|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: Why would I reject every scientific theory. Because you don't accept theories if they make accurate predictions. You reject theories even when they make accurate predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Baysian approach incorporates multiple predictions from all available data. Including the data you keep wanting to ignore and claim that it is made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
How does the Bayesian approach work with these conditions? By being a buzz word.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: Baysian approach incorporates multiple predictions from all available data. Including the data you keep wanting to ignore and claim that it is made up. You made up the prediction that evolution should produce the same amount of morphological variation in all lineages over the same time period. That's what you made up. If you think I am wrong, then show me the scientific peer reviewed papers that back up the claim that this is a prediction of the theory of evolution. If you want to look at other predictions, then we will. The next piece of evidence is here: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Evolution could have produced spiders with more legs. Yep, and it did, they are called scorpions, centipedes and millipedes, to name three.
Many insects have a lot more legs. Why not spiders?​ Insects have 6 legs and 0, 2, or 4 wings. Any Arthropod with more than 6 legs IS NOT AN INSECT Here you are imagining scenarios of evolution doing something that you seem to think is impossible, but you don't seem to know anything about biology, or paleontology, or genetics, or how the scientific method and supporting evidence works. Why don't you know these most basic facts about biology; we call all arthropods with 8 legs and 2 main body sections Spiders, Insects have 6 legs and many adults also have wings, there are arthropods with many more legs than insects or spiders, but we don't call them insects or spiders because we can recognize that they also form their own clades, like insects and spiders do. Didn't you go to high school, why don't you know these basic facts about biology, especially if you are going to come here and argue about evolution (biology)?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Accurate prediction does not mean that it is a useful prediction.
If a small child eats vegetables, I predict that the child will grow. That is very accurate. Nobody can deny the growth of this child. Problem is, the child would have grown just about the same from eating any other nutritious food. Very accurate prediction but extremely low score on usefulness to determine the childs diet. And a hierarchy is hardly a prediction at all, even. More of an observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
So you decided to miss the point and hide behind labels. Got it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: Accurate prediction does not mean that it is a useful prediction. Based on that logic you should reject all scientific theories.
If a small child eats vegetables, I predict that the child will grow. That is very accurate. Nobody can deny the growth of this child. Problem is, the child would have grown just about the same from eating any other nutricious food. Very accurate prediction but extremely low score on usefulness to determine the childs diet. Then do the same for the nested hierarchy. Show how another process would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. Also, show us why this same process would produce the same pattern of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations as discussed in this thread:EvC Forum: Mutations Confirm Common Descent After that we can move to numerous pieces of evidence, such as the divergence of exons and introns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
I'm saying that evolution would predict a more even distribution than 25 order branches in one group and none in numerous others. But you seem to think such extreme uneven distribution is expected or likely?
That is your problem. You hold on to a theory and don't bother to test it with real and relevant data. Instead, you rather ask countless of questions of why a designer has not done it some other way. Such weak logic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: I'm saying that evolution would predict a more even distribution than 25 order branches in one group and none in numerous others. WHY????
You hold on to a theory and don't bother to test it with real and relevant data. That's exactly what I do in this thread: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Wow, so because some predictions are not useful, all science should be rejected???
I'm done with you. You keep drawing the most ridiculous conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Good luck with your testing. Not that I would attach any value to your findings, as you have proven time and time again that you are incapable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: Wow, so because some predictions are not useful, all science should be rejected??? That's your logic, not mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
sensei writes: Good luck with your testing. Not that I would attach any value to your findings, as you have proven time and time again that you are incapable. Yet another creationist runs away from the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
I look at the whole "tree" of life. Not just one property of nesting, that you seem to be stuck on forever.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024