Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses on Human Evolution

Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.

"The Festival of Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses (BAHFest) is a celebration of well-argued and thoroughly researched but completely incorrect evolutionary theory. "

http://bahfest.com...

A bunch of videos of the different presentations:
https://www.youtube.com...

The guy who does the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal made this one about infantapaulting.

I think it would be so fun to do a debate with bad ad hoc hypotheses on human evolution.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 2:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.
This space for rent.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.

From what little you've said here, I can tell that you're conflating "theory" & "hypothesis" and you misunderstand the word "proven." The only actual "proofs" which exist are in math. They can be used in scientific theories, and often are, but they aren't the theories themselves. Science doesn't flip a yes-or-no switch on information like a proof does. It examines to what degree we can trust that something is true according to all the information we have. In that sense, nothing outside math is ever "proven." Ever. But that is the nature of being human. We have limited faculties and resources to investigate what truth is and at different points in time, some facts are the closest to the truth that we can get. Right now, the theory of evolution is the most true. We haven't been able to falsify it in any way and we can use our knowledge of it to make accurate predictions, according to repeated experiments, and mountains of empirical evidence from various scientific disciplines, which allow us to develop medicines and breed animals and explain diseases and literally all of biology. Unless you are a groundbreaking and revolutionary scientist with heretofore unknown knowledge and unprecedented experimentation, you're not going to change that. Evolution simply is the truth.

That being said, this event is about trying to make a silly, manipulative argument for a bad hypothesis specifically- implying that, yes, there are very good hypotheses too. In addition, these people do not promote bad theories, they promote bad, ad hoc hypotheses. A hypothesis is something that needs further research to be determined as fact. A theory is something which has been researched at length and established as fact. There is a huge, huge difference between a theory and a hypothesis. And there is a big difference between a bad hypothesis and a good hypothesis.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually the term theory is often used as a hypothesis. String theory is a perfect example of this. There is no strong evidence for string theory for it to be considered a fact. It is just a hypothesis, but scientists call it a theory.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 2:29:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:02:52 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Actually the term theory is often used as a hypothesis. String theory is a perfect example of this. There is no strong evidence for string theory for it to be considered a fact. It is just a hypothesis, but scientists call it a theory.

That is a really good point. But that'd be a misnomer. It isn't truly a scientific theory in the sense I'm referring to. From my understanding, it takes on a slightly different meaning in physics. True story?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:54:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 2:29:45 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:02:52 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Actually the term theory is often used as a hypothesis. String theory is a perfect example of this. There is no strong evidence for string theory for it to be considered a fact. It is just a hypothesis, but scientists call it a theory.

That is a really good point. But that'd be a misnomer. It isn't truly a scientific theory in the sense I'm referring to. From my understanding, it takes on a slightly different meaning in physics. True story?

This is because string theory is primarily a mathematical endeavour, rather than a scientific one. It's really a mathematical framework which attempts to unify relativity and the standard model.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:37:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.


Evolution is pseudo-science, in my opinion.

A couple of days ago I was reading in the latest Reader's Digest how the human brain evolved like adding scoops of ice cream to a cone. We have the reptilian brain, which has not changed in X years, with a layer of something else on that, and so on. I'm sure you've heard the story, but that's just what it is - a story. The story has not been tested, so it's not science, it's just a hypothesis based on the fact that parts of our brains are similar to reptile brains.

And evolution is just chock full of these delightful stories. Great material for the fantasy section of the library, not for the science shelves.

In my most humble opinion, of course.
This space for rent.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:23:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:54:00 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/19/2014 2:29:45 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:02:52 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Actually the term theory is often used as a hypothesis. String theory is a perfect example of this. There is no strong evidence for string theory for it to be considered a fact. It is just a hypothesis, but scientists call it a theory.

That is a really good point. But that'd be a misnomer. It isn't truly a scientific theory in the sense I'm referring to. From my understanding, it takes on a slightly different meaning in physics. True story?

This is because string theory is primarily a mathematical endeavour, rather than a scientific one. It's really a mathematical framework which attempts to unify relativity and the standard model.

Indeed
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 8:25:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:37:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.


Evolution is pseudo-science, in my opinion.

A couple of days ago I was reading in the latest Reader's Digest how the human brain evolved like adding scoops of ice cream to a cone. We have the reptilian brain, which has not changed in X years, with a layer of something else on that, and so on. I'm sure you've heard the story, but that's just what it is - a story. The story has not been tested, so it's not science, it's just a hypothesis based on the fact that parts of our brains are similar to reptile brains.

And evolution is just chock full of these delightful stories. Great material for the fantasy section of the library, not for the science shelves.

In my most humble opinion, of course.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your opinion is just wrong. Evolution is not pseudo-science. Some people's wrong interpretations of the specific ways in which natural selection has run its course does not invalidate the theory of evolution itself.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:55:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:37:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.


Evolution is pseudo-science, in my opinion.

A couple of days ago I was reading in the latest Reader's Digest how the human brain evolved like adding scoops of ice cream to a cone. We have the reptilian brain, which has not changed in X years, with a layer of something else on that, and so on. I'm sure you've heard the story, but that's just what it is - a story. The story has not been tested, so it's not science, it's just a hypothesis based on the fact that parts of our brains are similar to reptile brains.

And evolution is just chock full of these delightful stories. Great material for the fantasy section of the library, not for the science shelves.

In my most humble opinion, of course.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your opinion is just wrong. Evolution is not pseudo-science. Some people's wrong interpretations of the specific ways in which natural selection has run its course does not invalidate the theory of evolution itself.

There is no theory of evolution, to use 'theory' in the 'scientific method' sense. Nobody has either observed or replicated the evolution of anything, so there's no theory here, just interpretation. You've got a lot of 'same only different', and this has been interpreted as inferring evolution of all extant forms from a common ancestor.

But hey, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Start trying to find where evolution has been proven, not merely speculated and regurgitated as a doctrine, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying eventually. There is so much less than meets the eye to evolutionary research when you start looking under the hood.
This space for rent.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:06:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:55:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
But hey, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Start trying to find where evolution has been proven, not merely speculated and regurgitated as a doctrine, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying eventually. There is so much less than meets the eye to evolutionary research when you start looking under the hood.

Of course someone who thinks that "evolution requires the creation of new states [to be modelled by Markov processes]" would say that 'under the hood' evolution is unproven pseudo-science. You're like a liberal arts major looking at an engine for a giant ON-OFF switch, and after not finding one claiming that there's no way this engine could work.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:35:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:55:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:37:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.


Evolution is pseudo-science, in my opinion.

A couple of days ago I was reading in the latest Reader's Digest how the human brain evolved like adding scoops of ice cream to a cone. We have the reptilian brain, which has not changed in X years, with a layer of something else on that, and so on. I'm sure you've heard the story, but that's just what it is - a story. The story has not been tested, so it's not science, it's just a hypothesis based on the fact that parts of our brains are similar to reptile brains.

And evolution is just chock full of these delightful stories. Great material for the fantasy section of the library, not for the science shelves.

In my most humble opinion, of course.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your opinion is just wrong. Evolution is not pseudo-science. Some people's wrong interpretations of the specific ways in which natural selection has run its course does not invalidate the theory of evolution itself.

There is no theory of evolution, to use 'theory' in the 'scientific method' sense. Nobody has either observed or replicated the evolution of anything, so there's no theory here, just interpretation. You've got a lot of 'same only different', and this has been interpreted as inferring evolution of all extant forms from a common ancestor.

But hey, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Start trying to find where evolution has been proven, not merely speculated and regurgitated as a doctrine, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying eventually. There is so much less than meets the eye to evolutionary research when you start looking under the hood.

You used the word, "proven" again. How do you reconcile that with what I explained the word to mean?

Honestly, you just have faith in what you believe. You really do. That's fine. Have faith in whatever you want. Just admit it. I could give you tons of examples for why evolution is true from so many different angles but it won't change what you believe. It'd be a complete waste of my time.

So let's expedite the process- tell me, what kind of evidence would you need to see? What exactly would convince you that you're wrong? Give an example.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:06:58 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:55:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
But hey, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Start trying to find where evolution has been proven, not merely speculated and regurgitated as a doctrine, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying eventually. There is so much less than meets the eye to evolutionary research when you start looking under the hood.

Of course someone who thinks that "evolution requires the creation of new states [to be modelled by Markov processes]" would say that 'under the hood' evolution is unproven pseudo-science. You're like a liberal arts major looking at an engine for a giant ON-OFF switch, and after not finding one claiming that there's no way this engine could work.

^^^^^^^
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:32:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:35:45 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:55:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:37:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.


Evolution is pseudo-science, in my opinion.

A couple of days ago I was reading in the latest Reader's Digest how the human brain evolved like adding scoops of ice cream to a cone. We have the reptilian brain, which has not changed in X years, with a layer of something else on that, and so on. I'm sure you've heard the story, but that's just what it is - a story. The story has not been tested, so it's not science, it's just a hypothesis based on the fact that parts of our brains are similar to reptile brains.

And evolution is just chock full of these delightful stories. Great material for the fantasy section of the library, not for the science shelves.

In my most humble opinion, of course.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your opinion is just wrong. Evolution is not pseudo-science. Some people's wrong interpretations of the specific ways in which natural selection has run its course does not invalidate the theory of evolution itself.

There is no theory of evolution, to use 'theory' in the 'scientific method' sense. Nobody has either observed or replicated the evolution of anything, so there's no theory here, just interpretation. You've got a lot of 'same only different', and this has been interpreted as inferring evolution of all extant forms from a common ancestor.

But hey, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Start trying to find where evolution has been proven, not merely speculated and regurgitated as a doctrine, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying eventually. There is so much less than meets the eye to evolutionary research when you start looking under the hood.

You used the word, "proven" again. How do you reconcile that with what I explained the word to mean?

Honestly, you just have faith in what you believe. You really do. That's fine. Have faith in whatever you want. Just admit it. I could give you tons of examples for why evolution is true from so many different angles but it won't change what you believe. It'd be a complete waste of my time.

So let's expedite the process- tell me, what kind of evidence would you need to see? What exactly would convince you that you're wrong? Give an example.

Don't bother. Wnope went down this road with v3nesl and when Wnope presented the science behind evolution, v3nesl basically admitted that he doesn't understand it, but continues as if he is this expert in evolution based upon his own research.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:43:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:35:45 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/20/2014 8:55:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/19/2014 8:25:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:37:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.


Evolution is pseudo-science, in my opinion.

A couple of days ago I was reading in the latest Reader's Digest how the human brain evolved like adding scoops of ice cream to a cone. We have the reptilian brain, which has not changed in X years, with a layer of something else on that, and so on. I'm sure you've heard the story, but that's just what it is - a story. The story has not been tested, so it's not science, it's just a hypothesis based on the fact that parts of our brains are similar to reptile brains.

And evolution is just chock full of these delightful stories. Great material for the fantasy section of the library, not for the science shelves.

In my most humble opinion, of course.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your opinion is just wrong. Evolution is not pseudo-science. Some people's wrong interpretations of the specific ways in which natural selection has run its course does not invalidate the theory of evolution itself.

There is no theory of evolution, to use 'theory' in the 'scientific method' sense. Nobody has either observed or replicated the evolution of anything, so there's no theory here, just interpretation. You've got a lot of 'same only different', and this has been interpreted as inferring evolution of all extant forms from a common ancestor.

But hey, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Start trying to find where evolution has been proven, not merely speculated and regurgitated as a doctrine, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying eventually. There is so much less than meets the eye to evolutionary research when you start looking under the hood.

You used the word, "proven" again. How do you reconcile that with what I explained the word to mean?

Honestly, you just have faith in what you believe. You really do. That's fine. Have faith in whatever you want. Just admit it. I could give you tons of examples for why evolution is true from so many different angles but it won't change what you believe. It'd be a complete waste of my time.

So let's expedite the process- tell me, what kind of evidence would you need to see? What exactly would convince you that you're wrong? Give an example.

http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:29:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:35:45 PM, Oryus wrote:

Honestly, you just have faith in what you believe.

No, I'm the one holding out for experimental verification. That's being a scientist.

I remember a line from my freshman physics professor, a guy with several significant patents under his belt: "The correct scientific response to any claim is, 'Bullsh*t! Prove it to me'".

So this idea of trying to shame me into accepting consensus opinion without proof - nice try.

... I could give you tons of examples for why evolution is true from so many different angles

Ok, let's start with one. Why don't you pick what you consider a strong observational or experimental demonstration of evolution and we'll discuss that.


So let's expedite the process- tell me, what kind of evidence would you need to see? What exactly would convince you that you're wrong? Give an example.

Sure - evolve a new organ. I can't really pick a target because evolution creates things that don't currently exist. So I just have to say - construct a pseudo random experiment where something new emerges. And I won't accept a computer simulation or thought experiment (like monkeys typing Shakespeare) - you have to actually evolve something. I mean, we can work with thought experiments here, of course, that's all we have, but we have to be talking about an experiment which could actually be constructed and run, real world (unlike an actual room full of monkeys, for instance, which we both know would never type anything)

One thing I may have to explain here: I separate Darwinian evolution from Mendelian genetics. So things that emerge from existing DNA, I have no quarrel with that. I dispute the notion that truly new things can emerge by accumulation of mutations. I dispute that dinosaurs could invent their own feathers and learn to fly, for instance.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 8:43:58 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

http://www.debate.org...

It was a polite way of calling him out for being full of it, lol. Use a bunch of big words and hope people think that means you know something.

Correlation is not causation. Arranging fossils in a potential sequence, even a correct sequence, does not mean they evolved by an accumulation of mutations. That's all evolution has, is this sort of forensic evidence, but unlike forensics, the alleged causes have never been observed nor demonstrated, so the whole thing is speculation.
This space for rent.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:40:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:33:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/21/2014 8:43:58 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

http://www.debate.org...

It was a polite way of calling him out for being full of it, lol. Use a bunch of big words and hope people think that means you know something.

Actually it wasn't very polite at all. It wasn't polite in the manner of speaking and it wasn't polite because it wasn't constructive. If you had an actual scientific refutation of his statements, why not present them?

You're basically implying here that you do have an understanding, but you just chose to hide it in favor of calling someone out without actually refuting what they said.

Well, here's your chance to shine!

Refute it. Why is it what he said incorrect or meaningless?

Correlation is not causation. Arranging fossils in a potential sequence, even a correct sequence, does not mean they evolved by an accumulation of mutations. That's all evolution has, is this sort of forensic evidence, but unlike forensics, the alleged causes have never been observed nor demonstrated, so the whole thing is speculation.

Actually evolution is primarily based upon genetic analysis (which is what Wnope was talking about) which is supplemented by (but does not depend on) the fossil record.

It seems odd that, if you understood what was being talked about, you would launch into this critique of paleontology when it was genetics a the topic.

Odd.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:43:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:40:49 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

At 8/21/2014 10:33:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Correlation is not causation. Arranging fossils in a potential sequence, even a correct sequence, does not mean they evolved by an accumulation of mutations. That's all evolution has, is this sort of forensic evidence, but unlike forensics, the alleged causes have never been observed nor demonstrated, so the whole thing is speculation.

Actually evolution is primarily based upon genetic analysis (which is what Wnope was talking about) which is supplemented by (but does not depend on) the fossil record.


Yes, and correlation is not causation. Do you understand what that means? If I theorize that daylight brings the sun up, each new sunrise will confirm my hypothesis, won't it? Yet it would be wrong. Light correlates with sun, but does not cause it. It's just the other way around, in fact, even though the earth gets light before the sun appears. Likewise, the fact that genetics between species correlates does not mean one species caused the other. They may both have come from a common but separate cause.

So, on fossils, why don't you say - how does the fossil record show that new species come about by an accumulation of mutations?
This space for rent.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 12:11:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:43:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:40:49 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

At 8/21/2014 10:33:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Correlation is not causation. Arranging fossils in a potential sequence, even a correct sequence, does not mean they evolved by an accumulation of mutations. That's all evolution has, is this sort of forensic evidence, but unlike forensics, the alleged causes have never been observed nor demonstrated, so the whole thing is speculation.

Actually evolution is primarily based upon genetic analysis (which is what Wnope was talking about) which is supplemented by (but does not depend on) the fossil record.


Yes, and correlation is not causation. Do you understand what that means? If I theorize that daylight brings the sun up, each new sunrise will confirm my hypothesis, won't it? Yet it would be wrong. Light correlates with sun, but does not cause it. It's just the other way around, in fact, even though the earth gets light before the sun appears. Likewise, the fact that genetics between species correlates does not mean one species caused the other. They may both have come from a common but separate cause.

So, on fossils, why don't you say - how does the fossil record show that new species come about by an accumulation of mutations?

I'm more interested in hearing your refutation of Wnope's statements.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:29:53 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:35:45 PM, Oryus wrote:

Honestly, you just have faith in what you believe.

No, I'm the one holding out for experimental verification. That's being a scientist.

I remember a line from my freshman physics professor, a guy with several significant patents under his belt: "The correct scientific response to any claim is, 'Bullsh*t! Prove it to me'".

So this idea of trying to shame me into accepting consensus opinion without proof - nice try.

Oh, and since he's not using the colloquial meaning of the word "prove," I guess he was also calling people's claims a literal pile of feces too.

"Try" at what? To help you understand the root of your misconceptions? Sorry, I won't make that mistake again.

... I could give you tons of examples for why evolution is true from so many different angles

Ok, let's start with one. Why don't you pick what you consider a strong observational or experimental demonstration of evolution and we'll discuss that.


So let's expedite the process- tell me, what kind of evidence would you need to see? What exactly would convince you that you're wrong? Give an example.

Sure - evolve a new organ. I can't really pick a target because evolution creates things that don't currently exist. So I just have to say - construct a pseudo random experiment where something new emerges. And I won't accept a computer simulation or thought experiment (like monkeys typing Shakespeare) - you have to actually evolve something. I mean, we can work with thought experiments here, of course, that's all we have, but we have to be talking about an experiment which could actually be constructed and run, real world (unlike an actual room full of monkeys, for instance, which we both know would never type anything)

What you're describing is magic- not evolution. You are seriously saying that evolution is pseudoscience and it's plain to see you don't understand evolution 101.

And you really do not understand the monkey reference either.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols."

It has nothing to do with literal monkeys literally typing. It is a metaphor to explain mathematical principles.

Here are some videos. Some basics. Listen, read up, and then you can be skeptical- when you actually understand something about it and can offer more than incredulity to the discussion. Incredulity is not skepticism.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:10:09 PM, Oryus wrote:
...

Here are some videos. Some basics. Listen, read up, and then you can be skeptical- when you actually understand something about it and can offer more than incredulity to the discussion. Incredulity is not skepticism.


So ya got nuthin. Hey, you're under to obligation to spend time debating me, but ya got nothing, and you respond by being a twerp. It's unsettling to find out that you don't actually know what you're talking about, but learning to deal gracefully with such a realization can be one of those passages to manhood.
This space for rent.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:04:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:36:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:10:09 PM, Oryus wrote:
...

Here are some videos. Some basics. Listen, read up, and then you can be skeptical- when you actually understand something about it and can offer more than incredulity to the discussion. Incredulity is not skepticism.


So ya got nuthin. Hey, you're under to obligation to spend time debating me, but ya got nothing, and you respond by being a twerp. It's unsettling to find out that you don't actually know what you're talking about, but learning to deal gracefully with such a realization can be one of those passages to manhood.

I suppose you don't see the irony of your comment either.

Read books. Seriously. I shouldn't be able to make you look like a fool with the introductory sentences from a wikipedia article.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:07:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 12:11:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:43:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/21/2014 10:40:49 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

At 8/21/2014 10:33:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Correlation is not causation. Arranging fossils in a potential sequence, even a correct sequence, does not mean they evolved by an accumulation of mutations. That's all evolution has, is this sort of forensic evidence, but unlike forensics, the alleged causes have never been observed nor demonstrated, so the whole thing is speculation.

Actually evolution is primarily based upon genetic analysis (which is what Wnope was talking about) which is supplemented by (but does not depend on) the fossil record.


Yes, and correlation is not causation. Do you understand what that means? If I theorize that daylight brings the sun up, each new sunrise will confirm my hypothesis, won't it? Yet it would be wrong. Light correlates with sun, but does not cause it. It's just the other way around, in fact, even though the earth gets light before the sun appears. Likewise, the fact that genetics between species correlates does not mean one species caused the other. They may both have come from a common but separate cause.

So, on fossils, why don't you say - how does the fossil record show that new species come about by an accumulation of mutations?

I'm more interested in hearing your refutation of Wnope's statements.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 2:29:45 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:02:52 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Actually the term theory is often used as a hypothesis. String theory is a perfect example of this. There is no strong evidence for string theory for it to be considered a fact. It is just a hypothesis, but scientists call it a theory.

That is a really good point. But that'd be a misnomer. It isn't truly a scientific theory in the sense I'm referring to. From my understanding, it takes on a slightly different meaning in physics. True story?

In physics -- like all the sciences -- a "theory" is a hypothesis that consistently fits the data and has no data that it does *not* fit with. String theory is a theory in the sense that some versions of string theory seem to fit all the known data. However, it's an *explanatory* theory -- a way to conceptualize the universe so that all the math works out. Physicists don't actually believe the universe is composed of little strings. In fact, we know a lot of our understanding of quantum mechanics and normal physics is "wrong," in the sense that normal physics doesn't apply to the quantum scale and quantum mechanics doesn't apply to larger objects. Until we find a grand unified theory, we won't really understand how the universe really works. But our current models are pretty accurate to explain what we know.

Biology is similar, in the sense that we have models for how the brain works, but they are overly simplistic and often are just models.

Evolution is similar to trying to explain what happened soon after the Big Bang. It is really hard to study because a lot of the evidence is now gone, and it's *different* than other theories because it's trying to explain actual historical events, i.e. what happened in the past.

And as a sidenote, people question whether string theory is even a valid hypothesis (or theory) because it is not falsifiable. There is no real way to test it (at least currently), so there is some contention in scientific circles about whether it is even a proper "theory."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:56:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 2:52:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/19/2014 2:29:45 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:02:52 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
Actually the term theory is often used as a hypothesis. String theory is a perfect example of this. There is no strong evidence for string theory for it to be considered a fact. It is just a hypothesis, but scientists call it a theory.

That is a really good point. But that'd be a misnomer. It isn't truly a scientific theory in the sense I'm referring to. From my understanding, it takes on a slightly different meaning in physics. True story?

In physics -- like all the sciences -- a "theory" is a hypothesis that consistently fits the data and has no data that it does *not* fit with. String theory is a theory in the sense that some versions of string theory seem to fit all the known data. However, it's an *explanatory* theory -- a way to conceptualize the universe so that all the math works out. Physicists don't actually believe the universe is composed of little strings. In fact, we know a lot of our understanding of quantum mechanics and normal physics is "wrong," in the sense that normal physics doesn't apply to the quantum scale and quantum mechanics doesn't apply to larger objects. Until we find a grand unified theory, we won't really understand how the universe really works. But our current models are pretty accurate to explain what we know.

Biology is similar, in the sense that we have models for how the brain works, but they are overly simplistic and often are just models.

Evolution is similar to trying to explain what happened soon after the Big Bang. It is really hard to study because a lot of the evidence is now gone, and it's *different* than other theories because it's trying to explain actual historical events, i.e. what happened in the past.

And as a sidenote, people question whether string theory is even a valid hypothesis (or theory) because it is not falsifiable. There is no real way to test it (at least currently), so there is some contention in scientific circles about whether it is even a proper "theory."

I know, mayng. Context. But the only person I wanted to respond to me did not lol
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 3:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 4:04:53 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/18/2014 3:07:47 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:47:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
This is genius. It's like a convention which is the Onion of science.


There's a grain of truth in all good humor. So I think maybe they are reminding us that most evolutionary science is just story telling. None of the evolutionary stories have ever been proven, but some are better at inventing stories that can't be easily shot down.

No, that's not what it is about at all. This event is partnered with the Bay Area Science Festival http://www.bayareascience.org... and it is funny to all those involved because they are making fun of pseudo-science- not attempting to undermine scientific theories.

From what little you've said here, I can tell that you're conflating "theory" & "hypothesis" and you misunderstand the word "proven." The only actual "proofs" which exist are in math. They can be used in scientific theories, and often are, but they aren't the theories themselves. Science doesn't flip a yes-or-no switch on information like a proof does. It examines to what degree we can trust that something is true according to all the information we have. In that sense, nothing outside math is ever "proven." Ever. But that is the nature of being human. We have limited faculties and resources to investigate what truth is and at different points in time, some facts are the closest to the truth that we can get. Right now, the theory of evolution is the most true. We haven't been able to falsify it in any way and we can use our knowledge of it to make accurate predictions, according to repeated experiments, and mountains of empirical evidence from various scientific disciplines, which allow us to develop medicines and breed animals and explain diseases and literally all of biology. Unless you are a groundbreaking and revolutionary scientist with heretofore unknown knowledge and unprecedented experimentation, you're not going to change that. Evolution simply is the truth.

That being said, this event is about trying to make a silly, manipulative argument for a bad hypothesis specifically- implying that, yes, there are very good hypotheses too. In addition, these people do not promote bad theories, they promote bad, ad hoc hypotheses. A hypothesis is something that needs further research to be determined as fact. A theory is something which has been researched at length and established as fact. There is a huge, huge difference between a theory and a hypothesis. And there is a big difference between a bad hypothesis and a good hypothesis.

I think it's relevant to note that using the theory of evolution as an explanatory framework for something like the evolution of the brain is distinct from creating ad hoc hypotheses since the same mechanisms are used to explain a variety of things so the explanations are, by definition, not ad hoc. This is in contrast with creationism which seems to consist exclusively of ad hoc explanations for any evidence supporting evolution.