Creation vs. Evolution page 3

763 posts

Flag Post

In evolution it is advantages to help the weaker if there is a good chance the weaker are your direct family. They cary the same genetic code. Say your mother has the “willing to help others gene” and both you and your brother inherited from her. Now both of you can help each other so that if the chance of reproduction increases by 20% for the other but only decreased by 5% for the one doing the helping the chances of this gene getting passed on are still higher.
Now it can be difficult for animals to see who is and who isn’t family so they sometimes make mistakes in humans it’s usually " the once in my group are my family" however in todays society “the group” means an entire country continent or even the whole world (depending on the individual you can see this when people talk about charities that are far away as being worth less just because it isn’t helping “their people”).

Another advantage is that of friendship. If I help you then we basically make a unspoken agreement that you will help me again in the future so that after that I can help you again. If you get to know someone you are probably willing to do some things for him if he also shows willingness so do something for you you are probably willing to do more for him next time you meet. However if he shows no willingness to do anything nice for you chances are you aren’t going to help him anymore in the future. This reduces both of your chances at reproduction/survival.

 
Flag Post

thijer
You’re thinking in HUMAN terms.
If the “survival of the fittest” was the real drive of survival, then every single individual was supposed to care for oneself first (and basically only).
Anyways, I don’t want to start yet another “bash somebody” argument, so BYE.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:
You’re thinking in HUMAN terms.

… So?

If the “survival of the fittest” was the real drive of survival, then every single individual was supposed to care for oneself first (and basically only).

… I’m pretty sure that’s not what he’s saying.

And that you’re not understanding what we’re saying.

Anyways, I don’t want to start yet another “bash somebody” argument, so BYE.

Oh yes, play victim again, great.

Good God, you’re intolerable.

 
Flag Post

I’m using humans because they are a well known very altruistic creature most other creatures are less social (and you mentioned pensions and charity those are human things so I counter argue by explaining why these things happen). If you want my argument to make sense in the animal kingdom just think of monkeys instead of humans and remove the bit about how our species considers it’s group to be much bigger that it was originally.

 
Flag Post

then every single individual was supposed to care for oneself first (and basically only).

Not really, no. Characteristics that might make you leave a higher amount of children prevail – living in groups and helping each other out makes yourself NOT get killed in the wild.

 
Flag Post

This is again the typical trick of using current facts as “proofs” for past extrapolations.
This is no real proof on itself, though.
Like I’ve read in the OFFICIAL definitions of how scientific method SHOULD work, it says clearly that a hypothesis must LEAD to new data, not vice versa.
And here, it’s based on old data LEADING to new hypotheses, not PROVING it.
But, hey, who cares – as long as we “don’t need G-d”…
Like HERE:

The steps of the scientific method are to:
a. Ask a Question
b. Do Background Research
c. Construct a Hypothesis
d. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
e. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
f. Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A “fair test” occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

Not exactly what happens regarding evolution in general and survival in particular.
[d] and [e] are non-existent in evolutionary researches, OR [a] can’t be “how anything EVOLVED”, cause we don’t see our hypotheses being TESTED by LATER experiments, rather just gathering PAST data.
Hint: If you did make a DIRECTED experiment, as in “the change was predicted and successfully forced by a specified conditional experiment” – I’d speak differently.

 
Flag Post

Somebody, small question, are you currently perceiving yourself to criticise the scientific method within its own reasoning, or based on your own method? In that post it seems you’re doing the former, but from our discussions I usually conclude the latter. If I know that, it’ll allow me to construct a reply.

 
Flag Post

DR
I do wonder how can there be any DIFFERENCE in the PRECISE wording of “d. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. and e. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion.” – where it clearly shows “[old]hypothesis-[new]data-[newest]conclusion”?
It DOESN’T depend on what “method” one is using – it’s a clear “cause-effect”…
Unless you can accuse that site to be anti-scientific – well, I have no clue about that.
And back to my required proof-example:
If you can FORCE a bacteria to EVOLVE to eat new materials, AND you can make it at YOUR whim (not just by “random luck” after a ton of failed experiments) – THEN you can talk of “seeing evolution in practice”.
Until that, your hypothesis isn’t coherent to your data.
(“Maybe if I dial a random number, I’ll call a person I know” – a “try-and-fail-until-success” experiment… Which doesn’t prove any COHERENCE between the hypothesis and the outcome.)

 
Flag Post

If you try to criticise the scientific method from within their own method, then you have misunderstood science and are, as usually is the case, wrongly defining certain concepts within science (remember that you need to use their definitions instead of your own). The things you point out happen for evolution and dinosaurs.

If you criticise it from your own method, then there really is no commentary anyone can give, since obviously we don’t use that method.

 
Flag Post

DR
Mind actually answering my SPECIFIC point, instead of your “propaganda-style” accusations? O_o

 
Flag Post

[d] and [e] are non-existent in evolutionary researches

This is false since you use another definition of “experiment”.

[a] can’t be “how anything EVOLVED”, cause we don’t see our hypotheses being TESTED by LATER experiments, rather just gathering PAST data.

Data from the past is very relevant. I don’t know what your problem is.

Again, my replies depend on whether or not you perceive to criticise the scientific method from within.

 
Flag Post

[E] is there by doing simulations and by looking at micro organisms that are exposed to certain conditions to make them evolve to be better suited for those conditions. Additionally predictions have been made about certain fossils after which said fossils were found this can be considered an experiment that follows the original hypothesis.
Of course if this is your problem how do you propose we do an experiment involving god?

 
Flag Post

DR
I really don’t see how bones (obvious past evidence) can be considered “making an experiment on a hypothesis”.
A correct way would be “we have skeletons of species A and C, and we’re looking for a PREDICTED and CLOSELY DEFINED species B” – so if you find one LATER, and it FITS your PREDICTION, then it’s a valid experiment.
(Not YET proving the whole theory, but is at least a valid evidence.)
Any such examples?
Now, as of TODAY’s evolution – like I said, if you PREDICT that under conditions X, the species Y will gain a DEFINED trait Z – and then it DOES exactly that, this is also a valid experiment.
Any examples of this?
So, I’m waiting for you to provide at least one of each of the above VALID experiments, thus we can talk.
Cause as of now, you weren’t using COHERENT examples, but instead baseless ranting and insults…
WAITING.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

DR
I really don’t see how bones (obvious past evidence) can be considered “making an experiment on a hypothesis”.
A correct way would be “we have skeletons of species A and C, and we’re looking for a PREDICTED and CLOSELY DEFINED species B” – so if you find one LATER, and it FITS your PREDICTION, then it’s a valid experiment.
(Not YET proving the whole theory, but is at least a valid evidence.)
Any such examples?
Now, as of TODAY’s evolution – like I said, if you PREDICT that under conditions X, the species Y will gain a DEFINED trait Z – and then it DOES exactly that, this is also a valid experiment.
Any examples of this?
So, I’m waiting for you to provide at least one of each of the above VALID experiments, thus we can talk.
Cause as of now, you weren’t using COHERENT examples, but instead baseless ranting and insults…
WAITING.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

 
Flag Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nDcN9gRhfw&feature=bf_next&list=PL70E757541E8576D7
At around 3:00 you can see that a prediction has been fulfilled. Somebody613, could stop making yourself look like an illiterate idiot? It’s funny to see you getting owned so many times, but it happens so often that it has become a nuisance. Thanks.

 
Flag Post

I don’t understand how people can blindly accept things from the bible – such as the exodus which has no evidence that can proven to be linked to it – but when it comes to OVER-WHELMING evidence provided by science to back up the theory of evolution, they go “no, not good enough”.
Impossible to argue with these people as they are inconsistent with their standards…hypocritical even. Forget that they even don’t understand science, they’re just not willingly to apply logic and reason.

 
Flag Post

Alright
If bacteria are exposed to a slowly rising degree of penicillin they will gain the trait resistance to penicillin this is a easy to validate experiment (trough one that is not preferred because it makes bacteria resistant to penicillin).

Also the “predictive power” is al about showing that new data as it is revealed fits in with the theory in such a way that you can’t come up with something stupid that so happens to fit al current evidence and say it fits perfectly (often there are hundreds of theories they each make a prediction each of these predictions turns out to be false expect for one maybe two they do another prediction and only one will remain.)

And could you underline where I’m using an insult (in quote)so I can avoid being offensive in the future.

 
Flag Post

FWW
Irrelevant emotions – zero facts.
I’m SPECIFICALLY asking for these FACTS, so they fit what they SUPPOSE to fit, according to OFFICIAL definitions.

thijser
Penicillin-resistance is a good example.
But I wrote while answering JBG (I wrote it before you posted), that I forgot to mention how bacteria mutations aren’t “big enough” to qualify for real macroevolution, unless the changes are hugely morphological, not just chemical or “species”.
Even if you can get a duck from a chicken – this is nearly no proof for getting a chicken from a fish.
Well, not for me at least.
(Not sure what I meant by “insult” – might be mistaking you with someone else – too many simultaneous posters here sometimes. Sorry.)

BB
The video (at around 3:00 like you said) just predicts an EXISTING species – not an EVOLVED one (AFTER that hypothesis was claimed).
This again is using PAST (or PRESENT) data (in this case, a FACT that existed at the moment the hypothesis was made) to be used as a “proof” of also a PRESENT hypothesis.
The above structure clearly demands FUTURE data, though.
The rest of the video is also just considering how PRESENT FACTS can be considered to “show” the “mighty evolution”.
Anyways – NOT what I asked for, cause it has nothing to do with PREDICTING evolution (in-working).
It just predicts that if fact A exists and implies fact B, then we can find out the fact B later on.
But both facts existed when the hypothesis was made, so it only proves that we were IGNORANT of fact B, not that out hypothesis PREDICTED it.
Sounds a bit of semantics, but I was talking about facts that couldn’t be attributed to our ignorance, but rather binary logic of “if A leads to C, we can predict what exactly B is/was”, except B must be caused by an EXPERIMENT (not just found in the nature where it existed already before).
This is what I demand, I hope you got my idea.

JBG
202 is blah-blah-blah.
210 is more precise, so here we go:
1. Africa being the motherland of humanity is a disputable idea, cause it depends on what you call human.
Anyways, moving on.
2. Bacterial mutations – fact, but of a different type.
First, it’s microevolution (let’s say it this way, ignoring “scientific” semantics, ALL bacteria-level evolution is micro, until you can force a single-celled bacteria to upgrade to a multi-celled new type).
Second, it wasn’t PREDICTED as to how EXACTLY they’ll evolve, like I asked in my request.
Again, if you dial a number, you WILL call someone – but can you predict whom EXACTLY?
3. Blah.
4. Semantics and dialing.
5. Nice, though I haven’t seen their prediction itself, so nothing here too.
If you know the details – I’m listening.
6. Needs examples.
7. Again, the exact system here was “A and B are similar through trait X, they experimented and saw that A has trait Y” – so WHAT?
Lacks coherence, like I said before.

COHERENCE, guys, is THE main thing that I’d accept as ANY proof of a “verified hypothesis”.
None yet seen, or at least not in specific examples.

 
Flag Post

I hereby ask every single SDer to completely ignore every single post that somebody613’s ever makes from now on – he just proved to us that he’s ignorant and willing to ignore and manipulate perfect scientific proof so he can reconfirm his flawed personal opinions.

 
Flag Post

No, I just proved that you all CHOSE TO BELIEVE in science, cause you can’t sufficiently PROVE it to someone like me who is SKEPTICAL.
BYE. :DDD

 
Flag Post

somebody, you make up definitions and change definitions all the time.
If you accept archaelogical evidence for the exodus (about which there is none definitive proof) then you should accept also the evidence provided by the same scientific method given for evolution.

You are right, when you said irrelevant emotions…because your emotions are irrelevant to the scientific method, but your emotions are relelvant to you wanting to believe in the myths of the Torah.
Zero fact…you are right there again, zero facts given to prove creationism, zero facts given to undermine the theory of evolution.
Keep up the good work.

 
Flag Post

New data has to be in line with the hypothesis. This data is allowed to come from the past as long as it was unknown to the person who came up with the hypothesis. This is because certain things cannot be experimented upon (for example anything involving the stars).

It also seems you are underestimating how complex micro organisms are. They are quite complex and contain quite complex structures. Just because it’s small doesn’t mean it can’t be complex. However because it’s small it can reproduce several times a day each of these allowing for mutations whereas most macro organisms need at least a week between every generations (so while you can make bacteria resistant to penicillin within a few months it will take a good 20+ years and a very large facility to make a macro organism resistant to a certain type of poison (note more and more rats and mice are becoming resistant against various poisons we have been using around our farms)).

Additionally this is a clear case of “best evidence”. You are saying that evolutionary biologist are wrong because they believe in a theory/hypothesis/theorem that has not made any properly documented and then proven predictions. On itself this would indeed be a point against evolution however no other theory can give us predictions that are then proven to be true for both discoveries made from the past and experiments done for the future while evolution has some experimental proof and quite a lot of data from the past supporting it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

No, I just proved that you all CHOSE TO BELIEVE in science, cause you can’t sufficiently PROVE it to someone like me who is SKEPTICAL.
BYE. :DDD

I choose to believe that you’re not real, you can’t prove that you are to me so therefore you’re not :>

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ayumi_Stocking:
Originally posted by somebody613:

No, I just proved that you all CHOSE TO BELIEVE in science, cause you can’t sufficiently PROVE it to someone like me who is SKEPTICAL.
BYE. :DDD

I choose to believe that you’re not real, you can’t prove that you are to me so therefore you’re not :>

Are you playing with your imaginary friends again xD

 
Flag Post

thijser
I see, at least YOU understand my point (even if you disagree with it).
You see, both of you (with DR) are using the “nothing better to choose from” as a PROOF of it being “the best”.
Basically, you’re NOT saying (nor does DR) that evolution is REALLY PROVED.
No, you’re just saying “from the whole forest of theories humanity concocted ever since, evolution is the least DISproved one”.
Cause if something FAILS to really prove something, yet it does it less often than all other theories – it is NOT a proof that this theory is true, only “we have nothing better”.
While (and I showed you, also many people tried and showed too) the very same data they use to back up the “most probable” theory, can AS WELL (and unchanged) back up at least some of the “religious” (alternative) theories.
Like, the one of the Earth being created old – science can’t disprove it by its current method, and neither can we PERSONALLY (empirically, first-person, whatever you choose to call it) EXPERIENCE the REAL answer.
So, the CHOOSING of one theory over another (science vs religion) is but a matter of OPINION, not FACT.
This is what I so try to SHOW to all those (khm…, bad word) that claim that science KNOWS stuff about past.
It doesn’t – YOU just CHOSE to TRUST its VERSION (each word is crucial).
This is what I wanted to show ever since.
The trolling grounds are open…
(YOU weren’t trolling, I’m just referring to those that can’t digest how their beloved science isn’t omniscient. :DDD)