causes so they will stretch their speculations beyond what their data supports.
By 'us' I mean the atheists in this sub-forum of the 'Physical & Life Sciences' forums - i.e. atheists that you seem to have so little regard for.Who is us? The sub-forum is "Creation & Evolution". Are you a closet creationist?
Using jargon is one of the features of a snow job, but many other techniques can be used to construct one. I think it's used in the UK as well.
I don't have anything against making things up "on the fly". If one is skilled in a field and has a quick wit, then one can often nail a concept or a goal with an on-the-spot exposition. However, if one isn't skilled in the field it is liable to come out as word salad.
Yes. It certainly isn't a noun. That would be mutation(s).
No. I genuinely don't know why @o_mlly would phrase things as they did. That's why asked them.
Yes, descendants are mutates, in the common use of the word, ie, “changed”. If the sexual descendant is not a clone of either parent then the descendant has mutated.
Yes, a majority of scientists accept one of the evo theories. Their consensus though should not be surprising. Claiming a consensus of scientists as evidence for the likelihood of evolution is like walking into Raymond James Stadium on game day and asking, “Who’s for the Chiefs?” Do you know why most PhD candidates never write their thesis on the problems with evo theories? Yes, that’s right; they want their PhD award. And, of course, we do not allow them to appeal to immaterial causes so they will stretch their speculations beyond what their data supports.
I did not mention God in the post either. Do you also mistakenly think that means I dismissed Him?You do like word games, but it was you who dismissed the many.
Frank, the listener (you) infers; the speaker (me) implies. You could ask me, "Is that what you implied?" But you cannot tell me so.That is what you implied.
No problems on my end. ???Why is that a problem for you?
Well, that argument pretty much puts a wrap on it.You are wrong.
Sure. But first, explain how the argument from ignorance applies to my post.If you disagree you need to tell us why?
This is the tired "scientists are obedient slaves to the dominant paradigm" trope, but it also has some really bad analogies too...
First, what's so odd about a [Kansas City] Chiefs fan seeking out their fellows when their team is the visitors in a Florida stadium? There are *always* visiting fans in the stands even for the stadiums with the hardest tickets and most die hard home fans. Always. Every time I've gone to an away game for one of my teams there is a steady stream of fans entering the mostly home team section and shouting out "Who's for the [visting team]." or "Wooo. [visting team]." or even throwing vulgar insults at the home team and their fans. (Some people are jerks.)
A Ph.D. is a degree, not an award. It is earned, not given.
Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural/material causes, expecting science to study your favorite supernaturalism is not reasonable.
I've been to dozens of Ph.D. defenses and read about a dozen dissertations, not a single one of them mentioned evolution at all. (Probably because I'm not in biology. Go figure.)
There also haven't been any challenges to the base theories and concepts in our field either, but that is not unexpected. Dissertation topics are chosen 3-5 years earlier when the students barely have enough knowledge to grasp the implications of their own project, let alone devise a test of a fundamental paradigm. Most dissertations are rather pedestrian for a reason -- they need to be completed by relatively inexperienced researchers. After that experience they may begin to see ways to test the fundamental paradigms of their fields and craft appropriate tests. That's where the next great scientists come from.
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?