What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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.

Generically reasonable statements, but far from accepted definitions of the terms and as you say parsimony is just wrong.

 

[Astrid]

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?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

When creationists are wrong, they are wrong; but when a scientist is wrong, people can (and do) die.

 

[Astrid]

Generically reasonable statements, but far from accepted definitions of the terms and as you say parsimony is just wrong.

Another error unlikely to be conceded.

Admission of even the smallest and least relevant
of errors is nearly impossible for the creationist
mindset.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another error unlikely to be conceded.

Admission of even the smallest and least relevant of errors is nearly impossible for the creationist mindset.

That should make us easy to spot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Philosophers of science would I think disagree. Yes, empiricism is another fundamental principle to science but "Determinism" is listed as the #1 principle.

Scientific principles are not presuppositions, axioms, or assumptions.

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.

I agree - who dismissed "events at the micro level as having little to no affect [sic] at the macro level"?

In the post you just quoted, I said, "as far as we know, everything is fundamentally quantum mechanical so it's no surprise that the closer we look, the more we are finding QM effects in use in biological systems".

I disagree. Schrodinger's equation provides the math for the wave function and the range of possibilities (not probabilities) at decoherence.

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).

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".

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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...

 

[Astrid]

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...

If our friend said he is a scientist, he is using some definition
that no real researcher would accept.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

 

[Astrid]

Perhaps... maybe he'll tell us what kind of scientist he is.

Often enough people say they are scientists but if
they are not they soon betray themselves.
So far the evidence does not look good.

I asked a "doctor" where to find the astragalus
bone and he got mad.

 

[Vap841]

Nobody is obligated to respond to garbage.

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

 

[o_mlly]

I was going to ask where you got this very strange list, but I found 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.

 

[Astrid]

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

But a good one for those who persist in responding to garbage.

 

[Astrid]

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.

QM does not "challenge the principle".
There isn't even mention of a "principle".
Just a connection.

We won't wait to hear what your Stanford
source says about your strange version of parsimony.
Or for creos to do their due diligence, ever.

Or for creos to learn not to use an apostrophe when
pluralizing a noun.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

 

[Astrid]

That's interesting - I don't recall it ever being called anything but the talus bone in my studies.

I just remembered what it was called by a paleontologist
I had the pleasure of working with.

 

[HitchSlap]

Happily show me a missing link.

You don’t know what a “missing link” is.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don’t know what a “missing link” is.

Then show me one.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then show me one.

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.

Unfortunately, since humans only developed photography recently, you won't be able to obtain any photographs of your great, great (tons of great) grandparents from 200,00 years ago, when we were becoming more recognisably human.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have a picture of your mother. She is the missing link between you and your maternal granparents.

Then she's not "missing," is she?

You do realize that every missing link found produces two more missing links, don't you?