Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 669 of 698 (917628)
04-12-2024 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Taq
04-10-2024 10:48 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Theodoric:
crawl back under your rock troll.
Thank you for yet again another most valuable contribution to this forum.
Tanypteryx:
Common ancestry is not the only possible explanation, but it [common ancestry?] is the only pattern that we see ...
You are saying that common ancestry is an explanation for the common ancestry pattern? Makes totally sense, bro!
Taq:
You would think such a statement would be followed by at least one alternate explanation that predicts a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy.
I would expect you to be able to read what was said next.
Taq:
... and only a nested hierarchy
Explanations often predict more than just one thing or have multiple possible scenarios though. I'm sorry you can't handle reality being not as simple as to fit into your puny mind.
Taq:
Nope, no such explanation.
Denial without any sensible reply.
Taq:
They are clustering based on one or two features while ignoring other features.
You can include as many features as you like.
Taq:
You are simply describing the observation, but you lack any explanation as to why we observe a nested hierarchy instead of the trillions of other possible patterns.
Observed similar features in phenotype and function explain why we expect to find similar sequences in genetic code.
Taq:
There's also no DNA to compare between galaxies, so again, not comparable.
Yeah I see your mindset. You argue that there is no DNA outside of biology, so biology is special and rules that apply in biology, don't need to apply anywhere else. So you go ahead and make up rules as you see fit.
I have no use of your made up rules.
Taq:
A common designer would not be limited to a nested hierarchy. A common designer could mix and match genes and features in a way that easily violates a nested hierarchy.
Any prove of this?
You argue that common ancestry is the only possible explanation, by saying that a designer could mix and match. And you are assuming that a designer would have to do so?
You come up with these unsubstantiated claims and shaky assumptions, to defend your earlier dubious claims.
It's hard for you to stick to facts now, isn't it.
AZ3Paul:
Well, actual hard data has a tendency to do that [do what?] when it is so heavily weighted in the one direction.
Do what?
AZ3Paul:
The anti-science religionist, however, is always looking to hide reality with some smoke and mirrors.
Anti-science is piling up one dubious claim after another, supported only by shaky assumptions, like Taq is doing. Sadly, almost all biologists follow this line of argument.
Making claims like this in the name of science, with these claims having no substantial evidence or prove whatsoever. That is anti-science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Taq, posted 04-10-2024 10:48 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Taq, posted 04-12-2024 11:05 AM sensei has replied
 Message 671 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-12-2024 11:21 AM sensei has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 672 of 698 (917682)
04-13-2024 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by Taq
04-12-2024 11:05 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Tanypteryx:
Common ancestry is not the only possible explanation, but it [common ancestry?] is the only pattern that we see ...
Tanypteryx:
A NESTED HEIRARCHY THAT INDICATES COMMON ANCESTRY IS THE ONLY PATTERN

Tanypteryx:
Nope, I said a nested hierarchy is the only pattern we see and IT (nested hierarchy) is evidence for common ancestry.
You are literally saying that common ancestry is an explanation [for the pattern], and you also literally say that common ancestry is the pattern [explained by common ancestry?].
And then you deny it.
Taq:
1. Why would those similar features fall into a nested hierarchy?
2. Why would this require similar sequence, and why would this sequence also form a nested hierarchy?
3. Why would introns differ more than exons when comparing sequences from those shared genes?
4. Why would the DNA differences between those shared genes have more transitions than transversions?
So your common ancestry claim relies on you not knowing how to answer some questions without common ancestry?
Taq:
You have yet to supply a single explanation for even one of those observations.
Nah, you just reject any other explanation as your standard response, as it does not fit your view. Do I need to remind you?
Taq:
In science, when you have a theory that predicts one thing and that thing is observed it is preferred over a theory that predicts anything and everything.
So first you claimed common ancestry had evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. And now you weaken it down to being the "preferred" theory over others.
Next problem is, you made up how the other theory should be and claimed it predicts anything (rather a straw man tactic). Again, without any substantial proof and only assumptions about some designer according to YOUR view.
Taq:
Then explain how your example of hierarchical clustering in galaxies applies to biology
It is a clustering method. It can be applied anywhere. And no doubt, it is applied in biology as well.
Just google "hierarchical clustering biology" and the first result reads:
"Hierarchical clustering is a simple but proven method for analyzing gene expression data by building clusters of genes with similar patterns of expression."
Taq:
The only shaky assumption I see here is that a designer would be forced to fit separate designs into a nested hierarchy.
Life could be designed as it is, the way it is most logical and most efficient. Like humans could design rooms to have any shape. But like 99% or so of all rooms have rectangular shape. Because it is most efficient, why change something that works?
Finding pattern often indicates intelligence. For that reason even, we send messages into space, related to large prime numbers, as the pattern could be recognized by other intelligent lifeforms in other galaxies.
You think the nested hierarchy is so special. But the pattern is a very common result of most common grouping / clustering methods, also when applied to other things. It does not prove common ancestry at all. You keep insisting that it does, with hopeless attempts, using wild and shaky assumptions and made up ad hoc rules.
So let me ask you, do you have any actual facts to bring to the table, or is this it, personal assumptions and rules, that you apply only when you see fit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Taq, posted 04-12-2024 11:05 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2024 9:45 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 674 by Taq, posted 04-15-2024 10:48 AM sensei has replied
 Message 675 by popoi, posted 04-15-2024 3:46 PM sensei has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 676 of 698 (917771)
04-16-2024 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Taq
04-15-2024 10:48 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Taq:
No. Where did you ever get that idea?
Oh boy, now Taq is starting their denial tactics.
Taq:
The theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the preferred theory.
Another one of your made up rules? What nonsense even.
I'm not even gonna continue arguing against you. You come up with one ad hoc rule after another.
Taq:
Were galaxies intelligently designed which led to the clustering? Or did galaxies evolve through a veritical process of integrating star clusters which causes the clustering?
Wow, you really think these conditions are necessary to be able to use hierarchical clustering? Where do you pull all of your nonsense from?
What scientific experiment have you conducted, that lead to this conclusion?
Taq:
Why would a designer be forced to fit separately created species into a nested hierarchy?
What a nonsense question. Why do you even think that a designer was forced at all?
Taq:
I'm showing you the facts.
Hahahahahhahaha, no you don't.
But please tell me, which scientific experiment has lead to YOUR conclusion that there is no reason for a designer to use similar design across different species?
popoi:
We seem to have a bunch of examples of changing something that works in life though.
Yeah sure, some things are the same for certain reasons, while other things are not.
Taq came with the rule that a designer should make all things differently in different species. Of course, without any scientific experiment to back up this rule of theirs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Taq, posted 04-15-2024 10:48 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by Percy, posted 04-16-2024 6:47 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 679 by Taq, posted 04-16-2024 10:39 AM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 681 of 698 (917804)
04-17-2024 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 679 by Taq
04-16-2024 10:39 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Taq:
According to you, it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if ...
Show me where I said this.
Taq:
Those conditions are what produced the hierarchical clustering in galaxies.
What conditions? You don't even seem to know what you are talking about.
Taq:
You also have failed to explain why ID/creationism would predict a nested hierarchy in biology.
The pattern appears as a result of the clustering method, as I said often enough already. You failed to stick to facts, and brought up one dubious claim after another. And you defend those using shaky assumptions and mad up ad hoc rules.
Taq:
Also, your continued inability to explain why a designer would would be forced to fit life into a nested hierarchy.
Why explain something that is not even true?
Why even think that a designer is forced? Forced by whom?
You make zero sense!
Logically, it's more likely that a designer is free to choose as they please. Not forced at all.
Taq:
All rhetoric and semantics. No data. The usual ID/creationist tactics.
I stick to facts, unlike you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by Taq, posted 04-16-2024 10:39 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Taq, posted 04-17-2024 11:00 AM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 685 of 698 (918536)
05-07-2024 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Taq
04-17-2024 11:00 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Taq:
sensei:
Show me where I said this.
it is nonsense that a theory is the preferred theory if:
1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
...
No, you claimed that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked you for your evidence and reasoning.
You support it by stating that it is the preferred theory.
And yeah, it is nonsense, that being the preferred theory, makes the theory proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is your ad hoc nonsense rule. You have plenty of such rules, and you just cannot stick to facts.
Here, I needed to spell it all out for you yet again. But I doubt, that you will get it now even, as you rarely do.
But let me ask you this. Suppose we find extraterrestrial life. And we analyze life on Earth and the lifeforms we found from other planet(s). And we find that single celled lifeforms on other planets have similarities with those on Earth. Then we could fit all into a single hierarchical tree, could we not?
Would that, in your opinion, prove beyond reasonable doubt, that we share common ancestor with life on those other planets?
If you are consistent in your reasoning, you would not doubt that you are related to the aliens in this case. If you do have doubts for whatever reason, then you gonna have to admit that your whole reasoning that leads to believing in common ancestry, is shaky at best. And that the hierarchical tree itself does not prove common ancestry at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Taq, posted 04-17-2024 11:00 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by AZPaul3, posted 05-07-2024 5:04 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 687 by Taq, posted 05-07-2024 5:09 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 688 by Theodoric, posted 05-07-2024 5:26 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 689 by Percy, posted 05-08-2024 9:14 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 696 by popoi, posted 05-20-2024 11:48 AM sensei has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 691 of 698 (918557)
05-08-2024 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Taq
05-08-2024 10:47 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Taq:
That's not what I said. I said that the theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt makes it the preferred theory.
Yes, that was what you said. If it was not, then your argument was pointless.
Even so, your changed "statement" that the proven theory beyond doubt, is the preferred theory, is not even useful.
If a theory is proven beyond doubt, why even compare to other theories and deciding which is more preferred?
But that was not what you said. You said it was the preferred theory, because you think it makes good or better predictions.
You cannot even follow along with your own line of reasoning.
Taq:
Instead, it would branch off at the very base of the tree of life on Earth.
Exactly, branching off still makes it one tree as a whole. And that does not prove common ancestry with the alien species.
So if any general rule holds, it is that hierachical tree does not always mean common ancestry.
You can continue making up rules and apply them inconsistently, only where it fits your narrative. And then call it evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But those rules don't hold in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Taq, posted 05-08-2024 10:47 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Percy, posted 05-08-2024 3:39 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 693 by Taq, posted 05-08-2024 4:30 PM sensei 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