DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
No, here's where you are mistaken. That is not the next step. That is the FIRST step. Before you actually "believe" / accept the proposition. That is, if you care about being rational.
I don't know. What objectively testable predictions does it make?
Religious faith, is belief without evidence.
If you need to appeal to children's blind acceptance of what perceived authorities tell them, in order to draw an analogy for your religious beliefs, then you are just making my point for me.
Indeed, it is juvenile. Children grow out of such blind acceptance of what authorities tell them. As an adult, there are other standards to adhere to.
No, that's not faith in the religious sense. That's a reasonable and rational expectation based on the objective evidence and track record of medical science.
Faith in the religious sense, would be more like believing that your car mechanic with no medical training whatsoever, is able to cure your cancer. There's no objective evidence or track record for that.
Not blindly, no. I require objective reasons for putting my trust in something. Also, real world situations are false analogies. Real world situations don't require me to believe that natural laws have been suspended or violated.
Your religious claims, do.
No. This is where bias comes into play.
To distinguish true from false, you require objective means to make that evaluation. Counting only on your own experience (or more exactly, your interpretation thereof...) is subjective.
Religious faith isn't.
Trust is based on objective track records.
Religious faith, is blind acceptance of propositions.
No. I have no problem acknowledging ignorance and just saying "i don't know".
Appeal to authority, btw, is a logical fallacy.
Which thoughts and conclusions are you talking about?
It's not artwork.
You seem to think that such diagrams are dreamed up. They aren't. They are factual representations of shared genetics, anatomy, geographic distribution, etc.
These days, they aren't even drawn. They are auto-generated, based on completely sequenced genomes, by algoritms. And the only thing these algorithms do, is compare sequences of DNA and map out matches.
If the matches end up in a bush instead of a tree, then that is the graph that the algorithm will generate. But it isn't. It's a nested hierarchy. Every time. And it matches the hierachies if you look at just sequences of DNA, individual genes, entire genomes, comparative anatomy, etc.
These are all independent datasets that perfectly converge on the exact same answer, every single time.
So you can auto-dissmiss that as well out of ignorance?Have you got anything else?
Ps one at a time
First, try to comprehend this one properly.
I'm not going to give you an education in the evolutionary process.
In short:
- every new born comes with a set of mutations.
- every new born inherits its genes from its parents, including the mutations of those parents, while adding its own mutations.
- generation after generation, accumulation takes place of the mutations of the ancestors plus the mutations of the individual
- a diverging family / phylogenetic tree is the only possible outcome. Well... that, or extinction.
Or you're just ignorant / uneducated concerning the subject, off course.
As you clearly are, as proven in the above paragraphes. When you think that a phylogenetic tree is "just artwork", then clearly you aren't well informed.
If you then also need to ask how the evolution process produces such hierarchies, then clearly you don't have a clue.
That's fine. Ignorance is easily cured, after all. It just takes a bit of study.
Off course, if you are unwilling to put in the effort to do that, then you'll just miss the facts. But then you don't get to argue about it either. Or at least, your opinions about it are worthless / meaningless.
Not "absolutely" certain - in science, nothing is "absolutely" certain.
But it surely is as certain as it gets in science. And what makes that a true statement - I just explained it to you: convergence on the exact same conclusion by literally all relevant sets of (independent) data, that you can even cross reference with other sciences like geology and geological timelines. And literally not a single piece of evidence that contradicts it.
That's about as good as it ever gets in science. This makes evolution one of the most, if not THE most supported, theories in all of science.
We know more about evolution then we know about atoms.
It is literally what evolution explains.
Inheritance of traits and genetic isolation, inevitably leading to divergence.
Not at all what I said.
Upvote
0
!
