Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

Yes, but so is the opposite end of the spectrum, which is that of tearing down the basic method of science just so new modes of thinking can enter it. You don't have to do that. Besides, the best way to show someone up is to beat them at their own game. So if you really want to show them they're wrong, then do it by the very rules they try to adhere to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, assertions of the existence of facts, no facts supplied, no argument from anything excepot authority. You haven't "shown" anything except a selection of quotes from selected authorities. Go back and look at your posts - not a single argument from fact in any of them. You assert, and back your assertions with quoted authority. Selectively quoted, I might add.

You actually believe that the disagreements among scientists from the early days of Darwinian theory are relevant to its status as a theory today. You believe that the competition among scientific theories is essentially political, a struggle for authority and control, that can be reversed or won by arguing from superior authority.

Why do you believe such nonsense? Because you yourself never argue except from authority, and so the invalidity of such argument in this matter invalidates your own. You never argue from facts. And because you pay no attention to anything except authority you have never understood even the most basic features of science as a human activity, let alone Darwinian theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

iceaura...I really don't care what you see as a fact.
I really don't care what you think is an assertion
I don't care if you have a problem with authority or selective quotes.

You actually believe that I care what you think and have chosen to argue or what I assume you call "debating" on your own understanding of things you don't have a well rounded knowledge of.

You offer me this substandard rebuttal in hopes you've shut down my reasoning....intresting. You want to be superior...then be superior....enjoy your superiority over your contemporaries.

In your own paltry way you've no idea how pathetic that really is. This is your squandermania, you created it it's your rules so abided by them, live in it. I don't have to and I will not subject myself to your infantile critically whiny analysis of information you couldn't contest.

If you can't deal with refrences I suggest you get that stick removed and brush up on your scientific history...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The rules of logic were not created on a whim to impress the Greecian women, you know. They are effective tools; I don't think you should so carelessly cast them aside without considering why they exist.

 

History is also an effective tool for teaching and should we decided to sweep it under the rug we are doomed to repeat it in ignorance.

 

I most certainly agree. Which area of history are you referring to here?

 

All history. Thus my refrences.
When I look back on behavior of people in what ever organization if you look back into the past you find connections and better explanations. I've been assisted by individuals and teachers with clear insite on the marcro and mirco evolutionary discussion.

You guys make a lot of excusses to continue to believe in that which has already a considerable amount counter context. I've provided mere sliver of the contention against marcro evolution.

The result is always a redirecting of logic. To fignd a point that does coincide with the theory, never a direct addressing of the information. It's the same everywhere I go.

I'm all ways the ones with the questions...they always go unanswered. And you guys always have a reason (usually) internal to stick with it.

So I except it...I understand...it's comfortable, It's easy to remain at rest. Change is hard and normally next to impossible.

So I don't try...but I know I'm independent and objective of enough to admit when I'm wrong, wrong. But uncontested I'm forced concede to logic.

 

1 in 10 to the 113th power what? 1 in 9 trillion odds of what?

If we have three white balls and one black ball in a jar, and I close my eyes and reach in, I have a 1 in 4 chance of getting the black ball. The other 3 times I get the white ball.

What is the white ball in your numbers?

 

More irrelevance. I have no problem with authority, or history. But you can't make an argument for current scientific validity, or invalidity, from either one. It's impossible. That is not where scientific validity lies. Your repeated attempts demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of scientific inquiry and relevant argument.

The history of the macro/micro debate, however fascinating, has no bearing on its current status as a valid distinction. What Darwin did or didn't think, what forty Nobel prize winners did or didn't say, is completely irrelevant to the current validity (dubious,btw) of the macro/micro distinction.

They were right, or wrong, depending on that validity - not the other way around. Mistakes are mistakes no matter who makes them, in science.

No. I don't. You guessed wrong again.

Actually, in my opinion you seem almost completely without insight or curiosity regarding other ways of thinking than your own, and seldom seem to bother even attempting to understand anything unfamiliar to you. You not only don't care, you don't know what I think. Which is a strange attribute of someone who has appeared to be engaged in several discussions of thought on an online forum.

I have, and others have and will, deal with your few relevant assertions. The one about the odds of spontaneous protein formation during abiogenesis could be handled, for example, by pointing out that the assumptions behind the calculations don't apply and so the math is not only wrong but irrelevant. But that will not matter, because you don't recognize arguments from fact any more than you make them. Since we are not authorities, nothing we say counts.

 

This statement does not seem to reflect history. Science had to go through alot to move away from the norm; and only succeeded *because* of the amount of counter context it had in its favor.

You are arguing on the side that held the power of thought until that evidence was made clear, at which point, your side beheaded people for a while, then finally gave in.

 

It does reflect history but you have to know scientific history to appreciate that. Can you really say that you knew all of these indivduals before I brought them up...do you know there contributions to science.

What is fact? what I can prove? What's established.
I've seen the arguements on these forums they never go anywhere because you're all using your own thinking....I bet none of you are who you say you are, It's not your reputation on the line so you can theorize with impunity. You can suggest and ridicule swat everything down even if there isn't a good reason to do so..

I do not see the Scientific Method being processed through this forum...It's a forum of popularity...it's a reflection of the real world. Popularity counts.

It really doesn't matter that we all believe the same thing...It comes down to how we individual count the variables...not all of know all the variables or know all the variables. I suggest we leave it at that.

 

Saquist, you're smart and you are open-minded. But you are too self-righteous. This is what I gather from discussions with you. You really need to trust other people more. At the moment, the only person you give any amount of credence is yourself. While that is good in that it makes you individualistic, it also blinds you to all the other observations that you can't make, simply because of your limitations as a unique human being. We are all different, we all have our own limitations. By trusting other people (based on their own awareness and lack of intent to decieve) then you could be even smarter than you are now. By accepting their subjective experiences, you allow yourself to gain information that was once locked behind the door of individuality.

I am not saying trust anyone blindly, but rather, trust that the reason they aren't giving in is as strong as your own. You are not absolutely right about everything. In fact, everyone is slightly wrong about everything. No one ever was right. But you can get closer to the truth.

You may try to label me as a scientist, or evolutionist, or as being swayed by the mainstream, but I am no more so than yourself. I do not avidly adopt the latest scientific standard. I do not search for reasons to justify what I believe. I do not choose the people I spend time with based on their beliefs. All my evidence is what comes to me, not what I go to. For the most part, I am motivated to have no preconceived notions, not because I want to, but because I can't help it. The only reason for which I believe anything is that at the moment of recognition or association (to that which it applies) there is a sudden 'click' like a piece of a puzzle falling into place. I cannot explain it other than the feeling of a structure, or shape in my mind which encompasses the entire idea. If it flows cohesively and smoothly, then it is correct.

 

I prefer and have often be called, "overconfident"

I can not. I've learned not to. There are ones that have deceived me in the past One must gain my trust. Those people that do hold my respect have proven to be balanced and repectful of all things. I aspire to this.

I can only say that that is implicitly untrue. Mines is the opinion I'm least likely to hold. I'm always in search of greater understanding. My opinion is commonly wrong, which is what "Saquist means...too be in error." That's how I live in a constant state of recognizing that at any moment I may be wrong, proven wrong.

If the sum of my experiences hadn't molded me to constantly question the status quo I'd likely be as most others here. But I've been molded to research search, correlate and subject the facts to probabilites with the strict black and white conclusions.

Roy trust is perhaps my biggest emotional issue. That's why I feel nothing about what anyone says about me thinks about me...However alarming it may be...but I'm alot like Cho Seng...damage to an extent, fustrated at the world's inqueities...It's a powerful emotion...It's overriding. I relate with him alot. Not with his actions but how he felt. I can't emphase enough how much I've empathized with him. But I've found a control...and a preasure valve.

.

For me most things "Are" until proven otherwise. It's a hard way to view the world. I end up being wrong alot. It's a perspective that requires a lot of revisions.

I can't say the same. Some things I've accpeted other I don't. I have searched for reasons to justify my own beliefe and reasons not to. What you will never get to see is the latter process. I'll never compromise my status quo on an internet forum of debate on the moment I discover I'm wrong. It takes time to arrest and correct a false belief and I do so in private in order to come to grips with the new reality and prepare for a retraction and appology. Whether this is right or not... I don't know. but the process hasn't left me dishonest.

commendable...not to be biased or hostile in someway. I can claim to be exactly that but very often I've already made a preconceived notion. My mind plays out like a court room...my preception is sometimes guilty...sometimes innocent. It dependents on who and what.

The only reason for which I believe anything is that at the moment of recognition or association (to that which it applies) there is a sudden 'click' like a piece of a puzzle falling into place. I cannot explain it other than the feeling of a structure, or shape in my mind which encompasses the entire idea. If it flows cohesively and smoothly, then it is correct.[/QUOTE]

Yes, patterns....I like patterns too. Logic flows in patterns

 

It has nothing to do with my dismissiveness. It has to do with the logical structure of scientific inquiry, and its practice as a human activity. You have not bothered with such matters, assuming your own competence, and this leads you to such absurdities as quoting Fred Hoyle to back your assertions, rather than arguing from fact. You actually believe that quoting Fred Hoyle's favorable opinion increases the dependability or value of your assertions - what it reveals instead is that you don't know where reliability or value lies in scientific reasoning and investigation.

Another example:

Again the focus on authority and superiority, and the dismissal of any actual argument from fact.

What's wrong with his assumptions ? The calculation is impossible without erring in them. In this case, just to mention two of several, he assumes independence of event in the spontaneous formation of sequences of amino acids, which is wrong, and an environment containing such building blocks but without sequencing structures, which is irrelevant. But that is beside the point. The point is you present the calculation as from "a mathematician" as if that were somehow important - you argue from authority, without appearing to comprehend even the simplest of basic facts in the situation.

I have, and others have, in the past, attempted to argue with you on a "college level", debating issues and arguments and implications and so forth, supplying you with facts and references, and been greeted with personal attack in defense of bullet-proof ignorance. There has been no real discussion, from you, to terminate.

 

Saquist, you really should take these comments on board. I am a great admirer of Hoyle (arguably the greatest physicist not to receive a Nobel prize). I share many of his concerns, which he held up till his death, about the likelihood of abiogenesis and lean, with him, towards panspermia as a way out. However, his probability calculations were pure nonsense refelcting either an ignorance (most likely), or a self delusion, as to the way biochemical systems work. If you genuinely seek an understanding of these aspects of abiogenesis, then parroting Hoyle is not the way to go.

 

I standby my arguement. When and if you choose to face it head on is your choice. More importantly these refrences show a commonality of indviduals that have no perceptable motives or connection to each other. I can't say the same thing for the scientific community which is sourced in prestige and career worshiping.

Is this philosophy? You must know from hense forth that I'm not intrested in philosophy.

wrong? according to?

Why is the only point I'm intrested in. The statement above really is irrelevant without answering the why.

an accusation...can you perceive that this means little to me. You're presenting an opinion based not no refrences and facts or factual refrences you're giving your own opinion...you're stressing your own understanding...and "you" in this case is an unidentifiable source with no credentials, no traditionaly published work and no direct affront of the gentlemen and their observances to date...which all correlate with the established facts about mutation.

Mutation has been flagged as a downward trend...However the neo scientific generation reviews evolution it has been taught in college and intermediate educations as a process primarily of mutation. My research has brought me to the conclusion that this downward trend of mutation, this factual less than 1% does not cause radical change in animals. This downward trend hasn't shown a reversal from mostly destructive to mostly constructive. These observations stated by Hoyle, Hitching, and the others reflect as such. The extreme improbability is reflected in that "less than 1%"

I suggest, then, that you cease your pedantic technobabble and endless tantrums an procced to greener pastures.

 

But despite this sudden...calm and rationality, I suspect the calm before the storm. Your word least of all, I can take for face value. icearea presumes to speak as though there has been a mountation of evidnece to counter these simple refrence and correlating facts to the facts of emperical data.

What evidence do you have to show that Hoyle is ignorant? And then so why others substaniated the odds. If you really wish to open the floodgates of truth bring your emperical data that shows some...counterpoint...but you see icearea's bombastic suggestions to the contrary despite his abhorrence of reliance upon "authority" has ineptly substituted himself as the authority, "the voice of experinece" to be listened to. Such hypocrisy deserves only but a mild nodded of acknowledgement before turning away. Note that I've tried to turn away, repeatedly, from both of you. However you seek my attention.

I don't mind listening to you and your comrads in science. But the way I'm acustomed to taking in information is typically without being spit upon. I do not like the taste of your spit in my mouth. I turn away, I do not trust you, If you've spat once you'll do so again....So I brace myself...

Once burned...twice shy...

 

This is commonly called "scientific debate". A way of discussing things where instead of claiming "my daddy is bigger than your daddy", or "my scientist is more right than your scientist", we actually bring up points and counterpoints weighted with evidence to be analyzed and argued by both sides.

 

but often not scientific...
iceaura hasn't set down anything factual, in refrence of science that counters anything...he's given his opinon...Ophiolite has given his "opinion" that Hoyle is wrong...but I see no proof...I see no refrence that directly afronts his conclusion.

You see...I don't know by what means these gentlemen have calculated the stats...they all seem to be close to one another in improbability. So you can imagine that I am curious by what facts have you come to your conclusion that there wrong...

Any FActs?
Any Refrences?