Evolution Confusion

[Mavorpen]

Micro and macro evolution are the exact same thing. EXACT. SAME. Macroevolution is just microevolution with more time.

Define your terms, and you'll see that you are mistaken.

No, he isn't. They are, technically, the same. Their processes are the same. It's just that we draw a rather fuzzy line at the species level.

It's like telling me that walking one mile versus walking two miles are different processes.

[Kelinfort]

http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/02/09 ... dichotomy/

in particular:

Hopefully, at this point, the problem with creationists’ distinction is clear. Creationists would agree with every single individual step of this process. They would agree that Generation 2 evolved from Generation 1, Generation 3 evolved from generation 2, etc. all the way up to Generation 1,000 evolving from Generation 999, but they would simultaneously claim that it is not possible that Generation 1,000 evolved from Generation 1. This is a clear violation of the Law of Transitive Properties. If you acknowledge that each microevolutionary step will occur, then you have just acknowledged that macroevolution will occur, because macroevolution is nothing more than the product of multiple steps of microevolution. So the creationist claim that “microevolution occurs but macroevolution is impossible” is logically inconsistent, and it is totally arbitrary without any scientific reasoning behind it (i.e., it is an ad hoc fallacy). Allow me to illustrate this process as a syllogism to make things more clear.

Generation 2 evolved from Generation 1 (creationists agree)
Generation 3 evolved from Generation 2 (creationists agree)
…
Generation 1,000 evolved from Generation 999 (creationists agree)
Therefore, Generation 1,000 evolved from Generation 1 (creationists disagree)

https://thelogicofscience.wordpress.com ... roperties/
https://thelogicofscience.wordpress.com ... %20fallacy

[Mavorpen]

There are plenty of atheists stating that there are no gods, which is a negative.

I've never met one. Give specific examples, from in this thread preferably.

If they said "I don't know", they would be:

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Which is what I am, by the way.
Agnostic, that is.

This is gibberish. You're either a theist or an atheist. "Agnostic" isn't an answer to the question of whether you believe in God. You either do or you don't. "I don't know" doesn't answer the question.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods.

[The Saint James Islands]

I am willing to accept their authority on 1 and 2 because they are general claims which properly fall under biology as a science.

3 is a particular historical contingent which, strictly speaking, falls outside of strictly scientific inquiry.
4 is not a biological or scientific matter.

Damn these goal posts have been taken out of the damn observable universe.

I, for one, prefer to think of this thread as Mega City shooting over the crossbar and insisting he scored a goal.

[BK117B2]

Quote me or any atheist here saying "'I don't know' isn't legitimate."

I'll wait.

I see you're projecting again.

There are plenty of atheists stating that there are no gods, which is a negative. If they said "I don't know", they would be:

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Which is what I am, by the way.
Agnostic, that is.

But are you an agnostic theist or atheist?

I (like most other agnostics I know) am an agnostic atheist.

[Daburuetchi]

Water doesn't have genes.

At any rate, I fail to see how this is an argument. You're missing a premise:

"Everything which has genes, DNA and RNA has a common ancestor"?

I don't see why this should be true.

Ummm the fact that all our genes are composed of the exact same nitrogenous bases, five carbon sugar and phosphate groups isn't enough of a convincing argument as oppose to every species on earth having coincidentally developed the exact same molecular structures and chemical pathways?

[Mavorpen]

Damn these goal posts have been taken out of the damn observable universe.

I, for one, prefer to think of this thread as Mega City shooting over the crossbar and insisting he scored a goal.

And then running around shoving a copy of a text by Aristotle in everyone's face shouting "I SCORED! SEE, LOOK, HERE'S PROOF IN THE FORM OF A SOLILOQUY!"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I, for one, prefer to think of this thread as Mega City shooting over the crossbar and insisting he scored a goal.

And then running around shoving a copy of a text by Aristotle in everyone face shouting "I SCORED! SEE, LOOK, HERE'S PROOF IN THE FORM OF A SOLILOQUY!"

"Dude... You shot that ball a hundred metres over the goalpost..."

"That might make my miss more plausible, but it is not conclusive proof. It could've flown back into the goal"

[Daburuetchi]

Gregor Mendel Is rolling in his grave right now

[Godular]

No it doesn't. Prove it wrong. Your attempt at a proof was incorrect.

It's sufficient for me to point out that the reasoning used by my interlocutor constitutes an informal fallacy.

If you want to present a different argument, or else, an argument for why the particular reasoning is not fallacious, I'm all ears.

No. It is NOT sufficient. You must first prove that it is fallacious. You must prove that there is a COUNTEREXAMPLE in existence. Just saying that it fits the mold does not inherently make it a fallacy.

For example:

1. The sky is blue.
2. The sky is everywhere.
3. The sky is blue everywhere.

This argument is fallacious because we know that it is no longer blue during the night, not specifically because it happens to fit a specified format.

This argument:

1. Populations evolve over time.
2. A species is made up of populations.
3. A species evolves over time.

Is perfectly legitimate, as it has no counterexample. Present a counterexample that does not involve a total failure of logic on your part (all your attempts suffered from this) and we might reconsider.

In fact, I would go so far as to specify the argument into the following format.

1. An individual organism does not evolve over time. Populations of organisms do.
2. A species is made up of different populations.
3. A species evolves over time, and may even split into different species with separate characteristics. (micro-evolution)
4. Given enough time, enough differences can arise over time that a creature of a species at the end of one span does not even remotely resemble its progenitor species. (macro-evolution)

We've swatted you over the head with this countless times in the past pages of this thread, yet still you insist on not reading the mountain of evidence we have presented and the wide variety of practical examples we have also provided. You are functioning as the very definition of willful ignorance.

[Mavorpen]

At any rate, I fail to see how this is an argument. You're missing a premise:

"Everything which has genes, DNA and RNA has a common ancestor"?

I don't see why this should be true.

Ummm the fact that all our genes are composed of the exact same nitrogenous bases, five carbon sugar and phosphate groups isn't enough of a convincing argument as oppose to every species on earth having coincidentally developed the exact same molecular structures and chemical pathways?

"Uh...uh... DESIGN!"

"Okay, any evidence for that?"

"I don't have to give any! You have the burden of proof."

[Cetacea]

At any rate, I fail to see how this is an argument. You're missing a premise:

"Everything which has genes, DNA and RNA has a common ancestor"?

I don't see why this should be true.

Ummm the fact that all our genes are composed of the exact same nitrogenous bases, five carbon sugar and phosphate groups isn't enough of a convincing argument as oppose to every species on earth having coincidentally developed the exact same molecular structures and chemical pathways?

at an atomic level every chemical in the universe is organised in the same predictable pattern, so nitrogen hydrogen oxygen carbon and phosphates organising themselves consistently in living organisms isn't suprising. As someone mentioned earlier our bodies are also mostly water so is it scientifically valid to say we share a common ancestor with water?

[Mavorpen]

Ummm the fact that all our genes are composed of the exact same nitrogenous bases, five carbon sugar and phosphate groups isn't enough of a convincing argument as oppose to every species on earth having coincidentally developed the exact same molecular structures and chemical pathways?

at an atomic level every chemical in the universe is organised in the same predictable pattern, so nitrogen hydrogen and oxygen organising themselves consistently isn't suprising. As someone mentioned earlier our bodies are also mostly water so is it scientifically valid to say we share a common ancestor with water?

...Yes, we share a "common ancestor" with water. In the sense that all water is ultimately derived from the same source.

[Daburuetchi]

Ummm the fact that all our genes are composed of the exact same nitrogenous bases, five carbon sugar and phosphate groups isn't enough of a convincing argument as oppose to every species on earth having coincidentally developed the exact same molecular structures and chemical pathways?

at an atomic level every chemical in the universe is organised in the same predictable pattern, so nitrogen hydrogen and oxygen organising themselves consistently isn't suprising. As someone mentioned earlier our bodies are also mostly water so is it scientifically valid to say we share a common ancestor with water?

The organization of billions and billions of polynucleotide sequences in the exact same manner across millions of species when their are billions of possible carbon based molecules is not the same as saying that water will naturally from out of hydrogen and oxygen. Do you understand how ludicrous your argument is? The universe has a tendency toward entropy and yet you somehow think that these polynucleotide chains assembled in the same manner when their are trillions of different combinations? Please

[Godular]

Ummm the fact that all our genes are composed of the exact same nitrogenous bases, five carbon sugar and phosphate groups isn't enough of a convincing argument as oppose to every species on earth having coincidentally developed the exact same molecular structures and chemical pathways?

at an atomic level every chemical in the universe is organised in the same predictable pattern, so nitrogen hydrogen oxygen carbon and phosphates organising themselves consistently in living organisms isn't suprising. As someone mentioned earlier our bodies are also mostly water so is it scientifically valid to say we share a common ancestor with water?

Yeah actually. We're all made of dead star corpse dust.

[Mavorpen]

at an atomic level every chemical in the universe is organised in the same predictable pattern, so nitrogen hydrogen oxygen carbon and phosphates organising themselves consistently in living organisms isn't suprising. As someone mentioned earlier our bodies are also mostly water so is it scientifically valid to say we share a common ancestor with water?

Yeah actually. We're all made of dead star corpse dust.

“The knowledge that the atoms that comprise life on earth - the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the crucibles that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars- the high mass ones among them- went unstable in their later years- they collapsed and then exploded- scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy- guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients become part of gas clouds that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems- stars with orbiting planets. And those planets now have the ingredients for life itself. So that when I look up at the night sky, and I know that yes we are part of this universe, we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts is that the universe is in us. When I reflect on that fact, I look up- many people feel small, cause their small and the universe is big. But I feel big because my atoms came from those stars.”

[Harkback Union]

That's another aspect of science, but not the only one. Chemistry, physics, biology and whatnot models the world around us by taking axioms based on yet to be rejected and sound hypothesis and constructs frameworks of logic on them. In this case, scientists do want to prove new hypothesis built on the old ones to further improve the cause of science, often simply by taking existing axioms and applying some logic or by adding new axioms, again based on more yet to be rejected hypothesis. Within the confines of the models, a hypothesis derived from axioms can be accepted as proven or unrejectable (a positive) by using sheer logic. If somehow evidence from the physical world contradicts the hypothesis, its 'not the fault' of the hypothesis but the axioms on which they built the model.

Okay, so far, I'm not seeing anything contradicting me.

Advanced sciences are all working within some paradigm that allows for proof to be established.

No, they don't.

Within the models we built to study earth's climate, we can prove that climate change is man-made.

I'm not sure how you're using "proof," but it clearly isn't the same way I'm using it. The only thing in science you do is you reject or fail to reject the hypothesis. That can be reversed at any time because you never "prove" anything. You merely gather evidence in support of it or fail to do so.

With the chains of equations in physics, we can show how established theories are right, again, based on the axioms we took. If we find that our calculations do not reflect measurements made during experiments and we didn't make mistakes during the experiments or the equations then either one of our axioms are flawed or there is an axiom yet to be discovered and added to our models, like a mysterious powers of dark matter.

I hope that all made sense, getting really tired here.

I sincerely don't see how anything you posted contradicts my points.

You said:

Because, I'll stress again. Science isn't interested in proving things. You don't prove a negative claim nor do you prove a positive one. You either reject the bull hypothesis or you fail to reject it.

And I said:

Yes it does, just within established paradigms.

That's the whole point of using math and logic, being able to prove and disprove using your models of the world. I say, if I put together chemical X and Y, its gonna explode. The scientist then turns to me and tells me that according to the endlessly tested and perfected models of the physical world, I am... oh, wait, I think I know why you didn't understand me. There is the kind of proof you get from observation and there are the kinds of proof you get from logic:

Logical proof is proof that is derived explicitly from its premises without exception. Logical proof is not the same as factual proof. In formal logic, a valid argument is an argument that is structured in such a way that if all it's premises are true, then it's conclusion then must also be true.

When the scientist proves that I am right about the explosion, he uses logical proof. Combining sound hypothesis and Logic lets you predict the future or explain the past based on models, Hypothesis that cannot be tested in the present cannot be dealt with without using the complex paradigms I talked about, hence why sciences do need them.

[Godular]

Yeah actually. We're all made of dead star corpse dust.

“The knowledge that the atoms that comprise life on earth - the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the crucibles that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars- the high mass ones among them- went unstable in their later years- they collapsed and then exploded- scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy- guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients become part of gas clouds that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems- stars with orbiting planets. And those planets now have the ingredients for life itself. So that when I look up at the night sky, and I know that yes we are part of this universe, we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts is that the universe is in us. When I reflect on that fact, I look up- many people feel small, cause their small and the universe is big. But I feel big because my atoms came from those stars.”

Yeap. I sit there and think 'Dayum... WE came from THAT? Awesome.'

[Mavorpen]

You said:

Because, I'll stress again. Science isn't interested in proving things. You don't prove a negative claim nor do you prove a positive one. You either reject the bull hypothesis or you fail to reject it.

And I said:

Yes it does, just within established paradigms.

That's the whole point of using math and logic, being able to prove and disprove using your models of the world.

Erm, no. You don't use maths to prove a model. Models are formed from their explanatory and predictive power. The only thing you can prove is that the maths is reliable because of mathematical proofs.

I say, if I put together chemical X and Y, its gonna explode. The scientist then turns to me and tells me that according to the endlessly tested and perfected models of the physical world, I am... oh, wait, I think I know why you didn't understand me. There is the kind of proof you get from observation and there are the kinds of proof you get from logic:

Logical proof is proof that is derived explicitly from its premises without exception. Logical proof is not the same as factual proof. In formal logic, a valid argument is an argument that is structured in such a way that if all it's premises are true, then it's conclusion then must also be true.

No, I understand you just fine.

When the scientist proves that I am right about the explosion, he uses logical proof.

This is circular reasoning. You're presupposing he actually proved you're right. You're assuming he used logical proof while not explaining how you gathered this. Scientists don't directly apply logical proofs. The scientific method implicitly applies deductive and inductive reasoning simply because of structure.

[Morr]

No, God is one hypothesis of many about the question of the ultimate source of reality (if you say none of these are hypotheses are valid, because we just don't know, that's agnosticism). Because God is theoretically beyond the physical, being the source of the physical, questions about him are not explored through empiricism (although there are great works on why the Gospels are works of history, those are more rational arguments to support empirical work, rather than empirical arguments per se), but rather through philosophical or mathematical systems. The most promising development of late is "structural-systematic philosophy", which aims to be as rigorous as mathematics (which has lead to it requiring its own system of notation), and has made a great deal of progress toward establishing God as a factual necessity.

I'm not sure why you think this contradicts God not existing being the null hypothesis.

I'm not sure why you think the existence of something explicitly not physical can even be addressed by the physical sciences, tangentially or otherwise, anymore than atomic concerns can be addressed with binoculars.

[Godular]

I'm not sure why you think this contradicts God not existing being the null hypothesis.

I'm not sure why you think the existence of something explicitly not physical can even be addressed by the physical sciences, tangentially or otherwise, anymore than atomic concerns can be addressed with binoculars.

If it cannot be detected, there is no reason to believe it exists.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not sure why you think the existence of something explicitly not physical can even be addressed by the physical sciences, tangentially or otherwise, anymore than atomic concerns can be addressed with binoculars.

I don't. Science doesn't address it because it functionally doesn't exist.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not sure why you think the existence of something explicitly not physical can even be addressed by the physical sciences, tangentially or otherwise, anymore than atomic concerns can be addressed with binoculars.

If it cannot be detected, there is no reason to believe it exists.

Also, for the record, if something isn't "physical," then it by definition doesn't interact with the world. If you want to claim that it DOES interact with the world, then you need to explain why we can't therefore study it, because that means that there is a way to indirectly measure it empirically.

For example, we can't directly see black holes, but we can "deduce" it's existence due to it's affects on phenomenon that we CAN see.

[Mega City 5]

No. It is NOT sufficient. You must first prove that it is fallacious. You must prove that there is a COUNTEREXAMPLE in existence. Just saying that it fits the mold does not inherently make it a fallacy.

No, I don't. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument to show that the property of the part applies to the whole. You can't just assume that the part and whole have the same properties.

For example:

1. The sky is blue.
2. The sky is everywhere.
3. The sky is blue everywhere.

Not an instance of the composition fallacy even in terms of its form. You aren't predicating "blue" of a part of the sky. You're predicating "blue" of the whole of the sky.

This argument is fallacious because we know that it is no longer blue during the night, not specifically because it happens to fit a specified format.

Oh, I see. You meant to say:

"This part of the sky is blue. The sky is everywhere. Therefore, the sky is blue everywhere."

That's also not an instance of the part/whole fallacy. It's a formally invalid argument.

As I said:

Give me an argument which does not commit the part/whole fallacy by its form, or else, prove to me that the whole and the part have the same properties.

[Mavorpen]

Give me an argument which does not commit the part/whole fallacy by its form, or else, prove to me that the whole and the part have the same properties.

Actually, no, I'm not. "Weight"=/="occurs".

That is to say, the "premise" isn't stating "adding more sand does not change the fact that it has weight" to mean "changing the process from micro-evolution to macro-evolution doesn't change the fact that macro-evolution occurs."

Rather, "weight"="requirements of evolution."

That is to say:

1. Populations make up species.
2. Populations undergo micro-evolution because they fulfill the requirements to undergo evolution (variation, inheritance, and competition).
3. Populations being looked at together and thus at the species level does not change the fact that these populations fulfill these requirements.
4. Therefore, because evolution occurs at the species level, macro-evolution occurs.

The only reason you'd dispute this is if you believed that species don't fulfill the requirements to undergo evolution, which would require the belief that populations don't make up a species since a species is simply looking at the totality of the populations.

In a similar vein, weight requires mass and acceleration due to gravity. Whether you have a single grain of sand or a heap of sand does not change that both of those requirements are met and therefore they have weight.