I Have a Question
So you don't believe humans evolved.
Why?
Explain your reasoning.
Why?
Explain your reasoning.
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
kajira · 31-35, F
@Firefall: What did I say that is dishonest? Certainly I never said I need to personally see anything. If you are attacking me personally (such as the name calling), then you would be more effective if at least you are accurate.
Usually, when someone argues ad hominem, I don't bother to respond, but maybe you can use a second chance. Let's see. Regarding the null hypothesis, I agree it can be structured either way for the purpose of establishing statistical tests, but for the question of evolution it has long been the practice that H0 is "no evolution". For example, we call it the theory of evolution, and not the theory of non-evolution. Given the history of the course of thinking on the topic, it is clear the natural tendency has been to try to establish evidence of evolution as contrary to the assumed H0 -- starting even before Darwin actually. (By the way, I have actually read Darwin's On the Origin of the Species. Have you? If you read Darwin, you will see that even he considered the null hypothesis to be 'no evolution'.)
I suggest you read what I wrote more carefully, and make an argument as opposed to a diatribe I am well versed in the scientific method and epistemology. I expect you appreciate the differences between knowledge and belief.
Usually, when someone argues ad hominem, I don't bother to respond, but maybe you can use a second chance. Let's see. Regarding the null hypothesis, I agree it can be structured either way for the purpose of establishing statistical tests, but for the question of evolution it has long been the practice that H0 is "no evolution". For example, we call it the theory of evolution, and not the theory of non-evolution. Given the history of the course of thinking on the topic, it is clear the natural tendency has been to try to establish evidence of evolution as contrary to the assumed H0 -- starting even before Darwin actually. (By the way, I have actually read Darwin's On the Origin of the Species. Have you? If you read Darwin, you will see that even he considered the null hypothesis to be 'no evolution'.)
I suggest you read what I wrote more carefully, and make an argument as opposed to a diatribe I am well versed in the scientific method and epistemology. I expect you appreciate the differences between knowledge and belief.
