Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1021 of 1197 (908290)
03-09-2023 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1018 by sensei
03-09-2023 5:51 PM


Re: Typical?
So the claim of observing nested hierarchy is doubtful at best.
No. The data is well documented, the models are well tested and the nested hierarchy is a reality. The only ones who question this are the nut cases seeking to advance their gods. In other words, stupid ID/Creationists.
Then you need to specify before looking at data, what is a hierarchy, in the first place.
No, fool! That is exactly what you DO NOT do. You let the data show what is there. In the case of evolution what we found in the structure of the data is what we have called a nested hierarchy.
You, on the other hand, want to pre-judge the results so you can further your false religious fantasy.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 5:51 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 6:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1022 of 1197 (908291)
03-09-2023 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1018 by sensei
03-09-2023 5:51 PM


Re: Typical?
This new idea of common descent and nested hierarchies.
1837
Anytime you want to start showing us where this is wrong, we're all ears. Just at the moment you're being very boring.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 5:51 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1024 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 6:24 PM Tangle has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 1023 of 1197 (908292)
03-09-2023 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by AZPaul3
03-09-2023 6:19 PM


Re: Typical?
A prediction is done before observation, dumb ape!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by AZPaul3, posted 03-09-2023 6:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1026 by Taq, posted 03-09-2023 6:32 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 1027 by AZPaul3, posted 03-09-2023 6:34 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 1024 of 1197 (908293)
03-09-2023 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1022 by Tangle
03-09-2023 6:22 PM


Re: Typical?
That hand writing is hard to read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2023 6:22 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1025 of 1197 (908294)
03-09-2023 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1020 by sensei
03-09-2023 6:18 PM


Re: Typical?
sensei writes:
Observing patterns in one group of species is hardly sufficient evidence for the nested tree that you draw from your universal common ancestry hypothesis.
You can predict a nested hierarchy from first principles, just as Darwin did. It is no different than Einstein's thought experiments that were used to create predictions of what we should see if relativity is true.
If you think we are wrong, then show us why vertical inheritance, common ancestry, speciation, and mutation should not produce a nested hierarchy.
So no, we have not observed nested hierarchy anywhere higher up, anywhere at significant high enough levels where it really counts.
We do observe a nested hierarchy higher up. It is found in all complex life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 6:18 PM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 1026 of 1197 (908295)
03-09-2023 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by sensei
03-09-2023 6:23 PM


Re: Typical?
sensei writes:
A prediction is done before observation, dumb ape!
Postdictions are just as valid in science. For example, one of the strongest initial pieces of evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity is that it accurately predicted the the already known precession in Mercury's orbit. Newton's laws were not able to explain the precession in the orbit, but Einstein's equations were able to explain it. It didn't matter that the precession was already known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 6:23 PM sensei has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1027 of 1197 (908296)
03-09-2023 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by sensei
03-09-2023 6:23 PM


Re: Typical?
A prediction is done before observation, dumb ape!
Once we have a model, yes. The part you forget is you let the data build the model, then you test the model by making predictions.
Predictions of new data come after the model. Initial data, observation, comes before the model.
So you didn't know this either. You really do know nothing. This dumb ape is smarter than you. No surprise.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 6:23 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1030 by sensei, posted 03-15-2023 8:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1028 of 1197 (908302)
03-09-2023 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 920 by sensei
02-27-2023 1:32 PM


Re: Typical?
Emphasis added by me:
There is evolution from common ancestor by natural processes alone, there is theistic evolution (the idea that evolution was helped along or guided by a deity) and there is seperate creation, where species have not crossed boundaries. And there is Dawkins outer space theory.

If we would find and record species in a lab or on another planet, crossing boundaries that were forbidden by seperate creation, from single cell all the way to variety of complex life forms, then that would be falsification, for example.
What are you talking about? Are you saying the same thing as your fellow creationist here, candle2? -- from his Message 189:
candle2 writes:
True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a
dog. You don't have this.
Also in his Message 43:
candle2 writes:
For example, a pig's offsprings will, and always
has been pigs. The same is true for humans.
Over the decades, I've seen many other creationists repeat that interpretation, usually claiming that evolution would depend on a dog giving birth to kittens or a chimp giving birth to a human.
Since you're a creationist, is that your position too? Why?
If that is not your position, then why not?
Your description is telling us that you do indeed think that evolution would require such "crossed boundaries".
That tells us that you do not know what evolution is nor how it works.
So what the hell are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 920 by sensei, posted 02-27-2023 1:32 PM sensei has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 1029 of 1197 (908307)
03-10-2023 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1020 by sensei
03-09-2023 6:18 PM


Re: Typical?
Observing patterns in one group of species is hardly sufficient evidence for the nested tree that you draw from your universal common ancestry hypothesis.
It is if that "group of species" is all life.
So no, we have not observed nested hierarchy anywhere higher up, anywhere at significant high enough levels where it really counts.
Can you tell us where it breaks down then? Which group of species is such a poor fit for a nested hierarchy? Is there any example which would falsify the notion?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by sensei, posted 03-09-2023 6:18 PM sensei has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 1030 of 1197 (908454)
03-15-2023 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1027 by AZPaul3
03-09-2023 6:34 PM


Re: Typical?
Dumb ape thinks he's smart.
You evolutionist claim that nested hierarchy is predicted by evolution. Worthless claim if you cannot define hierarchy even, before making the prediction.
Still a dumb ape you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1027 by AZPaul3, posted 03-09-2023 6:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1031 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2023 8:06 PM sensei has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1031 of 1197 (908457)
03-15-2023 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1030 by sensei
03-15-2023 8:04 PM


Re: Typical?
Worthless claim if you cannot define hierarchy even, before making the prediction.
We have. You are just too stupid to comprehend.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by sensei, posted 03-15-2023 8:04 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1032 by sensei, posted 03-15-2023 9:20 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 1032 of 1197 (908463)
03-15-2023 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1031 by AZPaul3
03-15-2023 8:06 PM


Re: Typical?
Says the troll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2023 8:06 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1033 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2023 10:30 PM sensei has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1033 of 1197 (908467)
03-15-2023 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1032 by sensei
03-15-2023 9:20 PM


Re: Typical?
Yes, I did say that. And I'll say it again next time you say something stupid.
But, I like the new topic proposal. You draw pretty pictures and all but I'm more interested in what interpretations and conclusions you draw from each chart and from the aggregate.
I look forward to your broadside shot at evolution through manipulation of genetic probability numbers. Of course it's all been tried before and failed but your tack seems interesting.
I await its promotion.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1032 by sensei, posted 03-15-2023 9:20 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by sensei, posted 03-16-2023 5:33 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1034 of 1197 (908472)
03-16-2023 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 866 by Taq
02-21-2023 11:17 AM


Dredge writes:
you know how evolution works, choose one evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe how it happened.
Taq writes:
So the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to evolutionary mechanisms
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself, old chap .... "evolutionary mechanisms" is the best scientific explanation, but you can't prove that that explanation is correct. Claiming, as you do, that your explanation is a proven fact is typical of the lies that Darwinoids tell.
we can even see the transitional steps in the fossil record.
The array of skulls depicted in the image you supplied is meant to portray the
"transitional steps in the fossil record" , but all you've done is provide yet another shameful example of Darwinoid dishonesty.
What Darwinoids don't tell readers about that image is that:
1. Not all the skulls are not found in the fossil record in the same (alleged) evolutionary sequence depicted in the image. The (alleged) evolutionary sequence is therefore patently fraudulent.
2. Some of the skulls are tiny relative to the size of some of the other skulls. It's like comparing the skull of a marmoset to the skull of a gorilla.
3. There is nothing remotely "evolutionary" about the skeletons belonging to any of the non-human skulls in that image ... skeletons that are no closer to human than any of the non-human primates we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 866 by Taq, posted 02-21-2023 11:17 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by Taq, posted 03-16-2023 10:49 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1035 of 1197 (908475)
03-16-2023 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 867 by dwise1
02-21-2023 11:43 AM


unwise1 writes:
BTW, in that video she states outright that the reason she accepts evolution is because of the data -- the data that Dredge keeps trying to deny.
I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has gone thru dramatic changes ... that it has "evolved".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by dwise1, posted 02-21-2023 11:43 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024