Top | Newest First | Oldest First
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
My own small contribution...
[b]Science starts with observation.[/b] We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on [b]demonstrable evidence[/b], they have enormous explanatory power, and that explanation is consistent, comprehensive, and coherent.. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science [b]doesn’t[/b] try to prove that a Theory is correct. [b]Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong[/b], and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Some people claim that the Theory of Evolution is not a real theory because ‘it cannot be falsified’. This is a nonsense. So, what would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Well, if we opened up a stratum of the Earth’s crust that was laid down, say, 100 million years ago and found there the fossilised remains of a modern-day giraffe, then the Theory of Evolution would have a fatal problem. The same would apply if we found fossils out of place in the Earth’s strata. Every single fossil puts the Theory of Evolution at risk, and yet, despite the hundreds of millions of fossils on the record, the Theory still stands. We never see a ‘modern’ rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. The Theory of Evolution is drawn from the evidence… and the evidence we continue to gather consistently fails to falsify it... but we continue to look.
Testing the evidence from which a Theory is developed is complemented by testing the consistency and coherence of the Theory itself (if our Theory is valid, then we should see the following…). This is where science uses the (much-misunderstood) hypothesis.
At its heart, a hypothesis says things like: “because of the evidence we have, the Theory says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. It therefore follows that there will be strong genetic matches between chimps and humans”. Then we examine the genes of both.
It’s worth noting that even at this level we aren’t trying to prove that the hypothesis is correct… we try to show that it’s incorrect. To achieve this, we form a Null Hypothesis, which in this case might be “there are no more similarities between chimps and humans than between any other two species”… and we then try to show that to be the case. This is an important point. We don't try to show that the hypothesis is valid... we try to show that the null hypothesis is valid.
If we cannot show that the Null Hypothesis is correct (i.e. we find that there are, in fact, enormous similarities), then we still don’t say that the hypothesis is correct… we say that we have ‘failed to accept the null hypothesis’. After all, we may have made an error, or missed something, and the next person to test the hypothesis might find reason to accept the null hypothesis.
So science doesn’t try to ‘prove’ its theories are correct, nor does it try to ‘prove’ that the hypotheses that come from those theories are correct. Science collects evidence in an attempt to disprove the theories it has formed from earlier evidence, and tests the validity of those theories by forming and testing hypotheses that would invalidate them.
[b]Science starts with observation.[/b] We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on [b]demonstrable evidence[/b], they have enormous explanatory power, and that explanation is consistent, comprehensive, and coherent.. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science [b]doesn’t[/b] try to prove that a Theory is correct. [b]Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong[/b], and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Some people claim that the Theory of Evolution is not a real theory because ‘it cannot be falsified’. This is a nonsense. So, what would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Well, if we opened up a stratum of the Earth’s crust that was laid down, say, 100 million years ago and found there the fossilised remains of a modern-day giraffe, then the Theory of Evolution would have a fatal problem. The same would apply if we found fossils out of place in the Earth’s strata. Every single fossil puts the Theory of Evolution at risk, and yet, despite the hundreds of millions of fossils on the record, the Theory still stands. We never see a ‘modern’ rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. The Theory of Evolution is drawn from the evidence… and the evidence we continue to gather consistently fails to falsify it... but we continue to look.
Testing the evidence from which a Theory is developed is complemented by testing the consistency and coherence of the Theory itself (if our Theory is valid, then we should see the following…). This is where science uses the (much-misunderstood) hypothesis.
At its heart, a hypothesis says things like: “because of the evidence we have, the Theory says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. It therefore follows that there will be strong genetic matches between chimps and humans”. Then we examine the genes of both.
It’s worth noting that even at this level we aren’t trying to prove that the hypothesis is correct… we try to show that it’s incorrect. To achieve this, we form a Null Hypothesis, which in this case might be “there are no more similarities between chimps and humans than between any other two species”… and we then try to show that to be the case. This is an important point. We don't try to show that the hypothesis is valid... we try to show that the null hypothesis is valid.
If we cannot show that the Null Hypothesis is correct (i.e. we find that there are, in fact, enormous similarities), then we still don’t say that the hypothesis is correct… we say that we have ‘failed to accept the null hypothesis’. After all, we may have made an error, or missed something, and the next person to test the hypothesis might find reason to accept the null hypothesis.
So science doesn’t try to ‘prove’ its theories are correct, nor does it try to ‘prove’ that the hypotheses that come from those theories are correct. Science collects evidence in an attempt to disprove the theories it has formed from earlier evidence, and tests the validity of those theories by forming and testing hypotheses that would invalidate them.
View 1 more replies »
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 I understand that Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and I think that very wise. That is how I study the Bible. That's why I most often by a substantial margin talk to unbelievers rather than believers. Maybe it's because I started my Bible study as an unbeliever attempting to debunk it. It certainly wasn't due to any knowledge on my part of scientific theory.
Regarding big-t and small-t theories, reminds me of a Jordan Peterson video I watched some time ago. I couldn't find it and I don't want to misrepresent him, but as I understand it he was explaining the way science works or its methodology and he pointed out that we don't think like scientists. Even scientists don't think like scientists outside of "the lab" and sometimes they don't think like that in the lab. He gave a pretty convincing explanation of how remarkable science or methodology is and has developed.
Thanks for the examples of what would falsify evolution. That was helpful. Also the Null Hypothesis. I get the strong impression that you don't like for me to question what you say. That you seem to expect me to accept like divine revelation, so I won't bother you with some of the questions I have over what you said about falsifying evolution and Null Hypothesis.
Thanks for the excellent post, I do appreciate the time it took.
Regarding big-t and small-t theories, reminds me of a Jordan Peterson video I watched some time ago. I couldn't find it and I don't want to misrepresent him, but as I understand it he was explaining the way science works or its methodology and he pointed out that we don't think like scientists. Even scientists don't think like scientists outside of "the lab" and sometimes they don't think like that in the lab. He gave a pretty convincing explanation of how remarkable science or methodology is and has developed.
Thanks for the examples of what would falsify evolution. That was helpful. Also the Null Hypothesis. I get the strong impression that you don't like for me to question what you say. That you seem to expect me to accept like divine revelation, so I won't bother you with some of the questions I have over what you said about falsifying evolution and Null Hypothesis.
Thanks for the excellent post, I do appreciate the time it took.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino [quote]expect me to accept like divine revelation[/quote]
On the contrary, I hope that you will challenge and question everything I write. In my professional life I end every meeting with “What if we’re wrong? How would we know?"
On the contrary, I hope that you will challenge and question everything I write. In my professional life I end every meeting with “What if we’re wrong? How would we know?"
Really · 80-89, M
@newjaninev2 What does 'accept like' mean?
The scientific method is a tool by which we attempt to ascertain what is true about the world we live in.
It begins with observation of the world and a question pertaining to it.
From there a hypothesis is formed which can be tested either through experimentation or observation of the natural world.
If the hypothesis cannot be disproved then it is provisionally accepted as accurate.
Most importantly, it must be able to make [i]predictions[/i] about future discoveries or observations.
[quote]I Believe We Were Created[/quote]
Let me begin with the basics.
You accept that a DNA sequencing test can show that you are closely related to your mother, slightly more distantly related to your grandmother and even more distantly related to your great grandmother.
That very same tool is used to show that you are related to chimpanzees (and we'll get into some very challenging evidences for that if you're up to it).
Question: By application of the scientific method, what metric do you apply to determine that the DNA test showing that you are related to chimps differs from the one showing you are related to your mother?
Clarification: Where and HOW do you determine that DNA stops showing relatedness and starts showing a common designer?
It begins with observation of the world and a question pertaining to it.
From there a hypothesis is formed which can be tested either through experimentation or observation of the natural world.
If the hypothesis cannot be disproved then it is provisionally accepted as accurate.
Most importantly, it must be able to make [i]predictions[/i] about future discoveries or observations.
[quote]I Believe We Were Created[/quote]
Let me begin with the basics.
You accept that a DNA sequencing test can show that you are closely related to your mother, slightly more distantly related to your grandmother and even more distantly related to your great grandmother.
That very same tool is used to show that you are related to chimpanzees (and we'll get into some very challenging evidences for that if you're up to it).
Question: By application of the scientific method, what metric do you apply to determine that the DNA test showing that you are related to chimps differs from the one showing you are related to your mother?
Clarification: Where and HOW do you determine that DNA stops showing relatedness and starts showing a common designer?
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]It sounds like you're feeling an adversarial tone where none is intended. Sorry for the misunderstanding.[/quote]
Not adversarial. Very polite and diplomatic. Preaching. No need to apologize. The assumption is mine.
[quote]Didn't i explicitly answer your banana question?
Yes, you are distantly related to a banana.[/quote]
Thank you. Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA? How do we know DNA exists?
This is why I ask. Early 1990s. A case where the deceased victim had been hog tied. Years later (2007) a hair was found in the shoelaces used to bind the victim. DNA testing alleged the hair found was the victim's stepfather. There was only a certain percentage that was conclusive. Plus I find hairs on me all of the time belonging to someone who I have no idea who it is. So, inadmissible in court. So called science has been responsible for putting a lot of innocent people away. Fingerprints and burn patterns, for example. Lie detectors. That's why. It isn't that I reject it, it's that I'm suspicious.
[quote]Do you accept that DNA can show that you are closely related to your mother, more distantly related to your grandmother etc?[/quote]
I don't know. That would depend. First of all I don't need it so it's an Ockham's razor. Secondly I'm ignorant of it so I can't say. Thirdly I've seen how science can be manipulated, misinterpreted, abused and neglected. Fourthly I would want to know if there were a margin of error - what and why that is or is not - Put simply, I doubt it but would need to know more. I would do independent research. I would ask questions of those who could answer them. Honestly. I'm skeptical, so even then I would likely be unsure. But then again, who is ever really completely sure? If they know what they are talking about.
Not adversarial. Very polite and diplomatic. Preaching. No need to apologize. The assumption is mine.
[quote]Didn't i explicitly answer your banana question?
Yes, you are distantly related to a banana.[/quote]
Thank you. Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA? How do we know DNA exists?
This is why I ask. Early 1990s. A case where the deceased victim had been hog tied. Years later (2007) a hair was found in the shoelaces used to bind the victim. DNA testing alleged the hair found was the victim's stepfather. There was only a certain percentage that was conclusive. Plus I find hairs on me all of the time belonging to someone who I have no idea who it is. So, inadmissible in court. So called science has been responsible for putting a lot of innocent people away. Fingerprints and burn patterns, for example. Lie detectors. That's why. It isn't that I reject it, it's that I'm suspicious.
[quote]Do you accept that DNA can show that you are closely related to your mother, more distantly related to your grandmother etc?[/quote]
I don't know. That would depend. First of all I don't need it so it's an Ockham's razor. Secondly I'm ignorant of it so I can't say. Thirdly I've seen how science can be manipulated, misinterpreted, abused and neglected. Fourthly I would want to know if there were a margin of error - what and why that is or is not - Put simply, I doubt it but would need to know more. I would do independent research. I would ask questions of those who could answer them. Honestly. I'm skeptical, so even then I would likely be unsure. But then again, who is ever really completely sure? If they know what they are talking about.
Really · 80-89, M
@AkioTsukino [quote]That would depend .... it's an Ockham's razor.[/quote]
That makes me think of a thought I try to remember in many contexts. I jokingly refer to it as [i]the Even More General Theory of Relativity.[/i]
Stated in full - "It all depends".
That makes me think of a thought I try to remember in many contexts. I jokingly refer to it as [i]the Even More General Theory of Relativity.[/i]
Stated in full - "It all depends".
@AkioTsukino
[quote] Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA?[/quote]
Yes it means that you share DNA but it means that you share more active or "coding" sections of DNA the more closely related you are. You might call it pattern recognition and this similarity in pattern is observably shown to increase the more closely related people are.
That's a paternity test and that test is essentially a dummed down version of the testing used to determine genetic relatedness between other species.
And important thing to remember: This conclusion does not exist in a vacuum. It is one line of evidence which converges on the same conclusion as others. Genetic similarity conforms to a very high degree to the phylogenies that people like Darwin established before we ever discovered genes.
[quote]How do we know DNA exists?
[/quote]
Well it's been observed under an electron microscope, for starters.
Scientists can manipulate it to achieve empirical outcomes in test animals.
But beginning from accepting the premise that DNA is a real thing, is your answer for where and how to draw the line when it stops showing relatedness simply "I don't know"? (valid answer)
[quote] Now, what does that mean? To be related. We share DNA? What is DNA?[/quote]
Yes it means that you share DNA but it means that you share more active or "coding" sections of DNA the more closely related you are. You might call it pattern recognition and this similarity in pattern is observably shown to increase the more closely related people are.
That's a paternity test and that test is essentially a dummed down version of the testing used to determine genetic relatedness between other species.
And important thing to remember: This conclusion does not exist in a vacuum. It is one line of evidence which converges on the same conclusion as others. Genetic similarity conforms to a very high degree to the phylogenies that people like Darwin established before we ever discovered genes.
[quote]How do we know DNA exists?
[/quote]
Well it's been observed under an electron microscope, for starters.
Scientists can manipulate it to achieve empirical outcomes in test animals.
But beginning from accepting the premise that DNA is a real thing, is your answer for where and how to draw the line when it stops showing relatedness simply "I don't know"? (valid answer)
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
If you’re postulating a creator, then the flaws in the human body mean it must be the most incompetent (or sadistic) entity imaginable.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Exactly... they’re distinct. People try to blame science for technologies that are less than desirable, whereas the blame for those technologies lies fairly and squarely with the humans who [i]apply[/i] the science
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Last century, the century before, and the centuries before that, and yet again the conflation of science and technology... what was the point of this rather strange video?
To say that the results of an experiment are unknown before we perform the experiment?
Umm... that’s kind of the reason for the experiment, isn’t it?
To say that the results of an experiment are unknown before we perform the experiment?
Umm... that’s kind of the reason for the experiment, isn’t it?
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
Richard Feynman said it better than I can so here is an extract from one of his talks:
[quote]In general, we look for a new law by the following process; first, we guess it… Then we compute the consequences of the guess… to see what it would imply. Then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience. We compare directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is, to doesn’t make a difference how smart you are or what his name is, its wrong. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]
Source: https://www.mojologic.com.au/speech-32-richard-feynman-the-scientific-method/
Here is the man himself saying it:
[media=https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU]
[quote]In general, we look for a new law by the following process; first, we guess it… Then we compute the consequences of the guess… to see what it would imply. Then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience. We compare directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is, to doesn’t make a difference how smart you are or what his name is, its wrong. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]
Source: https://www.mojologic.com.au/speech-32-richard-feynman-the-scientific-method/
Here is the man himself saying it:
[media=https://youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@ninalanyon Wonderful, isn’t it! One of the clearest, most elegant, and effective explanations I’ve ever seen
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@newjaninev2 His lectures were one of the set books when I studied for my Applied Physics degree in the mid '70s. Feynman was an excellent lecturer and populariser, he had a gift for cutting out what is unnecessary and laying the essence of a problem bare.
I remember that he was asked to consult on the construction of Danny Hillis' Connection Machine (a massively parallel computer). One of the problems that they were having was to do with the speed of communication between parts of the computer. Now Feynman was not an electronics engineer so he applied the tools that he was comfortable with, in this case, differential calculus, and succeeded where Hillis and his team had struggled.
And of course he was called in to the enquiry on the Challenger Shuttle disaster. Then he demonstrated the cause of the failure in a way so simple that a five year old could see it.
I remember that he was asked to consult on the construction of Danny Hillis' Connection Machine (a massively parallel computer). One of the problems that they were having was to do with the speed of communication between parts of the computer. Now Feynman was not an electronics engineer so he applied the tools that he was comfortable with, in this case, differential calculus, and succeeded where Hillis and his team had struggled.
And of course he was called in to the enquiry on the Challenger Shuttle disaster. Then he demonstrated the cause of the failure in a way so simple that a five year old could see it.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@ninalanyon Yes, I remember his work on Challenger... and the attempts to shut him down when it became obvious how appallingly simple and foreseeable the cause had been
ElRengo · 70-79, M
To believe whatever you believe is within your rights.
So I´m not even trying to change your mind.
And I´ll make a very preliminary approach to your "first question" from a top down view as unrelated to other potrential debates.
Method is one needed tool of Science and as other of it´s (also needed) contributing aspects do not define Science by itself (it´s said "needed but not enough").
BTW there is not an only one scientific method.
The confussion about comes from some schools of thought that equates Science mainly with prove what is "known" or believed by other not enterely scientific ways (like ie Popper).
Few scientists think that way.
Being Science mainly research about it´s propper "object" (the natural material world) the specificity of each aspect of such object doesn´t allow only one method.
Just look at the geocentric Ptolemaic system.
It was based in rigurous observation of repetitive "phenomena".
It had a sophisticated mathematical formulation.
It was predictive.
It was useful (navigation and other practices).
AND was ontologically and causally wrong.
Why?
Cos it´s "object" were not a system of material entities, but a phenomenological construct.
Galileo´s one also needed method and observation.
But WHAT to observe had another focus.
The one that makes Science be.
So I know I´m not answering in a way related to your creationist believes nor debating them.
But for the self restricted scope of Science your worries are not mainly wrong or right but a non necessary hiypothesis.
So I´m not even trying to change your mind.
And I´ll make a very preliminary approach to your "first question" from a top down view as unrelated to other potrential debates.
Method is one needed tool of Science and as other of it´s (also needed) contributing aspects do not define Science by itself (it´s said "needed but not enough").
BTW there is not an only one scientific method.
The confussion about comes from some schools of thought that equates Science mainly with prove what is "known" or believed by other not enterely scientific ways (like ie Popper).
Few scientists think that way.
Being Science mainly research about it´s propper "object" (the natural material world) the specificity of each aspect of such object doesn´t allow only one method.
Just look at the geocentric Ptolemaic system.
It was based in rigurous observation of repetitive "phenomena".
It had a sophisticated mathematical formulation.
It was predictive.
It was useful (navigation and other practices).
AND was ontologically and causally wrong.
Why?
Cos it´s "object" were not a system of material entities, but a phenomenological construct.
Galileo´s one also needed method and observation.
But WHAT to observe had another focus.
The one that makes Science be.
So I know I´m not answering in a way related to your creationist believes nor debating them.
But for the self restricted scope of Science your worries are not mainly wrong or right but a non necessary hiypothesis.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo Keep up the sub par work. Your god is a failure and your are still humping it. Too Funny!
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
Whatever.
Whatever.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
The Scientific Method isn’t a method. It’s a [i]methodology,[/i] a collection of methods.
This should give you the general idea:
https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-the-key-to-science/
Note especially that the methodology requires the capacity to be wrong.
That immediately disqualifies religion.
This should give you the general idea:
https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-the-key-to-science/
Note especially that the methodology requires the capacity to be wrong.
That immediately disqualifies religion.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino For example?
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 That's what I'm asking you. If you ask me about religion I can give a detailed history.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino I care not one whit about religion
ElwoodBlues · M
Here it is in the form of a flowchart:
Here's what Feynman said:
Guess --> compute consequences --> compare to nature
NOTE: Compare to nature includes experiment and/or experience and/or observation.
[sep][sep][sep][sep][sep][sep]
Implicit in both these is the notion that the theory must falsifiable. To illustrate that notion, what's a theory that's NOT falsifiable? My favorite is the Flying Spaghetti Monster 'theory': https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
This 'theory' states that the Flying Spaghetti Monster deceives the scientific world, altering the apparent results of experiment and observation. This is possible only because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only all-powerful being, and only all-powerful beings can change careful observations and laboratory results unbeknownst to the scientists; thus showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster must, in fact, exist.
You can't falsify the FSM 'theory' because the FSM is always altering results and observations to suit their whim. Both the true and false branches in the flowchart above are controlled by the whim of the FSM.
Since FSM is NOT falsifiable it doesn't belong in the domain of science. Philosophy perhaps, but not science.
Here's what Feynman said:
Guess --> compute consequences --> compare to nature
NOTE: Compare to nature includes experiment and/or experience and/or observation.
[sep][sep][sep][sep][sep][sep]
Implicit in both these is the notion that the theory must falsifiable. To illustrate that notion, what's a theory that's NOT falsifiable? My favorite is the Flying Spaghetti Monster 'theory': https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
This 'theory' states that the Flying Spaghetti Monster deceives the scientific world, altering the apparent results of experiment and observation. This is possible only because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only all-powerful being, and only all-powerful beings can change careful observations and laboratory results unbeknownst to the scientists; thus showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster must, in fact, exist.
You can't falsify the FSM 'theory' because the FSM is always altering results and observations to suit their whim. Both the true and false branches in the flowchart above are controlled by the whim of the FSM.
Since FSM is NOT falsifiable it doesn't belong in the domain of science. Philosophy perhaps, but not science.
redredred · M
A quick look at the human spine shows there was very little intelligence in the design of it. A first year engineering student could improve on the spine.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@redredred No I want you to design a spine that is superior to the one you are born with. Don't forget you need the strength, flexibility and the conduit capacity including all the in and out nerves. You make the claim you provide the evidence.
redredred · M
@hippyjoe1955 I did say a first year engineering student could. That’s not me. Remember what I told you about careful reading skills? You really should look into it.
BTW, Human designed structures fulfilling the role of a spine are used in robotics all the time.
BTW, Human designed structures fulfilling the role of a spine are used in robotics all the time.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@redredred I used to be an engineer. I can't design a better spine. It is simply too complex and lasts too long for me to make anything better. Amazing bit of engineering indeed. You should study it more before you make a further fool of yourself.
redredred · M
A simple, unbiased look at the human spine will show you that it wasn’t designed by a great intelligence. Physically it is prone to failure snd works much better horizontally than vertically clearly suggesting that humans evolved from a four legged ancestor.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino and yet you talk about ‘evolution versus creationism'.
Am I to take it that approach no longer interests you?
Am I to take it that approach no longer interests you?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@newjaninev2 [b]Am I to take it that approach no longer interests you?[/b]
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 As I explained at the start, it never did interest me. Discourse is a give and take. I wanted a change of pace and thought it only fair to hear you (collective) out. That hasn't changed, but as I also explained from the start, my time is now more limited.
GeniUs · 56-60, M
This:
[media=https://youtu.be/TjxZ6MrBl9E]
I'm not writing it down or paraphrasing it for you, the message is delivered in less than a minute.
[media=https://youtu.be/TjxZ6MrBl9E]
I'm not writing it down or paraphrasing it for you, the message is delivered in less than a minute.
Really · 80-89, M
I definitely believe I have been created; as far as I know by a sexual union enjoyed (or not) by one or both partners. They never discussed that with me. Whether there is a god or other superior entity who designed and created the system that let them do this, I may find out when I die. Or I may never know. So what?
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
Well not saying that there isn't anything spiritual but if you look at the way animals are designed biologically and humans, we don't have effective design systems. So either god was drunk or we weren't created. Even if we were created, that doesn't explain poor design flaws.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino And the mark is defined by... what?
Oh, your particular book! Is that the standard?
if so... why?
Oh, your particular book! Is that the standard?
if so... why?
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 Sort of. The mark was defined to Adam and Eve, according to that book. In that specific case. The standard? Depends. These are just words. God. Hell. Faith. Sin. Evolution. Just words.
The standard. Are you thinking in your quasi-science? Sin just means miss the target, or mark. The Bible says Adam and Eve sinned and we inherit that sinful nature.
The standard. Are you thinking in your quasi-science? Sin just means miss the target, or mark. The Bible says Adam and Eve sinned and we inherit that sinful nature.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Your entire claim rests on the undemonstrated veracity of a book that refers to a magical entity that there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Yes, they’re both Great Apes. These two particular species have very recent Common Ancestry (around 6 million years ago), as do all Great Ape species as we go further back in time
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Diotrephes [quote]in the same environment as the human line[/quote]
In what way the same? We’re talking spans of millions of years. Even a few hundred thousand years gives. completely different world, let alone tens of thousands of millennia [i]e.g.[/i] chimpanzees diverged from our lineage six thousand millennia ago
Primitive? You’re again assuming that Homo sapiens is somehow an ideal towards which all other species should strive... but why would that be so? What’s so special about us, other than that we think we’re special?
Evolution isn’t teleological... [i]there’s no goal,[/i] no ideal anything that it’s trying to reach. Each replication doesn’t need to be the best... it just needs to be good enough.
What’s the ‘old theory’’? I’m confused as to what you mean by that... could you clarify that for me?
In what way the same? We’re talking spans of millions of years. Even a few hundred thousand years gives. completely different world, let alone tens of thousands of millennia [i]e.g.[/i] chimpanzees diverged from our lineage six thousand millennia ago
Primitive? You’re again assuming that Homo sapiens is somehow an ideal towards which all other species should strive... but why would that be so? What’s so special about us, other than that we think we’re special?
Evolution isn’t teleological... [i]there’s no goal,[/i] no ideal anything that it’s trying to reach. Each replication doesn’t need to be the best... it just needs to be good enough.
What’s the ‘old theory’’? I’m confused as to what you mean by that... could you clarify that for me?
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 The old theory says that the great apes had a common ancestor and one branch evolved into humans while the other apes stayed tree swingers.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Diotrephes As I say... the Great Apes have common ancestry at different times over the last 13 million years.
What’s the’ new theory’?
What’s the’ new theory’?
DocSavage · M
Give us a few details first. You believe we were created. What is it that lead you to this conclusion ? Assuming you mean by a superior being with an agenda in which we play a part in, or just for the hell of it ? Does this purpose continue after physical death ? What do I need to refute ?
DocSavage · M
If we were created. God could have done a better job at it.
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Well, Option 3 (common descent during evolution ) offers a complete, comprehensive, and consistent explanation of the evidence.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino [quote]why is the later a better explanation[/quote]
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on [b]exactly the same place on both genomes[/b].
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
____________________________
[i]That’s[/i] why
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on [b]exactly the same place on both genomes[/b].
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
____________________________
[i]That’s[/i] why
BlueSkyKing · M
One of my favorite evidences for not intelligent design is the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/03/02/the-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-as-evidence-for-evolution/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/03/02/the-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-as-evidence-for-evolution/
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino [quote]draw different conclusions than a creationist would[/quote]
In regard to the evidence I have offered to you, feel free, at any time, to offer a complete, coherent, and consistent explanation that isn’t the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
In regard to the evidence I have offered to you, feel free, at any time, to offer a complete, coherent, and consistent explanation that isn’t the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Very small marine organisms, such as plankton, are ideal for showing gradual evolutionary change. There are many billions of them, many with hard parts, and they conveniently fall directly to the seafloor after death, piling up in a continuous sequence of layers. Sampling the layers in order is easy: you can thrust a long tube into the seafloor, pull up a columnar core sample, and read it from bottom to top (our research institutes here in New Zealand do this routinely).
Come to New Zealand and I will show you a two-hundred-meter-long core taken from the ocean floor near New Zealand, presenting an unbroken history of the evolution of the marine foraminiferan [i]Globorotalia conoidea[/i] over an eight-million-year period.
Or you might prefer the eighteen-meter-long core extracted near Antarctica, representing two million years of sediments, showing us, again in an unbroken history, the evolution of the radiolarian [i]Pseudocubus vema[/i]
Or perhaps you’d like to see my personal favourite… a core sample that shows an ancestral plankton species [i]Eucyrtidium calvertense[/i] dividing into two descendants from a common ancestor over 3.5 million years. The new species is [i]Eucyrtidium matuyamai[/i]
Come to New Zealand and I will show you a two-hundred-meter-long core taken from the ocean floor near New Zealand, presenting an unbroken history of the evolution of the marine foraminiferan [i]Globorotalia conoidea[/i] over an eight-million-year period.
Or you might prefer the eighteen-meter-long core extracted near Antarctica, representing two million years of sediments, showing us, again in an unbroken history, the evolution of the radiolarian [i]Pseudocubus vema[/i]
Or perhaps you’d like to see my personal favourite… a core sample that shows an ancestral plankton species [i]Eucyrtidium calvertense[/i] dividing into two descendants from a common ancestor over 3.5 million years. The new species is [i]Eucyrtidium matuyamai[/i]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino In regard to the evidence I have offered to you, feel free, at any time, to offer a complete, coherent, and consistent explanation that isn’t the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
______________________________
In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.
When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply dies after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum, the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.
However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy
Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.
Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.
In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies. The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals.
______________________________
In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.
When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply dies after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum, the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.
However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy
Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.
Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.
In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies. The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals.
AkioTsukino · M
@DocSavage [quote]Ridiculous.[/quote]
What.
[quote]There is only one reason to believe in a god. Ignorance.[/quote]
Okay. Define god. If you can you're not ignorant of the subject. If you can't you are and therefore by your own admission, believe in a god.
What.
[quote]There is only one reason to believe in a god. Ignorance.[/quote]
Okay. Define god. If you can you're not ignorant of the subject. If you can't you are and therefore by your own admission, believe in a god.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Do you understand that what you’re writing is incoherent?
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
Doesn’t answer the question. What does god do for you ? Do you believe in an immortal god, that created the universe with a word ? Does that belief give some sense of meaning or comfort ? Do you believe you’re part of god’s great plan ? Or do you think god will take you and care for your soul after death ? Few people who believe , believe they don’t get something for their faith. You say you want truth, what is it ? What convinces you there’s something more than empty space out there ?
Doesn’t answer the question. What does god do for you ? Do you believe in an immortal god, that created the universe with a word ? Does that belief give some sense of meaning or comfort ? Do you believe you’re part of god’s great plan ? Or do you think god will take you and care for your soul after death ? Few people who believe , believe they don’t get something for their faith. You say you want truth, what is it ? What convinces you there’s something more than empty space out there ?
This message was deleted by its author.
exchrist · 31-35
I agree to the extent our existence was put into motion. The first ever conception was perhaps that initial push, was it initiated of its own accord or not i'm unsure we will ever know.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@exchrist It's said that dogs came from wolves. Do French poodles, pugs, and dachshunds look like wolves?
exchrist · 31-35
@Diotrephes a million years out idk what the wolves originally looked like so idk, but probably not.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@exchrist Dog breeds are very recent, maybe around 36,000 years or even less.
Doomflower · 36-40, M
No.
This message was deleted by its author.
plankter979 · 51-55, M
morons like you are proof that we are the outcome of evolution and not the fruit of a divine creator. QED.
This message was deleted by its author.
NightsWatch · M
Isnt it more like IKEA ....for the parents?
AkioTsukino · M
@NightsWatch [quote]Isnt it more like IKEA ....for the parents?[/quote]
I don't know what this means or who it is addressed to.
Like the avatar, though.
Used a similar image on my Buckethead page.
https://semmelweisreflex.com/archive/songbook/b/buckethead.php
I don't know what this means or who it is addressed to.
Like the avatar, though.
Used a similar image on my Buckethead page.
https://semmelweisreflex.com/archive/songbook/b/buckethead.php
NightsWatch · M
@AkioTsukino 😁 IKEA is a company that sells household products....that oftentimes you have to assemble yourself ... as in the parents making a baby.
Really · 80-89, M
@SemmelweisReflex[quote]I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind][/quote]To what purpose?
Really · 80-89, M
[quote]I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind .... My first question is, what is the scientific method?[/quote]
How's that for a non sequitur!
How's that for a non sequitur!
Alien Robots 🍆
AkioTsukino · M
@Teggy No! Androids. I suppose androids are robots, but there is a distinction there.
Human1000 · M
I don't argue with people who believe shit based on faith -- no point.
This message was deleted by its author.
Really · 80-89, M
@AkioTsukino [quote]Thanks, FukFace. That will save time.[/quote]Not if you keep rabbeting on.
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M
I would have 🍿, but it's been 2 hours! Nothing to say..?
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino and you’re saying that everything and everyone can be those things.
Nice to know.
No use whatsoever, but nice to know
Nice to know.
No use whatsoever, but nice to know
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 No, I didn't say that. I said anything and anyone.
A god is something or someone who is deemed mighty. If someone says Lemmy is a god that means that someone places some might or significance in Lemmy. Lemmy is to that person a god or God. The same goes for any god. Jehovah, Jesus, Satan, Moses, Dagon, Molech, Baal, Zeus, Eric Clapton, Frodo, idols, Kings, Kim Jong-Un, Amaterasu Ōmikami (天照大御神), Tsukuyomi-no-Mikoto (月読命), and Susanoo-no-Mikoto (須佐之男命), et cetera.
A god is something or someone who is deemed mighty. If someone says Lemmy is a god that means that someone places some might or significance in Lemmy. Lemmy is to that person a god or God. The same goes for any god. Jehovah, Jesus, Satan, Moses, Dagon, Molech, Baal, Zeus, Eric Clapton, Frodo, idols, Kings, Kim Jong-Un, Amaterasu Ōmikami (天照大御神), Tsukuyomi-no-Mikoto (月読命), and Susanoo-no-Mikoto (須佐之男命), et cetera.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino 'everything and everyone', but you prefer 'anything and anyone’
Very well...
you’re saying that everything and everyone can be those things.
Nice to know.
No use whatsoever, but nice to know
I fail to see what point you are trying to make in the rest of your comment. It seems to simply repeat your initial claim.
Very well...
you’re saying that everything and everyone can be those things.
Nice to know.
No use whatsoever, but nice to know
I fail to see what point you are trying to make in the rest of your comment. It seems to simply repeat your initial claim.