DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know, and therefore I don't intend to say anything about awareness itself. I only said that sense data gets processed enough before it gets to conscious awareness that you can't treat your sense data as direct observation.


What would you consider to be the difference?


I don't. Look again. Both my statements are conditionals. I was asking you what assumptions Kant made and told you my reason for asking.


Too vague for my purposes. I need to know whether Kant assumed that sense data are accurate and not influenced by previous experience in any way. That assumption I would consider demonstrably wrong.


Not even if it influences what knowledge comes into your awareness? Have you heard of priming? That's when previously presented information biases your perception or your retrieval from memory. The information that primes your perception or memory does not have to be consciously perceived.

There are other relevant effects. Here is a classical experiment for you, which you can carry out yourself. Get three buckets or other containers large enough to place both hands inside. Fill one with ice water, one with tepid water, one with hot water. Put one hand into the ice water, the other into the hot water. Leave both hands in for a minute, or longer if you can (I don't remember how long it's supposed to be, probably the effect will be there after a minute). Take your hands out and immediately put both into the tepid water. It should feel cold on the hand that was in hot water, but warm on the hand that was in ice water. Adaptation in the peripheral nervous system already makes your perception depend on past experience, and not only on the current sensory data. I don't call that direct. Do you?

Next, look at this reference about pitch perception (it's only one page). Pitch is the perceived frequency of sounds. If you take a harmonic sound (which has energy at multiples of the fundamental frequency), and ask people to adjust the frequency of a pure tone to match the harmonic sound, they usually match the fundamental frequency. They even do that if the fundamental frequency is not there at all, only the higher harmonics. Would you call that direct sense data?

You can also have visual processing without conscious awareness. Look up blindsight.

If you assume that sense data come into your awareness in a way that directly reflects the world around you, any conclusion you base on that premise will be wrong.


Misunderstanding. I asked you to stop whatever you were doing to think about what you perceive. Does it make more sense this way?


Another misunderstanding. I claim that the senses do not deliver the undistorted data that you would need for what I think you mean by "direct observation". I claim that what you consciously perceive is based on statistical inference, where your brain uses Bayesian methods that you seem to consider invalid. I think that position is logically inconsistent because you would deny the validity of the process that gives you the perceptions on which you want to base your reasoning. I don't have that problem because I am happy with statistical inference, so I am happy to use both sense data and other data, whatever provides useful information. I also took your statements about direct observation to mean that you insisted that you can use only information you perceive right now. That wouldn't work. From what you have added, I now think you mean that the only reliable source of information is your own personal experience. Is that right? That would take us back to how reliable perception and memory are. Did you watch the videos I posted and do the experiment in the second one?

I like logic just fine. That's why I have spent so much time on checking whether the premises are true that lead me to the conclusion that your position is logically inconsistent. My conclusion could be logically valid, but not applicable to you if my premises are false.


Then I think we agree that, for example, the truth of a theorem in a non-Euclidean geometry does not depend on finding a non-Euclidean space in which I can experimentally test the theorem. That is what I argued.


That is not what I meant. Newton's second law is intended to be a law of the universe, which applies everywhere. I wanted to know whether you can deduce that it does apply everywhere, that there can't be any place in the universe where it doesn't apply.

I had intended to ask you the same question about conservation of momentum and energy, but I heard a podcast where a physicist said that all physical theories must apply for every possible observer (Einstein was the first to realize the implications of that), and that in 1916 a mathematician had shown that conservation of energy and momentum can be deduced from this symmetry principle. If I understood the argument, this is true not just for this universe, but for every possible universe. That is the kind of thing I was looking for.


Exactly, and that is why I want to know where you get the universal statements from. In the case of conservation of energy and momentum it comes from the symmetry requirement, and I think that is needed for a coherent theory. Perhaps one day it may be possible to deduce everything in this way, but right now, I think that is not the case.


That is fine, but doesn't address my question. How do you know Newton's theory applies?

For example, Newton's claim that the force of gravity between two point masses is inversely proportional to the square of distance between them can be deduced from field theory, if you assume that you can treat gravity as a field (and if you assume a Euclidean space, because geometry comes into it). But are these assumptions justified? Are the premises true? If they are true in the cases you observed, how confident can you be that they will still be true in other cases? I think that is the job of induction, and I am curious how you want to do without it.

Physicist do treat the inverse square relationship as a problem for induction. That is why they analyze the Pioneer anomaly. If the inverse square relationship could be deduced from first principles, like conservation of energy and momentum, they wouldn't need to do that.


Exactly. And how can you be sure that you know everything that is relevant?


Assuming that "less order" means simpler, your second premise is only true if either everything else apart from unicellularity versus multicellularity is equal, or if the cells in the multicellular organism are more complex. If you have a single very complex cell, and your multiple cells are each very simple, your conclusion is not necessarily true. Your deduction does not include all relevant information. Even if all your observations show that my objection has never been true, can you be sure that it never will be true for future observations?

If "less order" or "lower order" is intended to be independent of the complexity of the constituent cells, my objection doesn't apply, but the conclusion becomes trivial.

Here is another problem. Amino acids are chiral, they come in mirror image form or enantiomers.

If that is absolutely true, then it would not matter at all whether biological organisms used L-amino acids or D-amino acids to make proteins. Either descent from a common ancestor or selection pressure would quickly make sure that at least within an ecosystem (and apparently planet wide) all organisms would use amino acids with the same chirality to make proteins (more precisely, with my knowledge I could only argue that, for example, phenylalanine should have the same chirality in different organisms, and glutamine should have the same chirality in different organisms, but I can't tell you why phenylalanine and glutamine should have the same chirality). And so the article continues:

So most scientists currently treat the choice of L versus D-amino acids as something that could not be deduced. In addition, they have not tested all proteins in all organisms. The assumption that all proteins are made of L-amino acids is based on induction. If the chirality of the amino acids in proteins could be deduced, it would be possible also to deduce whether it applies universally here on Earth, and whether it would also apply everywhere in the universe, and why.


All right.

Plants often enough produce polyploid (they have more than the normal two sets of chromosomes) hybrids which are fertile with themselves, but not their parent species. I read at least one new species of tree has been documented to have arisen in Mauritius around 1930 (I don't remember the source). More recently, two hybrid butterfly species have been observed:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 025564.200
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... w-one.html

One important point here is that the hybridization has been reproduced in the lab. I quickly scanned the original paper, but did not find any report that they tried crossbreeding with the naturally occurring hybrid. It would be nice if they had tried that as well, just to see whether they can reproduce in the lab a specific speciation event which has occurred naturally. But please be clear that this is speciation produced in the lab. It may be the first speciation in animals that was experimentally produced in the lab, but not the first observed in the lab.

Several subspecies of fruitfly were collected in the 50s, and tested to see whether they could interbreed and really were only local variants of the same species. They were. Six years later, one of the populations no longer was able to interbreed with the others. There had been an infection in the lab. It is known that the evolutionary response to some infections can make insects infertile with those whose ancestors were not exposed to the infection. So here you have a speciation event which happened in a lab, at some time in the six years between the first and second tests. I call it speciation because it meets the strict definition. The authors are more cautious, because hybrid sterility is the only change they could demonstrate, and there had not been further evolutionary changes. The paper is Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA in 1966, volume 55, pages 727-733. The title is SPONTANEOUS ORIGIN OF AN INCIPIENT SPECIES IN THE DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM COMPLEX. I quote the first paragraph of the paper below. Note that it mentions that natural speciation through hybridization had already been reproduced back in 1966.



Satisfied?

More in a few days, when I have more time.

And how can you know that when you are not aware of it?




Kant never said that sense data are accurate,he said that sense data are getting interpreted...or to simplify this-knowledge is subjective thing,that is referring to something objective.




These are just interpretations of what knowledge is.



I believe that this is called 'meditation'.



Who said that this must be applied everywhere?
I know that Newton had quite ambitious and bombastic ideas,but this law can be applied only where phenomena of force exist.

I believe that 'Theory of everything' is not discovered...yet.




Through experiment.
We go from theory,to particular cases in which it can be applied.
Thats basic deduction.



That all depends how you interpret premises.And then from this interpretation you can draw conclusion that is based on these premises.




I haven't read that they are fertile with themselves,and not parent species...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy







So,they could indeed 'multiply'...by cloning only.I can mate....with myself.




No.



There is no hurry.
After all I don't have much time either.

Edit: sorry this comes across as far more aggressive than intended. Some of it is frustration at the many misunderstandings in this discussion, some of it is trying to be as clear as possible and abandoning all attempts at politeness in the process.

Depends on whether “you” is meant to be personal or general. If general, a few decades of research in perception. If personal, about one cumulative year of studying the subject full time and reproducing relevant experiments. Much of this was long ago, but I have kept up to date enough to know that statistical inference has only become more important in modern theories of perception. If you disagree, please give a specific reason.


Does that mean Kant’s scheme can accommodate sensory perception based on statistical inference? And does it mean Kant does not insist on all interpretation being a conscious process?


You are again missing or avoiding the point of the question. Where do you get your theory from, how widely do you intend to apply the theory, and how do you know which theory to use as the premise for your specific deductions?

What justified LeVerrier’s assumption that he could use Newton’s theory to deduce the position of a previously unobserved planet? Why didn’t he use some other theory?

Are all your premises provisional? Do you choose an arbitrary general statement, make some deduction, find out whether your premises lead to the conclusion that fits your result, and the next time you choose your premises again arbitrarily? Or does the match or mismatch between conclusion and observation make a difference to what premises you use the next time for deducing a specific statement? If it is the second, you need a way of choosing, based on particular empirical results, from different possible general statements. How do you do that? I want to know where you get your theory from. Your statement that you go from theory to particular cases is totally irrelevant to that question. Observations are particular cases. How do you go from these to the general?


In that very same Wikipedia article on polyploidy, in between the parts you quoted, it also says:

If you follow the link, it takes you to another Wikipedia article on speciation. Looking there for polyploidy, I find this:

By the conventions of natural language, that implies that there are polyploids that are reproductively isolated from their parent species. To be sure, a bit more information would be good.

If I google both “polyploidy” and “speciation”, the first site on the list tell me this:

Look at the fourth paragraph (second in the second section). It mentions the extra experiment that I didn’t find in the papers on the butterfly, showing that the hybrid can breed with the wild species thought to have its origin in hybridization. So this is not only speciation, it reproduces a specific speciation event previously inferred from other information.


In a hybridization zone, the resulting animals often do have another individual to mate with, so your objection does not always apply.

To meet your challenge, I don't have to show that a new species is reproducing sexually (though that is possible), I don't have to show that polyploidy always leads to speciation. I only have to show one case of speciation.

To show I failed to meet your challenge, you have to refute all the examples I offered. I suppose your reference to sterility was intended to be a claim that any individuals produced this way would be sterile and would therefore, like mules, not be a new species. No one would claim speciation if the new hybrids were not fertile at least asexually, or when reproducing sexually among themselves. Then you seem to accept that the individuals could reproduce, but you seem to say they could only ever reproduce asexually. That is both irrelevant, and it is wrong if intended as a general statement. It applies to some polyploid crosses, but not to all.

On the second site, I find this:

That answers your objection to speciation by polyploidy.

You did not comment on Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky. If you want to claim no speciation has been observed, you also have to show why this should not count.


If you want to argue that I did not meet the criteria that you chose, you have to come up with a better objection than you have offered so far.

Researching perception is actually having perception about perception...



Experiments would always reproduce coherent theory,whatever this theory may be.
It all depends of interpretation.There are many interpretations,and thus many truths.
I didn't say that evolution is not true,but that evolution is one interpretation of things...but this is not a point in here.
My experience of the matter is 4 years of philosophical studies in general,and for about 2 years I'm interested in hermeneutics (philosophical) and in ontology,after I have read non-philosophical book 'Exercise of Style' by Raymond Queneau that created serious doubts in me about possibility of having 'objective' knowledge about empirical facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercises_in_Style

Here is similar example,made by Matt Maden:

http://www.artbabe.com/exercises/exercises/

To illustrate this by simple logical experiment:

Facts:

C F A
D B

E

|
|
| Induction
|
V
Hypotheses:

1. A,B,C,D,E,F
2. F,E,D,C,B,A
3. AB,CD,EF
4. ABC,DEF
5. FED,CBA
6. A C E
B D F

Etc...
Which hypothesis from above is the real 'logical' interpretation of given facts?
Problem here is this...'facts' can be arranged in almost indefinite numbers of hypothetical scenarios,and since all these scenarios are just interpretations of these facts,therefore all these interpretations would be empirically confirmed by these same facts.



From my point above,we can conclude that ANY theory which refers to given fact is true one.
Even medieval theories about space were correct.

From the point of observer that is on earth,then indeed sun revolves around earth.
However,from the point of observer that is not on earth,then earth revolves around sun.

Earth is indeed center of the universe,if the observer of the universe is located on earth.

Even crackpot theories (non-medieval) that earth is flat are correct,if by 'earth' you consider land upon which interpretor walk.
But from outside-earth perspective then Earth is indeed round.



Because he considered Newton's theory as most convenient.
To deduce something from general principle,it is totally irrelevant what this general principle is.
Deduction just gives us conclusion from premises,and thats what pure reason actually does.



Deduction just gives us answer if general principle is logically coherent with itself,thats all.
And this is true boundary of reason.


General patterns that are made from particulars are not rational as such,but belong to FREEDOM of our mind to CREATE relationships between these same particulars.
But such generalizations are not truths,since you can generalize things in indefinite number of patterns.

To illustrate this problem:



Basically,we do not discover 'truth',we create it.




Yes,they MAY contribute to reproductive isolation and speciation,but they also MAY contribute to creation of 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'....
This is not scientific statement,but soothsaying.



Sterile persons are by definition reproductively isolated from their parents,but they are also isolated from reproduction as such.

Its like saying that girls with XXX syndrome are new specie,since they are barren.



Yes,they have another individual to mate with,problem is that both individuals are sterile..so they can't do that in reality.



This is what I have found from another website:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x055wp5k821l6431/



Science in Soviet Union was highly biased in favor of 'historic materialism',so interpretation of these results is highly questionable.

People can mate with other people and create off springs.
But some people cannot have children with other people because of blood-type,or even genetic anomalies.
But these same people may have children with other people who are more genetically suited for them.

Seriously...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphanobrassica



If hybridization is possible in the first place,then how is possible that two separate species can create a hybrid at all?
Are these two separate species at all,or just variations of same species?

Sterile persons, yes. But that is relevant to speciation only in so far as the individuals of a new species must not be sterile. That's why mules are not a new species, that's why your example of a girls with XXX syndrome is totally irrelevant. What you try to criticize has been taken care of long ago. It is a digression, an irrelevance, it is inapplicable, besides the point, extraneous, immaterial, garbage. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

What matters in this context is that an individual of one species can't produce, with an individual of another species, fertile offspring capable of a fertile backcross with either of the parent species. That has been observed. Your only counterargument seems to be that you don't believe anything coming out of Russia, because these people are biased. You give me the same argument about perception. Is there any empirical evidence at all that you could not possibly try to counter in this way?


The references I have given you state that is not so. Here is a quote from one of the papers on butterflies:

There you go. The "H. heurippa-like individuals" are the hybrids. They are fertile with each other. The author is not Russian, he works at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. I expect you can find another reason why he must be wrong.

Then in one of the other references I gave you, which you have not commented on, there is this:

Same again, the hybrid offspring reproduce sexually with each other.

Did you read either of these articles? If yes, why did you ignore this information? If you didn't read them, why not? Shouldn't you know what you are trying to refute?


That does not say "always". The criteria you gave me require me only to find one example of speciation. You have to refute all of them. "in general" doesn't do it. I gave you specific references and specific results. Can you give a reason why those specific results should be wrong, beyond general statements about sterility that are explicitly not meant to be universal?


Apply the logic you insist on. I take the observations as described, I interpret them. I have no idea what the Russian's interpretation is. But I assume I am highly questionable, too. Even if we apply your judgment to the reported observations, "highly questionable" is not the same as "untrue". Can you give me a reason based on the results why I should think they are untrue?

I did expect your objection as soon as I saw the author was Russian. I am curious whether my other expectations will be met.

As for the rest, I'll take the time to read it in more detail, but I do have one question I hope you can answer with a simple yes or no: do you have any way, based on empirical data, to choose from different premises on which you base your deductions? Any way at all?

I'm not saying that I doubt in these results,just because they came from 1920-es Soviet Union,but because there are some who disagree with these results (and I posted it),plus the fact that Soviet Union had tradition of forcing theories that support materialist and naturalist world view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko









Nice,but can they mate with parent species?
Is a hybrid product of mutation of one specie into other and natural selection,or is he just a combination of two genetically similar sub-species?
And if hybrid is a fusion of two different species,then by definition of Evolution he is not a new specie.
Since Evolution is splitting of species,from common ancestor by natural selection and mutation,not fusing two species into one.
So,hybridization is not speciation,but something quite opposite to it.
We have two specialized species,that merge into one 'specie'.

In here we can see how Evolution is constantly being re-interpreted,to avoid falsification.

Although,I'm not biologist,I have noticed many differences in interpretations and definitions amongst biologists themselves.This is hardly an argument,off course,but personal observation.




This is your right to interpret them as you like,but not my obligation.
If there is an alternative to this view (that I posted),who seems that can be trusted,then it's still a doubtful.



Soviet scientists often published results that are highly questionable,and their interpretations of these discoveries are questionable as well.
Many of their claims were based on 'Argument from (Scientific) authority' fallacy.



First of all Evolutionists have certified history of forging empirical evidences,so that they can support their world view.
Most famous example was "Piltdown man'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man





Second,because of interpretation.Many scientists often interpret their discoveries in a way that these discoveries support their beliefs.And other scientists that share these believes will support these interpretations.

Thirdly,because there are scientists that disagree with these theories (not include Creationist ones).



There are INDEFINITE number of ways to choose on which premises you may base your deductions.
From my examples above,empirical data may be interpreted in many ways,and from that interpretations depends conclusions.

From 18 century onwards, knowledge theory and philosophy of science have rejected old notion of 'objectivity'.
I hardly doubt that Evolutionary Biologists,due to high specialization of their discipline,read works on scientific methodology and research laws of logical thinking..as many scientists from other areas.

Only thing that I like about Creationism is their critic of Evolution,that I think has rational basis.
This is in contrast with their answers to these fallacies,that I consider truly funny.
This is from Creationist site,about various reconstructions of same fossils:

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/Aprecon.htm

This implies to 'interpretation problem'.

Can there be a 'right' interpretation,and is 'right' also an interpretation?

Observation is obviously based on observer,and not on what is observed.

It's a damn good thing you weren't the judge in the Dover Pennsylvania case. At least he had the brains to see through creationist non-sense.

The creationists leave out the fact that Nebraska man was de-bunked by OTHER BIOLOGISTS!! !

"Ad hominem" & "Straw man" attacks again.

Besides that,many Creationists are also Biologists,or do you imply that Biology is the same thing as theory of Evolution?

Most people would imply or state outright that biologists are scientists, but that creationists are not scientists.

In a way, creationists are the paranoid schizophrenics of science. They are seemingly rational, until their ideological fixation is touched upon (or they bring it up themselves).

This is from 'Evo-Wiki' site:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Patrick_Briney




http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/A._Ernest_Wilder-Smith



http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Hugh_Ross




http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Hugh_Mi ... tionist%29



http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Kevin_L._Anderson




...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Scherer



Hardly a protestant evangelical pastors....




This is "Argument from personal belief",and "Ad hominem" in general.




Same could be said for naturalists.

Where exactly? If you mean what I think you mean, it's not a refutation, or a counter argument, or even a disagreement. So I want to be sure I don't misinterpret you.


If you will tell me why you ask, I will give you my answer. I have an idea why you ask, but I would like to hear what you have to say before I carry on.

That's all very nice, but irrelevant. You are missing the point. When they believe in statements about the physical world because it was written in a scripture written thousands of years ago by pre-scientific tribesmen, they are not scientists. When they deny any and all evidence that might conflict with their doctrines or dogma, they are not scientists.

The fact that they may have training in science, or are employed in a science related career is irrelevant. If they selectively turn off consideration of scientifically plausible hypothesis for religious reasons, they are religionists, not scientists. Particularly when they talk about creationism,which is really no less absurd than Lysenkoism.

Some creationists may be biologists, but all their theories reguarding ID are inherently unscientific since their based on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Irreducible Complexity is based on a logical fallacy. Can you name which one it is??

The theory of Evolution is an accepted part of biology. No evidence has been brought forth to disprove it.

This is from another source:

http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume8 ... pter3.html





But lets suppose that Karpechenko was telling the truth...

What is the problem with these two pictures?





Hybridization is opposite process of evolution.


And besides that Polyploidy is duplication of existing structures,not creation of totally new ones.

So,is Raphanobrassica new specialized specie,or just mosaic form that is result of fusion of two specialized species?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Raphanobrassica



Similar pseudo-mosaic forms may be created by Grafting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting






Very simple...
Before we can claim 'objectivity' and 'truth' we must first settle the thing is our knowledge really 'knowledge' or belief?
What exactly we may know about objective realty for sure,so that we can claim something to be a fact?
Is reason reasonable as such?
Is reason omniscient?
What reason can tell us about world,or is the reason just pure instrument of our beliefs that are irrational in its basis?
Many philosophers and scientific theorists tried to analyze nature of our knowledge,and by using Occam's razor they come to conclusion that besides our own subjective existence,we simply do not know NOTHING about outside world in term of real factual knowledge.
Every belief,or positive statement about outside world can be destroyed by skeptical alternatives,and there are indefinite numbers of them.
As a matter of fact any POSITIVE statements (except solipsistic one) may be negated by skepticism.
Humans simply accept beliefs about outside world as 'convenient' and out of pure pragmatic habit.

When I asked you 'Prove me that you exist',I have created very simple question that is not hard core speculation about origins of organisms,true nature of physical laws or even about existence of God.
I can tell you in advance that whatever you say about your own existence,that this may be refuted by indefinite numbers of skeptic alternatives.

If you cannot prove me such simple thing as your own existence,whats the point of proving something as 'fact'?




Well,almost entire scientific community before Darwin were Theistic and Creationist one.
As a matter of fact terms like 'Homology' and 'Dinosauria' were created by pro- Creationist scientists.


Scientific method started as attempt to understand 'mind of God'.
Rene Descartes,father of scientific method actually created this method as instrument of understanding 'divine plan'.
Galileo and Newton considered mathematics and natural laws as 'thoughts of God'.
Kepler based his astronomical theories on pythagorean vision of universal cosmic harmony that is evidence of creator.
Not to mention Leibnitz,who created entire 'Theodicy' to explain divine plan.

These people in reality were creators of science as such,and examples like Newton show that they were also fanatical believers in Bible.
Atheists of 19 century simply re-interpreted their results in Atheistic terms.

To prove my claim from above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Prout





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ki ... ologist%29




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen





The fact is that current atheistic and materialistic science is not result of some rational development,but by invasion of aggressive atheists in middle of 19 century,and theory of Evolution finally give them weapon against religion,which they use without mercy to equate them with science as such.
This is why Atheist scientists are so emotional and apologetic about evolution.
As Richard Dawkins once said:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm



Everything may be questioned...Newtonian physics,Quantum mechanics,Relativity,Big Bang theory...except Evolution off course,because evolution is 'fact'.
To negate Evolution is for Atheist the same as negating his 'belief'.
This is their 'logic':
Atheism=Naturalism=Evolution=Science=Smart

And all who disagree with these scheme are:

Theists=Believers=Creationists=Fanatics=Stupid

Due to aggressive campaign of ridiculing and insulting all those who may be Theists or opponents of Evolution theory,such Atheistic views soon became dominant,since most of people do not like to be labeled as 'stupid',so they accept what is constructed as 'smart'.

Unfortunately for Atheists,creators and most prominent members of their beloved 'Science' were actually deeply religious people...which makes them 'stupid' according to Atheist nerds.

P.S

Charles Darwin didn't discovered anything new,he just rationalized and articulated belief that was tradition of his family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin




So,Charles Darwin simply projected already established belief as interpretation of objective realty.

The topics here will be:
1) The most likely candidate for what you considered a refutation is based on a logical error you committed, and accused me of.
2) Your next “refutation” is rather out of date, superceded by what you quoted before, and even if we agreed it was a refutation, deals with only one of several examples I gave you, which you have ignored.
3) Your claim that science should be based only on deductive reasoning is logically incoherent.
4) Proof of existence
5) You do not apply the same standards of debate to yourself as to others.

Point 1

I specifically asked what you considered a disagreement. Now I have to guess you meant this here:

You even highlighted the relevant part: in general. That means “not always”. And that is the same as in the quote you were trying to refute, which said:

In deductive reasoning, it is important to remember the difference between universal statements that are supposed to apply to all exemplars of a category, and statements which apply only to some exemplars of a category. You knew that difference when you (falsely) accused me of making exactly that mistake:

You left out the context which made clear that I did not treat "may contribute" as definite evidence. The word “may” has two meanings in this context. It can refer either to conjecture, or be a short way of saying “it can happen, but doesn’t always happen”. In other words, it can be another way of referring to the difference between “some” and “all”. Either way, it means you need more information. That is how I treated it, that is how you should have treated it, but you didn’t.

Point 2

I followed your link and found that reference 138 is

The abstract you linked to previously was from 1972, and contains nothing to contradict Karpechenko’s claims. Taking Karpechenko’s earlier paper, to be generous to you, we have 26 years from Karpechenko to your reference, and 57 years since, with many more scientists active in more recent years. If you want to claim no replication, you really need more recent references.

Point 3: Your claim that science should be based only on deductive reasoning is logically incoherent.
Since I joined this discussion, my two main disagreements with you have been that by the criteria that scientists use to decide what is scientific, evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology are scientific endeavours while creationism isn’t, and that your criteria for what is scientific exclude all the natural sciences, including those you still consider science. You abandoned discussion of the first point very quickly, and I think you have now provided enough confirmation of the second.


The whole point of the natural sciences is to choose between possible explanations. If you want to abandon that, you abandon all attempts at natural sciences, and you abandon all attempts at using empirical evidence.

In September, you quoted a Wikipedia article on the scientific method:

One important part here is how far the hypotheses generalize beyond the data from which they were derived. If they did not go beyond the data already collected, there would be no point in developing the hypotyhesis, and if the hypothesis did not go beyond the data already collected, then the hypothesis testing would inevitably end up being a case of circular reasoning. If you want your hypothesis to have a point and if you want to avoid circularity, you need inductive reasoning as part of the scientific method.

Later you accused evolutionary biologists of circular reasoning:

This is a special case of your more general argument:

Taking this at face value, that is logically impossible, because you can have different coherent theories based on different premises. For example, string theory has several different solutions, only one of which describes the universe we live in. Other solutions are also coherent, they describe universes that may or may not exist. As I understand what I heard about the topic, you could not experimentally observe in this universe all the physical laws described by the equations for these other universes. From context, I guess that is not what you had in mind, but I wanted to exclude it explicitly because your statement sounds rather like this is your opinion. And the only alternative I found isn't much better.

Your claim could be made to be true at the cost of accepting a circular process of verification, the very fallacy you accused evolutionary biologists of. If you derive a theory from a limited set of observations, and then you test it ONLY on that very same limited set of observations, then and only then could you be sure your data would be consistent with your theory.

Let’s assume that you have good enough control over all the relevant conditions (and that you know well enough what is relevant) that you can repeat an experiment. To be sure your new data remain consistent with your theory, you would have to avoid using better instruments as well. For example, early on you wrote:

That led up to this exchange:

You can find relativistic effects on time by sending a subsonic aeroplane round the globe carrying an accurate enough clock. I consider subsonic aeroplanes flying round the globe to be part of the normal world. So you end up saying Newtonian mechanics is true just as long as you don’t look at it closely enough. I agree that by this method, lots of hypotheses can be made to be true. But that method is not the scientific method.

Your dislike of inductive reasoning and statistics also leads you into other trouble.

That is a distortion of quantum mechanics. Have a look at the double slit experiment. You set up a light source shining through two slits onto a detector. You turn down the intensity until you have single photons coming off the light source. If you put detectors into the slits, you find you can’t predict through which slit any single photon will go, but it will go through only one. If you then unblock both slits, you can’t predict where on the detector behind the slits any single photon will land. You can predict that the probability of a single photon hitting any location is given by a wave interference pattern. When you look it up, you’ll find a few more interesting things. The point is, even though you can’t predict where a single photon will go, you don’t have complete randomness. Quantum physics predicts a specific statistical pattern. But because the pattern is statistical, the prediction is not falsifiable by Popper’s criteria. That doesn’t stop you from upholding both Popper’s criteria of falsifiability and the scientific status of quantum physics. You do that by distorting what quantum physics actually says.

The probability function describing where photons are likely to hit is a pattern, but it is a prediction that can’t strictly be falsified according to Popper’s criteria, because there is a finite probability of any pattern you could produce with the number of photons you put through the slits.

Point 4

You use “truth” here in a different sense than above, where you said a theory would be true if it could explain a strictly limited data set. Here you want truth that can cope with any conceivable data set. From your arguments so far, I can’t tell whether you are aware of the difference. Perhaps some of the contradictions in your arguments come from you not noticing it.


As long as you get to choose the premises, and can change them any time you like. Deductive reasoning can only lead to an agreed conclusion if everyone involved agrees on the premises, so this is a rather important point that you didn’t mention.

If we were to agree on these premises:
You only ask questions of people who really exist.
You asked me a question.
Then it follows that I really exist.


If we allow you to choose any premise you want, you don’t need to come up with an indefinite number of alternatives, you only need to go into solipsistic mode and say “what you say could be a figment of my imagination”. Under those conditions, it is a trivial fact that the proof is impossible. That doesn’t stop you from saying it should be simple for me to do what you acknowledge to be impossible. If you were trying to make me look stupid, that choice of word would make sense, but in terms of logic, I don’t see how it makes sense. That leads me on to the next point.

Point 5: You do not apply the same standards of debate to yourself as to others.
You complained in this thread of ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. I got curious about your standards of debate, and checked a few of your other posts. I found you quoting a list of logical fallacies you accused your opponents of. I will use the same list approved by yourself.
Following your own link, the article about ad hominem attacks goes on to say:

That describes your attack on Karpechenko’s report because it comes out of the Soviet Union.

I think it also fits your comment on Darwin:


Here is your quote from Wikipedia on "poisoning the well":

When I saw that, I immediately thought of this statement of yours:


Here is your quote on the subject of “Appeal to ridicule”:

That seems to fit your response at the end of this exchange:


Let’s look at straw man arguments.

I have known this for a very long time, took it into account when I wrote that paragraph, and very clearly did not refer to a correlation between two variables, but to patterns of correlation between multiple variables. My claim is that these multiple correlations can be parsimoniously explained by the common causal mechanism proposed by evolutionary theory, and that if these patterns of correlation did not exist, here and now, I would consider evolutionary theory to be refuted, despite all the fossils. You claimed evolutionary theory could not be refuted, I gave you a way of refuting it to my satisfaction, and I believe to the satisfaction of most evolutionary biologists. You trying to turn this into an argument about a correlation between two variables is a straw man argument.


The title of one of the references I gave you offers a broad hint why this is also a straw man argument: “When two species becomes three”. You are talking about two populations merging into one. To see the distinction, go back over what I wrote on the subject.


Another straw man argument. We have used the biological species definition, which says nothing about creation of new structures.


Another straw man argument, because in the hybrid plant, root and leaves have the same genome, but if you graft the stem of one plant onto the rootstock of another, stem and root have different genomes. Both process and outcome are totally different.


Another straw man argument. You argue as if this were true for all atheists. I am sure some exist who hold that opinion, but in my experience they have to be a tiny minority, because I never met one. Not a single one of the atheists I have met has ever made that claim. The last time an atheist mentioned this idea to me, it was to argue against it and call it stupid. I have never made that claim myself, and I don’t believe in this logic.


I told you before, it’s the same reason why physicists dismiss the perpetual motion enthusiasts, because the objections are not based on scientific arguments. I spent so much time and effort on this debate in the hope that you would be the first exception I have come across, but I have now given up that hope and will therefore stop. I have seen in your arguments no better reason for your objections than the one you gave here: