/sci/ - Science & Math

Brainlets will be brainlets, there's not much that can change that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s

>ITT: Alan Fedora thinks evolution is a relevant science and gets triggered at people who propose a very rational interpretation of evolution with a picture of a dumb irrelevant scientist who knew nothing about even the composition of cells
Let me guess. Gender is a spectrum too?

>>9017275
I mean, when you really consider the complexity of life on Earth, it does make sense for someone who didn't know better to assume. I also have a lot more respect for people who understand biology and are just overwhelmed by probability than chemlets. I will never forget a grown-ass woman struggling with protons in cell bio.

Besides OP, this universe is a simulation : ^)

>>9017283
It's pretty good for spotting brainlets.
And no, gender is not a spectrum.

>>9017283
Also no, it's not rational at all, retard.

>>9017312
>It's pretty good for spotting brainlets.
Glad we came to an agreement.

>>9017275
conservatives aka anti-intellectuals

>>9017277
>>9017283
brainlets lol

>>9017283
>>9017277
>>>/his/

>>9017275
I guess Richard Dawkins is the perfect source for you
Go watch some of his debates on youtube

>>9017551
>>9017610
DELET THIS

>>9017940
You are probably being ironic but Richard Dawkins does actually know what he is talking about in the subject.

>>9017940
Read the selfish gene. I have, and it explains it perfectly. And while Darwin didn't know anything about biology (which he didn't need to know, since the theory of evolution is based in philosophy), Dawkins did.

>>9017277
Why are people so dumb? Seriously, I was under the impression that the whole world was, on average, really fucking smart, but that perception is quickly taking a nose dive.

Here's the thing: cows didn't evolve into whales. nobody is saying that something "developed" (like a cow) evolved into some other radically different entity (like a whale); we clearly know about kingdoms, and phyla, and so on, to characterize and name the path of a species, and that clearly shows how evolution works: through gradual change. Have these people never looked at those cool dinosaur charts I used to love when I was a wee lad, which depict the evolution of different species throughout the generations?

Even when I was a kid this was clear to me; was I smarter than (from what I'm starting to see) more than 50% of the world when I was a kid? Because kids are pretty fucking dumb, and I'm sure I was too.

The cow didn't evolve into the whale; the early replicators evolved into both cow and whale.

THIS IS NOT HARD

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9019140
>cows didn't evolve into whales therefore monocellular species evolved spontaneously into human beings
>reddit spacing
>intellectual superiority acquired through the careful observation of 1990s evolutionary progression diagram posters monetarily exchanged at the Disneyland theme park for the inauguration of the Bill Nye the Science Guy television show on Disney Channel
Will Dawkins shills stop before it's too late?

>>9019255
>Reddit spacing
What?

>cows didn't evolve into whales therefore monocellular species evolved spontaneously into human beings
Ok, I guess I'm done, I'm with
>>9017276
now.

But I like how 2/3 of your post is composed of ad hominem; classy, if nothing else.

>>9017275
You will absolutely love this amazing explanation of Abiogenesis. Creationists when never come back when they learn the truth.
https://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

This is going to go on until we get rid of the right wingers and enforce secularism.

No way around it.

>Do we have one definition of the word "species" independent from human consensus?
>We don't know.
>Do we use a standard cladogram that could potentially abide by such a definition in mainstream Evolutionist Dialectic?
>We don't know.
>Is there anything bridging the gap between aesthetic similarities between life forms and the idea that such similarities came to be via transgenerational metamorphoses other than a leap of faith?
>We don't know.
>Has a single trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and assumed to have been perpetuated by natural selection ever been observed to actually have reproductive relevance for a single life form?
>We don't know.
>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait having reproductive relevance relative to a neighboring all but identical life form without said trait?
>We don't know.
>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait becoming extinct?
>We don't know.
>How is "relaxed" or "lateral" selection compatible with environmental sustenance being fractally finite through multiple layers of functional enclosure?
>We don't know.
>What would the difference between non-eliminative selection and no selection at all be?
>We don't know.
>Why should anyone trust Modern Synthesis if its Etiology is part of a great continuum of constant change and thus will be superseded in the near future just like it has now superseded Darwinism?
>We don't know.

It's Divinely ironic that the archetypal missing link is perfectly manifested in the Evolutionist. He is Mentally somewhere between Animal and Man, and his lack of self-reflection prevents him from finding himself.

>>9019309
Holy shit, get this "pseudo-intellectual" brainlet out of here.

>>9019309
why don't you just admit you're not smart/educated enough to understand the biology/chemistry of evolution/abiogenesis?

clinging to magical explanations that you can/do understand is childish.

>>9019321

What explanations am I clinging to?

>>9019320

The Grand STEMquisitor is here.

>>9017275
>natural selection
NS doesn't say anything about the appearance of new genes though. Evolution is about new genes, not genes the selection of genes that already exist.

>The Truth About Evolution
>http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>9019269
>replace their religion by my religion and all will be well

says the religious guy

>>9019350
>science is a religion
is this what the unwashed/uneducated masses are being told to believe these days?

>>9019341
Natural selection is not the means by which something evolves; the only thing natural selection does is keep evolution "on track", because what isn't fit for existing won't exist, and what is, does. Evolution is carried out by a series of compounding changes to replicators, nothing more, nothing else, there is nothing to be "debunked" in that statement, it's objectively true that things that change... change.

This is the one thing people claiming that the "chance of humans stemming from a series of accidental changes is too low" fail to consider, for some reason. Natural Selection doesn't say anything about the appearance of anything, it merely tells us why some things exist while others do not.

I think I'm going to write a small article about this shit to post it whenever people like you come along.

>>9019341
> This is adaptation via the reorganization of genes which were already part of the
bacterial genome.
I'll keep reading, but the "scientist" fails to realize - much like most "gene oriented scientists" seem to - that genes are themselves subject to mutation through imperfect copying.

Now, brainlets shouldn't really be writing scientific papers, anon.

>>9019341
awe that's cute, he dressed up his bullshit in the formatting of an actual scientific publication to trick stupid people.

It really is hopeless for the idiots, they aren't smart enough to tell what's real and what's fantasy. And it doesn't help that they've been brainwashed since childhood to believe in imaginary things without evidence.

>>9019341
I finished reading it, and you don't actually think those are good arguments, do you? Nice joke man :D I was going to make a list of absurdities, but I know it's a joke, so what's the point.

>>9019262
>grr everyone besides me is a brainlet cause they don't dinosauws >:(
>you are brrrrrrainlet
>sheeit somebody criticizes my reasoning
>quick, I must find a 100% intellectual rebuttal
>he also happens to point out the fact I'm an arrogant pretentious fart-smelling 90s kid
>WAAAAAAH AD HOMINEM WAAAAAAH

>>9017275
You're enlightened anon

>>9019341
this is such a top down approach it's hilarious.

>disprove something by proving it's statistically impossible to arrive at a human genome through inducing mutations

hilarious

Christianity is a degenerate disease that infects the brain and creates the stupidity of creationism. It has destroyed /his/

Most people can't even really understand Newtonian Mechanics. That's why these fields requires specialization.

>>9019436
>>9019574
Butthurt Christcucka can't make real arguments and pretend that everyone that isn't a brainlet is a fedora

>>9017275
I know the middle ground fallacy can come into play here but I unironically believe the answer is in the middle and that both are true. Evolution exists (obviously) but so does a creator.

In the Sumerian dialect "God" means "from the cosmos" and different historical cultures from around the globe have pictures and languages depicting beings coming down from the sky, despite having no contact with one another.
Cryptography comes into play here, deciphering various ancient languages and their stories, talking about beings such as the Anunnaki who taught them, enslaved them, claimed to create them in their image, etc. Even having moral dilemmas over creating new life as it would be too much like playing God.

I think we were "created" at some point or more likely merged with an existing being like our evolutionary ancestors because we have foreign DNA in the human genome not from our evolutionary ancestors (" the whole missing link thing comes to mind, where our brains tripled in growth over a short period of time"). This would also be an acceptable loophole through the moral dilemma of playing God by not creating a new species completely but by merging it with an existing one.
Our creators probably weren't too much different from people of today, although this would have been somewhere in 3-5 thousand BCE when all the early written civilizations existed and documenting their experiences on this matter.

A LOT of people found this theory (Ancient Astronaut Theory) out when Ancient Aliens came out and grabbed every straw they could so it become a meme unable to be discussed seriously most of the time. Sucks because the root concepts that I described very well could be the truth where a lot of Ancient Aliens is wild conjecture to try and produce more content even if it's highly improbable.

Tl;Dr: The above wall of text is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader

>>9019341
Mutation creates new genes. Take a bioclass

>>9019957
>calls everyone a brainlet
>strawmans the shit out of people's rebuttals
>has had literally no argument besides "hurr durr it's progreurrsiv"
>projects all his butthurt on others, calling them cucks
Get help, Danny.

>>9019995
That was my first post and I was just mentioning that those strawmen aren't arguments

>>9019309
>"where is consciousness specifically located in the brain?"
>"we don't know"
>"REE THEN CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T EXIST FUCKING BRAINLETS"

All religious people are people that have been conditioned to having low or limited self esteem.
They can't imagine them or anyone else is responcible for their own survival in any part.

The best way to de-convert someone is to prove to them they are part of an apex species and have talents for survival.

Religion is simply a crutch for pessimists.

Example: Jordan Peterson

His entire argument "against atheism" is as follows:

1. Atheists don't have 10 commandments, therefore no positive behaviors exist among them [which disrehards Game Theory and Consequentialism... and all other non-Christian societies]
2. People can do mean things therefore it's in their nature to be as worse and as irrational as possible [This goes against history in general]

>>9020050
Consciousness located in many centers all running together

>>9020050

Consciousness is not located in the brain. It's not located anywhere. Consciousness is Noumenal.

>>9020067

Evolutionism and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Also, if you're gonna go full 2006, at least "read the Bible" and know that free will is a tenet of Christianity and Islam.

>>9017277
>i know dozens of mathematicians
lmao

>>9017275
>there are still people who don't get
>how evolution by natural selection works
Sheet, there are still people who
don't get how arithmetics works.
They are called "the Majority".

>>9019309

This comment is the apex predator of this thread. God only knows how many millions of years it will roam unopposed.

>>9021110
no. it's mostly quack.

There is a distinction in science between a forward and an inverse problem.

Evolution is basically a solution to an inverse problem. And it is a pretty limited solution, because biology is nowhere near to observe even the simplest forms of self-organised matter, or monitor any self-organisation or selfreplication under laboratory conditions.

What evolutionist fail to understand is the fact that there is another realm besides the material.

Uran does not evolve into iron or lead.

Now GTFO to your antisemite, racist pseudoscience.

>>9020861
Creationism is shunned by anyone with an IQ above 80

>>9021162
Is this bait or are you retarded? When did this influx of Christcucks invade?

>>9021331

How does that refute what I said?

If I leave a rock on a volcanic world for long enough, will it turn into DNA??

>>9021453

At least they're honest when it comes to abiogenesis and concede that they've never observed it.

>>9021428
If you believe in creationism you are too dumb to understand evolution

>>9021509

The point still stands.

opinions on genetic entropy?

>we are able to observe speciation within our actual lifetimes
>b-but I'm sure human evolution must work totally differently, right?

>>9019309
>Do we have one definition of the word "species" independent from human consensus?
Why would we need a taxonomy independent from human consensus? Taxonomy is an artificially constructed tool which is useful for biology, nothing more, nothing less. And what does this have to do with the merits of evolution anyway? Evolution does not depend on what definition of species you use. Species are simply a way of classifying the already existing results of evolution.

>Do we use a standard cladogram that could potentially abide by such a definition in mainstream Evolutionist Dialectic?
No, since such a definition is a red herring.

>Is there anything bridging the gap between aesthetic similarities between life forms and the idea that such similarities came to be via transgenerational metamorphoses other than a leap of faith?
Yes, it's called genetics.

>Has a single trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and assumed to have been perpetuated by natural selection ever been observed to actually have reproductive relevance for a single life form?
All traits in the wild are due to random mutation, and if they are being perpetuated by natural selection, by definition they have reproductive relevance. Is your argument that no trait has reproductive relevance?

>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait having reproductive relevance relative to a neighboring all but identical life form without said trait?
So again, no traits have reproductive relevance?

>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait becoming extinct?
Extinction is not necessary for natural selection, just a decrease in reproductive ability. Another red herring.

>How is "relaxed" or "lateral" selection compatible with environmental sustenance being fractally finite through multiple layers of functional enclosure?
Buzzword salad.

>>9019309
>What would the difference between non-eliminative selection and no selection at all be?
Well first of all you are going to have to explain what "non-eliminative selection" means.

>Why should anyone trust Modern Synthesis if its Etiology is part of a great continuum of constant change and thus will be superseded in the near future just like it has now superseded Darwinism?
You're absolutely right, why listen to scientists if they are always improving their theories? I won't accept the best answer possible if it's not perfect!

>>9021554

Everything you said is backward reasoning from the premise that Evolution is actually happening plus asking me my own questions for no reason and flaunting your illiteracy as a counterargument. Again, eerily mirroring the Etiology of Evolution itself mirroring its opponents' contention about informational entropy. Nothing new added.

And terrible backward reasoning at that. Classifying means distinction of one thing in relation to another. There is nothing, not ONE Empirical criterion, that separates one "result of Evolution" from another. We'll probably observe abiogenesis before you can understand the implications on this.

Not the worst reply in these threads though, sadly.

lolol you are so ignorant we are all created by ALLAH the most merciful. You really think you came from apes? lololol thats because u r an ape lololol

>>9021561

Non-eliminative selection is what Evolutionists claim is actually happening when faced with the facts that no traits have been observed to have reproductive relevance and that no traits have been observed to become extinct. Something that I explained in the comment you are replying to.

As to your second point, Modern Synthesis is flimsier than original Darwinism was, the gaps in knowledge are bigger than ever before and virtually all meaningful evidence is claimed to be immutable hidden inside of them.

>>9019354
>unwashed/uneducated masses

no they are told to blieve in science and moral relativism and abandon all forms of christian morality.

>>9021585
>Everything you said is backward reasoning from the premise that Evolution is actually happening
Where exactly did I do that? As far as I can see, the only part where I came close to what you are describing is when YOU started with a certain trait assumed to be due to random selection and perpetuated by natural selection. I then pointed out that all traits in the wild would fall into that description.

>plus asking me my own questions for no reason
The reason is evident in my reply. Why demand observations of a trait having reproductive significance if you agree that traits have reproductive significance? It seems that this demand serves no intellectual purpose except as an artificial goalpost which you have set up in order to claim victory since I have not put the ball through it. But my question is, why do I need to put the ball through it in the first place?

>Again, eerily mirroring the Etiology of Evolution itself mirroring its opponents' contention about informational entropy.
More word salad.

>Classifying means distinction of one thing in relation to another. There is nothing, not ONE Empirical criterion, that separates one "result of Evolution" from another.
Other than genotype, phenotype, ability to reproduce, geographic location, etc. You know... all the things biologists empirically study. This comment has to be on of the stupidest things I've read on /sci/.

>>9021585
Evolution is proven and can be seen though

>>9021590
>Non-eliminative selection is what Evolutionists claim is actually happening when faced with the facts that no traits have been observed to have reproductive relevance and that no traits have been observed to become extinct.
So antibiotic resistance has never been observed to have reproductive relevance? Wow, just wow.

And you still haven't explained what exactly non-eliminative selection, a term it seems you have made up out of thin air, means.

>As to your second point, Modern Synthesis is flimsier than original Darwinism was, the gaps in knowledge are bigger than ever before and virtually all meaningful evidence is claimed to be immutable hidden inside of them.
If our gaps in knowledge are "bigger" it's only because we are asking questions we never even knew to ask before. This does not reflect at all on the merits of current evolutionary theory which is more accurate than past theories. But I look forward to you presenting a better one. Until then, complaining about gaps is just hypocritical as fuck. Without evolution, there are no gaps, just the big gaping hole of your willful ignorance.

>>9018354
>>9019133
These

>>9021590
What do you mean no trait had reproductive relevance? Nearly all traits do

>>9021590

>no traits have been observed to have reproductive relevance

wow you don't even need to know science to call bullshit on this one

>no traits have been observed to become extinct.

are you larping right now?

real talk question time:

where is the source of the propaganda trying to convince people evolution is fake? Is it being pushed in churches? Is it exclusively online, and if so why and who?

>>9021659
I don't think churches are that relevant in this... I think it's mostly just lazy people who want to be smart but don't want to take the time to actually learn things, so they just deny it as an excuse.

>>9021634

This is hopeless. No I DON'T assume that ANY traits came to be by random mutation and are or were ever perpetuated by selection of any kind. This is what YOU assume, and I asked why is it that you assume this, given that there has never been a single data point of any kind to support it. All perfectly written in the original comment: >>9019309

Note you utter lack of meaningful engagement with my original material, and your strictly degenerative replies which in turn force me to subject said material to degeneration myself.

The fact that Language itself seems to be almost foreign to you is frightening enough. But these threads always end up going down the Informational entropy toilet, so to speak, and the resonance with the subject at hand is so great it's almost on the nose.

>>9021644

Dawkins directly invokes God in the opening of The Selfish Gene when he says "the gene thinks" or something like that.

>>9021783
Dawkins doesn't in any sense believe that a gene thinks.

>>9021779
>This is hopeless. No I DON'T assume that ANY traits came to be by random mutation and are or were ever perpetuated by selection of any kind.
Idiot, you asked about traits that are assumed to have come into being by random mutation:

>Has a single trait assumed to have come into being by random mutation and assumed to have been perpetuated by natural selection ever been observed to actually have reproductive relevance for a single life form?

To which I replied, all traits in the wild are assumed to be due to random mutation, so how exactly would no traits have reproductive relevance?

I'm still waiting for a reply.

>This is what YOU assume, and I asked why is it that you assume this, given that there has never been a single data point of any kind to support it.
So there is no data to support traits having reproductive relevance? That's a baldfaced lie.

>Note you utter lack of meaningful engagement with my original material
I note your utter lack of engagement with my replies to your baseless lies and red herrings. Let's review the substantive questions you need to reply to to engage with my response:

1. Why would we need a taxonomy independent from human consensus?

2. Why do you ignore genetics?

3. How can no traits have reproductive relevance?

4. Why do you confuse elimination with selection?

5. How does science improving itself allow you to reject it?

6. Why do you ignore the empirical criterion evolution produces?

>>9017275
>2 (Two) centuries later there are still people who don't get how evolution by natural selection works
I blame science fiction and it's frequent use of "evolution rays" and the like instilling this misconception from childhood that evolution is some predetermined path of advancement.

>>9021838

You baffling choice of quoting part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote aside, and, AGAIN, you asking me my own questions for no reason, can YOU provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait?

>>9021838

You baffling choice of quoting part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote aside, and, AGAIN, you asking me my own questions for no reason, can YOU provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait?

>>9021838

Your baffling choice of quoting part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote aside, and, AGAIN, you asking me my own questions for no reason, can YOU provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait?

>>9021838
>>9021862

Notice how you've also prepared your own extinction from this thread. Since neither did I reply to those questions (because their answers are fully expressed in the original material) nor can you post a single data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait because it doesn't exist.

>>9017283
>completely rational explanation
>sky fairy dun did it
k

>>9021779
Nigger are you saying there is no proof that mutations cause change in an organism? How are you so dumb?

>>9021940

I am, though this is not part of the discussion.

>>9021956
>I am, though this is not part of the discussion.
you may as well be claiming the sky is never blue and grass is never green. You're making yourself look like a moron.

>chemical evolution just evolved itself randomly lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzlK0OGpIRs

>>9021956
Cancer, autism and many other genetic disorders are known to come from mutations

>>9021981

I appreciate one random argumentative deviation even if it does nothing to mitigate the dreariness of this thread.

"Mutations cause change" is backward reasoning. Most mutations cause no observable change. Most DNA is Ontologically inert, by Evolutionists' own words. In fact, the entire idea of genetics was only touted to "support" abstract thought experiments like mutation and inheritance.

>>9021994
which come from unknown randum chaos-agents called pesticides, vaccines, gene splicing, industrial pollution

>>9022015
>vaccines
Kek, no. We know for a fact that genes determine traits. You being an antivaxxor on top of not knowing basic biology is sad

>>9022064

What genes determine your traits of being unable to read movie subtitles and being transfixed by Ikea furniture?

>>9022064
>antivaxxor
this shilly insult is on the same level as 'fuckin truthers'

>>9021862
>Your baffling choice of quoting part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote aside
OK, so you admit that traits have reproductive relevance? Thanks for playing, you lose.

And you just ignored every other point I made, hypocrite.

>>9022122
>can YOU provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait?

Leave.

>>9022122
>>9022136

No wait, now that I read what you quoted, how does me calling to attention that you quoted part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote result in me admitting that traits have reproductive relevance?

Beyond the fact that you cannot provide a single a data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait, because it doesn't exist...how DID you arrive at the above "conclusion"? Again, it's as if there is no continuation at all between any of your replies, the fact that there isn't any between yours and mine was established from your first one, and it's almost as if you lack even primitive game-like use Language. You sound like a bot.

>>9017275

What is information? Please qualify the manner in which DNA does not contain information.

>>9022115
Anyone who thinks vaccines cause autism is an idiot

>>9022073
Combination of certain genes and environment.

>>9022167
I can think of many. Skin color, neck length, etc all contribute to reproductive success

>>9022177

I can think of many too. However, I don't have any data to support any of them. Do you?

>>9022136
>No wait, now that I read what you quoted, how does me calling to attention that you quoted part of my comment just to ask a meaningless question that you yourself address after the following quote result in me admitting that traits have reproductive relevance?
Because you claim that I'm asking you your own question and then addressing it. What I'm asking you is, do you actually believe that no traits have reproductive value? It's very simple, yes or no?

If yes, you are even more delusional than I thought and there is no point in continuing this discussion. If no, then your question serves no purpose. Either way, get the fuck off the science board, schizo.

>>9022171
anyone that dogmatically claims something to be because their "authoritative source" said so is a sheep/shill

>>9022167
1. Why would we need a taxonomy independent from human consensus?

2. Why do you ignore genetics?

3. How can no traits have reproductive relevance?

4. Why do you confuse elimination with selection?

5. How does science improving itself allow you to reject it?

6. Why do you ignore the empirical criterion evolution produces?

7. Why do you keep avoiding answering these questions?

>>9022179
Sure, fly size and survival rates in cold environments. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean the data doesn't exist.

>>9022197
Are you hallucinating again honey? Take your meds.

>>9022197
Or because all research proves something.

>>9022191

Yes, I believe it. The fact that traits have no reproductive relevance was stated in my original comment: >>9019309

This is an Objective fact, due to there being no data pertaining to a single trait having reproductive relevance for a single life form. Nowhere in the past 200 years has one such observation ever occurred. Unless, of course, you can provide some?

Incidentally, why it's taking you one more subliterate reply to ascertain this has somehow become the least appalling aspect of your presence in this thread.

>>9022198

Not the person with whom you've been speaking, but I have a simple (admittedly guided) question for you.

Take any arbitrary observation. Now, eliminate subjectivity by fixing what you define to be a standard for what is "obvious" or "apparent." Here is my question: is the most obvious and apparent process necessarily the process yielding the observation?

>>9022202

Can you provide the data?

>>9022215
>the fact that traits have no reproductive relevance
So a dog that is born without legs or eyes is just as likely to live and reproduce as a healthy one? You are the dumbest person I have replied to in my 8 years on this board

>>9022224

Can you provide the data?

>>9022216
>Now, eliminate subjectivity by fixing what you define to be a standard for what is "obvious" or "apparent."
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. More word salad.

>is the most obvious and apparent process necessarily the process yielding the observation?
Nothing is necessarily true in science. What's your point?

>>9022204
>>9022208
full damage control

too bad for team bullshit, Andrew Wakefield has been cleared of the smears, along with the rest of the real 'vaccine science'.

>>9017275
https://youtu.be/2FpGguxyWX8

>>9022198
>says i NEED to answer these to keep engaging
>the fact that the contention of those questions is fully resolved in my original comment is incidental to me telling him that and refusing to answer them further in the hopes that he would stop replying
>keeps replying
>hmmm

>>9022236

>>9022239
>>the fact that the contention of those questions is fully resolved in my original comment
Do you really think anyone believes these pathetic lies?

>>9022225
Someone else already gave a proven example and you ignored it. I can prove it by the fact that you don't see very many dogs without legs.

>>9022245

Do you really think anyone can provide a single data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait of a single life form? I don't. Do you?

>>9022252
Several examples were already given to you. And yet again you attempt to avoid every other point I made. Pathetic.

>>9022251

And I CAN'T prove it by the fact that you don't hear many people as moronic as this. And yet here you are.

Where does that leave us?

Can you provide the data?

>>9022259

Data? Numbers? Charts? Functions? Timelines? Analyses? Of the "several examples" that were given to me, to what degree does the trait in question affect the reproduction of the form in question?

Can you provide the data?

>>9022231

>Eliminating subjectivity

I am stating here that you are free to arbitrate what constitutes something which is obvious; in other words, I am willing to accept that your word on what is "most likely" as canon. The purpose of doing so is to, as I said, eliminate subjectivity and questions of interpretation.

>What is your point?

The point of this question is to illustrate that, regardless of what you or the current scientific community theorizes about the origin of some observation, there is objectively no basis in reality to claim that one theory is better than another [short of being able to observe said origin].

In fact, if you insist on contradicting this statement, I can cast concrete doubt on your ability to do so using nothing other than the framework underlying modern cryptography.

Backed against the wall, the evolutionists don't even bother to forage the internet for what pittance of literature could pass as data pertaining to the reproductive relevance of random traits. A portrait of unfitness as perfect as it is ironic.

>>9022225
Except you said it DOESN'T effect reproductive success and you need to prove that.

>>9022297

That which is assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>9022260
See >>9022297
You are a retarded and need to show that traits don't effect reproduction which it is obvious they do

>>9022298
You are the one who made the claim first, so it can be assumed that you are wrong

>>9022300

I don't need to prove a negative, nor can I, or anyone else: >>9022298

Eat shit.

>>9022287
>The point of this question is to illustrate that, regardless of what you or the current scientific community theorizes about the origin of some observation, there is objectively no basis in reality to claim that one theory is better than another [short of being able to observe said origin].
What a laughable contention. You're as delusional as OP if you are not him.

Science does not deal in absolutes, that does not mean we cannot determine which theory is better.

>>9022295
> the evolutionists don't even bother to forage the internet for what pittance of literature could pass as data pertaining to the reproductive relevance of random traits
Because it's unnecessary and illustrates how delusional you are.

>>9022304

First...like in this thread? I guess it could qualify as the History of ideas to you, by sheer volume if nothing else.

>>9022314

You are free to claim that anything I say is laughable, but the truth still stands that you cannot unconditionally distinguish between "better" theories under an objective standard that correct is best and when you have no ability to observe the origin of an observation. As I said, I am able to concretely show how this is the case.

>>9022316
>believes traits have reproductive relevance despite never having seen a single data point about it and conceding that it doesn't exist by failing to produce a single one throughout hours of babbling
>calls other delusional

What did he mean by this?

>>9022331
>the truth
>unconditionally
>objectively
I don't think you understand how science works, buddy. The truth is that science can and has determined quite easily which theory best explains life.

>>9022316
>>9022335

Here, I found it for you.

>>9022343

I will accept what you say if you are able to succeed in the following challenge. If you fail, it will remain in this thread as a testament to your own fallibility (and thus the lack of ability to rely on your judgment of what is 'best').

One of the following hexadecimal strings conveys the message "1234," padded with zeros. One is noise derived from my typing speed. Which is which?

c35af06ec28ecc69a48f2ac219997380
9ad770981aa9cdf382714e28408e8a8a

>>9022306
It's called a null hypothesis retard. Show studies that show that traits don't effect reproductive success

>>9022367

Null indeed.

>>9022360
>regardless of what you or the current scientific community theorizes about the origin of some observation, there is objectively no basis in reality to claim that one theory is better than another [short of being able to observe said origin]
>As I said, I am able to concretely show how this is the case.
>provides one example
Oh boy, what a fail.

>>9022331

how can you do this?

i feel like technically we dont actually have the ability to observe the origin of any observation, whether physics, bio, chemistry. Thats the point of science; to make inferences. if we could observe points of origin there would be no need for scientific method or experimentation.

i also think you do a great disservices to philosophy of science which over the last century have looked at destroying simplified assumptions about science and show its complexity. Because objectivity isn't really attainable doesn't mean that we can't judge theories to be better than others.

>>9022378

I have concretely shown what I have stated is the case. Would you like more examples? The entire field of cryptography refutes you. In fact, I can generalize this same phenomena to any arbitrary observation using steganography.

Both areas of study focus on what are called provably secure constructions; I can continue to illustrate your inability to tell even the simplest things apart if you are so eager to experience your own limitations.

>>9022392
>I have concretely shown what I have stated is the case.
No, you gave one example of this occurring when you claimed that it always occurs. You fail at elementary school logic.

>>9022392

you haven't proved anything until you've explained why it proves it.

>>9022392
You realize that you have to actually give a proof for your claim, while I only have to provide a counterexample, right?

Here: Evolution better explains the development and diversity of life than Lamarckism

>>9022389

>How can you do this?

I can do this by illustrating a case in which he cannot distinguish, as I did in a previous post. I can also generalize to provide a countably infinite number of other instances (which generalize to any observation).

>objectivity isn't obtainable

That's precisely the point. Where the only perceived application of a theory is an ability to believe yourself better for accepting it [as in the case of evolution without design versus evolution with design], what value does that theory truly have?

For the record, I am an active member of the modern scientific community, but I work only in areas with tangible applications or connections to objectivity for precisely this reason.

This is a truly difficult question, and I have no answer.

>>9022409
>I can also generalize to provide a countably infinite number of other instances (which generalize to any observation).
That's not how logic works, my retarded friend.

>>9017275
Evolution isn't real, it's another lie created by atheists who think the universe was created from nothing. That's why it's still a theory, but not for much longer.

>>9022407

Evolution explains nothing since no trait assumed to have reproductive relevance has ever been observed to have any.

Anyway, to the couple of people that intervened:

1. Though I do fundamentally agree with Phenomena being silly putty, it's peculiar that you'd rather argue against the whole Phenomenal world than against Evolution specifically.

2. Don't feed the p-zombies.

I shall emerge fully formed again tomorrow.

>>9022410
I mean the question is more of a question of, what is God? Is god some space alien who has advanced physics ability and can manipulate life on earth to his total whim, or a spirit who lives in the sky, or from another dimension. Or is god controlling us like AI in a computer. Or is God somehow the universe it's self. I wonder about this sort of thing, maybe through science we can truly get to know God.

>>9022428
>Evolution explains nothing since no trait assumed to have reproductive relevance has ever been observed to have any.
Take your meds schizo.

if evolution is real, why is there no proof of it?

>>9022409

so what? computers can distinguish lots of things that i personally cannot.

the application of a theory is to explain observations through underlying causes in an internally consistent way.

you're using the objectivity word as if it will stop people in their tracks but can't we still show theory preferences by making arguments for why one might be better than another. doesn't have to be objective. can be on a case by case basis.

>>9022394

My claim is that there is reason to doubt your ability to be seen as an authority able to decide which theory on the origin of an observation is better. I have given a concrete example in which you are unable to do so. Since I am now able to state your ability to distinguish in terms of a condition (namely, "You may be able to distinguish value, except in the case of [example I gave]"), I have proven that your ability to distinguish is, at best, distinguishable.

Since you bring up elementary logic:
>My claim: It is not the case that, for all observations x having distinct origin o(x), anon is able to distinguish between o(x) and r not equal to o(x).
>My proof: an observation x such that anon is unable to distinguish o(x) from r.

The purpose of this all has been to cast doubt on your ability to distinguish. I can generalize this same method, however, to show that there exists an infinite set of observations for which you have no ability to distinguish, thereby showing that you cannot distinguish anything for which you cannot see the origin. This is ultimately not necessary: doubt is enough to discredit what you say.

My logic is sound. Your bias is preventing you from being able to see this.

>>9022441

A protracted concession, not to mention painful, mostly for you I would imagine, but a concession nonetheless. Neat. This is a victory for you. Now that you know things are not the way you thought they were, try to ask yourself why that is.

>>9022446

Your rebuttal of "computers" is not a rebuttal at all, in fact. By the definition of the very principles of cryptography I invoked to create my 'challenge,' a computer is limited in the very same way anon is limited.

Is your opinion that objectivity is not paramount in science?

>>9022451
>My claim is that there is reason to doubt your ability to be seen as an authority able to decide which theory on the origin of an observation is better.
That's not the claim you started with, nice try moron. You claimed it is impossible to tell which theory is better at explaining the origin of an observation. I proved that this is false since evolution is better than Lamarckism at explaining the origin of life's diversity.

>I have given a concrete example in which you are unable to do so.
Which gets you no further to proving your original claim.

>My claim: It is not the case that, for all observations x having distinct origin o(x), anon is able to distinguish between o(x) and r not equal to o(x).
And again you attempt to change what you originally claimed and fail miserably.

>The purpose of this all has been to cast doubt on your ability to distinguish.
The only result of this has been to cast doubt on your ability to logically form arguments.

>>9022451

at best, conditional**

>>9022306

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-45118/Why-tall-men-children.html
https://amp.livescience.com/24916-animal-size-versus-climate.html
http://lbc.msu.edu/evo-ed/Pages/Mice/ecology.html

You are a fucking retarded. There are thousands of examples and you could have googled them but then insisted it was a fact that traits don't matter when it's common sense that they do and is well recorded

>>9022376
Take a 5th grade science class

>>9022428
Post evidence

>>9022473

I did indeed make a stronger claim initially, and I proved a weaker one via counter-example. As for "failing miserably," I did satisfactorily prove the weaker claim.
Perhaps my mistake was in assuming mathematical and logical maturity, and for that I apologize. Allow me to be more explicit.

Every observation you see comes from a distribution. I formed the proof of my weaker claim (that there exists a conditional limitation on your ability to distinguish) by fixing a single distribution, namely the uniform random distribution over bit strings. Standard cryptography has given us what are called pseudo-random permutation function family candidates--families of deterministic functions which are designed such that you cannot distinguish them from uniformly random strings of the same length in polynomial time. I used one such permutation family to construct a single example which you cannot distinguish; however, since you cannot distinguish this permutation family from random, I can construct any number of challenges to you using that family.

To generalize this technique to prove my claim that you cannot distinguish between the truth of theories explaining the origin of an observation, I need to extend the scope of my argument to encompass all distributions. This is the realm of steganography: steganography is essentially cryptography over any distribution. There exist modern results showing that the existence of the same cryptographic constructions (namely pseudo-random function families) I used in my counter-example imply the existence of analogs in ~any~ distribution. Thus, in essence, my technique does generalize to all distributions (and thus all observations) in the following manner: enumerate all observations, identify the distribution, and apply the corresponding steganographic construction to generate a challenge.

If interested, here is one of such papers establishing the first of these results: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/PSS.pdf

>>9022528

Now, while I have as of now given what is a complete (albeit informal) proof of my initial claim, and while your understanding of it hinges on you picking up aspects of an entirely new field, this isn't really necessary.

The first step is to eliminate your bias enough to see that I did satisfactorily prove my weaker claim that you are unable to distinguish the true origin of some distribution of observations. Next, meditate on what these limitations mean. Hopefully this will grant you enough humility to see that people who disagree with you on things you can't confirm aren't inherently 'lesser' than you in any meaningful way.

>>9022468

yes that is my opinion.

you still haven't explained to me what you have shown though. if you actually explained what you were trying to do, maybe i wouldnt have used it as a rebuttal

>>9022468

i think one of the best examples of how science can be useful without objectivity is when compared to the human brain as an inference machine. it works in a similar way to science, making inferences on observations which are the consequences of causes that are for the most part hidden from us and difficult to untease. the human brain suffers the same problems i assume as anyone else in your cryptography example and we see this in everyday life through illusions and our own perceptual ambiguities. the brain is still useful though no?

How does an anti-evolution thread still get 165 replies? Fucking americans, you either need a better education system or to be firewalled off from the rest of the internet

>>9022428
So if someone was born sterile that wouldn't be reproductively relevant? Are you trolling?

>>9022528

doesnt what you say basically only say there exists some distributions that you cannot distinguish? does this actually generalize to the claim that you can't objectively prove anything? im not too sure.

>>9022608
At least they don't get thrown in prison for having problematic speech

>>9022644
Dump people don't deserve freedom of speech, it's detrimental to society

>>9022631

To be more precise, it states that, for any observation, the distribution from which it is drawn admits a distribution with the same observation in its support such that you cannot distinguish the two. This is, as you say, different from saying that nothing can be proven objectively: for example, if I gave you the key to the pseudo-random permutation used in my original challenge, you could easily succeed.

>>9022528
>families of deterministic functions which are designed such that you cannot distinguish them from uniformly random strings of the same length in polynomial time.
But they are distinguishable, just not in polynomial time. So your own example fails.

Not to mention that you cannot simply analogize these distributions to empirical observations, since there is this thing called empirical evidence which allows us to figure things out about the cause of something without directly observing it. But I look forward to you publishing your paper proving you can't no nuffin in the near future.

>>9022911

I'm curious: do you know what polynomial-time means?

In particular, the results I quoted show that the work factor required to distinguish is on the order of 2^k, where k is a security parameter on the order of 256. Do you really think you can distinguish something which requires at least 2^256 to do so?

As for the framework upon which my argument is based, it's all been published, and it's well-known in academic circles.

>>9022932
>In particular, the results I quoted show that the work factor required to distinguish is on the order of 2^k, where k is a security parameter on the order of 256. Do you really think you can distinguish something which requires at least 2^256 to do so?
But it is distinguishable. So you fail.

>As for the framework upon which my argument is based, it's all been published, and it's well-known in academic circles.
I'm not arguing with the framework, I'm arguing with it's applicability to empirical science and this thread specifically. Again, I look forward to your paper proving we can't know nuffin. I suggest using vixra.org

Homosexuality is obviously a mutation of some sort of gene that prevents these people from passing on their favourable traits by preventing them from mating with the opposite sex.

We need to figure out what causes the homosexuality trait, or better yet, how do people 'receive' it in order to figure why these ppl are like that.

>>9022937
desu this article isnt really relevant. it doesnt prove what you say it proves, you just seem to think it does... its quite ironic actually actually because rather than a logical proof youre trying to prove something using ideas from the very sciences you criticise.

>>9022944
You don't know shit about evolution or biology.

>>9022950

hmm how so? I studied both at biochemistry level including economic evolution.

The goal of anything that evolves (an economy, a species, a car) is to pass on better traits that will make it more successful. Homosexuals have no interest in opposite sex, therefore some mechanism is causing them to do so.

This is good because homosexuals are proven to be at risk for diseases that will eventually kill them (AIDS).

So what, or ----who-----, is causing the homosexuality trait?

>>9022947
What?

>>9022937

Are you purposefully being this dense? Neither you nor the combined effort of every person who ever lived will ever distinguish something which requires 2^256 atomic operations. Think about how large that number is, factor in however operations you think you can perform per second and how many people you expect to contribute.

The cliff created by these results is such that you will never, ever have the capacity to distinguish anything. In fact, it's such that you nearly require the presence of the very sort of eternal creator or some other being able to live long enough in order to say that the fact that it is eventually distinguishable is even relevant.

>>9022947

You are incorrect: it proves precisely what I say. If it did not, my various papers would not have passed the peer review process, I would have nevee received my graduate degree, and all of my contributing peers and mentors would be out of a job. As I said, I work in an area of STEM which is concerned with what we can know for sure. Cryptography is one such area.

>>9022980

Also, if you doubt my credibility further, feel free to browse the cryptography-related pages on Wikipedia. You will quickly find my name, work, and corroborative derivative works mentioned.

>>9022967
First, evolution does not have a goal. I know you did not study evolution because at the start of every college level class on it they start out by saying evolution is not teleological. Second the propensity for a trait to be passed on is not that it will directly make an organism more successful ie. greenbeard alleles. If a trait raises genetic fitness of nearby carries of a similar trait then the trait will be passed on through them. For example, with regards to your topic of choice, the trait that makes men homosexual presents differently in females causing them to have increased fertility. The brother not having children of their own is able to contribute to the increased number of offspring she has and therefore increases the overall fitness of the homosexuality trait without actually reproducing.

Homosexuality is a complex phenotype, not a gene. If you studied biochemistry you should understand the very important difference between genes and phenotypes. More so homosexual behavior does not preclude heterosexual behavior in a large number of cases such as bisexuality.

Homosexuality isn't what increases risk for AIDS anal sex is. Homosexuality in females means the likelihood of getting AIDS is roughly nil. Anal sex is the easiest manner to transmit AIDS through sexual contact due to increased tearing during penetration. Moreso AIDS only appeared within the last 75 or so years, it hasn't had a long time to properly impact the population. Combined with current antiviral treatments and increased funding for HIV cures it will go from a disease that anyone of moderate wealth can live with their entire life until they get old and die to one that can get cured like gonorrhea.

You don't know shit.

>>9022980
>The cliff created by these results is such that you will never, ever have the capacity to distinguish anything.
Yet we do distinguish between evolution and Lamarckism. It's almost like scientific theories based on empirical analysis are not analogous to pseudo-random functions...

Also if you doubt evolution then why do we keep having to come out with new antibiotics to fight superbugs? Also why do deformed babies come up and superhumans like that guy who can run a 10 minute mile until he has to go to sleep without any tiredness? How did dogs get bred to so many different breeds?

>>9022992

And yet there is more nuance, because Lamarckism has no part in explaining the origin of the observation of evolution, natural selection, and adaptation. Lamarckism is an explanation of the mechanism of the phenomena, requiring something observable at this current time.

As I'm sure you've noticed but neglect to accept, the place of a creator in evolutionary process has everything to do with the point of origin (creation), an entirely different point in the causal chain.

>>9022980

no, it just applies to these crypt distributions or whatever. its not a generalizeable proof. you may well have made good papers. but they dont apply to this.

>>9022984
i dont know your name and no ones doubted your credentials.

>>9022987

Evolution does not have a goal? Look at a picture of your hometown from 300 years ago vs now. Thats evolution.

If a brother of a homosexual individual reproduces and the person themselves never does then the homosexual individual was not chosen to evolve and pass on their genes. Homosexuality then acts as a 'mutation' in preventing the presumably bad alleles of that one person from harming the success of the species.

And since were talking about gays and lesbians:

Homosexuality must be a gene that is passed by selection. The people suffering from the 'mutation' simply do not pass their genes. Lets not talk about just anal sex but EVERY 'at risk' behavior: i.e. sharing joints (websites like to call this 'sharing needles')

Its just that anal sex is more prevalent cuz you know they need the fix.

AIDS is the leading cause of death in the world simply because the diseases they receive from the compromised immune system is what kills them.

Youre telling me there is no connection between this homosexuality 'mutation' and them dying from a weakened immune system if evolution by selection doesnt work?

AIDS was brought up within the last 100 or so years because science deduced that people die of every infectious disease and cancer that is caused by a weakened immune system.

>>9023001
Lamarkism actually found its place in epigentics, during an orgnaisms lifetime the structure of exposed DNA changes and as a result some traits are also altered.

Also sounds like a cop out on your end. You are basically giving up because you are pointing out something akin to Levinthal's paradox but ignoring the conclusion that there are physical laws that govern occurrences namely thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Running energy through a system can increase order and eventually a self sustaining structure can form like a whirlpool. However this happened on an atomic and molecular level which can account of the start of "life". You can say god nudged things like this to happen, that he tricked some rocks into fucking a sponge into existence but the end result is that evolution as a concept is sound.

>>9023003

They entirely apply. The entire point of steganography is that these principles generalize to anything you could observe in the universe.

>>9023011
Social Darwinism fell out long ago.

Wat. I literally just explained how homosexuals pass traits on. Also individuals are incapable of evolving, populations evolve. Also if it were just a gene then there wouldn't be so many different presentations of homosexuality.

wat.

wat.

AIDS is not the leading cause of death by far, maybe in some parts of Africa.

I just explained that.

That makes no sense.

Fuck you are trolling my ass and I fell for it. Nice job faggot.

>>9023001
>And yet there is more nuance, because Lamarckism has no part in explaining the origin of the observation of evolution, natural selection, and adaptation.
Of course it does. Lamarckism is a competing theory to explain the diversity of life observed. It claims that organisms pass on traits accumulated during their lifetime and that since organisms strive to survive, their offspring inherit the fruits of that struggle. It's a perfectly fine explanation in and of itself, it just happens to be empirically false.

>As I'm sure you've noticed but neglect to accept, the place of a creator in evolutionary process has everything to do with the point of origin (creation), an entirely different point in the causal chain.
So then your entire argument has even less to do with what you originally replied to. In fact it has nothing to do with evolution at all. Make up your fucking mind already.

>>9023023
no youre just saying these things exist, not that every observable distribution of data has this property. you have to go out of your way to construct it.

>>9023014

It is far from a cop-out; in fact, it's precisely my original point, reiterated. You cannot claim to be able to distinguish the origin of the current observable mechanisms informing evolutionary theory as arising from what is simply a longer chain of more evolutionary mechanisms, an intelligently designed system, or some combination of the two.

>>9023041

No; current results in modern steganography show that every observable distribution has this property and that we may, in fact, easily construct hiding mechanisms once we are able to observe said distribution. It applies perfectly to this scenario.

>>9023031

My entire argument from the start has concerned the origin of an observation. That you can't understand abstractions or even the simplest argument has nothing to do with the consistency of this fact. As my mind is already made up, I suggest that you instead work on your reading comprehension, or perhaps instead practice learning to weigh and understand ideas without letting your own bias interfere so heavily.

>>9023028
Umm social darwinism is the reason for the industrial evolution (the lowest example) and the rise of the internet age.

Also homosexuals passing on traits can also mean through non-mendelian methods such as epi-markers on the DNA in question, still a gene.

How is a weakened immune system, the whole reason you arent dead right now, not the underlying reason for cause of death?

Yes you can google 'leading cause of death' and see: cancer, alzheimers, diabetes etc

Those are all EFFECTS of a weakened immune system. Homosexuals as a POPULATION are predisposed to this due to some sort of MUTATION they have.

>>9023046

Speaking to the point of abstractions, and for the sake of clarity, note that the more attentive reader will be able to project my discussion onto the space of this discussion quite easily. Note simply that verifiable evolutionary mechanisms constitute an observation and that the question of intelligent design concerns an origin process.

>>9023046
>My entire argument from the start has concerned the origin of an observation.
Yes and what does that mean? The first in a sequence of mutations which leads to a trait which is then selected and now must be explained? Or the beginning of the universe? How does Lamarckism not explain the origin of diversity?

>>9023056
So what you're actually arguing is, science and magic sky fairy are indistinguishable. You didn't need to go into cryptography to do that, you could have just said you're a creationtard.

>>9023042
The same is technically true of every moment prior to this one. I am unable to distinguish between "true" memories and those created by a theoretical higher power that created the universe 15 minutes ago.

>>9022488
>Hours later the creationist tard doesn't respond

>>9023058

The sound aspects of evolutionary theory are informed by the mechanisms we may currently observe: non-exhaustively, we may observe things like diversity, but we may also observe things like local adaptation. Even more, we have the capacity to control for and measure the genetic changes present when these mechanisms manifest. While Lamarckism attempts to explain the origin of diversity, it is simultaneously refuted by this latter point, namely that its claims concern what we currently observe.

On the other hand, the question of intelligent design is concerned with what happened at the beginning of the universe. The original post implied that evolutionary processes beget themselves, asserting that intelligent design could have no place in the process.

Simply put, my argument is the following: as a modern observer with a limited memory, you cannot tell whether any evolutionary process came about by design. This is simply because even the things you observe may be indistinguishable from what you believe by design (a steganographical design).

>>9023078

This is also correct, but you would be hard-pressed to find anybody married to the belief of absolute self-sufficiency and self-arbitration willing to acknowledge this.

>>9023072

I was showing you that the very field which seems to give you validation objectively refutes your attempt to belittle those who have come to a different conclusion.

Personally? Yes, I am a creationist. My opinions on creation, however, are not the terms with which you will agree. I prefer to forge my arguments such that you are rejecting things you believe to be reliable rather than myself if you choose to reject them.

>>9023104
Too bad evolution has been proven a million times over.

>>9023090
>The original post implied that evolutionary processes beget themselves, asserting that intelligent design could have no place in the process.
Oh so we can just add on whatever we want to the necessary part of the theory because it makes religious people feel better? OK, not only was life intelligently designed, it was intelligently designed by a giant rabbit.

>Simply put, my argument is the following: as a modern observer with a limited memory, you cannot tell whether any evolutionary process came about by design.
So you posted all this shit just to devolve into Ken Ham saying "Were you there?" Pathetic. Yes of course I can distinguish between reality and intelligent design, because intelligent design is an unnecessary, arbitrary addition to the theory in service of your insecurity in your religious beliefs. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual maturity and self awareness to realize this. But no, you can't just make shit up and then claim it's just as valid as what is empirically necessary. It's called Occam's Razor.

>>9023104
>I was showing you that the very field which seems to give you validation objectively refutes your attempt to belittle those who have come to a different conclusion.
Laughable nonsense. You refuted nothing. Intelligent design is not parsimonious, so it's not valid. It's no different than any story anyone can make up. You don't need cryptography to invoke magic, which is exactly what you're doing.

>>9023046

thats my point... it says that its possible to making hiding mechanisms... it doesnt say that all distributions are inherently undistinguishale or whatever... just that you can make them so if you choose. that isnt the same im sorry. insult me all you want, you know im right. yes maybe its possible to construct a hiding mechanism for any distribution but thats contingent on you doing so...
and again look at how the brain can disentangle ambiguous sensory distributions.

>>9023102
Just because we do not know how our universe works does not stop us from attempting to and realizing that common observation to inform our actions then one single hypothetical with inherent circular reasoning. The boltzmann brain is an interesting idea but does not allow us to meaningfully interact with our universe. If we know it's a simulation or a reality what does it matter we will still wake up tomorrow and do things because we want to eat.

>>9023056

>>9023078
very true, you can create any indistinguishable hypothetical situation which is his point but i personally dont think thats relevant to this discussion. it is a cop out.

>>9023090

but why would you believe in something which just creates more assumptions?

>>9023152

I invoked nothing but well-established results in a STEM field. You're invoking only your bias.

>>9023187

I'm not trying to insult you, but you are still missing my point as well. Answer this question: if there is an intelligent creator, what is to stop said creator from creating in a hidden manner? The ability for us to do so is established in the results I've quoted; why would an intelligent creator of the universe not also be afforded this capacity?

>>9017276
This. There really is nothing you can do with idiots. You cannot educate them, you cannot help them. All you can do is refrain from breeding with them.

>Guadaloupe Woman: Miocene
>Calaveras Man: Pliocene
>Kanapoi Elbow: 4.15 mya (Pliocene)
>Paluxy Man: Mesozoic (most likely Jurassic)
>Tiwanaku: 12,000 BC (Late Pleistocene)
>Klerksdorp Spheres: 3 bya (Precambrian)

Explain these, brainiacs.

>>9019140
>Seriously, I was under the impression that the whole world was, on average, really fucking smart, but that perception is quickly taking a nose dive.

Jesus, how did you ever come to that conclusion? The average IQ is 100. Have you ever sat an IQ test? The last time I took one I had consumed seven beers before the test and got 147. I can't imagine what it is like to possess a brain which scores 100 sober. And this is the average human.

>>9023243
>I invoked nothing but well-established results in a STEM field.
Why exactly do you need to invoke cryptography to state that God could have magically designed the universe and then hidden his influence from us? You don't. You could have just said it from the start and it would be equally as valid (i.e. not). All you did was waste time shitposting and pretending to be "scientific." What a twat.

>>9023129

Again, false. If I wanted to invoke an existing argument, I would do so. I instead invoked an argument relying on a sound, well-established area of mathematics. You haven't even begun to try to understand this argument, instead attempting to skim by on pithy comments such as, "You fail" and "Pathetic," ultimately saying absolutely nothing of value. Now, rather than address the original point, you're attempting to substitute my argument and its support with something with which you're already familiar. Other people in this thread have at least attempted to engage despite some unwillingness to accept, but attempting to discuss this with you is similar to doing so with a child.

If you want to continue in your circle of delusional self-validation, be my guest. I have presented information which is new to you, and you have rejected it in favor trying to cling to this world view. It is not my responsibility to force you to learn new aspects of science; just know that you will have absolutely no success in this field if you continue as you are.

>>9023260

Except my original point was not that God created the universe; this is your over-simplified view. My original point is that you cannot, nor will you ever, be able to distinguish between the origin of what you believe is a manifestation of evolution. I invoked cryptography, in particular steganography, in order to illustrate a sound and established basis to this fact.

Call me a twat all you'd like. Between us, you're the one rejecting science in favor of what you think is nice to believe. If this is how you'd like to be, then fine; at least do the world a favor and be honest about it.

>>9023262
>I instead invoked an argument relying on a sound, well-established area of mathematics.
The only sound, well-established principle of mathematics you invoked is that a pseudorandom function cannot be distinguished from a random one in polynomial time. The rest is just a non sequitur. Example:

1. 1+1 = 2
2. 1 unicorn and 1 unicorn makes 2 unicorns
3. Therefore it's possible that two invisible unicorns that fart rainbows created the universe

But let's just accept your conclusion. Yes it's possible that magic sky fairy designed evolution in a hidden manner. But is this indistinguishable from evolution without a designer? Yes of course it is, since your hypothesis is not parsimonious it cannot even be classified as scientific, let alone indistinguishable from a scientific theory.

>>9023269
>My original point is that you cannot, nor will you ever, be able to distinguish between the origin of what you believe is a manifestation of evolution.
I already did, moron. The designer has not been shown to be empirically necessary to the theory therefore it is rejected.

>Between us, you're the one rejecting science in favor of what you think is nice to believe.
You seem very confused about what science is. There is always a possibility of super-determinism. But since super-determinism is not necessary, it's irrelevant. Again, you don't need cryptography to tell you this, it's merely a pretension you are putting on to claim that you are being "scientific" by proposing an unscientific hypothesis. Until you can show me that god is empirically necessary, it will never be scientific, by definition.

>>9023250
i would say that hypothetically you can by ad hoc postulate many many many different potential indistinguishable situations like this. it becomes meaningless. whats the point in making postulates that are not distinguishable. wouldnt it be better to go by the least assumptions as possible and have hypotheses which are clearly defined and falsifiable in their predictions? or even ones that produce process theories. design cannot produce mechanistic process theories and if you postulate evolution + design, why not go with evolution on own since its easier and theres no distinguishable reasons why you would propose a designer.

>>9023274

>The only sound, well-established principle of mathematics you invoked is that a pseudorandom function cannot be distinguished from a random one in polynomial time. The rest is just a non sequitur.

This is misrepresentation of my argument (or perhaps only the part that you took the time to understand?). I also quoted well-established results showing the generalization of pseudo-random permutations to generic distributions. This is the key insight which allows me to establish my point that you are ultimately unable to make any determination as to the origin of an observation.

>Example:

Your example simply has nothing to do with my argument or its logical structure.

>But let's just accept your conclusion. Yes it's possible that magic sky fairy designed evolution in a hidden manner. But is this indistinguishable from evolution without a designer?

The topic of this conversation is what is true, not what is the "best form of scientific thought." As regards what is true, this conclusion is sound, and it states that you are wrong in blatantly rejecting opposing views without objective support.

>>9023288

>I already did, moron.

You did no such thing. A creator may not be necessary to your description of evolution, but, again, reality and your theorized description of reality are disjoint. Furthermore, your inability to distinguish between the correct theory and your own theory (even should they be the same) is entirely the basis of my original point. You have no place, evidence, means, or capacity to reject anything.

>You seem confused about science

I am not confused. Are you confused? You posted a thread about nothing more than an assertion that one interpretation of a scientific theory is best. What does this have to do with "parsimonious" approaches or a systematic approach to understanding anything? You requested a circle-jerk and got uncomfortable when other areas of science and mathematics yielded alternative views.

>>9023292

I believe you have essentially grasped my motivation in posting today. If you are a scientist studying evolutionary processes, why waste your time with a thread like this by worrying about things which are not falsifiable? The purpose of this thread was to talk about why it's "not good" to have a different (yet still unfalsifiable) belief regarding something which is itself falsifiable, and my argument is that it's pointless for precisely the reason you point out.

>>9023269
You are an idiot
>All evidence points to evolution
>B-But the sky daddy could have dun it and made it look just like as if it was done by evolution
Yeah, and the universe could have been created 5 seconds ago.

>>9023378

Am I the idiot? You just took a general, logically correct statement and attempted to reject it by instantiating it with words you don't like.

>>9023380
>logically correct
It isn't. It goes against logic to create a complex answer instead of accepting an already proven one.

>>9023380
>Hey guys this is how the Egyptians created the pyramids
>NO ALIENS DID IT, THAT IS JUST A LOGICAL EXPLANATION

>>9023383

"Simple" or "complex" has nothing to do with the logical correctness of a statement in a logic. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth..

"Truth" in the rigorous sense of the mathematical sciences is defined on this basis.

>proven

Where?

>>9023386

Correction:
>Can you prove that aliens weren't involved?
>No.
>Then we don't know whether aliens were involved.

>>9023392
Without any evidence it's pretty easy to say they almost certainly did not.

>>9023388
>Where
Look at the links posted in this thread or the many other instances of evolution shown in real life or proven mathematically or the many other ways.
Also Occam's razor is on my side.

>>9023079

I went to bed as I said in my penultimate comment. I'd wager it won't take me too long to read those, given that it's text about nothing. Stand by.

>>9017275
>somehow imbued with "information"

But DNA really is an information storage medium and data structure, complete with error correction, copying, stable storage and many more mechanisms. Bacteria routinely transfer information among themselves using DNA "cassettes", which they dynamically recombine into their own genetic material. It's like they're the Mega Man of nature, absorbing each other's powers

>>9017275
DNA is relatively "intelligently programmed" and imbued with "information". It makes an error here and there, but most of the changes made are pretty safe considering

> DNA is itself a product of evolution
I dunno how much getting lucky counts as evolution here

>>9017275
Step 1.) Don't be a "BRAISE ADEISM" type. In other words, don't disparage people because they're religious. You sound like a dick and have a fedora.
Step 2.) Realize and take the redpill that 85% of the world's population is below 100IQ. They need a religious system to guide them threw this moral puzzle we call life.
3.) This leads to this group of people forming heuristics. Simple explanation: God created everything. Done, go on with your life, makes it easier. Higher thinking in these people create anxiety and anger. You don't want that do you?

Finally, you can believe in God and evolution and other scientific truths. There, I fucking said it. Fun fact, one of the proponents of the Big Bang Theory back in the day was a practicing Catholic priest. Gregor Mendel was a monk.

>>9023567
evolution isnt just about natural selection.

>>9019354
Listen here commissar, have you seen the degeneracy and emptiness of today's society? You take away religion and the moral community it can bring (note it doesn't have to be organized), normal people struggle to find meaning. The overwhelming majority of the population is below 100IQ. They need it. Smart people sometimes need religion (Newton, James Madison (not /sci/, but writing a whole system of governance that has been continued to this day is pretty incredible), Marcus Aurelius, Constantine I) because in their opinion, it gives them a deeper meaning.

>>9022488
>>9023079
>>9023552

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-45118/Why-tall-men-children.html

This one says that is "height is about 90%" genetic and in the next sentence says that "the average height of adolescent boys in Britain has shot up nine inches since the 1830s". Not a good strart even for the genetic perspective alone, let alone the Evolutionist one.

>https://amp.livescience.com/24916-animal-size-versus-climate.html

This one says "for most species of vertebrates, body mass increases the closer you get to the poles", then gives one example of one life form without citing any source...then proceeds to babble about why the initial assumption may not be the case at all. This is bad. A more scathing critique of Evolution than I could ever muster. Third time's a charm?

>http://lbc.msu.edu/evo-ed/Pages/Mice/ecology.html
>Although the researchers who uncovered the relationship between fur color and soil brightness are skeptical about predation-related selection pressure, other research indicates this may be occurring.

I rest my case. This is grim.

>>9023262

I told you not to feed him: >>9022428

RIP

>>9023627
the first point you make is invalid. the idea of 90% variance being genetic doesnt conflict with changes in height over time.

>implying anybody needs to know an irrelevant field of science

>>9023627
The first source is pretty badly written; height is strongly affected by a number of environmental factors, such as nutrition and health (all of which have improved immensely since then, and this was not mentioned in the article). The height disparity between North and South Korea is an example of this. It is, however, known that height is genetic given the same access to these factors.

This is good article that analyses the factors that determine height without coming to poorly founded conclusions:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/

Whilst your issues with the second link are not unreasonable, I do not understand your issue with the third. The article seems to have been researching whether predatory pressures were a potential factor of fitness in the interaction of fur colour vs soil colour (contrary to the initial thoughts by those who discovered the relationship, as pointed out in the quote you took). In favour of an evolutionary model, the results show that there is an interaction favouring dark fur in dark soils (and vice versa).

>>9023648

A 9 inch increase in the average height of teenagers is perfectly explained by the Industrial Revolution and the environmental factors assumed to affect height before, during and after Evolution or genetics appeared as theories - mainly nutrition and disease.

I give up. This thread sucks.

>>9023744

yes it can be explained by that and its perfectly agreeable with 90% genetic variance

>>9023604
>>9017275

if evolution requires dna, how did dna evolve?

>>9023867

well what du mean doesnt require dna? technically you could have something else analogous for replication meaning you dont require dna? isnt that question like asking how did anything evolve which by and large we dont really know the specifics of

>>9023364
>This is misrepresentation of my argument (or perhaps only the part that you took the time to understand?). I also quoted well-established results showing the generalization of pseudo-random permutations to generic distributions. This is the key insight which allows me to establish my point that you are ultimately unable to make any determination as to the origin of an observation.
We've already went over this. You don't seem to understand the concept of a necessary argument vs. a non-sequitur, and this is the source of the two flaws in your argument.

1. It is unnecessary to invoke cryptography to say that evolution could be intelligently designed. Get this into your thick skull. This directly follows from the fact that literally anything could be super-determined if we allow for an unfalsifiable magic force conspiring against us as a valid concept. The simple fact that it's unfalsifiable tells us that we will never know "for sure" that a magic force isn't conspiring against us.

2. Saying that evolution could be intelligently designed does not get us to the conclusion that intelligent design is indistinguishable from evolution alone since only the latter is parsimonious and falsifiable. You keep avoiding this point even though I've said it several times. Instead you use the cryptography non sequitur as "proof" that this concept is "scientifically derived", when by definition it's not scientific.

>The topic of this conversation is what is true, not what is the "best form of scientific thought."
No, the topic of the conversation has never been about what's "true" since that is never the topic of conversation in science. This is the science board, not the philosophy board. But I'm glad you've now abandoned your conceit that your conclusion is "scientific" and that I must therefore accept it.

>>9023364
>A creator may not be necessary to your description of evolution, but, again, reality and your theorized description of reality are disjoint.
No one cares about your fairy tales, only what can be scientifically determined.

>Furthermore, your inability to distinguish between the correct theory and your own theory (even should they be the same) is entirely the basis of my original point.
I can distinguish between them, I've already shown you how. If a theory is not parsimonious or falsifiable, it's rejected. Why? Because there is no reason to accept it. There is no reason to accept your fairy tale version of reality, it's arbitrary and can't be tested, so it's rejected. There is a reason to accept my empirical version of reality, because it's necessary and constantly tested.

>What does this have to do with "parsimonious" approaches or a systematic approach to understanding anything?
See, you don't even understand what science is.

>>9023388
>"Simple" or "complex" has nothing to do with the logical correctness of a statement in a logic.
Non sequitur, we're talking about empirical theories, not statements in a logic. Lack of evidence for something indicates it is unlikely to exist.

>>9024314
how do you deal with the fact that falsifiability is relative though?

>>9023392
>>9023392
>>>9023386
>Correction:
>>Can you prove that aliens weren't involved?
>>No.
>>Then we don't know whether aliens were involved.
>but we're pretty sure there were humans there so it seems more sensible to think people did it. We have to go on the evidence we have
>ah but you can't know for sure it wasnt aliens so I'll believe what I want since it makes me feel good

>>9024387
How is the unfalsifiability of a conspiring god subjective? It is actually the core of your argument.

>>9024393
It makes you feel good but you are wrong

>>9017275
why have wild monkeys never been observed turning into humans

>>9024581
Because wild monkeys have never turned into humans.

>>9019309
So much bullshit in one post. Does the poster understand how science works?
We don't know.
It's Hellishly ironic that religionists think they can criticize science without understanding it. They are Mentally somewhere between morons and idiots, and their lack of clarity prevents them from making actual sense.

>>9019341
Hey - don't laugh at my article, guise. It was peer-reviewed by my bible-study class.

>>9019968
Evidence or GTFO.

>>9020861
Why stop at the bible? There are hundreds of books out there that posit supernatural creator beings. There is nothing special (or logical) about the bible, or any other creation myth.

>>9021509
Not true. Human emotions cloud logic. Even Einstein had his glitches.

>>9024663

Relating to the argument that Creationists can't imagine themselves responsible for their own survival - free will is a tenet of Christianity.

>>9024515
>>9023392's point is that he isn't technically wrong in a rigorous sense. He's just retarded

>>9022239
Your logic is weak and your arguments circular. Exactly what one would expect from a theist. Your thrashing has netted a respect-gain of -10. Learn some biology and reformulate your concerns. Perhaps then we can help you out of your intellectual morass.

>>9024685

How much Biology does one have to learn to find one data point pertaining to the reproductive relevance of a single trait? This is shit, by the way: >>9023627

>>9024685
>>9024693

Funny thing is I'll bet anything you know nothing at all about Biology.

What are your thoughts on David Peters' interpretations of MPUM 6009/Carniadactylus and Cosesaurus, his assertions about their anatomies, and their relation to Pterosaurs and Theropods? In particular, the claim that the former is not an offshoot of the latter?

>merp Reioelgon Is stupid gUys!!11

>>9022225
>So a dog that is born without legs or eyes is just as likely to live and reproduce as a healthy one?
can you answer it?

>>9024741

I can, but I cannot provide any data. Can you?

>>9024749
i just read through this thread.
so your entire problem with science seems to be that of inexact use of language to describe theories and hypothesis ("good" "adequate" "bad"), reliance upon intuitive examples, and the impossibility of attaining objectivity.
am i right?

>>9017495
>conservatives aka anti-intellectuals

that title was taken by left wingtards long ago

this anti-intellectualism will only get worse so long as our countries keep importing third world, two-digit IQ shitskins and wogs and libtards perpetuate an acceptance of Islam and black underachievement

what do you expect from niggers and muslims lol

>>9021783
What the fuck?

Seriously, if you still doubt evolution, I urge you - in a non condescending way - to read it; it's not only a really solid, modern explanation of the concepts behind evolution - both in theory and in practice; but also a really easy book to read. I read it in like 2 or so weeks, and I'm a slow as fuck reader.

It can only do you good.

/shill

>>9022967
Some people say homosexuality is induced by an overactive sexual desire. Much like how after 2000 hours of internet you start thinking dickgirls are attractive.

N-not that I do, of course.

>>9024712
https://youtu.be/azM6xSTT2I0?t=127

btw u r a retard

>>9023364
There is no truth, you pseudo intellectual piece of human garbage.

Here's a hint: science does not focus on learning the truth, for that can never be learned; science focuses on making predictions.

You're a shithead, m80.

>>9023601
>Don't be a "BRAISE ADEISM" type. In other words, don't disparage people because they're religious. You sound like a dick and have a fedora.
Funny, because I didn't ever state the criticism was aimed at religious people.
In fact, when I wrote the thread I was more thinking of the people who don't believe in god, and yet somehow don't believe in evolution; that's what irks me good.

>Higher thinking in these people create anxiety and anger. You don't want that do you?
Higher thinking creates no such thing if it's properly taught. I'd say if you spend your whole life being told "god is the only thing that exists", and then are told that it might not be that way, then there might be a bit of a shock.

Intelligence is mostly crafted, in my opinion, not inherited.

>Finally, you can believe in God and evolution and other scientific truths
Again, never spoke of christianity or even of god or religion in any way, and this is, of course, true.

Pls no be so aggressive.

>>9023867
Evolution does not require DNA, that's, I think, what most of these people seem to not realize.

Let me tell you a story: "A group of atoms evolved into a sun."

Where's the DNA in this story?

>>9024924
>can't know nuffin

>>9024404

falsifiability is relative because falsifying something doesn't exist in a vacuum. it requires context, theoretical background, measuring machines. many theories would be considered unfalsifiable back in time and many theories have been wrongly falsified because the observations that did seem to falsify them were wrongly contextualised in the intellectual milieu of the time and sometimes because of the limitations of measuring instruments. just as its difficult to verify a theory, theoretically its just as difficult to verify its falsification, and that is a repeated pattern in history. heliocentrism was falsified in galileos time, certain ideas about the prefrontal cortex were falsified apparently in the mid 40s - 60s. Both overturned. The extent a theory is falsified im also guessing depends on your viewpoint subjectively and i imagine in many of these cases and to this day too, there is no universal consensus on whether a theory is falsified or not. Sometimes people just make ammendments to the theory anyway.

>>9024924

if this is true, then why do so many people get so antsy when they're told evolution didnt happen or wasn't true.

>>9024404
remember atomism was once just a metaphysical idea

>>9025095
You didn't answer the question. How is the unfalsifiability of a conspiring god relative? It's certainly not relative to any measuring technology, since god could simply use magic to fool any measuring technology. Is it now your position that some technology could be developed in the future to determine whether an origin is natural or designed by god? Because you spent the entire thread arguing against that. You've hoisted yourself on your own petard, and it appears you realize this since instead of addressing how exactly god is falsifiable, you attempted to avoid the point by generalizing into how falsifiability is "relative" in history. Well it's certainly not relative in the context of an omniscient omnipotent conspirer. Pretty pathetic.

>>9025188
you said only the latter is falsifiable. but that is contextually bound. relative. richard dawkins says evolution will be falsified when they find bunnys in the cambrian or something. but i wonder if it really would be falsified?

>>9025188

also you could argue its very relativistic in that you have a certain view of who god is. events in the future might change it too. e.g. second coming of christ.

>>9024749
Data was provided. Why are you still here? Creationism got disproven and evolution proven

>>9025260
Evolution is clearly falsifiable moron.

>>9025099
Because you claim that without giving us better tools to make predictions with, brainlet.

>>9025406
Read my paragraph up there about falsification. Its been accepted for something like 60 years that falsifiability isnt a tenable basis for how science distinguishes ideas. It maybe a normative principle that people like to adopt but that doesnt mean it is descriptive or an internally consistent method. And come on, if they found bunnys in precambrian rock du think people would howl out that evolution is dead? Ofcourse not. Even if for people like dawkins that should be a falsifying observation.

>>9025260
>richard dawkins says evolution will be falsified when they find bunnys in the cambrian or something. but i wonder if it really would be falsified?
The actual machinery of evolution obviously wouldn't be falsified by that, but (unless something exceptional could account for how the fossils got there) it would absolutely rule out our current understanding of how life evolved and specialised over time.

>>9025519
>Its been accepted for something like 60 years that falsifiability isnt a tenable basis for how science distinguishes ideas
It's been accepted that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9025395

I would have assumed the data would at least agree with itself, unlike what was linked earlier. The second link is just Literature that directly contradicts itself in the space of a few dozen words, with no Empirical fence posts anywhere. And the third one actually says the people who collected the data DISAGREE that it has any reproductive relevance.

Though this IS redundant for most of you clowns, you couldn't even tell serious data from parody if your life depended on it, since the alleged underpinnings of Evolution are just magic words you parrot to make your daddy angry.

Half of you cretins would've linked me this shit if you could use Google: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/amphisbaenians-and-origins-of-mammals/

Say, to the retards that told me to "take a Science class" and "learn Biology", what exactly is wrong with this article? Fucking mouth-breathers.

>>9024924

So you concede that Science is about being fundamentally wrong all the time?

>>9025446

What are 3 (three) predictions you can name that would've been impossible without the theory of Evolution, anywhere along the line from Darwinism to Modern Synthesis?

>>9025905
>So you concede that Science is about being fundamentally wrong all the time?
like literally every human observation about the real world, yeah.

>>9025905
>So you concede that Science is about being fundamentally wrong all the time?
Go read The Relativity of Wrong:
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

>>9025998
>Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

So is this due to time or methodology? Any non-ambiguous answer as to when they will be complete? By this kind of thinking, I can say the theory that the Earth is round is, in fact, much more consonant with the theory that it is flat because in an eon from now we will have done away with current Geometry and the Language we currently use to describe it, and they will only be marginal aspects of whatever theories will come into being then, so the Earth will be thought of as being qualitatively transcendent to flat-round Geometry.

This is almost a kind of reverse-Sisyphus - chasing a boulder rolling downhill forever.

>>9025998
>Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

So is this due to time or methodology? Any non-ambiguous answer as to when they will be complete? By this kind of thinking, I can say the theory that the Earth is round is, in fact, much more consonant with the theory that it is flat because in an eon from now we will have done away with current Geometry and the Language we currently use to describe it, and they will only be marginal aspects of whatever theories will come into being then, so the Earth will be thought of as being qualitatively transcendent of flat-round Geometry.

This is almost a kind of reverse-Sisyphus - chasing a boulder rolling downhill forever.

>>9025998
>>9026040

And if there is no estimate on the character of this completion, if neither its quality nor its quantity are any closer to being in our sight now than they ever have been, then we can safely call all theories wrong now and forever.

>>9026040
>So is this due to time or methodology?
Methodology. Science simply isn't a path that leads to capital-t "Truth".

>By this kind of thinking, I can say the theory that the Earth is round is, in fact, much more consonant with the theory that it is flat because in an eon from now we will have done away with current Geometry and the Language we currently use to describe it
What? If I'm understanding you correctly, that's the exact opposite of what Asimov is saying.

>>9026050
>And if there is no estimate on the character of this completion, if neither its quality nor its quantity are any closer to being in our sight now than they ever have been, then we can safely call all theories wrong now and forever.
The entire point of the essay is that trying to label scientific models "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense is completely pointless, and instead they should be discussed in terms of "more accurate" or "less accurate".

>>9026057

Yes, more/less accurate in relation to what? If, in the future, Geometry, Language, and even observational methods will change so much that they will render their current hypostases functionally obsolete, then the round Earth, for example, is much closer in its inaccuracy to the flat Earth then to whatever Earth will be described as then. And said description will be much closer still in its inaccuracy to both of them than to whatever the Earth will be described as in twice the amount of time. So not only is the boulder rolling downhill, but it's getting further and further away.

>>9026057

Yes, more/less accurate in relation to what? If, in the future, Geometry, Language, and even observational methods will change so much that they will render their current hypostases functionally obsolete, then the round Earth, for example, is much closer in its inaccuracy to the flat Earth than to whatever Earth will be described as then. And said description will be much closer still in its inaccuracy to both of them than to whatever the Earth will be described as in twice the amount of time. So not only is the boulder rolling downhill, but it's getting further and further away.

>>9026082
yes, there might be theories in the future which supplant current scientific knowledge
yes, there's no way to really know "true reality" with the help of science.
these are all conclusions a child can come to. i don't know what's the problem.

>>9026091

The problem is that it purports itself to the the Ministry of Truth and distracts people from knowable things, like their own Selves.

>>9026084
>Yes, more/less accurate in relation to what?
More or less accurate than other models, at predicting observations (given some set of conditions).

>If, in the future, Geometry, Language, and even observational methods will change so much that they will render their current hypostases functionally obsolete
I don't understand how that's supposed to work.
Of course language and our approaches will move on, but that won't erase our current understanding of things.

> then the round Earth, for example, is much closer in its inaccuracy to the flat Earth than to whatever Earth will be described as then.
It won't ever be. Further models are almost always refinements; we aren't going to one day discover the Earth is actually doughnut-shaped.

>So not only is the boulder rolling downhill, but it's getting further and further away.
I don't follow your metaphor at all.

>>9026084
Not him, but it seems like it would quite obviously be more /less accurate in relation to competing theories

>>9026094
i do not know how people are supposed to know themselves by not making inferences about the external world
>>9026095
he is literally restating that science is an ever continuing process of refinement.

>>9017275
>2 (Two) centuries later
"On the Origin of Species" was published
November 1859, 158 years ago.

>>9025605
Read any book on history/philosophy of science

>>9026124
The value 158 is in the second of two centuriez

>>9026098

A theory's maintenance is not based on its accuracy relative to other theories. The amount of relatively accurate predictions any given theory makes is directly proportional to the amount of total predictions it makes, which is in turn determined by it being sanctioned before it can make any predictions at all, or at the very least before such predictions are taken seriously over those of other theories.

>>9026223
>>>9026098 (You)
>A theory's maintenance is not based on its accuracy relative to other theories
It literally is though, scientific consensus is based on looking at all available theories and choosing the most accurate one.
>>9026223
>The amount of relatively accurate predictions any given theory makes is directly proportional to the amount of total predictions it makes
No, it isn't, because theories can be more accurate in certain contexts and less accurate in others (so graph wouldn't be directly proportional) and theories can be completely off the mark.
>which is in turn determined by it being sanctioned before it can make any predictions at all, or at the very least before such predictions are taken seriously over those of other theories
Nobody "sanctions" theories, someone just has to make a theory and show it makes predictions better than other theories. Almost everything you say is nonsense

>>9026244

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus

Paul was more accurate than most people. Should we listen to cephalopods when it comes to football?

>>9026297
if Paul can actually predict more football games with better accuracy then yeah, we should listen to a prescient octopus.
too bad he is dead.

>>9026313

So you would have no problem eventually trusting cephalopod prescience in general were it to be observed as accurate enough that, by your standards, it should supersede Science? And experience no primordial indignity? Not because it's an octopus but because your experience of the alleged process inside the octopus that allegedly makes the prediction is null. As is your current experience of your current faith in Science.

>>9026329
>it should supersede Science?
Wait, what?
If the octopus is reliably winning out, it's science that says you really ought to be paying attention. How is science superseded in any where there?

>And experience no primordial indignity?
It'd be awkward as hell, but I wouldn't want to let that get in the way of following the evidence. Even if the evidence leads to a precognitive cephalopod.

>Not because it's an octopus but because your experience of the alleged process inside the octopus that allegedly makes the prediction is null. As is your current experience of your current faith in Science.
I can't parse this. Could you please re-phrase it?

>>9026329
i wouldn't have any problem with a football predicting octopus, yeah.
> you would have no problem eventually trusting cephalopod prescience in general
depends on how prescient it is, or how its prescience actually works. is it Dune-type prescience, or final destination-type prescience?

>>9026344
top kek

>>9019995
This has got to be bait right? You have presented literally no argument while doing nothing but mindless insults to others arguments

>>9027246
Ha, looks like you got me! I just wanted to see how far I could go.

>>9019309
>>Assuming selection is happening, has there ever been a single observation of a single trait having reproductive relevance relative to a neighboring all but identical life form without said trait?
>>We don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution