Get out your Teacher Of The Year ballots, we have a nominee to present! Meet Michelle Meyer, who teaches at a public school, Forest Park Elementary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Her ass is getting sued by the ACLU, and here is why.
“ to be make a rational statement, or a logical one, you have to defend assertions. If you make such an assertion you assume the burden of proof.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“Here are some of my assertions.....I'll reference you to all of your arguments that there is no burden of proof when making such assertions.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“1) Homosexuality is poisonous to society.... etc...”
See, here you’re trolling, even tho believe these statements..... This also doesn’t interest me wrt to this debate- they’re separate issues AND irrelevant to my point.
“If anyone challenges me on any of them I'll just say it's my own opinion, I have no burden of proof to defend anything...”
I can see I’m going to have to wade in where the water’s a bit shallower, so to speak.... no, I edited that bit out. Instead, I will simply use a hammer and hit the nail repeatedly:There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“However without making a rational, logical case for these assertions.... then they are meaningless assertions. It's rambling.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“That is why I used it as an example of where "supporting evidence" tells us... absolutely nothing.”
You misunderstand the nature of supporting evidence. Supporting evidence tells us the earth revolves around the sun. This is viewed as a fact, but it has not been PROVEN. Science doesn’t PROVE things. If I tell you the earth orbits the sun, and you ask me to PROVE it, I will laugh in your face. If you think that makes my assertion meaningless, if you think I am telling you absolutely nothing, then that is because you’ve mistakenly fallen into a mindset of excessively rigid thought patterns. I’m going to take a moment here to emphasize this: I can ONLY offer *supporting evidence* for these assertions: The earth orbits the sun. Evolution occurs. Manmade global warming is real. Christianity has harmful effects on society. Joe Flacco is a top 5 NFL quarterback. Joe Vs the Volcano is the best movie ever made....None of these statements is provable [excepting #2], but the supporting evidence for each varies by degree. It is absolutely *absurd* to demand rigorous proof or even rigorous supporting evidence for anything after #3. But that does not mean they tell us nothing. It means different assertion have different standards of supporting evidence.
“I'm not entirely certain what you were arguing about with "moral relativism". That was not a moral relativist argument.”
Sure as shootin was! You were arguing the context determines the morality of the action. That’s pretty much the definition.
“Absolute morality pertains to right and wrong regardless of what human beings think about it”
“This is why I usually debate one topic at a time”I forgot to point this out to you when you said you’d ‘win’. We are doing different things. I’M having a conversation, YOU’RE having a debate. You can’t win against someone who’s not playing.
“You make a great demonstration of what the philosophy Scientism is. You make arbitrary scientific observations and then form philosophical conclusions. That is why Scientism is a philosophy, and has almost nothing to do with science.If any of your statements were formed into any manner of logical syllogism they would make no sense.”
That is.... [a] true [b] completely irrelevant [c] amusing [d] consistent with every other philosophy.Where to begin? F*ck it, I’ll be brief. I’m not pretending my personal philosophy is scientific, only that it’s rational and well considered.
“but you certainly are not in the area of Logic which is more objective than is "Science".”Semantics. Logic is more ‘objective’ in the sense that it’s not subjective, Science is more ‘objective’ in that it describes and predicts the external world with a higher degree of accuracy.
“[argument about abiogenesis] And therefore what exactly? Therefore there is no God?”
Boy, somebody really did a number on you. Therefore, this EXACTLY: abiogenesis is derived from demonstratable phenomenon. That’s it. One CANNOT derive that there is no God or that other stuff. You’re jumping to conclusions here.
“You make this statement in an absolute vacuum and just leave us hanging as to what it's supposed to prove exactly.”Matt, I realize I say a lot, but I TRY to be precise. I SAID in that post *what*- that abiogenesis is derived from demonstratable phenomenon.
“Your assertion ..... and this is "proof" that we sit here debating today is caused by abiogensis?”Hammer, nail: There is a difference between supporting evidence and proof. I SAID it last post, I’m going to try and be clearer for you- abiogenesis is AN ASSUMPTION, but it’s a leap DERIVED from OBSERVED phenomenon. Doesn’t mean it’s true, it’s just a guess. With supporting evidence.
“This is a complete disconnect in provability.”THAT’S WHAT I SAID!
“Your scientific assertions mean absolutely nothing in answering any of these questions.”Well, no. Abiogenesis is a valid hypothesis regardless of any philosophy. Question: What is the origin of life? Hypotheses: God, abiogensis. Answer? Unknown. Supporting evidence? See above. All that is true whether you’re a scientist, an anarchist, a Christian, whatnot.
“using the logical rules of inference:”See above. Debate, conversation.
“In respect to "Computer programs showing" anything, this is completely absurd. A computer program is going to show you whatever you tell it to.”
I’m sorry, but saying emergent properties are programmed to emerge does not mean that emergent properties are not emergent properties. Is this clear to you? I’m assuming you know chaos theory better than I do.
“Really?? Abiogenesis is derived from a known and demonstratable phenomenon?”YES! I EVEN DESCRIBED THE PHENOMENON! You even discussed them above! Keep up!
“If this is a scientific fact, give me the name of the first species that possessed a rudimentary notion of "love".”
It would be an emergent property.
“It is a completely made-up sequence of causality from inorganic matter to "love".”I’d criticize you for this, but really I’m not above nonsequitor arguments. So I gotta give you kudos. But I won’t bite, I’m not claiming love came from inorganic molecules. Yet.
“then it seems that abiogenesis would be demonstratable.... it is not.”...aaaand here it is, god of the gaps. You’re right, it is *not* demonstratable. Currently. Subject to change as science progresses.
“..... I simply do not get what point this is supposed to make. Perhaps you, as an atheist, have a very different understanding of this story than any Christian theology I have ever heard.”
Damn straight. Bear in mind that just because *I* never heard my take before doesn’t mean I think it hasn’t been considered. But here: God intentionally manipulated Adam and Eve into eating the fruit, then blamed them for it and punished them and all their descendants forever for it. For me, it’s like handing a loaded gun to a 3 year old and then throwing him out into the wilderness when he accidentally shoots someone. So not only did God do it on purpose, he chose one of the worst possible punishments for breaking his arbitrary rule.[1]
“Yes, i know that you're going to claim 'God of the gaps',”
Nyah Nyah.
“There ARE NO GAPS, and never have been.”Well, there HAVE been- evolution covered one. But currently it’s abiogenesis and the big bang theory, plus arguments like the uniqueness of earth and universal constants for human life. These are all, in ESSENCE, gap arguments. ....Logical, like the First Cause or whatever it’s called. These I dismiss as mental exercises, not evidence
“You just dismiss them?”As mental exercises.
“From my standpoint that's like saying "i just dismiss Science and Math".”
That’s because of your profound misunderstanding of science. Science deals with known and measurable phenomenon, posits hypothesis and uses experiments to answer questions. Math is a series of rules that is internally consistent and which has some real world applications.Logic is a set of thought tools. When dealing with reality, things that measure reality trump thought tools designed to help human understanding. Logic doesn’t tell you gravity, math tells you the rate, but it’s science that tells you things fall down.
“You can dismiss them all you want, but from a logical standpoint;”Sorry, but that’s funny. It’s like a chess player yelling ‘checkmate’ to a guy passing by.
“..... there are probably around 20 of such arguments that if the premises are true then everything we know about logic and knowledge tell us that the conclusion must be true.”
You remember how just a bit ago you were harping on about abiogenesis not being demonstratable? Paint me as a ‘show me scientific evidence and I’ll believe it’ guy.
“how Hell somehow leads you to think that the Christian God must be false”Please pay more attention. I said if Hell exists I cannot love God, not that Hell proves God doesn’t exist. It’s a conundrum- I’ve been told/read that if one does not accept Christ into one’s heart, then one will spend an eternity in a lake of fire. But if that’s true, I cannot accept Christ into my heart. I cannot *force* myself to, it would be a lie. I understand there are different theistic opinions on that statement, I’m waiting for y’all to resolve it amongst yourselves.
[1] I understand the concept of free will could be used to counter this argument, but I maintain that free will does not apply when the actors in question are ignorant.
“I think you're trying to change the subject by taking me down a trail about my statement being "moral relativism".
Silly rabbit. The wonder of these forums is that one could discuss multiple things at once, there’s no attempt to distract you.
...I was going to let this slide, but something nagged at me, so I reread it:“show definitively that my statement had nothing to do with "moral relativism".
Okay, What you said originally:
“I would even go further and debate rather "emotional harm" is a good or a bad thing, it all depends on the circumstance.”
What moral relativism is: The context of an action determines its morality. You can offer proofs out the wazoo, but what you *said* was pretty much moral relativism.
“"It's just a conversation" ....That's pretty m uch what I was expecting as far as the argument would go.”
That, of course, is nonsense. If you expected such a thing to be a conversation, then you would not have made the absurd claim that she had to prove her statement.[1] You were playing by rules that we were not and then criticizing us for not playing.
“but if one is a Christian and the other an atheist and the conversation consists of points, counter points and rebuttals; then it is a debate.”
Well. Hammer. Nail. You were playing by rules that we were not and then criticizing us for not playing.
“She made an assertion and you have both failed to defend it.”
Don’t lump ME in. I didn’t care to defend it, I was making an entirely different point.
“Your "supporting evidence" is nothing other than fallacious reasoning.It is an assertion made on anecdotal evidence and cherry picking.”
This is nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is fine unless you’re trying to prove something or do science. It’s how *conversations* work.
“In t he case of Confirmation Bias, you have taken some statistically insignificant, immaterial anecdote that supports your position and claim it is "supporting evidence".”
Now, see, that’s a point, and if I cared about the statement ‘Christianity is a poison’, I’d address it. But MY contention, as I’ve said, is that ‘Christianity does harm and good.’ Your beef here is with TSINB, and she’s gone. If you’d brought THIS up to her earlier instead of trying to logic/debate her, something might have come of it.
“All the other stuff you were talking about "the earth going around the sun" etc etc...."Fallacy of False Analogy"Sorry... those examples are in no way comparable to her assertion.”
Well, wrong. For the simple reason that everything is comparable to everything[2]. And, of course, you missed my point. I was comparing and CONTRASTING the statements.
[1] By ‘you’, I mean a normal rational human being knowledgeable of general social norms. Not ‘you’ as in you specifically, who is at the least disregarding such things.
[2] Yeah, sometimes I get grouchy when people misuse words. Iirc, you get hung up on semantics too, so if you’re going to be precise, be precise.[3][5]
[3] tautological argument.[4]
[4] I think. It doesn’t matter, I was just being facetious. Because in a *debate* with *logic*, that statement is meaningless. But in a *conversation* the meaning is clear. See how that works?
[5] By the by, “iir, you ....” is anecdotal evidence, not empirical. Does that make it useless here?[6]
[6] No, it does not.[7]
[7] Its utility depends entirely on my spotty memory.
“You have failed however to ....demonstrate that this philosophy is logical or rational. “ And you think these posts are long NOW? By the by, logic is a tool, rationality is a process. But rational? I don’t want to dive down the rabbit hole so I’ll excessively oversimplify[1] I see no substantial evidence that God exists. I see several alternative options/explanations. Being an empiricist, I choose the explanation with the most supporting evidence. There is not one whit of that that is irrational. [I wrote this before I saw you dwell on it below. I stand by it, all of the above is rational, regardless of whether it adheres to logic proofs you dwell on].
“Scientism itself is incoherent at its very core, this is why I explicitly claimed in an earlier post that it is a "religion" more than a philosophy” Well, now you’ve just opened a can of worms, because your statement clearly implies that religion is irrational. So you might want to rethink what you’re trying to say. Regardless, ‘rationality’ is not an indicator of religion. I’ve found that a great number of arguments boil down to semantics. So I TRY to use words precisely as they’re defined[2] ‘Philosophy’ and ‘religion’ have different meanings, I’m using the words because there is a substantive distinction between the two.
“...one of the defining tenants of Scientism........ seems to be axiom or philosophical starting point for most atheists.” (Sigh. There are stupid Christians who make stupid arguments, stupid conservatives [for instance, anyone supporting Trump], and stupid atheists. I imagine those feed you soul.) Oh, sorry. I meant I don’t support that statement.
“They believe in this to such an extent that they will start arguing that "science" is superior to math and logic so far as determining "truth".” Not ‘truth’, ‘reality’. Those are two entirely different concepts. Reality is empirical. Science is superior wrt empirical.
“... claim that abiogensis is derived from something "demonstratable". The only thing demonstratable is that this is completley false..... DNA and RNA replication IS IN NO WAY synonymous to saying that anything pertainable to abiogenesis is "demonstratable".” Well, you’re wrong. The hypothesis is this: life originated from organic molecules that self replicated and then self-organized into discrete self-propagating units.This is a HYPOTHESIS, it has NOT been *demonstrated*.What HAS been *demonstrated*: organic molecules such as RNA self replicate. Lipids self-organize. Emergent traits exist. The above hypothesis, right or wrong, DERIVES from the three things that have been demonstrated. That’s how science works, it takes known things and extrapolates. Compare that with the Genesis account. What known, demonstratable things does that derive from?
“You then seemed to imply that because of this example, scientism is derived from things that can be scientifically "demonstratable"". Of course it is. DERIVED from. And just what are derivatives? Summations, extrapolations. Not synonyms or resultant proofs.
“In other words claiming that abiogenesis is a belief that has "demonstratable" pre-conditions (derived from) is completely irrelevant.” Well, that’s just loopy. Sorry. I forget how scientifically illiterate most people are. Pre-conditions are not irrelevant in science. Preconditions are not irrelevant in drawing conclusions.
“Actually with abiogenesis....The only thing that has been demonstrated is that it could not have happened under the conditions that many Scientists believe composed of earlier earth.” This is false. The ONLY thing that has been demonstrated is that it HAS not happened in lab experiments. Since we don’t know exactly how it happened [if it happened], we cannot conclude it could not have happened. Since we don’t know what advances will come, we cannot predict whether we can create life in the lab, nor what conditions will be used.
“Pointing out that some pre-condition for abiogenesis such as DNA replication does absolutely nothing to support the notion of abiogenesis itself.” SMH!! Did you actually write this?[Deep Breath. Mantra: scientifically illiterate. scientifically illiterate. scientifically illiterate. scientifically illiterate]Sorry. Let me be clear- demonstrating a precondition DOES ****SUPPORT*** the notion. In fact, IT’S HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!!!!! I don’t think I’m being clear. Let me try again.IT’S! HOW! SCIENCE! WORKS!
“ the difference between "Necessary" and "Sufficient" conditions in Logic” And THIS is why I dismissed Logic as an excercise. While YOU’RE spouting off about logical fallacies, SCIENTISTS are solving problems by extrapolating from ‘preconditions’ and developing things like Lasers, solar cells, 3-D printers, and nanotechnology. Thank you scientists!
.”you meet a "necssary" condition but fail to demonstrate a "sufficient" condition.” I never claimed, implied, hinted, suggested, or even beamed thoughts into your head that the above were ‘sufficient’. What do they call that, a straw man?
“A more apt scientific kind of anology may be:” Sorry. I’m laughing at you here.
“If one believed that absolute zero were achievable” I wonder if it can be. Matter forms spontaneously. Oh, right, that’s one of your bugaboos. I’m not a physicist, I don’t know all the details or how much evidence they have for it, but I’ve read that in space elementary particles just spontaneously form from nothing. Iirc, they last nanoseconds and coform with antimatter opposites and then cancel each other out. But I’m wondering if that can affect localized energy to such an extent that it prevents absolute zero from being possible.
“You have told me that RNA and DNA replicate, but this would have to be true regardless.” Well, no. I told you they SELF replicate. A God-created model wherein life was formed intact does not require this, it’s possible but not necessary, since preformed life has DNA replication machinery already established. But RNA does not need machinery to replicate, it can do it all by its lonesome. Cellular machinery speeds up the reaction and directs it.
“You at least admit that abiogenesis is an "assumption", but I'm arguing that it is a baseless one.” Yeah, your argument is dumb[3]. Abiogenesis not baseless, it’s not unfounded, it’s merely grossly incomplete/insufficient. What’s more, and this is important, it has more evidence supporting it than the Genesis model. Either could be true, scientists go by best guess. That’s. How. Science. Works.
“Also, there are no "God of the gaps" arguments that have been filled by anything demonstratable” I’m going to concede this merely because I don’t know exactly what claims have been made historically. Nonetheless, your argument against abiogeneis is a God of the gaps argument.
“ and "macro-evolution" is certainly not "demonstratable".” Ah. Hammer, nail. Scientifically illiterate. “Macro” evolution. Note ‘macro’ evolution is an artifical distinction made by antievolutionists to dismiss demonstrated evolution as applicable to speciation, even tho the mechanism is exactly the same. Note also semantics: humans have ‘forced’ evolution through artificial selection and created things like corn, and turned wolves into toy poodles. Humans turning a wolf into a toy poodle in roughly 10 thousand years is NOT ‘demonstratable’ ‘macro’ evolution, but it’s certainly suggestive of it. Note also we’re doing it again with foxes, I imagine since we’re a bit more knowledgeable this time it won’t take 10k years.
“I have no idea how you think The Big Bang Theory fills a "God of the Gaps". “ Oh, no, I’m saying arguments against Big Bang, that it was God, are a god of the gaps. Sorry, I was not clear.
“Also, God DOES have supporting evidence. However, this is getting super long.” Empirical? I suppose it’s possible that some outlier data and spurious results might exist.
“All I can keep doing over and over and over is demand that you take ANY of your beliefs and form them into a logical syllogism.”
Yeah, good luck with that. I’m not playing little logic games[4], I’m explaining my views, and now, apparently also teaching you how science works.
“So long as you realize that if you cannot support this philosophy with any statements of logic then it is not a logical belief system.” Maybe not, but it IS rational.
“1)IF a philosophical view is "rational"", then it must be supported by logic as a necessary condition for being "rational".” Yeah, that doesn’t sound right at all. It sounds like a Godel thing... Logic proves logic is required. In fact, I’d argue that it’s a sufficient but not necessary condition, but I think that’s ANOTHER rabbit hole entirely.
[1] This is neither the sum total of my reasoning nor the sum total of this specific aspect of it. [2] When I’m being serious.[3] Astoundingly dumb. It’s like saying the argument that embryos in test tubes aren’t human lives [because they meet some necessary but not sufficient criteria] is baseless.[4] If this is overly harsh, I sympathize. Your demonstrated nature in this forum suggests such a thing is important to you, I find that it’s inhibiting your comprehension. I don’t have the proper tools to translate, so I’m using common English instead. It’s two entirely different mindsets.
“Hi d bc (what does that stand for?? Just curious).”My initials.“Do you have a name?”No. I never got one.“Do you have a name?”Damon.
“The circumstance DOES matter, even for a moral absolutist.”I have not studied the issue, I have *considered* it. If there is a school of thought that details distinctions I have missed, then I might be wrong. But afaic, if the morality of an action depends on its context, that’s moral relativism. Because then there are not moral absolutes. – I suspect this is another thing which you look at from a philosophical/logical/theistic worldview, and I look at through an empiricist one.
“"Thou shalt not kill" (which the Bible takes pains in clarifying)”You seem like you’ve studied the matter. My bible, which I’ve been told is a lousy translation, merely says not ‘murder’Two different words. What’s the original Hebrew say?
“As you can see, the "circumstance" has absolutely nothing to do with "moral relativism". Any individual circumstance can be determined to be absolutely "moral" or absolutely "immoral"”
By considering the context. The action is the same, the context differs. Is this a semantic argument? Maybe. I mean, killing in self defense os morally acceptable to ME, tho you’d have to convince me it’s *absolutely* morally acceptable[3]. But there are others who think it’s not. More to the point, as an empiricist, I maintain that society determines the morality of any action. [I maintain that’s the case even if God exists.] If society changes/can change morality, can it be said to be absolute?
“"Moral relativism" ONLY has to do with the idea that morality is determined by human beings,”
And then you say that. Again, semantics. God changes his mind about what is morally acceptable[1]. Does that mean his morals are absolutes even if they change, or is your statement wrong?
“An example of moral relativism would be "If Hitler had won WW2 and was successful in killing every single person on Earth who disagreed with him, would the Holocaust have been a good thing because everyone left on Earth then agreed with it?"”
How could we tell? What answer to that could there be? From our standpoint, what he did was horrible. It’s ingrained within us. There’s an argument to be made about genetic instincts existing, such that any human would be repulsed. The existence of sociopaths, who clearly have a neurological defecit wrt morals/empathy, supports that notion.So let’s look at sociopaths. Suppose Hitler had succeeded in creating a Master race of THEM and wiped out all individuals capable of feeling empathy. Now, ask yourself, in THAT world, full of THOSE people, would what Hitler did have been wrong? Not to them. Different mindsets, different morals.
“with the statement that "it would be wrong to kill Hitler",”
Sure it would. He needs to be tortured first. Without certainty that lake of fire exists, we need to make sure he suffers.
[1] This is arguable. Some maintain that Christ dissolved the old Jewish covnenant and that the old rules no longer apply. That wouldn’t necessarily mean *God* changed his morals, but some of those old rules people say no longer apply- like eating shrimp for example, are also called abominations- a moral judgement. Is it okay to do something God has judged to be an abomination simply because the law prohibiting it is not longer valid? [2]
[2] Goes both to why we should not look to the Bible for morality and my assertion that society makes its morals regardless of God.
[3] I left this note last. Upon consideration, consider this: Fred hates Barney. Barney hates Fred. Fred manipulates Barney into picking up a loaded gun with murderous intent, and Fred kills him in self defense. Is this ABSOLUTELY morally acceptable? Preplanned self-defense? The thing with THIS example is I can always imagine circumstances that blur the line even further.
“... as to why you believe in Moral Relativism, which is fine, but you said nothing to prove that circumstance has anything to do with absolute vs relative morality.”
As an empiricist, I can’t prove such a thing. I can deduce that morals are relative, and that what you said *sounded* just like a moral relativist statement. I suppose I should apologize here, I tend to probe with statements like that to get an impression of the reading and writing skills of whom I’m speaking to. I didn’t think you believed in moral relativism, I wanted to see if you realized what you said implied it.
“To a moral absolutist, it is either wrong to kill a person who is about to rape your wife, or it is not.”
What if she asked for it? There are women who have rape fantasies. What if she’s doing it to save your life, or her children’s, in some war torn country? By killing her rapist, you’re condemning her children to death. To a moral relativist, there’s no right answer here, no moral absolute, either action has moral and immoral components. Indeed, virtually all of literature and film from the history of the world explores moral grey areas and ambiguity for a reason.[1]
“So, if you do not believe in moral absolutes, why would you want to torture and kill Hitler?”
Just because I don’t believe in absolutes doesn’t mean I don’t believe in morals. Hitler is morally abhorrent to me and my culture, so much so I’m willing to commit what is normally a morally repugnant act in return [which itself is moral relativist, since torture is immoral.]
“If it is true that men evolved from beasts, why is it not possible that some races are superior to others?”
It’s possible, and here’s where logic and reason can play a wonderful role. Because if some races are superior, and if you accept the premise that empathy and concern are positive traits- which there’s evolutionary evidence for- then it stands to reason that showing such compassion for inferior races is superior than killing them all.And here’s where logic fails too, because if you accept the premise that humans can only grow stronger by culling the weak, it makes moral sense to do that. Two logical arguments, and the solution is found in emotions.
“Prove to me scientifically that the propagation of a superior race is inferior to whatever notions you consider to be "moral" or not in your head.”
We don’t know yet what is superior. Does survival of the fittest play a predominant role, or do herd instincts/compassion? Do we select for geniuses or communal/hive mind brainpower? Since one of the key components to survival is adaptability, shouldn’t we be keeping the gene pool as large as possible? Since morals are what form societies, it seems kinda dumb to toss them aside based on hunches about those things.[2]
“I find it extremely curious that you want to torture and kill someone who violated some notions of morality that you do not even think exist, but at the same time, you could not follow God because he created a place called Hell that you have decided is "bad", even though you don't believe in absolute "good" or "bad".”
One, I do think morals exist, not absolute ones. I will grant you this is a distinction moral absolutists find VERY hard to grasp, so I don’t blame you for this failing. The best analogy I can come up with right now is beauty[3]- each society has different standards of beauty. Just because I think some Chinese guy will find [that woman from Crouching Tiger] more beautiful, while I find Katy Perry more, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in beauty. Two-You might convince me Hell isn’t morally repugnant if it only contained maybe 25 people in total[4]. If one accepts the statement that one will suffer in a lake of fire for not accepting Christ, that means the vast majority of every human that ever lived goes to Hell.[5]Three, if you’re selling me a loving merciful God and one of your main tenets is a place he’s created that tortures people for eternity, I’m not buying, no matter what I might think about Hitler.
“If there is no God, and there is no Hell, every psychopath and sociopath like Hitler, .... they all win.”
Congratulations, you’ve just enumerated one of the two main reasons why mankind invented religion.
“From an atheistic world view, this is all fine, but the notion of Hell bothers you? “
And what standards are there for entrance? As a Christian who believes, I want YOU to consider torturing someone yourself. Then ask yourself what criteria you would have for torturing them for ETERNITY. Does an unrepentant gay man who only ever knew love with another man, who otherwise lived a decent life, does that one sin warrant suffering for ETERNITY? Catholics rightly saw the absurdity of such a thing and invented purgatory.
“They generally argue that people are genetically predisposed to actions and do not even have "free will", but are perfectly willing to punish people for actions that they have no control over and for actions that aren't even really right or wrong.”
Free will is another kettle.
“ it seems you have abandoned trying to defend her assertion”
Well, I never really tried, so I’m not really abandoning.
“your are her offered was "it was just my opinion" and "it was just a conversation" and "she had no obligation to defend it". Not very convincing;”
I can just imagine you arguing football with someone. ‘You cannot PROVE Romo is a better quarterback than Brady, your argument boils down to ‘just my opinion.’‘Go ahead and try that with a Cowboys fan. Go ahead. Just to get the full effect, do it in a bar in Dallas next month.
[1] To which conservatives then whine about ‘immoral Hollywood’, as if it’s not in the very nature of art to explore such boundaries.[2] This is not a proof. Science doesn’t prove things. It’s merely a rational argument.[3] Not a wholly accurate one, beauty seems to have genetic components.[4] rounded down for rhetorical effect.[5] Not counting fetuses, most of whom die before the woman even knows she’s pregnant.
From this: “ incoherent at its very core, this is why I.... claimed...that it is a "religion" more than a philosophy”
That implies religion is irrational.
“All I am saying is that Scientism has more in common with an illogical religion than it does with a philosophy.”
Two necessary components of a religion- belief in a deity and a moral framework. I don’t know “Scientism,” if that’s some official Thing with it’s own website and T-shirt, but as a general concept it has neither of those religious components.
“Scientism scorns logic and it relies on meaningless "observations" that have absolutely norelationship to the conclusions they are meant to support. That is why you are unable to form any of this into any manner of logical syllogism.”
IF there’s some *Official* (TM) Scientism framework, I don’t ascribe to it. I’m not a member. When I said I’m approaching this from a scientist’s standpoint, I meant really as an Empiricist[1] You might have thought I mean Scientism, I didn’t. They might be the same thing, but otherwise I’m not going to defend logical nitpicks of some philosophy I’m not even sure of what its tenants are.From a empiricist’s viewpoint, your statement above is absolute and total rubbish and deserves scorn heaped upon it that the internet is incapable of conveying. Your statement deserves to pose as a female SJW on Reddit. Your statement deserves to walk into a Christian forum with a sign around it’s neck saying it’s a Scientologist. Your statement deserves to post on the latest teen fan site for pop flavor of the month raving about New Kids on the Block.
“There has never been an actual gap covered that science has been PROVEN.”
Since science doesn’t PROVE anything, that’s a safe position to take.
“Whenever atheists want to claim that science covers "gaps" in the origin of anything, they simply concoct some worthless "scientific hypothesis" and then claim "this is the best explanation as of right now" even though there is absolutely no evidence forthe sufficient conditions.”
You don’t sound like you’re up on the history of science vs religion here. And you’re clearly not up on scientific thought.
“For example, proof of a sufficient condition for MACRO evolution (which you seem to deny is even a real term) would be to observe in nature an offspring of ANY living thingthat has more genetic information than its parent AND through subsequent generations this led to some useful physical attribute (or any attribute for that matter).This would be the very minimal evidence; but as it is there is absolutely zero.”
[-] Science doesn’t prove anything.A. Evolution performed in the lab is evidence for large scale evolution.B. Homeobox genes show evidence for large scale physiological changes from single mutations. C. Genetic comparisons between like and unlike species support large scale evolution.D. Genetic duplication of genes and subsequent mutation of those genes is a factual example of an offspring having more genetic information than its parent.E. So when you say there is absolutely no evidence, you are talking out of your ignorant ass.[2]
“There is nothing "coming from nothing". I know you qualified this when you brought it up as an example.”
Actually, it wasn’t an example. I thought briefly after posting that I’d made a mistake in omitting a note to point out to you that it was a conversational aside, a point of interest, and not part of any argument. Then I thought that I was being pessimistic in underestimating the grasp you’d have on a conversation. Silly me.
“Finally, I find it fascinating that you consider millions and millions of people's experience for centuries, even believing to the point of death as "outlier data",yet you don't seem to have a problem with people who believe in abiogenesis or aliens seeding life on earth.”
Well, which millions should I consider? Christians? Muslims? Hindus? Pagans? Flying Spaghetti Monster acolytes? If you’re going to argue that these accounts are empirical evidence, then come up with an empirical test to distinguish between which accounts are acceptable and which are outliers or mistaken.
“You repeating that "this is called science, this is called science, this is called science!" (I'm imagining you were yelling in your head as you wrot e that) does nothing to prove any claim you have made.”I was yelling on the screen. And, of COURSE it does nothing to prove what I said, science doesn’t prove things.To a scientist [not a Scientismist], the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is merely a hypothesis. With lots of supporting evidence[3]. It hasn’t been PROVEN. We deduce it will using evidence and best guesses. That’s what science does. It sees the sun rise every morning, and deduces it will rise again tomorrow. Then it asks why. It comes up with the uproven notion, derived in part from the sun rising every morning, that the earth revolves around the sun. Religion meanwhile, insists the Bible claims the sun revolves around the earth and throws a two hundred year hissy fit. A few hundred years later, scientists have developed the tools and the math to offer LOTS of supporting evidence the earth revolves around the sun. Of course it hasn’t been PROVEN, nobody’s sat in a spaceship above the solar plane and watched if for a year. But we’re pretty sure it’s right.Now, we’ve done pretty much the same thing in labs, and with toy poodles, for evolution. Of course, it hasn’t been hundreds of years, it’s only been 150, and we’ve only had the tools to really investigate it for 40.So I figure it’ll take another 100 or so before religion will stop throwing a hissy fit over THIS and accept it, too.
“and Christianity is not logically incoherent (which it is not)”
Except for the very notion and story of Christ.[4]
“Anyhow, thinks for "teaching" me science.”
Now if only you’d learn it.I can only show you the mountain, I cannot climb it for you.
[1] for the purposes of this discussion I’m only focusing on that one aspect of my beliefs. [2] Especially after chiding me for saying there was no evidence for God. You should be ashamed of yourself.[3] ‘Supporting evidence’ being something you have openly dismissed many times.[4] Tho I’m being a bit harsh. If one accepts the premise that God is just dicking with us for shits and giggles, Christ makes logical sense.
“Yeah....performing in a lab. Did the viruses that they bombarded with radiation .....”
Silly ignorant man. It’s been done many time in many ways, not just with radiation. It’s easy to do, any high school student can evolve things.
“You also claim that you form your beliefs based on emperical observations; but you seem to claim that there is no reason to explain in detail how these "observations"relate to any conclusions at all,”
Explaining inductive reasoning and the entirely of evidence for a theory is beyond the scope of this forum. What’s more interesting here is to note the problems Christians have with evolution, the burden of proof they require.There’s more evidence for evolution than there is for fusion, but claiming the sun is a giant fusion reaction doesn’t get nearly as much shouting and demands for proof.
“This is all fine and good; so long as you understand that your beliefs and opinions do not have any relation what so ever to anything that would be considered "reason".”
By you.Anyone else who ever reasoned in the history of the world would accept these things as reason.[1]
“The example you have is INDUCTIVE reasoning, not DEDUCTIVE”
Okay.
“"Toy poodles?" LOL. This is called Eugenics!”
No, it’s called artificial selection. We changed wolves into toy poodles in less than 10,000 years. Multiply that times THREE HUNDRED. 300 times the morphological differences between a wolf and a toy poodle is MUCH more than the difference between a human and an ape.
“You can breed poodles all you want, they'll never, ever grow wing s!”
Really? Even tho bat wings are physiologically forelimbs stretched with thin skin attached? No new information there, either, just modifications. In fact, there’s little “new information” in most mammals, there’s pretty much just modifications of existing organs. So the difference between a whale and a mouse is just modifications of genes.
“You atheists MUST learn what logic is,”
Or by God you will force us to! Off to the reeducation camp with you!
“You ARE NOT an empiricist, and I could easily prove it.”
Did I say that’s all I was? Did I not say that I was focusing on that one aspect?[2]
“You just made it up, as almost everything you believe, because you want to believe it.”
Congratulations, you’ve just enumerated everything about religion.
“As intricate and nuanced of an argument this is, and as much as it proves, I think we've found ourselves at a place where the conversationis boring.”
You think my great mocking is boring? I’m appalled.
“I'll just leave it at that, and let you have the last word.”
Then I’ll bring it full circle.You got into an argument with TSINB because she said Christianity is a poison to society. Your ramblings provide a clear example of one way how it is.There has been an effort by some Christians, stretching back decades now, to discredit science and scientists because of their -really, there’s no better phrase for it than hissy fit- reaction to evolution.This constant need to discredit science all in the name of fighting evolution has had a profound impact on society, it’s essentially raised people like you, people who don’t accept scientists as figures of authority/learning, who think that they can’t be trusted as a whole to provide us with truths about the world..
Something like 40-60% of the country doesn’t believe in evolution now.That’s a HUGE amount of people who don’t believe in science. Its repercussions are profound, from denial of manmade global warming and the future consequences we’ll have to pay for THAT, to the refusal by conservatives to accept fact based and data driven arguments. All because the very notion of evolution offends them. It’s not even like it’s contradictory to Christianity, many Christians are happy to accept evolution. No, it’s simply because they can’t wrap their minds around the idea of descent of man. THAT’S a poison to society. YOU’RE a prime example of it.
“Your response "... any high school student can evolve things."You're starting to make yourself look really dumb.”
By stating the truth? It’s an easy experiment, all it takes is a couple Petri dishes, some yeast, and different substrates. And a few weeks.
“MY QUESTION WAS:"Did the viruses that they bombarded with radiation to change its genome have progeny that developed into something other than a virus?"”
Oh, sorry, I ignored that entirely because there’s bunches of other ways to evolve things. The answer to your specific irrelevant question is, ‘no’.[1]
“I want a citation to where any species has been evolved in a lab to a point where it is considered another species because of its ability to adapt and survive.”
That’s what YOU want.It’s *exactly* analogous to asking for a citation showing a star was created inside a lab before you deign to believe that the sun is a fusion reaction. It’s *exactly* analogous to insisting a photo of an atom be produced before you deign to believe in current nuclear theory.
“The time for excuses is over, it's time as an "Empiricist" to start backing up the many claims you have made.”
And what do they call this, a category error? (Why I am asking YOU? )To whit: what I have claimed: evolution is verifiable in the lab. There is massive amounts of evidence supporting current theory of evolution, which includes speciation. What YOU have inferred from this: That speciation is demonstratable. If you’re gonna pretend to be all logical, then think clearly, and don’t put words in my mouth.
“The evolution you're talking about which has "more proof than fusion" is not the same evolution that is required to get from a single cell to a human.”
Yes it is. It’s exactly like saying the fusion in a nuclear bomb is not the same as the fusion in the sun because it doesn’t sustain itself for billions of years. YOU’RE insisting it isn’t because you don’t understand the science and you’ve been told by anti-scientists it isn’t. Rather than learning yourself on the matter, you’ve stuck your head in the sand and doubled down on ignorance.
“To get from a single cell to a human, YOU MUST HAVE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.”
Do you know how easy it is to get new genetic information? Every. Single. Mutation. Is. new. genetic. information. But that’s not the argument you WANTED to make, is it?You *wanted* to talk about new information that’s heritable and produces new proteins and such. So, then, to answer THAT: Genes duplicate all the time. You have hundreds of inert copies of genes in your DNA. These all came from functioning copies, in replication errors where part of a chromosome is repeated. These genes are not functional, there’s no selection pressure to keep them from mutating. Every time one mutates, it’s NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.
Matt, if you see me getting a tad frustrated, it’s because what I just explained to you is common knowledge, it completely refutes the tired, ignorant argument you’re throwing at me [new information. Really], and it gets you stuck about three steps behind where the REAL deficiencies in evolutionary theory lie. It also suggests to me that you haven’t done any research at all into the matter, that you’ve glommed on to some creationist web site or read one of the dumb anti-evolution books.
“So, I want 2 things from you.”
A smile and a warm hug?
“So, I want 2 things from you.”
More insightful responses and less glib insults?
“So, I want 2 things from you.”Oh wait you TELL me- to do research that no one has yet achieved because you’re implying that your entire lack of faith in evolution lies in its failure to provide those two very specific things.
Gosh, it almost sounds like, like...A God of the Gaps argument![2]
“ illogical notion of providing "evidence" for necessary conditions but failing to understand in any way whatsoever how this relates to sufficient conditions.”
This is not a failing on MY part. This is a failing of yours, something I’ve pointed out time and again. You are misreading my position, and even the position of science in general, in asking for proof or definitive evidence. YOU are dismissing massive, massive amounts of supporting evidence as irrelevant, and theories which derive from best guesses inductive reasoning as meaningless.
Iow, you are dismissing science in its entirety.It’s sad. I weep for you. And THAT’S how Christianity is poisoning the nation.[4]
“Anything other than citations to the above are just wasting my time.”And not nearly as fun as Angry Birds!
[1] Or, as a scientist would say, ‘None were recorded.’ Since science can’t rule out that radiative bombardment actually did create something new that was short lived and not noticed by the experimenter.
[2] that’s because that’s exactly what it f*cking is. And by God of the Gaps, I mean that you’re arguing against a scientific theory being correct solely because it is not comprehensively supported, and NOT because there’s any contraindicative evidence. [3]
[3] Not technically God of the Gaps, but essentially God of the Gaps, since it’s more like the obverse argument.
“So, are you going to give me a citation proving that speciation occurs where it is demonstrable that an increase in genetic information has occurs,”
I don’t know any citations about speciation. Virtually every single mutation is an increase in genetic information. You want a good example of a long term evolution event with genetic increase in information go to Dawkin’s Greatest Show On Earth, he has a good one.
“How about the bats?”
How about them!
“Give me the link with the name of any species between a rodent and a bat”
I have to admit I was mystified by this at first. I mean, I’m so used to Christian creation apologists whining about the lack of transition fossils I couldn’t figure out why you were seemingly resting your entire belief system on the whole bat/rodent thing. Then it struck me that more and more transition fossils have been found, so as typical in God of the Gaps arguments, the gaps y’all focused on become more narrow. Of course, the issue is entirely irrelevant. From a scientific standpoint, transition fossils are one small aspect of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. They’re just the absolute easiest thing about the whole theory apologists can pick apart. To whit:
“This lack of evidence is so blatant and so obvious that "evolutionists" actually LITERALLY believe that one genetic mutation must have occurred to a rodent and its progeny were born with completely functioning wings. “
aaand here’s the Christian attack on science again. Really, I don’t know ‘evolutionists’, so maybe there’s some cult of them out there somewhere worshiping Satan and drinking Jello shots and listening to rock and roll[1] that might believe that idiocy. But to imply that scientists, simply for lack of evidence, would think such a thing is more than just ignorance or silly posturing, it’s a blatant attempt to undermine science as a whole. I can’t say for sure you’re aware of this, you seem sorta dense about these things, but given your previous dismissal of ‘supporting evidence’ and reliance on esoteric thought experiments to ‘prove’ your position, I’d have to guess you’re in on it.
“such as comparing something that is very EASY to study such as fossils to something completely IMPOSSIBLE to study such as nuclear fusion in the core of the sun”
Sorry, WHAT?Oh, wait, you say it right after:“(fallacy of false analogy).”
And you’re right, you ARE making a false analogy.The proper analogy you COULD make would be to compare studying nuclear fusion in the sun to million-year long speciation events- THOSE are kinda hard to study directly too since we don’t live that long. In this analogy, fossil records would be akin to wavelength readings of the sun used to confirm fusion. You can try to dodge this all you want, but there’s more evidence for evolution than there is that the sun is a giant burning ball of nuclear explosions, but Creationsim apologists don’t get all hissy over the latter.
[1] the reference is dated, but on purpose. The old right wingers nowadays have of course assimilated rock and roll, finding Elvis pleasant to listen to instead of a demonic influence on young girls swayed by moving hips and sexual innuendo. Nowadays, they’re all against rap instead.[2][3]
[2] That note being entirely allegorical to this conversation.
[3] I wait with baited breath what musical genre they’ll be against in another 20 years when they assimilate rap, too.[4]
[4] It’s so HARD being a right winger, you have to be against SO MANY things.
“Yes, once again you give me evidence of a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.”-You asked for an increase in genetic information. Maybe you should be asking for something else if you’re not satisfied with the answer.[1]
“What has never been demonstrated, observed, or proven is a genetic mutation leading to an advantageous attribute that is then propagated in future progeny.”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...See, it’s not only that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re not saying what you think you’re saying.
“The challenge was to...All you did is tell me that number 1 is true”-Because that’s all you asked for. You call it a logic thing, *I* call it an English thing. It’s amusing to me because your retreat away from reality into the more rigid structures of logic SHOULD lead to more precision in your language. But, lacking the proper knowledge of science, you’re incapable of proper framing.
“Remember this "evolution" example is in response to you claiming that evolution filled a gap in relation to "God of the Gaps".”-I’m pretty sure I did not make that claim. Rather, I made the inverse- that, as scientific knowledge of evolution increases, creation apologists concentrate on the remaining, ahrinking gaps in the theory and claim they’re proof/evidence for God. And isn’t that what the whole God of the gaps is, the assumption that science will never be able to fully explain reality[read creation]?
“There have been no such gaps filled in respect to Christianity.”-Of COURSE not, because Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. The only thing that evolution contradicts is a literal interpretation of the Bible- and people who believe in young earth creationism are just plain silly.
“It's just the most glaring example at the failure to provide evidence by the nature-worshipers.”-What a stupid way to put it. First, with ‘failure to provide’ as if it was some failing on their part, like it’s Christians’ fault for failing to provide God in the flesh upon demand. Second, the vast majority of people who believe in evolution are Christians[2], so it’s weird you’re calling them ‘nature worshipers’.
“There are trillions of rodents and bats, many fossils of each but zero fossils of any i ntermediate species. How is this possible?”-Errr, how is this a serious question? Smh. Okay, let’s approach this rigorously. First we need a baseline, so we need to measure the total number of fossils/the total population of each species. [rigorous experimental outline del]... This might take a few million years.... Oh, my point?[3] We do not know enough about evolution, geology, fossils etc, to determine if the lack of fossils in this case is unexpected.
“I find that atheism and scientism are beliefs concocted on some incoherent line of reasoning that's based on about 20% on actual science and about 80% on illogical philosophical conclusions......”-The problem I have with that is that you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of actual science or scientific process. In fact, virtually every statement you’ve made to me relating to science has been both ignorant and antipathetic.
“I can enumerate the actual scientific "facts" you have given me thus far in all of our conversation....Everything else was just mere assertions, speculation, hyperbole, and unprovable hy pothesis.”-Let’s see, you missed : the sun is a massive ball of fusion. Gene duplication reduces selection pressure. Man is causing global warming... ah, this is no fun, trying to remember everything. That’s just a sampling of things you’ve completely ignored in your little hyperbolic rant.
“It seems in your mind, if you are even able to imagine an untestable, unprovable scientific hypothesis, this qualifies as making your world view "scientific".”-The problem I have with that is that you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of actual science or scientific process. In fact, virtually every statement you’ve made to me relating to science has been both ignorant and antipathetic.
“All you do is make excuses as to why none of it can be observed (which is the antithesis of REAL science), why it doesn't need to be logical, and then tell me that I'm "anti-science".”-That’s not ALL I do. I also point out how incredibly silly and illogical the very foundations of your socalled logical/rational religion are, I make lots of jokes, I correct your numerous faults in language, and I TRY to teach you how to hold an actual conversation instead of a debate.
“Dude... I'm not asking for the entire millions of years history to be documented for me. I'm asking for ONE documented case of increased genetic information leading to a physical advantage.”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...You’re welcome.
“Your example of the nuclear fusion of the sun IS a false analogy. With the sun it is completely IMPOSSIBLE to observe the nature of the sun.”-And you think it’s POSSIBLE to observe millions of years of evolution directly? You’re nuts!
“The stuff about Elvis and rap music is really starting to fly off the rails.Not sure the point you're attempting to make.”-I know. It was an allegory. Those seem to fly right over your head.[4]
“If there were people who predicted that the direction of music at the time was inevitably heading toward violence, illicit activity, and complete sexual promiscuity; it appears they were right.”-You think that’s what rap is? Matt, meet P.M. Dawn. You’re welcome.
[1] I’ve decided at this point to stop helping you by answering what you’re trying to ask. Learn to frame a question.
[2]At least in the US, I’m not going to go and do polls in China or India etc.
[3] I’ve given up thinking you can get it on your own.
[4] Allegorical to creation apologists’ objections then acceptance of heliocentrism, and their objections and future acceptance of evolution, and wondering what the next scientific theory they object to will be.
“This is taken from the original challenge:....I want a citation to where any species has been evolved in a lab to a point where it is considered another species because of its ability to adapt and survive.”-Okay, you want to keep changing the goal post, that’s fine. I’ve dealt with your silly ‘more genetic information’ question.
I’ve answered this one before too, but not directly. So, directly:Bacteria [and amoeba, iirc] are generally not considered species, since they exchange genetic information between dissimilar types. Iow, there’s no way to classify them into species. The amount of evolution in a lab to make a separate species out of them will be about 1-2 billion years, minus whatever time forcing things makes up for. We have not been forcing evolution in labs for close to 1 billion years. Yet.So your request for a citation is a BIT premature. So perhaps we can move up the evolutionary ladder a bit, huh? To my knowledge, the next most popular subjects to lab experiments are nematodes, fruit flies, and mice. I’m not up un research with these, but a quick search showed, [1] they’re trying to make separate species, and [2] it’ll take longer than 1 year or two. Abstracts for your perusal:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [partial success]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [a review, article not available for free.]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [same]This one indicates for something like nematodes it takes 2 millions generations to get different species: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Again, Matt, that’s a BIT longer than labs have been working with them.Finally, because 10 minutes of research reached my limit of effort for this, I saw this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... which gives several papers suggested proto- or full speciation in experiments that I will not track down. Pursue or ignore at your leisure.
“So, you answer this by giving me a citatio n to E. coli? .... I'm pretty sure it didn't evolve into an entirely different species.”-Remember when I said I was going to reply to what you asked for? This is what you asked for:“I'm asking for ONE documented case of increased genetic information leading to a physical advantage.”
-Done.
“And reading through it right now, this is after 56,000 generations! That is A LOT.!”-This is the FIRST thing you’ve said that is anything close to a legitimate criticism of evolution. To answer it: wow, it IS a lot!. It’s also, what, 5, 10 years? Multiple that times 300MILLION. Three. Hundred. Million. That’s what you MULTIPLY by. See what changes you get then.
“You're so off the mark on every single thing that you state,”-Sorry, I know Christians don’t do so good with reality.
“Heliocentrism? You do understand that this was based on Aristotle, right? You also understand that Galileo was a devout Christian who was trying to explain to the Pope that the Bible said nothing about the earth being the center of the solar system.”-And he Pope agreed with that argument?....[crickets]... There is language in the Bible which suggested that very thing, Christians fought for about 200 years against heliocentrism, and you’re trying to brush that away with Aristotle? 200 YEARS, Matt. By the by, it matters not that Galileo was a Christian, many people who believe in evolution are Christians. That has no bearing on MY argument, it’s YOU who seems to think the two are mutually exclusive. I can foresee this being confusing to you, so I’ll be clear- I’ve said ‘Christian apologists’ before, but I’ve since corrected myself to ‘Creation apologists’. Many Christians are fine with evolution and God taking 15 or so billion years to create. Counting Europe, I’d hazard MOST Christians are fine with it.
“Not only does your world view depend on no logic at all, pseudo-science it also depends on a imaginary history.”-I left this in because you claim to rely on logic, God[1] knows you try and bludgeon me enough with it, but *I* never claimed Galileo wasn’t a Christian, I never implied or hinted at such a thing, *You* made an illogical induction based on your own biases with no supporting evidence whatsoever. So, you jump to a false conclusion an then insult me over it. I could make a crack about conservatives here, but instead I’ll point out just how irrational you’re being.
“You in no way met my challenge. Taken directly from the conversation:Did the viruses that they bombarded with radiation to change its genome have progeny that developed into something other than a virus?”-Sorry, what? I answered this. I’ll answer it again just to humor you: No.[2]
“So what do you do? You give me bacteria instead.”-See above. You want answers, ask the right questions. And pay attention when I answer them.
“Just for fun, since it's on topic:[Dawkins video]”-I sympathize with the man, I really do. It takes me a bit to organize answers in my head too. But they cut the tape, and I don’t pretend to know NEARLY as much as he does, but off the top of my head, I came up with three that answer her- that E.Coli experiment, jumping genes, and retroviral insertion fragments. Granted, I think he was trying to answer the question she WASN’T asking, but you’ve taught me that it’s always best to answer the exact question asked.
[1] not YOUR God.[2] I recall now that when answering I pointed out how irrelevant that question was. Maybe you forgot because I pwned you completely on it.[3][3] if that’s the right word, I’m not up on all the lingo these kids use nowadays.
“... the E. Coli article..... says nothing about new genetic information being added. You seem to be under the impression that a mutation is "new genetic information". This is not true, it means that the information is changed.”--You are playing semantic games. I understand what you want to say, you’re not saying it right, and I’m not helping you. Consider this analogy: The cow jumped over the log. The cow jumped over the dog.The second sentence is a ‘point mutation’ that changes information, it’s also NEW information.The E.Coli article is slightly different. It duplicates the gene and puts it under a new promoter. This is akin to: The cow jumped over the log. The COW jumped over the LOG! The expression has changed, that’s new information. If that’s unsatisfactory to you, then consider an alternative analogy that the cow in question in sentence 2 is a different cow. Thus new information.[1]
"A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.”--I replied, then for kicks went to the definition you posted. It’s vastly oversimplified for the scientifically illiterate. Anyway:This is untrue. Many mutations occur in areas of DNA that are not genes. Most of an organism’s DNA is not genes[2], it’s often called ‘junk DNA’, tho some of it likely has some function. There are also mutations that occur WITHIN a gene that don’t alter the ‘genetic message’ That’s because there’s some redundancy built in. Then there’s a question of semantics, since ‘alleles’ are just mutations too, but the word has a different connotation.
“Once the gene has been damaged or changed the mRNA transcribed from that gene will now carry an altered message."--This is only sometimes true, because of the redundancy and because some parts of some genes are not transcribed. It also depends on the semantics of the word ‘gene’-most folks think it means a protein, or an observed phenotype, but some things that can be considered genes are really just chunks of DNA that proteins bind to and which binding then alters the expression of other genes.
“..... if what you're suggesting is possible, it would take millions of years, which is why the question, by its very nature, is not a scientific one but merely speculative.”
--That’s nonsense. There’s plenty of science that deals in ‘speculation’ about long term effects. It’s STILL inference from established demonstratable phenomenon. Such things include radioactive decay, geological processes, evolution, various astronomical orbits. In each case the small scale short term science is remarkably well developed and extrapolated to include long term phenomenon. I repeat, this is EXACTLY the same sort of scientific process wherein a small scale nuclear fusion event is extrapolated to the large scale sun.
“Insisting things are "scientific" when they are by their very nature philosophical”Evolution is NOT philosophical. I mean, I’m sure somebody can FORCE it to be, I’m sure you can philosophicalize *anything*. There’s nothing *intrinsically* philosophical about it. If you had limited your bias to origin issues like abiogenesis or the big bang, you MIGHT have had a point. But you didn’t, you blundered into silliness about evolution. Your bad.
“And you DID say that evolution (I'm assuming speciation) is an example of a gap that science has filled.”--I also said after you challenged it that I couldn’t say for sure because I couldn’t recall what if anything apologists at the time were saying about God and creation. If you want me to keep repeating things I already conceded, I’m gonna start cutting and pasting whole replies. Nonetheless, I still maintain that apologists latch onto any current gaps as proof of God, and that said gaps are shrinking due to further exploration of the theory by scientists.
“Concerning heliocentrism, there is simply NOWHERE in the bible that asserts this.”--The relevant passages are..... f*ck it, I can’t recall. Go look it up yourself, iirc there’s some nutty web sites that still argue against heliocentrism[ and for a flat earth]. It has to do with the idea that saying the sun moves, or the sun was held still in the sky that one time by God, implying the earth was stationary. So, I’m not saying the Bible asserts it, I’m saying that there is textual evidence strong enough to justify the belief, even if it came from the Greeks.
“was that you stated that heleocentrism was an example of God of the Gaps.”--Now that does NOT sound like something I’d say. If I said it, I retract it, but it sounds to me you inferred it.
“If you think that the Bible states that the earth is the center of the universe, cite the verse.”--I do, but I’m quite willing to believe I’m mistaken here. However, Genesis does make it pretty clear that the universe lies within a vast body of water. Which is kinda weird because without gravity that water wouldn’t really BE a body.
[1]I’m not just playing here, gene duplication is one of the primary explanations for evolution and the creation of new proteins. It was also a major revision in evolutionary theory. Here, wiki explains it well enough but it’s a bit technical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...Tho to be accurate not all genes duplicate by that method. I don’t think the E Coli one did.
[2] Higher organisms, I don’t think that applies to bacteria.
“Umm, did you even read below this?”---I do not know. I might have missed it or missed a post of yours.
“CHANGING AN EXPRESSION DOES NOT MAKE IT LARGER!!...... In order for Macro Evolution to be true, this must occur.”---See, this makes no sense... wait, I found the original context:‘The E. Coli article says nothing about the "new information" ......It would be comparable to scrambling some letters on a page or a book. No new letters have been added, but sure you'd have some "new information" as compared to before..”
Now, Matt, let me be clear. You are going to change what you want/mean as I reply because your framing is often shitty. You asked for new information, I gave you new information. You asked for demonstrated speciation, I gave possible references and also citations suggesting that your request was silly in practical terms. NOW you are asking for an increase in information again, but you are asking for it to be ‘LARGER’.This is very simple: During meiosis/Mitosis, sometimes chromosomes do not segregate properly. A cell will then have an extra chromosome. There you go, it’s LARGER.Sometimes during Meiosis- which requires recombination- recombination does not occur at homologous sites. Thus one Chromosome will wind up with extra material and it’s homologous chromosome will wind up with less. That also makes it LARGER. In the E. Coli example. A single gene was duplicated and inserted into another region of the chromosome, thus adding DNA to the total, the sum added being the one gene. That again makes it LARGER.So, let’s sum up: I have provided an example of more information, citations about speciation, and now examples of increased genome size. I think we’re getting closer to what you actually WANT to challenge me with.
“Show me where in this article it states anything analagous or similar to stating that there is an increase in the total DNA set in its genome.”---I left this in because you have poor reading skills. Tho to be fair I guess that E. Coli thing was a bit technical. So I’ll show you: “The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones had duplication mutations of a 2933 base pair segment “ That means the mutation added 2933 base pairs to the overall size of the genome. Done. Next?
“I'm looking for a citation that shows the increase in a genome. As I stated, you cannot”---Woops. Spoke a little too fucking soon there, didn’t you.
“You have provided nothing to support your assertion.”---Which one? I’ve supported lots of assertions.
“The same with your citation pertaining to the Bible and heleocentrism. You can't cite anything.”---This sums it up:http://christianity.stackex...It’s not that I *can’t* cite anything, it’s that I don’t’ care to when it’s irrelevant to my point and its negation doesn’t serve any purpose. It took me literally 10 seconds [I type slow] to find this one page. This means that your whole argument isn’t about countering my point, it’s merely an attempt to disprove it by making the assertion if I’m mistaken or merely not wholly correct about any one detail my entire argument is wrong. That’s a silly, stupid assertion. It might work with proofs, but not with arguments. I’m asserting that Christians held a massive hissy fit for about 200 years over heliocentrism. Aristotle or ambiguous Bible verses do not refute that assertion.
“That's the beautiful thing bout atheists. They have an extremely rich knowledge base of history, textual criticism and science and almost none of it exists. They made it all up.”---*Everything* is all made up- God, religion, history, philosophy, emotions, language, *everything*[1]The only thing that isn’t made up is reality, and the only way we can access that is through our senses [which make things up], and the only substantial way we can verify said reality is common to all of us is through science. Religion does not provide for a common reality. Atheism does not provide for a common reality, it’s merely an interpretation. Science, with its demonstratable phenomenon and repeatable experiments, that provides for a common reality.Your disbelief in science [a measuring of reality] in favor of religion [an extrapolation of idiosyncratic interpretations of reality] is a clear example of how religion is poisoning our society.
“ they'll give you citations for some other thing (such as your) E.Coli”Hey, I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. Learn to ask for what you WANT.
It should have read, "I could also go into gene duplication if I wanted to, but still you have no evidence that new base DNA has been added, .”----I’m sorry, but how stupid are you? Do you understand what the word ‘duplication’ means? It means something has been made 2x of. If I duplicate a dollar you give me, that’s *every* evidence that new money has been added.[2]
“" [w]e don't observe such macroevolutionary changes because they take such a long time" and therefore must use our "imaginations" to understand macroevolution."To me, this about says it all.”---We don’t observe solar fusion because the sun is too hot to measure directly, and therefore we must use our ‘imaginations’ to understand how stars function..
[1] exaggeration for rhetorical effect. [2]That’s not what you meant, but it is what you wrote.
Hi. This will probably be my last post because Wonkette has blocked my account and I had to create a new one and delete my cookies. They've made it pretty tedious.. I went back and viewed all of the citations that you gave me pertaining to "speciation", which we both agree occurs to some extent, but where we obviously disagree is to the extent.You obviously think that speication occurs to the extent that a single celled organism can propagate into Einstein, whereas I would fully agree that a wolf can propagate into a poodle.One clearly has a demonstrated record with genetic swapping etc within an existing genome, the other does not. Of course when you deal with "duplication", you are still dealing with the existing genome since duplication limits any functionality that is transcribed to what already exists.
Here is an explanation as to why your citations in no way give any evidence to this degree of speciation, that is the kind based on added genetic information (and I'm not going to rehash here exactly what "added" means).
Citation 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..."Reproductive isolation between these populations, however, has never been confirmed by replicate experiments in can independent laboratory."-As usual.Besides the abstract itself openly admitting that it doesn't prove anything, it of course depends on the "Ring Species" type of definition of "Species". The absurd notion that if they can't breed they are different species.It does nothing to demonstrate new genetic instructions have been added to the genome to direct creation of brand new attributes.It certainly does nothing to support the notion that brain surgeons could possibly evolve from E. Coli (yes, i know it wasn't literally E.coli, but some other bacterium)
Citation 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...To me this seems to argue against what you are arguing. It seems to downplay the importance of mutation:"Evidence for mutation-order speciation by natural selection is more limited and has been best documented by instances of reproductive isolation resulting from intragenomic conflict".This particularly focuses on ecological speciation as the driver for "speciation", which is what I would argue for all along; not genetic mutation.I'm not sure why you included this as support for your argument
Citation 3:The abstract does nothing but assert that "All plant and animal species arise by speciation - the evolutionary splitting of one species into two reproductively incompatible species."
How do I get to their evidence for this? I don't see a link to open anything, just the abstract.Once again, I see nothing in the attribute that even mentions adding to the genome to create new instructions to build new attributes to cause "speciation".In the abstract it specifically asserts " groups separated by latitude, or by restricted geography, that is being exploited to dissect the genetic basis to adaptive evolution and reproductive incompatibility;"It is pointing to environmental factors and adaptive evolution. This does NOTHING, once again, to show that adaptation is not occurring within the existing genome, or AT MOST, some of the mutations we have already talked about such as swapping.
Citation 4: Pertaining to E. Coli.This clearly did nothing to answer the kind of questions that I was asking. While point mutations such as genetic duplication did occur, this is something that we already know about and it is completely limited in scope and is dependent upon the genetic information that is duplicated. It showed absolutely nothing as to the ability of a single cellto form into more complex organisms and ESPEICAILLY did nothing to suggest that they can propegate mulitple kingdom and phylumn etc all the way to human beings.
Throughout our conversation, you had done exactly as I would have predicted, and that is give me a whole bunch of evidence for a few necessary conditions, but absolutely no evidence for the sufficient conditions. You have done this for our conversation about abiogenesis and about macro-evolution.
Your argument could basically be captured in the simple logical formulation1)IF (a) AND (b) AND (c) THEN (Y)2)(a)3) Therefore (Y)Once again, you prove a part of the necessary conditions would require that "a" AND "b" AND "c" all be true in order for "Y" to be true, but you will simply supply some foggy evidence for "a" (IE E. coli has genetic duplication, therefore it is reasonable to believe that humans came from bacteria. Or another example, if amino acids can occur spontaneously,then we must assume they have occurred spontaneously AND formed themselves into the correct sequence to create proteins necessary for life AND with a genetic structure formed in order to specify instructions to these proteins AND all of this arranged itself into a self contained living cell that could take in nutrients, grow, reporduce, excrete wastes and genetically evolve).
This is all so illogical, I can hardly express it.
I find your retort is always "well, this cannot be tested; it requires too much time (or insert other excuse here)", then by definition it is not a scientific endeavour, or at least it is a very limited one. If you find yourself saying this in every single conversation that you have pertaining to your beliefs, then your beliefs have no real basis in science at all. By every measure that I can see, atheism has no basis what so ever in science, logic or anything that could be described loosely as "Reason".I find your retort is always "well, this cannot be tested; it requires too much time (or insert other excuse here)", then by definition it is not a scientific endeavour, or at least it is a very limited one. If you find yourself saying this in every single conversation that you have pertaining to your beliefs, then your beliefs have no real basis in science at all. By every measure that I can see, atheism has no basis what so ever in science, logic or anything that could be described loosely as "Reason".
“ to be make a rational statement, or a logical one, you have to defend assertions. If you make such an assertion you assume the burden of proof.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“Here are some of my assertions.....I'll reference you to all of your arguments that there is no burden of proof when making such assertions.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“1) Homosexuality is poisonous to society.... etc...”
See, here you’re trolling, even tho believe these statements..... This also doesn’t interest me wrt to this debate- they’re separate issues AND irrelevant to my point.
“If anyone challenges me on any of them I'll just say it's my own opinion, I have no burden of proof to defend anything...”
I can see I’m going to have to wade in where the water’s a bit shallower, so to speak.... no, I edited that bit out. Instead, I will simply use a hammer and hit the nail repeatedly:There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“However without making a rational, logical case for these assertions.... then they are meaningless assertions. It's rambling.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“That is why I used it as an example of where "supporting evidence" tells us... absolutely nothing.”
You misunderstand the nature of supporting evidence. Supporting evidence tells us the earth revolves around the sun. This is viewed as a fact, but it has not been PROVEN. Science doesn’t PROVE things. If I tell you the earth orbits the sun, and you ask me to PROVE it, I will laugh in your face. If you think that makes my assertion meaningless, if you think I am telling you absolutely nothing, then that is because you’ve mistakenly fallen into a mindset of excessively rigid thought patterns. I’m going to take a moment here to emphasize this: I can ONLY offer *supporting evidence* for these assertions: The earth orbits the sun. Evolution occurs. Manmade global warming is real. Christianity has harmful effects on society. Joe Flacco is a top 5 NFL quarterback. Joe Vs the Volcano is the best movie ever made....None of these statements is provable [excepting #2], but the supporting evidence for each varies by degree. It is absolutely *absurd* to demand rigorous proof or even rigorous supporting evidence for anything after #3. But that does not mean they tell us nothing. It means different assertion have different standards of supporting evidence.
“I'm not entirely certain what you were arguing about with "moral relativism". That was not a moral relativist argument.”
Sure as shootin was! You were arguing the context determines the morality of the action. That’s pretty much the definition.
“Absolute morality pertains to right and wrong regardless of what human beings think about it”
I’m sure it would, if it existed.
“This is why I usually debate one topic at a time”I forgot to point this out to you when you said you’d ‘win’. We are doing different things. I’M having a conversation, YOU’RE having a debate. You can’t win against someone who’s not playing.
“You make a great demonstration of what the philosophy Scientism is. You make arbitrary scientific observations and then form philosophical conclusions. That is why Scientism is a philosophy, and has almost nothing to do with science.If any of your statements were formed into any manner of logical syllogism they would make no sense.”
That is.... [a] true [b] completely irrelevant [c] amusing [d] consistent with every other philosophy.Where to begin? F*ck it, I’ll be brief. I’m not pretending my personal philosophy is scientific, only that it’s rational and well considered.
“but you certainly are not in the area of Logic which is more objective than is "Science".”Semantics. Logic is more ‘objective’ in the sense that it’s not subjective, Science is more ‘objective’ in that it describes and predicts the external world with a higher degree of accuracy.
“[argument about abiogenesis] And therefore what exactly? Therefore there is no God?”
Boy, somebody really did a number on you. Therefore, this EXACTLY: abiogenesis is derived from demonstratable phenomenon. That’s it. One CANNOT derive that there is no God or that other stuff. You’re jumping to conclusions here.
“You make this statement in an absolute vacuum and just leave us hanging as to what it's supposed to prove exactly.”Matt, I realize I say a lot, but I TRY to be precise. I SAID in that post *what*- that abiogenesis is derived from demonstratable phenomenon.
“Your assertion ..... and this is "proof" that we sit here debating today is caused by abiogensis?”Hammer, nail: There is a difference between supporting evidence and proof. I SAID it last post, I’m going to try and be clearer for you- abiogenesis is AN ASSUMPTION, but it’s a leap DERIVED from OBSERVED phenomenon. Doesn’t mean it’s true, it’s just a guess. With supporting evidence.
“This is a complete disconnect in provability.”THAT’S WHAT I SAID!
“Your scientific assertions mean absolutely nothing in answering any of these questions.”Well, no. Abiogenesis is a valid hypothesis regardless of any philosophy. Question: What is the origin of life? Hypotheses: God, abiogensis. Answer? Unknown. Supporting evidence? See above. All that is true whether you’re a scientist, an anarchist, a Christian, whatnot.
“using the logical rules of inference:”See above. Debate, conversation.
“In respect to "Computer programs showing" anything, this is completely absurd. A computer program is going to show you whatever you tell it to.”
I’m sorry, but saying emergent properties are programmed to emerge does not mean that emergent properties are not emergent properties. Is this clear to you? I’m assuming you know chaos theory better than I do.
“Really?? Abiogenesis is derived from a known and demonstratable phenomenon?”YES! I EVEN DESCRIBED THE PHENOMENON! You even discussed them above! Keep up!
“If this is a scientific fact, give me the name of the first species that possessed a rudimentary notion of "love".”
It would be an emergent property.
“It is a completely made-up sequence of causality from inorganic matter to "love".”I’d criticize you for this, but really I’m not above nonsequitor arguments. So I gotta give you kudos. But I won’t bite, I’m not claiming love came from inorganic molecules. Yet.
“then it seems that abiogenesis would be demonstratable.... it is not.”...aaaand here it is, god of the gaps. You’re right, it is *not* demonstratable. Currently. Subject to change as science progresses.
“..... I simply do not get what point this is supposed to make. Perhaps you, as an atheist, have a very different understanding of this story than any Christian theology I have ever heard.”
Damn straight. Bear in mind that just because *I* never heard my take before doesn’t mean I think it hasn’t been considered. But here: God intentionally manipulated Adam and Eve into eating the fruit, then blamed them for it and punished them and all their descendants forever for it. For me, it’s like handing a loaded gun to a 3 year old and then throwing him out into the wilderness when he accidentally shoots someone. So not only did God do it on purpose, he chose one of the worst possible punishments for breaking his arbitrary rule.[1]
“Yes, i know that you're going to claim 'God of the gaps',”
Nyah Nyah.
“There ARE NO GAPS, and never have been.”Well, there HAVE been- evolution covered one. But currently it’s abiogenesis and the big bang theory, plus arguments like the uniqueness of earth and universal constants for human life. These are all, in ESSENCE, gap arguments. ....Logical, like the First Cause or whatever it’s called. These I dismiss as mental exercises, not evidence
“You just dismiss them?”As mental exercises.
“From my standpoint that's like saying "i just dismiss Science and Math".”
That’s because of your profound misunderstanding of science. Science deals with known and measurable phenomenon, posits hypothesis and uses experiments to answer questions. Math is a series of rules that is internally consistent and which has some real world applications.Logic is a set of thought tools. When dealing with reality, things that measure reality trump thought tools designed to help human understanding. Logic doesn’t tell you gravity, math tells you the rate, but it’s science that tells you things fall down.
“You can dismiss them all you want, but from a logical standpoint;”Sorry, but that’s funny. It’s like a chess player yelling ‘checkmate’ to a guy passing by.
“..... there are probably around 20 of such arguments that if the premises are true then everything we know about logic and knowledge tell us that the conclusion must be true.”
You remember how just a bit ago you were harping on about abiogenesis not being demonstratable? Paint me as a ‘show me scientific evidence and I’ll believe it’ guy.
“how Hell somehow leads you to think that the Christian God must be false”Please pay more attention. I said if Hell exists I cannot love God, not that Hell proves God doesn’t exist. It’s a conundrum- I’ve been told/read that if one does not accept Christ into one’s heart, then one will spend an eternity in a lake of fire. But if that’s true, I cannot accept Christ into my heart. I cannot *force* myself to, it would be a lie. I understand there are different theistic opinions on that statement, I’m waiting for y’all to resolve it amongst yourselves.
[1] I understand the concept of free will could be used to counter this argument, but I maintain that free will does not apply when the actors in question are ignorant.
“I think you're trying to change the subject by taking me down a trail about my statement being "moral relativism".
Silly rabbit. The wonder of these forums is that one could discuss multiple things at once, there’s no attempt to distract you.
...I was going to let this slide, but something nagged at me, so I reread it:“show definitively that my statement had nothing to do with "moral relativism".
Okay, What you said originally:
“I would even go further and debate rather "emotional harm" is a good or a bad thing, it all depends on the circumstance.”
What moral relativism is: The context of an action determines its morality. You can offer proofs out the wazoo, but what you *said* was pretty much moral relativism.
“"It's just a conversation" ....That's pretty m uch what I was expecting as far as the argument would go.”
That, of course, is nonsense. If you expected such a thing to be a conversation, then you would not have made the absurd claim that she had to prove her statement.[1] You were playing by rules that we were not and then criticizing us for not playing.
“but if one is a Christian and the other an atheist and the conversation consists of points, counter points and rebuttals; then it is a debate.”
Well. Hammer. Nail. You were playing by rules that we were not and then criticizing us for not playing.
“She made an assertion and you have both failed to defend it.”
Don’t lump ME in. I didn’t care to defend it, I was making an entirely different point.
“Your "supporting evidence" is nothing other than fallacious reasoning.It is an assertion made on anecdotal evidence and cherry picking.”
This is nonsense. Anecdotal evidence is fine unless you’re trying to prove something or do science. It’s how *conversations* work.
“In t he case of Confirmation Bias, you have taken some statistically insignificant, immaterial anecdote that supports your position and claim it is "supporting evidence".”
Now, see, that’s a point, and if I cared about the statement ‘Christianity is a poison’, I’d address it. But MY contention, as I’ve said, is that ‘Christianity does harm and good.’ Your beef here is with TSINB, and she’s gone. If you’d brought THIS up to her earlier instead of trying to logic/debate her, something might have come of it.
“All the other stuff you were talking about "the earth going around the sun" etc etc...."Fallacy of False Analogy"Sorry... those examples are in no way comparable to her assertion.”
Well, wrong. For the simple reason that everything is comparable to everything[2]. And, of course, you missed my point. I was comparing and CONTRASTING the statements.
[1] By ‘you’, I mean a normal rational human being knowledgeable of general social norms. Not ‘you’ as in you specifically, who is at the least disregarding such things.
[2] Yeah, sometimes I get grouchy when people misuse words. Iirc, you get hung up on semantics too, so if you’re going to be precise, be precise.[3][5]
[3] tautological argument.[4]
[4] I think. It doesn’t matter, I was just being facetious. Because in a *debate* with *logic*, that statement is meaningless. But in a *conversation* the meaning is clear. See how that works?
[5] By the by, “iir, you ....” is anecdotal evidence, not empirical. Does that make it useless here?[6]
[6] No, it does not.[7]
[7] Its utility depends entirely on my spotty memory.
“You have failed however to ....demonstrate that this philosophy is logical or rational. “ And you think these posts are long NOW? By the by, logic is a tool, rationality is a process. But rational? I don’t want to dive down the rabbit hole so I’ll excessively oversimplify[1] I see no substantial evidence that God exists. I see several alternative options/explanations. Being an empiricist, I choose the explanation with the most supporting evidence. There is not one whit of that that is irrational. [I wrote this before I saw you dwell on it below. I stand by it, all of the above is rational, regardless of whether it adheres to logic proofs you dwell on].
“Scientism itself is incoherent at its very core, this is why I explicitly claimed in an earlier post that it is a "religion" more than a philosophy” Well, now you’ve just opened a can of worms, because your statement clearly implies that religion is irrational. So you might want to rethink what you’re trying to say. Regardless, ‘rationality’ is not an indicator of religion. I’ve found that a great number of arguments boil down to semantics. So I TRY to use words precisely as they’re defined[2] ‘Philosophy’ and ‘religion’ have different meanings, I’m using the words because there is a substantive distinction between the two.
“...one of the defining tenants of Scientism........ seems to be axiom or philosophical starting point for most atheists.” (Sigh. There are stupid Christians who make stupid arguments, stupid conservatives [for instance, anyone supporting Trump], and stupid atheists. I imagine those feed you soul.) Oh, sorry. I meant I don’t support that statement.
“They believe in this to such an extent that they will start arguing that "science" is superior to math and logic so far as determining "truth".” Not ‘truth’, ‘reality’. Those are two entirely different concepts. Reality is empirical. Science is superior wrt empirical.
“... claim that abiogensis is derived from something "demonstratable". The only thing demonstratable is that this is completley false..... DNA and RNA replication IS IN NO WAY synonymous to saying that anything pertainable to abiogenesis is "demonstratable".” Well, you’re wrong. The hypothesis is this: life originated from organic molecules that self replicated and then self-organized into discrete self-propagating units.This is a HYPOTHESIS, it has NOT been *demonstrated*.What HAS been *demonstrated*: organic molecules such as RNA self replicate. Lipids self-organize. Emergent traits exist. The above hypothesis, right or wrong, DERIVES from the three things that have been demonstrated. That’s how science works, it takes known things and extrapolates. Compare that with the Genesis account. What known, demonstratable things does that derive from?
“You then seemed to imply that because of this example, scientism is derived from things that can be scientifically "demonstratable"". Of course it is. DERIVED from. And just what are derivatives? Summations, extrapolations. Not synonyms or resultant proofs.
“In other words claiming that abiogenesis is a belief that has "demonstratable" pre-conditions (derived from) is completely irrelevant.” Well, that’s just loopy. Sorry. I forget how scientifically illiterate most people are. Pre-conditions are not irrelevant in science. Preconditions are not irrelevant in drawing conclusions.
“Actually with abiogenesis....The only thing that has been demonstrated is that it could not have happened under the conditions that many Scientists believe composed of earlier earth.” This is false. The ONLY thing that has been demonstrated is that it HAS not happened in lab experiments. Since we don’t know exactly how it happened [if it happened], we cannot conclude it could not have happened. Since we don’t know what advances will come, we cannot predict whether we can create life in the lab, nor what conditions will be used.
“Pointing out that some pre-condition for abiogenesis such as DNA replication does absolutely nothing to support the notion of abiogenesis itself.” SMH!! Did you actually write this?[Deep Breath. Mantra: scientifically illiterate. scientifically illiterate. scientifically illiterate. scientifically illiterate]Sorry. Let me be clear- demonstrating a precondition DOES ****SUPPORT*** the notion. In fact, IT’S HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!!!!! I don’t think I’m being clear. Let me try again.IT’S! HOW! SCIENCE! WORKS!
“ the difference between "Necessary" and "Sufficient" conditions in Logic” And THIS is why I dismissed Logic as an excercise. While YOU’RE spouting off about logical fallacies, SCIENTISTS are solving problems by extrapolating from ‘preconditions’ and developing things like Lasers, solar cells, 3-D printers, and nanotechnology. Thank you scientists!
.”you meet a "necssary" condition but fail to demonstrate a "sufficient" condition.” I never claimed, implied, hinted, suggested, or even beamed thoughts into your head that the above were ‘sufficient’. What do they call that, a straw man?
“A more apt scientific kind of anology may be:” Sorry. I’m laughing at you here.
“If one believed that absolute zero were achievable” I wonder if it can be. Matter forms spontaneously. Oh, right, that’s one of your bugaboos. I’m not a physicist, I don’t know all the details or how much evidence they have for it, but I’ve read that in space elementary particles just spontaneously form from nothing. Iirc, they last nanoseconds and coform with antimatter opposites and then cancel each other out. But I’m wondering if that can affect localized energy to such an extent that it prevents absolute zero from being possible.
“You have told me that RNA and DNA replicate, but this would have to be true regardless.” Well, no. I told you they SELF replicate. A God-created model wherein life was formed intact does not require this, it’s possible but not necessary, since preformed life has DNA replication machinery already established. But RNA does not need machinery to replicate, it can do it all by its lonesome. Cellular machinery speeds up the reaction and directs it.
“You at least admit that abiogenesis is an "assumption", but I'm arguing that it is a baseless one.” Yeah, your argument is dumb[3]. Abiogenesis not baseless, it’s not unfounded, it’s merely grossly incomplete/insufficient. What’s more, and this is important, it has more evidence supporting it than the Genesis model. Either could be true, scientists go by best guess. That’s. How. Science. Works.
“Also, there are no "God of the gaps" arguments that have been filled by anything demonstratable” I’m going to concede this merely because I don’t know exactly what claims have been made historically. Nonetheless, your argument against abiogeneis is a God of the gaps argument.
“ and "macro-evolution" is certainly not "demonstratable".” Ah. Hammer, nail. Scientifically illiterate. “Macro” evolution. Note ‘macro’ evolution is an artifical distinction made by antievolutionists to dismiss demonstrated evolution as applicable to speciation, even tho the mechanism is exactly the same. Note also semantics: humans have ‘forced’ evolution through artificial selection and created things like corn, and turned wolves into toy poodles. Humans turning a wolf into a toy poodle in roughly 10 thousand years is NOT ‘demonstratable’ ‘macro’ evolution, but it’s certainly suggestive of it. Note also we’re doing it again with foxes, I imagine since we’re a bit more knowledgeable this time it won’t take 10k years.
“I have no idea how you think The Big Bang Theory fills a "God of the Gaps". “ Oh, no, I’m saying arguments against Big Bang, that it was God, are a god of the gaps. Sorry, I was not clear.
“Also, God DOES have supporting evidence. However, this is getting super long.” Empirical? I suppose it’s possible that some outlier data and spurious results might exist.
“All I can keep doing over and over and over is demand that you take ANY of your beliefs and form them into a logical syllogism.”
Yeah, good luck with that. I’m not playing little logic games[4], I’m explaining my views, and now, apparently also teaching you how science works.
“So long as you realize that if you cannot support this philosophy with any statements of logic then it is not a logical belief system.” Maybe not, but it IS rational.
“1)IF a philosophical view is "rational"", then it must be supported by logic as a necessary condition for being "rational".” Yeah, that doesn’t sound right at all. It sounds like a Godel thing... Logic proves logic is required. In fact, I’d argue that it’s a sufficient but not necessary condition, but I think that’s ANOTHER rabbit hole entirely.
[1] This is neither the sum total of my reasoning nor the sum total of this specific aspect of it. [2] When I’m being serious.[3] Astoundingly dumb. It’s like saying the argument that embryos in test tubes aren’t human lives [because they meet some necessary but not sufficient criteria] is baseless.[4] If this is overly harsh, I sympathize. Your demonstrated nature in this forum suggests such a thing is important to you, I find that it’s inhibiting your comprehension. I don’t have the proper tools to translate, so I’m using common English instead. It’s two entirely different mindsets.
“Hi d bc (what does that stand for?? Just curious).”My initials.“Do you have a name?”No. I never got one.“Do you have a name?”Damon.
“The circumstance DOES matter, even for a moral absolutist.”I have not studied the issue, I have *considered* it. If there is a school of thought that details distinctions I have missed, then I might be wrong. But afaic, if the morality of an action depends on its context, that’s moral relativism. Because then there are not moral absolutes. – I suspect this is another thing which you look at from a philosophical/logical/theistic worldview, and I look at through an empiricist one.
“"Thou shalt not kill" (which the Bible takes pains in clarifying)”You seem like you’ve studied the matter. My bible, which I’ve been told is a lousy translation, merely says not ‘murder’Two different words. What’s the original Hebrew say?
“As you can see, the "circumstance" has absolutely nothing to do with "moral relativism". Any individual circumstance can be determined to be absolutely "moral" or absolutely "immoral"”
By considering the context. The action is the same, the context differs. Is this a semantic argument? Maybe. I mean, killing in self defense os morally acceptable to ME, tho you’d have to convince me it’s *absolutely* morally acceptable[3]. But there are others who think it’s not. More to the point, as an empiricist, I maintain that society determines the morality of any action. [I maintain that’s the case even if God exists.] If society changes/can change morality, can it be said to be absolute?
“"Moral relativism" ONLY has to do with the idea that morality is determined by human beings,”
And then you say that. Again, semantics. God changes his mind about what is morally acceptable[1]. Does that mean his morals are absolutes even if they change, or is your statement wrong?
“An example of moral relativism would be "If Hitler had won WW2 and was successful in killing every single person on Earth who disagreed with him, would the Holocaust have been a good thing because everyone left on Earth then agreed with it?"”
How could we tell? What answer to that could there be? From our standpoint, what he did was horrible. It’s ingrained within us. There’s an argument to be made about genetic instincts existing, such that any human would be repulsed. The existence of sociopaths, who clearly have a neurological defecit wrt morals/empathy, supports that notion.So let’s look at sociopaths. Suppose Hitler had succeeded in creating a Master race of THEM and wiped out all individuals capable of feeling empathy. Now, ask yourself, in THAT world, full of THOSE people, would what Hitler did have been wrong? Not to them. Different mindsets, different morals.
“with the statement that "it would be wrong to kill Hitler",”
Sure it would. He needs to be tortured first. Without certainty that lake of fire exists, we need to make sure he suffers.
[1] This is arguable. Some maintain that Christ dissolved the old Jewish covnenant and that the old rules no longer apply. That wouldn’t necessarily mean *God* changed his morals, but some of those old rules people say no longer apply- like eating shrimp for example, are also called abominations- a moral judgement. Is it okay to do something God has judged to be an abomination simply because the law prohibiting it is not longer valid? [2]
[2] Goes both to why we should not look to the Bible for morality and my assertion that society makes its morals regardless of God.
[3] I left this note last. Upon consideration, consider this: Fred hates Barney. Barney hates Fred. Fred manipulates Barney into picking up a loaded gun with murderous intent, and Fred kills him in self defense. Is this ABSOLUTELY morally acceptable? Preplanned self-defense? The thing with THIS example is I can always imagine circumstances that blur the line even further.
“... as to why you believe in Moral Relativism, which is fine, but you said nothing to prove that circumstance has anything to do with absolute vs relative morality.”
As an empiricist, I can’t prove such a thing. I can deduce that morals are relative, and that what you said *sounded* just like a moral relativist statement. I suppose I should apologize here, I tend to probe with statements like that to get an impression of the reading and writing skills of whom I’m speaking to. I didn’t think you believed in moral relativism, I wanted to see if you realized what you said implied it.
“To a moral absolutist, it is either wrong to kill a person who is about to rape your wife, or it is not.”
What if she asked for it? There are women who have rape fantasies. What if she’s doing it to save your life, or her children’s, in some war torn country? By killing her rapist, you’re condemning her children to death. To a moral relativist, there’s no right answer here, no moral absolute, either action has moral and immoral components. Indeed, virtually all of literature and film from the history of the world explores moral grey areas and ambiguity for a reason.[1]
“So, if you do not believe in moral absolutes, why would you want to torture and kill Hitler?”
Just because I don’t believe in absolutes doesn’t mean I don’t believe in morals. Hitler is morally abhorrent to me and my culture, so much so I’m willing to commit what is normally a morally repugnant act in return [which itself is moral relativist, since torture is immoral.]
“If it is true that men evolved from beasts, why is it not possible that some races are superior to others?”
It’s possible, and here’s where logic and reason can play a wonderful role. Because if some races are superior, and if you accept the premise that empathy and concern are positive traits- which there’s evolutionary evidence for- then it stands to reason that showing such compassion for inferior races is superior than killing them all.And here’s where logic fails too, because if you accept the premise that humans can only grow stronger by culling the weak, it makes moral sense to do that. Two logical arguments, and the solution is found in emotions.
“Prove to me scientifically that the propagation of a superior race is inferior to whatever notions you consider to be "moral" or not in your head.”
We don’t know yet what is superior. Does survival of the fittest play a predominant role, or do herd instincts/compassion? Do we select for geniuses or communal/hive mind brainpower? Since one of the key components to survival is adaptability, shouldn’t we be keeping the gene pool as large as possible? Since morals are what form societies, it seems kinda dumb to toss them aside based on hunches about those things.[2]
“I find it extremely curious that you want to torture and kill someone who violated some notions of morality that you do not even think exist, but at the same time, you could not follow God because he created a place called Hell that you have decided is "bad", even though you don't believe in absolute "good" or "bad".”
One, I do think morals exist, not absolute ones. I will grant you this is a distinction moral absolutists find VERY hard to grasp, so I don’t blame you for this failing. The best analogy I can come up with right now is beauty[3]- each society has different standards of beauty. Just because I think some Chinese guy will find [that woman from Crouching Tiger] more beautiful, while I find Katy Perry more, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in beauty. Two-You might convince me Hell isn’t morally repugnant if it only contained maybe 25 people in total[4]. If one accepts the statement that one will suffer in a lake of fire for not accepting Christ, that means the vast majority of every human that ever lived goes to Hell.[5]Three, if you’re selling me a loving merciful God and one of your main tenets is a place he’s created that tortures people for eternity, I’m not buying, no matter what I might think about Hitler.
“If there is no God, and there is no Hell, every psychopath and sociopath like Hitler, .... they all win.”
Congratulations, you’ve just enumerated one of the two main reasons why mankind invented religion.
“From an atheistic world view, this is all fine, but the notion of Hell bothers you? “
And what standards are there for entrance? As a Christian who believes, I want YOU to consider torturing someone yourself. Then ask yourself what criteria you would have for torturing them for ETERNITY. Does an unrepentant gay man who only ever knew love with another man, who otherwise lived a decent life, does that one sin warrant suffering for ETERNITY? Catholics rightly saw the absurdity of such a thing and invented purgatory.
“They generally argue that people are genetically predisposed to actions and do not even have "free will", but are perfectly willing to punish people for actions that they have no control over and for actions that aren't even really right or wrong.”
Free will is another kettle.
“ it seems you have abandoned trying to defend her assertion”
Well, I never really tried, so I’m not really abandoning.
“your are her offered was "it was just my opinion" and "it was just a conversation" and "she had no obligation to defend it". Not very convincing;”
I can just imagine you arguing football with someone. ‘You cannot PROVE Romo is a better quarterback than Brady, your argument boils down to ‘just my opinion.’‘Go ahead and try that with a Cowboys fan. Go ahead. Just to get the full effect, do it in a bar in Dallas next month.
[1] To which conservatives then whine about ‘immoral Hollywood’, as if it’s not in the very nature of art to explore such boundaries.[2] This is not a proof. Science doesn’t prove things. It’s merely a rational argument.[3] Not a wholly accurate one, beauty seems to have genetic components.[4] rounded down for rhetorical effect.[5] Not counting fetuses, most of whom die before the woman even knows she’s pregnant.
“I'm not sure at all how you came to that...”
From this: “ incoherent at its very core, this is why I.... claimed...that it is a "religion" more than a philosophy”
That implies religion is irrational.
“All I am saying is that Scientism has more in common with an illogical religion than it does with a philosophy.”
Two necessary components of a religion- belief in a deity and a moral framework. I don’t know “Scientism,” if that’s some official Thing with it’s own website and T-shirt, but as a general concept it has neither of those religious components.
“Scientism scorns logic and it relies on meaningless "observations" that have absolutely norelationship to the conclusions they are meant to support. That is why you are unable to form any of this into any manner of logical syllogism.”
IF there’s some *Official* (TM) Scientism framework, I don’t ascribe to it. I’m not a member. When I said I’m approaching this from a scientist’s standpoint, I meant really as an Empiricist[1] You might have thought I mean Scientism, I didn’t. They might be the same thing, but otherwise I’m not going to defend logical nitpicks of some philosophy I’m not even sure of what its tenants are.From a empiricist’s viewpoint, your statement above is absolute and total rubbish and deserves scorn heaped upon it that the internet is incapable of conveying. Your statement deserves to pose as a female SJW on Reddit. Your statement deserves to walk into a Christian forum with a sign around it’s neck saying it’s a Scientologist. Your statement deserves to post on the latest teen fan site for pop flavor of the month raving about New Kids on the Block.
“There has never been an actual gap covered that science has been PROVEN.”
Since science doesn’t PROVE anything, that’s a safe position to take.
“Whenever atheists want to claim that science covers "gaps" in the origin of anything, they simply concoct some worthless "scientific hypothesis" and then claim "this is the best explanation as of right now" even though there is absolutely no evidence forthe sufficient conditions.”
You don’t sound like you’re up on the history of science vs religion here. And you’re clearly not up on scientific thought.
“For example, proof of a sufficient condition for MACRO evolution (which you seem to deny is even a real term) would be to observe in nature an offspring of ANY living thingthat has more genetic information than its parent AND through subsequent generations this led to some useful physical attribute (or any attribute for that matter).This would be the very minimal evidence; but as it is there is absolutely zero.”
[-] Science doesn’t prove anything.A. Evolution performed in the lab is evidence for large scale evolution.B. Homeobox genes show evidence for large scale physiological changes from single mutations. C. Genetic comparisons between like and unlike species support large scale evolution.D. Genetic duplication of genes and subsequent mutation of those genes is a factual example of an offspring having more genetic information than its parent.E. So when you say there is absolutely no evidence, you are talking out of your ignorant ass.[2]
“There is nothing "coming from nothing". I know you qualified this when you brought it up as an example.”
Actually, it wasn’t an example. I thought briefly after posting that I’d made a mistake in omitting a note to point out to you that it was a conversational aside, a point of interest, and not part of any argument. Then I thought that I was being pessimistic in underestimating the grasp you’d have on a conversation. Silly me.
“Finally, I find it fascinating that you consider millions and millions of people's experience for centuries, even believing to the point of death as "outlier data",yet you don't seem to have a problem with people who believe in abiogenesis or aliens seeding life on earth.”
Well, which millions should I consider? Christians? Muslims? Hindus? Pagans? Flying Spaghetti Monster acolytes? If you’re going to argue that these accounts are empirical evidence, then come up with an empirical test to distinguish between which accounts are acceptable and which are outliers or mistaken.
“You repeating that "this is called science, this is called science, this is called science!" (I'm imagining you were yelling in your head as you wrot e that) does nothing to prove any claim you have made.”I was yelling on the screen. And, of COURSE it does nothing to prove what I said, science doesn’t prove things.To a scientist [not a Scientismist], the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is merely a hypothesis. With lots of supporting evidence[3]. It hasn’t been PROVEN. We deduce it will using evidence and best guesses. That’s what science does. It sees the sun rise every morning, and deduces it will rise again tomorrow. Then it asks why. It comes up with the uproven notion, derived in part from the sun rising every morning, that the earth revolves around the sun. Religion meanwhile, insists the Bible claims the sun revolves around the earth and throws a two hundred year hissy fit. A few hundred years later, scientists have developed the tools and the math to offer LOTS of supporting evidence the earth revolves around the sun. Of course it hasn’t been PROVEN, nobody’s sat in a spaceship above the solar plane and watched if for a year. But we’re pretty sure it’s right.Now, we’ve done pretty much the same thing in labs, and with toy poodles, for evolution. Of course, it hasn’t been hundreds of years, it’s only been 150, and we’ve only had the tools to really investigate it for 40.So I figure it’ll take another 100 or so before religion will stop throwing a hissy fit over THIS and accept it, too.
“and Christianity is not logically incoherent (which it is not)”
Except for the very notion and story of Christ.[4]
“Anyhow, thinks for "teaching" me science.”
Now if only you’d learn it.I can only show you the mountain, I cannot climb it for you.
[1] for the purposes of this discussion I’m only focusing on that one aspect of my beliefs. [2] Especially after chiding me for saying there was no evidence for God. You should be ashamed of yourself.[3] ‘Supporting evidence’ being something you have openly dismissed many times.[4] Tho I’m being a bit harsh. If one accepts the premise that God is just dicking with us for shits and giggles, Christ makes logical sense.
“Yeah....performing in a lab. Did the viruses that they bombarded with radiation .....”
Silly ignorant man. It’s been done many time in many ways, not just with radiation. It’s easy to do, any high school student can evolve things.
“You also claim that you form your beliefs based on emperical observations; but you seem to claim that there is no reason to explain in detail how these "observations"relate to any conclusions at all,”
Explaining inductive reasoning and the entirely of evidence for a theory is beyond the scope of this forum. What’s more interesting here is to note the problems Christians have with evolution, the burden of proof they require.There’s more evidence for evolution than there is for fusion, but claiming the sun is a giant fusion reaction doesn’t get nearly as much shouting and demands for proof.
“This is all fine and good; so long as you understand that your beliefs and opinions do not have any relation what so ever to anything that would be considered "reason".”
By you.Anyone else who ever reasoned in the history of the world would accept these things as reason.[1]
“The example you have is INDUCTIVE reasoning, not DEDUCTIVE”
Okay.
“"Toy poodles?" LOL. This is called Eugenics!”
No, it’s called artificial selection. We changed wolves into toy poodles in less than 10,000 years. Multiply that times THREE HUNDRED. 300 times the morphological differences between a wolf and a toy poodle is MUCH more than the difference between a human and an ape.
“You can breed poodles all you want, they'll never, ever grow wing s!”
Really? Even tho bat wings are physiologically forelimbs stretched with thin skin attached? No new information there, either, just modifications. In fact, there’s little “new information” in most mammals, there’s pretty much just modifications of existing organs. So the difference between a whale and a mouse is just modifications of genes.
“You atheists MUST learn what logic is,”
Or by God you will force us to! Off to the reeducation camp with you!
“You ARE NOT an empiricist, and I could easily prove it.”
Did I say that’s all I was? Did I not say that I was focusing on that one aspect?[2]
“You just made it up, as almost everything you believe, because you want to believe it.”
Congratulations, you’ve just enumerated everything about religion.
“As intricate and nuanced of an argument this is, and as much as it proves, I think we've found ourselves at a place where the conversationis boring.”
You think my great mocking is boring? I’m appalled.
“I'll just leave it at that, and let you have the last word.”
Then I’ll bring it full circle.You got into an argument with TSINB because she said Christianity is a poison to society. Your ramblings provide a clear example of one way how it is.There has been an effort by some Christians, stretching back decades now, to discredit science and scientists because of their -really, there’s no better phrase for it than hissy fit- reaction to evolution.This constant need to discredit science all in the name of fighting evolution has had a profound impact on society, it’s essentially raised people like you, people who don’t accept scientists as figures of authority/learning, who think that they can’t be trusted as a whole to provide us with truths about the world..
Something like 40-60% of the country doesn’t believe in evolution now.That’s a HUGE amount of people who don’t believe in science. Its repercussions are profound, from denial of manmade global warming and the future consequences we’ll have to pay for THAT, to the refusal by conservatives to accept fact based and data driven arguments. All because the very notion of evolution offends them. It’s not even like it’s contradictory to Christianity, many Christians are happy to accept evolution. No, it’s simply because they can’t wrap their minds around the idea of descent of man. THAT’S a poison to society. YOU’RE a prime example of it.
“Are you sure you have a "science" background?”
It’s all so... fuzzy...now....
“Your response "... any high school student can evolve things."You're starting to make yourself look really dumb.”
By stating the truth? It’s an easy experiment, all it takes is a couple Petri dishes, some yeast, and different substrates. And a few weeks.
“MY QUESTION WAS:"Did the viruses that they bombarded with radiation to change its genome have progeny that developed into something other than a virus?"”
Oh, sorry, I ignored that entirely because there’s bunches of other ways to evolve things. The answer to your specific irrelevant question is, ‘no’.[1]
“I want a citation to where any species has been evolved in a lab to a point where it is considered another species because of its ability to adapt and survive.”
That’s what YOU want.It’s *exactly* analogous to asking for a citation showing a star was created inside a lab before you deign to believe that the sun is a fusion reaction. It’s *exactly* analogous to insisting a photo of an atom be produced before you deign to believe in current nuclear theory.
“The time for excuses is over, it's time as an "Empiricist" to start backing up the many claims you have made.”
And what do they call this, a category error? (Why I am asking YOU? )To whit: what I have claimed: evolution is verifiable in the lab. There is massive amounts of evidence supporting current theory of evolution, which includes speciation. What YOU have inferred from this: That speciation is demonstratable. If you’re gonna pretend to be all logical, then think clearly, and don’t put words in my mouth.
“The evolution you're talking about which has "more proof than fusion" is not the same evolution that is required to get from a single cell to a human.”
Yes it is. It’s exactly like saying the fusion in a nuclear bomb is not the same as the fusion in the sun because it doesn’t sustain itself for billions of years. YOU’RE insisting it isn’t because you don’t understand the science and you’ve been told by anti-scientists it isn’t. Rather than learning yourself on the matter, you’ve stuck your head in the sand and doubled down on ignorance.
“To get from a single cell to a human, YOU MUST HAVE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.”
Do you know how easy it is to get new genetic information? Every. Single. Mutation. Is. new. genetic. information. But that’s not the argument you WANTED to make, is it?You *wanted* to talk about new information that’s heritable and produces new proteins and such. So, then, to answer THAT: Genes duplicate all the time. You have hundreds of inert copies of genes in your DNA. These all came from functioning copies, in replication errors where part of a chromosome is repeated. These genes are not functional, there’s no selection pressure to keep them from mutating. Every time one mutates, it’s NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.
Matt, if you see me getting a tad frustrated, it’s because what I just explained to you is common knowledge, it completely refutes the tired, ignorant argument you’re throwing at me [new information. Really], and it gets you stuck about three steps behind where the REAL deficiencies in evolutionary theory lie. It also suggests to me that you haven’t done any research at all into the matter, that you’ve glommed on to some creationist web site or read one of the dumb anti-evolution books.
“So, I want 2 things from you.”
A smile and a warm hug?
“So, I want 2 things from you.”
More insightful responses and less glib insults?
“So, I want 2 things from you.”Oh wait you TELL me- to do research that no one has yet achieved because you’re implying that your entire lack of faith in evolution lies in its failure to provide those two very specific things.
Gosh, it almost sounds like, like...A God of the Gaps argument![2]
“ illogical notion of providing "evidence" for necessary conditions but failing to understand in any way whatsoever how this relates to sufficient conditions.”
This is not a failing on MY part. This is a failing of yours, something I’ve pointed out time and again. You are misreading my position, and even the position of science in general, in asking for proof or definitive evidence. YOU are dismissing massive, massive amounts of supporting evidence as irrelevant, and theories which derive from best guesses inductive reasoning as meaningless.
Iow, you are dismissing science in its entirety.It’s sad. I weep for you. And THAT’S how Christianity is poisoning the nation.[4]
“Anything other than citations to the above are just wasting my time.”And not nearly as fun as Angry Birds!
[1] Or, as a scientist would say, ‘None were recorded.’ Since science can’t rule out that radiative bombardment actually did create something new that was short lived and not noticed by the experimenter.
[2] that’s because that’s exactly what it f*cking is. And by God of the Gaps, I mean that you’re arguing against a scientific theory being correct solely because it is not comprehensively supported, and NOT because there’s any contraindicative evidence. [3]
[3] Not technically God of the Gaps, but essentially God of the Gaps, since it’s more like the obverse argument.
[4] Boom. Drops mike.
Ah. Irony.
“So, are you going to give me a citation proving that speciation occurs where it is demonstrable that an increase in genetic information has occurs,”
I don’t know any citations about speciation. Virtually every single mutation is an increase in genetic information. You want a good example of a long term evolution event with genetic increase in information go to Dawkin’s Greatest Show On Earth, he has a good one.
“How about the bats?”
How about them!
“Give me the link with the name of any species between a rodent and a bat”
I have to admit I was mystified by this at first. I mean, I’m so used to Christian creation apologists whining about the lack of transition fossils I couldn’t figure out why you were seemingly resting your entire belief system on the whole bat/rodent thing. Then it struck me that more and more transition fossils have been found, so as typical in God of the Gaps arguments, the gaps y’all focused on become more narrow. Of course, the issue is entirely irrelevant. From a scientific standpoint, transition fossils are one small aspect of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. They’re just the absolute easiest thing about the whole theory apologists can pick apart. To whit:
“This lack of evidence is so blatant and so obvious that "evolutionists" actually LITERALLY believe that one genetic mutation must have occurred to a rodent and its progeny were born with completely functioning wings. “
aaand here’s the Christian attack on science again. Really, I don’t know ‘evolutionists’, so maybe there’s some cult of them out there somewhere worshiping Satan and drinking Jello shots and listening to rock and roll[1] that might believe that idiocy. But to imply that scientists, simply for lack of evidence, would think such a thing is more than just ignorance or silly posturing, it’s a blatant attempt to undermine science as a whole. I can’t say for sure you’re aware of this, you seem sorta dense about these things, but given your previous dismissal of ‘supporting evidence’ and reliance on esoteric thought experiments to ‘prove’ your position, I’d have to guess you’re in on it.
“such as comparing something that is very EASY to study such as fossils to something completely IMPOSSIBLE to study such as nuclear fusion in the core of the sun”
Sorry, WHAT?Oh, wait, you say it right after:“(fallacy of false analogy).”
And you’re right, you ARE making a false analogy.The proper analogy you COULD make would be to compare studying nuclear fusion in the sun to million-year long speciation events- THOSE are kinda hard to study directly too since we don’t live that long. In this analogy, fossil records would be akin to wavelength readings of the sun used to confirm fusion. You can try to dodge this all you want, but there’s more evidence for evolution than there is that the sun is a giant burning ball of nuclear explosions, but Creationsim apologists don’t get all hissy over the latter.
[1] the reference is dated, but on purpose. The old right wingers nowadays have of course assimilated rock and roll, finding Elvis pleasant to listen to instead of a demonic influence on young girls swayed by moving hips and sexual innuendo. Nowadays, they’re all against rap instead.[2][3]
[2] That note being entirely allegorical to this conversation.
[3] I wait with baited breath what musical genre they’ll be against in another 20 years when they assimilate rap, too.[4]
[4] It’s so HARD being a right winger, you have to be against SO MANY things.
“Yes, once again you give me evidence of a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.”-You asked for an increase in genetic information. Maybe you should be asking for something else if you’re not satisfied with the answer.[1]
“What has never been demonstrated, observed, or proven is a genetic mutation leading to an advantageous attribute that is then propagated in future progeny.”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...See, it’s not only that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re not saying what you think you’re saying.
“The challenge was to...All you did is tell me that number 1 is true”-Because that’s all you asked for. You call it a logic thing, *I* call it an English thing. It’s amusing to me because your retreat away from reality into the more rigid structures of logic SHOULD lead to more precision in your language. But, lacking the proper knowledge of science, you’re incapable of proper framing.
“Remember this "evolution" example is in response to you claiming that evolution filled a gap in relation to "God of the Gaps".”-I’m pretty sure I did not make that claim. Rather, I made the inverse- that, as scientific knowledge of evolution increases, creation apologists concentrate on the remaining, ahrinking gaps in the theory and claim they’re proof/evidence for God. And isn’t that what the whole God of the gaps is, the assumption that science will never be able to fully explain reality[read creation]?
“There have been no such gaps filled in respect to Christianity.”-Of COURSE not, because Christianity and evolution are not contradictory. The only thing that evolution contradicts is a literal interpretation of the Bible- and people who believe in young earth creationism are just plain silly.
“It's just the most glaring example at the failure to provide evidence by the nature-worshipers.”-What a stupid way to put it. First, with ‘failure to provide’ as if it was some failing on their part, like it’s Christians’ fault for failing to provide God in the flesh upon demand. Second, the vast majority of people who believe in evolution are Christians[2], so it’s weird you’re calling them ‘nature worshipers’.
“There are trillions of rodents and bats, many fossils of each but zero fossils of any i ntermediate species. How is this possible?”-Errr, how is this a serious question? Smh. Okay, let’s approach this rigorously. First we need a baseline, so we need to measure the total number of fossils/the total population of each species. [rigorous experimental outline del]... This might take a few million years.... Oh, my point?[3] We do not know enough about evolution, geology, fossils etc, to determine if the lack of fossils in this case is unexpected.
“I find that atheism and scientism are beliefs concocted on some incoherent line of reasoning that's based on about 20% on actual science and about 80% on illogical philosophical conclusions......”-The problem I have with that is that you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of actual science or scientific process. In fact, virtually every statement you’ve made to me relating to science has been both ignorant and antipathetic.
“I can enumerate the actual scientific "facts" you have given me thus far in all of our conversation....Everything else was just mere assertions, speculation, hyperbole, and unprovable hy pothesis.”-Let’s see, you missed : the sun is a massive ball of fusion. Gene duplication reduces selection pressure. Man is causing global warming... ah, this is no fun, trying to remember everything. That’s just a sampling of things you’ve completely ignored in your little hyperbolic rant.
“It seems in your mind, if you are even able to imagine an untestable, unprovable scientific hypothesis, this qualifies as making your world view "scientific".”-The problem I have with that is that you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of actual science or scientific process. In fact, virtually every statement you’ve made to me relating to science has been both ignorant and antipathetic.
“All you do is make excuses as to why none of it can be observed (which is the antithesis of REAL science), why it doesn't need to be logical, and then tell me that I'm "anti-science".”-That’s not ALL I do. I also point out how incredibly silly and illogical the very foundations of your socalled logical/rational religion are, I make lots of jokes, I correct your numerous faults in language, and I TRY to teach you how to hold an actual conversation instead of a debate.
“Dude... I'm not asking for the entire millions of years history to be documented for me. I'm asking for ONE documented case of increased genetic information leading to a physical advantage.”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...You’re welcome.
“Your example of the nuclear fusion of the sun IS a false analogy. With the sun it is completely IMPOSSIBLE to observe the nature of the sun.”-And you think it’s POSSIBLE to observe millions of years of evolution directly? You’re nuts!
“The stuff about Elvis and rap music is really starting to fly off the rails.Not sure the point you're attempting to make.”-I know. It was an allegory. Those seem to fly right over your head.[4]
“If there were people who predicted that the direction of music at the time was inevitably heading toward violence, illicit activity, and complete sexual promiscuity; it appears they were right.”-You think that’s what rap is? Matt, meet P.M. Dawn. You’re welcome.
[1] I’ve decided at this point to stop helping you by answering what you’re trying to ask. Learn to frame a question.
[2]At least in the US, I’m not going to go and do polls in China or India etc.
[3] I’ve given up thinking you can get it on your own.
[4] Allegorical to creation apologists’ objections then acceptance of heliocentrism, and their objections and future acceptance of evolution, and wondering what the next scientific theory they object to will be.
“This is taken from the original challenge:....I want a citation to where any species has been evolved in a lab to a point where it is considered another species because of its ability to adapt and survive.”-Okay, you want to keep changing the goal post, that’s fine. I’ve dealt with your silly ‘more genetic information’ question.
I’ve answered this one before too, but not directly. So, directly:Bacteria [and amoeba, iirc] are generally not considered species, since they exchange genetic information between dissimilar types. Iow, there’s no way to classify them into species. The amount of evolution in a lab to make a separate species out of them will be about 1-2 billion years, minus whatever time forcing things makes up for. We have not been forcing evolution in labs for close to 1 billion years. Yet.So your request for a citation is a BIT premature. So perhaps we can move up the evolutionary ladder a bit, huh? To my knowledge, the next most popular subjects to lab experiments are nematodes, fruit flies, and mice. I’m not up un research with these, but a quick search showed, [1] they’re trying to make separate species, and [2] it’ll take longer than 1 year or two. Abstracts for your perusal:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [partial success]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [a review, article not available for free.]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [same]This one indicates for something like nematodes it takes 2 millions generations to get different species: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Again, Matt, that’s a BIT longer than labs have been working with them.Finally, because 10 minutes of research reached my limit of effort for this, I saw this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... which gives several papers suggested proto- or full speciation in experiments that I will not track down. Pursue or ignore at your leisure.
“So, you answer this by giving me a citatio n to E. coli? .... I'm pretty sure it didn't evolve into an entirely different species.”-Remember when I said I was going to reply to what you asked for? This is what you asked for:“I'm asking for ONE documented case of increased genetic information leading to a physical advantage.”
-Done.
“And reading through it right now, this is after 56,000 generations! That is A LOT.!”-This is the FIRST thing you’ve said that is anything close to a legitimate criticism of evolution. To answer it: wow, it IS a lot!. It’s also, what, 5, 10 years? Multiple that times 300MILLION. Three. Hundred. Million. That’s what you MULTIPLY by. See what changes you get then.
“You're so off the mark on every single thing that you state,”-Sorry, I know Christians don’t do so good with reality.
“Heliocentrism? You do understand that this was based on Aristotle, right? You also understand that Galileo was a devout Christian who was trying to explain to the Pope that the Bible said nothing about the earth being the center of the solar system.”-And he Pope agreed with that argument?....[crickets]... There is language in the Bible which suggested that very thing, Christians fought for about 200 years against heliocentrism, and you’re trying to brush that away with Aristotle? 200 YEARS, Matt. By the by, it matters not that Galileo was a Christian, many people who believe in evolution are Christians. That has no bearing on MY argument, it’s YOU who seems to think the two are mutually exclusive. I can foresee this being confusing to you, so I’ll be clear- I’ve said ‘Christian apologists’ before, but I’ve since corrected myself to ‘Creation apologists’. Many Christians are fine with evolution and God taking 15 or so billion years to create. Counting Europe, I’d hazard MOST Christians are fine with it.
“Not only does your world view depend on no logic at all, pseudo-science it also depends on a imaginary history.”-I left this in because you claim to rely on logic, God[1] knows you try and bludgeon me enough with it, but *I* never claimed Galileo wasn’t a Christian, I never implied or hinted at such a thing, *You* made an illogical induction based on your own biases with no supporting evidence whatsoever. So, you jump to a false conclusion an then insult me over it. I could make a crack about conservatives here, but instead I’ll point out just how irrational you’re being.
“You in no way met my challenge. Taken directly from the conversation:Did the viruses that they bombarded with radiation to change its genome have progeny that developed into something other than a virus?”-Sorry, what? I answered this. I’ll answer it again just to humor you: No.[2]
“So what do you do? You give me bacteria instead.”-See above. You want answers, ask the right questions. And pay attention when I answer them.
“Just for fun, since it's on topic:[Dawkins video]”-I sympathize with the man, I really do. It takes me a bit to organize answers in my head too. But they cut the tape, and I don’t pretend to know NEARLY as much as he does, but off the top of my head, I came up with three that answer her- that E.Coli experiment, jumping genes, and retroviral insertion fragments. Granted, I think he was trying to answer the question she WASN’T asking, but you’ve taught me that it’s always best to answer the exact question asked.
[1] not YOUR God.[2] I recall now that when answering I pointed out how irrelevant that question was. Maybe you forgot because I pwned you completely on it.[3][3] if that’s the right word, I’m not up on all the lingo these kids use nowadays.
“... the E. Coli article..... says nothing about new genetic information being added. You seem to be under the impression that a mutation is "new genetic information". This is not true, it means that the information is changed.”--You are playing semantic games. I understand what you want to say, you’re not saying it right, and I’m not helping you. Consider this analogy: The cow jumped over the log. The cow jumped over the dog.The second sentence is a ‘point mutation’ that changes information, it’s also NEW information.The E.Coli article is slightly different. It duplicates the gene and puts it under a new promoter. This is akin to: The cow jumped over the log. The COW jumped over the LOG! The expression has changed, that’s new information. If that’s unsatisfactory to you, then consider an alternative analogy that the cow in question in sentence 2 is a different cow. Thus new information.[1]
"A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.”--I replied, then for kicks went to the definition you posted. It’s vastly oversimplified for the scientifically illiterate. Anyway:This is untrue. Many mutations occur in areas of DNA that are not genes. Most of an organism’s DNA is not genes[2], it’s often called ‘junk DNA’, tho some of it likely has some function. There are also mutations that occur WITHIN a gene that don’t alter the ‘genetic message’ That’s because there’s some redundancy built in. Then there’s a question of semantics, since ‘alleles’ are just mutations too, but the word has a different connotation.
“Once the gene has been damaged or changed the mRNA transcribed from that gene will now carry an altered message."--This is only sometimes true, because of the redundancy and because some parts of some genes are not transcribed. It also depends on the semantics of the word ‘gene’-most folks think it means a protein, or an observed phenotype, but some things that can be considered genes are really just chunks of DNA that proteins bind to and which binding then alters the expression of other genes.
“..... if what you're suggesting is possible, it would take millions of years, which is why the question, by its very nature, is not a scientific one but merely speculative.”
--That’s nonsense. There’s plenty of science that deals in ‘speculation’ about long term effects. It’s STILL inference from established demonstratable phenomenon. Such things include radioactive decay, geological processes, evolution, various astronomical orbits. In each case the small scale short term science is remarkably well developed and extrapolated to include long term phenomenon. I repeat, this is EXACTLY the same sort of scientific process wherein a small scale nuclear fusion event is extrapolated to the large scale sun.
“Insisting things are "scientific" when they are by their very nature philosophical”Evolution is NOT philosophical. I mean, I’m sure somebody can FORCE it to be, I’m sure you can philosophicalize *anything*. There’s nothing *intrinsically* philosophical about it. If you had limited your bias to origin issues like abiogenesis or the big bang, you MIGHT have had a point. But you didn’t, you blundered into silliness about evolution. Your bad.
“And you DID say that evolution (I'm assuming speciation) is an example of a gap that science has filled.”--I also said after you challenged it that I couldn’t say for sure because I couldn’t recall what if anything apologists at the time were saying about God and creation. If you want me to keep repeating things I already conceded, I’m gonna start cutting and pasting whole replies. Nonetheless, I still maintain that apologists latch onto any current gaps as proof of God, and that said gaps are shrinking due to further exploration of the theory by scientists.
“Concerning heliocentrism, there is simply NOWHERE in the bible that asserts this.”--The relevant passages are..... f*ck it, I can’t recall. Go look it up yourself, iirc there’s some nutty web sites that still argue against heliocentrism[ and for a flat earth]. It has to do with the idea that saying the sun moves, or the sun was held still in the sky that one time by God, implying the earth was stationary. So, I’m not saying the Bible asserts it, I’m saying that there is textual evidence strong enough to justify the belief, even if it came from the Greeks.
“was that you stated that heleocentrism was an example of God of the Gaps.”--Now that does NOT sound like something I’d say. If I said it, I retract it, but it sounds to me you inferred it.
“If you think that the Bible states that the earth is the center of the universe, cite the verse.”--I do, but I’m quite willing to believe I’m mistaken here. However, Genesis does make it pretty clear that the universe lies within a vast body of water. Which is kinda weird because without gravity that water wouldn’t really BE a body.
[1]I’m not just playing here, gene duplication is one of the primary explanations for evolution and the creation of new proteins. It was also a major revision in evolutionary theory. Here, wiki explains it well enough but it’s a bit technical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...Tho to be accurate not all genes duplicate by that method. I don’t think the E Coli one did.
[2] Higher organisms, I don’t think that applies to bacteria.
“Umm, did you even read below this?”---I do not know. I might have missed it or missed a post of yours.
“CHANGING AN EXPRESSION DOES NOT MAKE IT LARGER!!...... In order for Macro Evolution to be true, this must occur.”---See, this makes no sense... wait, I found the original context:‘The E. Coli article says nothing about the "new information" ......It would be comparable to scrambling some letters on a page or a book. No new letters have been added, but sure you'd have some "new information" as compared to before..”
Now, Matt, let me be clear. You are going to change what you want/mean as I reply because your framing is often shitty. You asked for new information, I gave you new information. You asked for demonstrated speciation, I gave possible references and also citations suggesting that your request was silly in practical terms. NOW you are asking for an increase in information again, but you are asking for it to be ‘LARGER’.This is very simple: During meiosis/Mitosis, sometimes chromosomes do not segregate properly. A cell will then have an extra chromosome. There you go, it’s LARGER.Sometimes during Meiosis- which requires recombination- recombination does not occur at homologous sites. Thus one Chromosome will wind up with extra material and it’s homologous chromosome will wind up with less. That also makes it LARGER. In the E. Coli example. A single gene was duplicated and inserted into another region of the chromosome, thus adding DNA to the total, the sum added being the one gene. That again makes it LARGER.So, let’s sum up: I have provided an example of more information, citations about speciation, and now examples of increased genome size. I think we’re getting closer to what you actually WANT to challenge me with.
“Show me where in this article it states anything analagous or similar to stating that there is an increase in the total DNA set in its genome.”---I left this in because you have poor reading skills. Tho to be fair I guess that E. Coli thing was a bit technical. So I’ll show you: “The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones had duplication mutations of a 2933 base pair segment “ That means the mutation added 2933 base pairs to the overall size of the genome. Done. Next?
“I'm looking for a citation that shows the increase in a genome. As I stated, you cannot”---Woops. Spoke a little too fucking soon there, didn’t you.
“You have provided nothing to support your assertion.”---Which one? I’ve supported lots of assertions.
“The same with your citation pertaining to the Bible and heleocentrism. You can't cite anything.”---This sums it up:http://christianity.stackex...It’s not that I *can’t* cite anything, it’s that I don’t’ care to when it’s irrelevant to my point and its negation doesn’t serve any purpose. It took me literally 10 seconds [I type slow] to find this one page. This means that your whole argument isn’t about countering my point, it’s merely an attempt to disprove it by making the assertion if I’m mistaken or merely not wholly correct about any one detail my entire argument is wrong. That’s a silly, stupid assertion. It might work with proofs, but not with arguments. I’m asserting that Christians held a massive hissy fit for about 200 years over heliocentrism. Aristotle or ambiguous Bible verses do not refute that assertion.
“That's the beautiful thing bout atheists. They have an extremely rich knowledge base of history, textual criticism and science and almost none of it exists. They made it all up.”---*Everything* is all made up- God, religion, history, philosophy, emotions, language, *everything*[1]The only thing that isn’t made up is reality, and the only way we can access that is through our senses [which make things up], and the only substantial way we can verify said reality is common to all of us is through science. Religion does not provide for a common reality. Atheism does not provide for a common reality, it’s merely an interpretation. Science, with its demonstratable phenomenon and repeatable experiments, that provides for a common reality.Your disbelief in science [a measuring of reality] in favor of religion [an extrapolation of idiosyncratic interpretations of reality] is a clear example of how religion is poisoning our society.
“ they'll give you citations for some other thing (such as your) E.Coli”Hey, I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. Learn to ask for what you WANT.
It should have read, "I could also go into gene duplication if I wanted to, but still you have no evidence that new base DNA has been added, .”----I’m sorry, but how stupid are you? Do you understand what the word ‘duplication’ means? It means something has been made 2x of. If I duplicate a dollar you give me, that’s *every* evidence that new money has been added.[2]
“" [w]e don't observe such macroevolutionary changes because they take such a long time" and therefore must use our "imaginations" to understand macroevolution."To me, this about says it all.”---We don’t observe solar fusion because the sun is too hot to measure directly, and therefore we must use our ‘imaginations’ to understand how stars function..
[1] exaggeration for rhetorical effect. [2]That’s not what you meant, but it is what you wrote.
Hi. This will probably be my last post because Wonkette has blocked my account and I had to create a new one and delete my cookies. They've made it pretty tedious.. I went back and viewed all of the citations that you gave me pertaining to "speciation", which we both agree occurs to some extent, but where we obviously disagree is to the extent.You obviously think that speication occurs to the extent that a single celled organism can propagate into Einstein, whereas I would fully agree that a wolf can propagate into a poodle.One clearly has a demonstrated record with genetic swapping etc within an existing genome, the other does not. Of course when you deal with "duplication", you are still dealing with the existing genome since duplication limits any functionality that is transcribed to what already exists.
Here is an explanation as to why your citations in no way give any evidence to this degree of speciation, that is the kind based on added genetic information (and I'm not going to rehash here exactly what "added" means).
Citation 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..."Reproductive isolation between these populations, however, has never been confirmed by replicate experiments in can independent laboratory."-As usual.Besides the abstract itself openly admitting that it doesn't prove anything, it of course depends on the "Ring Species" type of definition of "Species". The absurd notion that if they can't breed they are different species.It does nothing to demonstrate new genetic instructions have been added to the genome to direct creation of brand new attributes.It certainly does nothing to support the notion that brain surgeons could possibly evolve from E. Coli (yes, i know it wasn't literally E.coli, but some other bacterium)
Citation 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...To me this seems to argue against what you are arguing. It seems to downplay the importance of mutation:"Evidence for mutation-order speciation by natural selection is more limited and has been best documented by instances of reproductive isolation resulting from intragenomic conflict".This particularly focuses on ecological speciation as the driver for "speciation", which is what I would argue for all along; not genetic mutation.I'm not sure why you included this as support for your argument
Citation 3:The abstract does nothing but assert that "All plant and animal species arise by speciation - the evolutionary splitting of one species into two reproductively incompatible species."
How do I get to their evidence for this? I don't see a link to open anything, just the abstract.Once again, I see nothing in the attribute that even mentions adding to the genome to create new instructions to build new attributes to cause "speciation".In the abstract it specifically asserts " groups separated by latitude, or by restricted geography, that is being exploited to dissect the genetic basis to adaptive evolution and reproductive incompatibility;"It is pointing to environmental factors and adaptive evolution. This does NOTHING, once again, to show that adaptation is not occurring within the existing genome, or AT MOST, some of the mutations we have already talked about such as swapping.
Citation 4: Pertaining to E. Coli.This clearly did nothing to answer the kind of questions that I was asking. While point mutations such as genetic duplication did occur, this is something that we already know about and it is completely limited in scope and is dependent upon the genetic information that is duplicated. It showed absolutely nothing as to the ability of a single cellto form into more complex organisms and ESPEICAILLY did nothing to suggest that they can propegate mulitple kingdom and phylumn etc all the way to human beings.
Throughout our conversation, you had done exactly as I would have predicted, and that is give me a whole bunch of evidence for a few necessary conditions, but absolutely no evidence for the sufficient conditions. You have done this for our conversation about abiogenesis and about macro-evolution.
Your argument could basically be captured in the simple logical formulation1)IF (a) AND (b) AND (c) THEN (Y)2)(a)3) Therefore (Y)Once again, you prove a part of the necessary conditions would require that "a" AND "b" AND "c" all be true in order for "Y" to be true, but you will simply supply some foggy evidence for "a" (IE E. coli has genetic duplication, therefore it is reasonable to believe that humans came from bacteria. Or another example, if amino acids can occur spontaneously,then we must assume they have occurred spontaneously AND formed themselves into the correct sequence to create proteins necessary for life AND with a genetic structure formed in order to specify instructions to these proteins AND all of this arranged itself into a self contained living cell that could take in nutrients, grow, reporduce, excrete wastes and genetically evolve).
This is all so illogical, I can hardly express it.
I find your retort is always "well, this cannot be tested; it requires too much time (or insert other excuse here)", then by definition it is not a scientific endeavour, or at least it is a very limited one. If you find yourself saying this in every single conversation that you have pertaining to your beliefs, then your beliefs have no real basis in science at all. By every measure that I can see, atheism has no basis what so ever in science, logic or anything that could be described loosely as "Reason".I find your retort is always "well, this cannot be tested; it requires too much time (or insert other excuse here)", then by definition it is not a scientific endeavour, or at least it is a very limited one. If you find yourself saying this in every single conversation that you have pertaining to your beliefs, then your beliefs have no real basis in science at all. By every measure that I can see, atheism has no basis what so ever in science, logic or anything that could be described loosely as "Reason".