Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 4 of 78 (711250)
11-16-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Atheos canadensis
11-15-2013 9:32 AM


Atheos canadensis writes:
If morphology can be used to reliably infer relatedness in the Cat "kind" for example, why can the same method not be used to infer that cats are more closely related to canids than artiodactyls?
I think it's a forced (deliberate) inconsistency. If you ask a creationist, "Which is more closely related, a cat and a dog or a goldfish and a dandelion?" he'll probably answer instinctively, "a dog and a cat."
If you point out that dogs and cats aren't supposed to be related at all....
It's human nature to see patterns whether they're real or not. We see relatedness where there may not be any. Creationists have to work hard at unseeing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-15-2013 9:32 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-16-2013 8:25 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 78 (715552)
01-07-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by AndrewPD
01-07-2014 6:07 AM


AndrewPD writes:
A theory or hypothesis can effect the way you view the evidence and create confirmation bias or limiting paradigms.
The key word there is "you".
In science, "you" is plural. If one person views the evidence and sees relatedness there are forty others viewing the evidence who may or may not see relatedness. For confirmation bias to be a fatal problem, everybody would have to have exactly the same biases, which isn't likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AndrewPD, posted 01-07-2014 6:07 AM AndrewPD 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