Hey Cog our Phizzy was being Ironic, he is already well and truly on the right side of the debate!
Sorry Phizzy... just saw your question without reading the context...
cognisonance
JoinedPosts by cognisonance
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
cognisonance
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
cognisonance
So, is it alright to eat babies then ?
That's a strawman Phizzy, no one is arguing that cannibalism, or killing/eating babies is moral or okay, just because it was "natural" in nature at one point (or othe "red in tooth and claw" dark-sides to nature). To do so would be the Naturalistic Fallacy.
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
Evolution is not science; it’s an ideology (an alternate secular world view, a philosophy).
False Dichotomy (it's not accurate to say evolution is either science or it's an ideology). It's not that black and white. It can be both. When people talk about evolution they can mean, usually, one of two things:
- The science of evolution. This we have both the what (facts showing life today is different than in the past, and that life today has shared a common ancestor) and the how(such as the theory of natural selection and the scientific method involved to see if this theory holds water - that is to say, making predicitons, testing hypothesis, writing papers, peer review, sequencing DNA, examining fossils, biogeography, and other evidence, etc.)
- Popular Evolutionism. To quote the philosopher of science, Michael Ruse:
"First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time." Science 7 March 2003: Vol. 299 no. 5612 pp. 1523-1524
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
You want to tap dance your way through this Evolution debacle with bluster bluffing that ‘there’s all this evidence.’ Nice try, but unconvincing.
I haven't convinced you becuase you have to research the facts for yourself. I've just given you some starting topics to look into. If you are interested in looking at the available evidence please read a book that focuses on the emperical facts, such as Why Evolution is True. If you go to the amazon link, you can use the "look inside" feature (click on the picture of the book) to read a bit before deciding to by the book.
Nonetheless, I bring up human chromosome 2, which I don't remember if that book talks about it or not. Apes, such as the chimp, have 24 non-redundant chromosome pairs. Humans have 23. If evolution is true and both apes and humans share a comon ancestor, then why do human only have 23 pairs of chromosomes? It's not like we could have just dropped one pair and not expect great damage being done.
So what did the evolutionary theory predict? That either the original ancestor had 23 pair and the other apes had one pair that broke into two, or that the original had 24 pairs and humans had two pair fuse into one. What did they find out when the examined the chromosomes of chimps and humans? This:
Take a look at the banding pattern (think of this as a finger print of sorts that identifies chromosomes, which is achieved with a staining procedure). The picture shows human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. Notice how similar the patterns are? Look at the two chimp chromosomes. They both have a centromere (found somewhere in the middle) and two telomeres (think of these as end caps if you will). The human chromosome has an extra centromere and the remains of two telomres also somehwere in the middle (in addition to the two at the ends). This is also supported by actually sequencing the dna and comparing the A, C, T, or G bases.
The simpliest explanation is that the common ancestor had 24 chromomes and humans had two of them fuse together. The evidence confirms what evolutionary theory would predict. If you are interested in reading the science about this, here is one paper: Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
If evolution never happened, then how would you explain how humans have two chromosomes that appear to have been fused together to create one big one, and this fused chromosome matches up with two smaller ones found in chimps?
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
SCIENCE and me expects you to prove full blown Darwinian Evolution, early life is your best (clear easy to see) shot at proving it
I don't have time to fully respond to your latest response, but I will say this. Why is this the best shot at proving that evolution happened and common ancestry? There is already an abundance of "clear easy to see" evidence that shows that evolution happened that come from different fields of scientific study that indepenedenly verify that evolutuion happened:
- Dna [pylogenetic analysis, psuedogenes, retroviruses, human chromosome 2, nearly universal genetic code, etc.]
- Embryology (human embryo's with tail bugs, dolphins with hindlimb buds)
- Biogeography (look into Marsipuls)
- Transitional forms in periods later than the pre-Cambrian (evolutionary prediction of where to find fish/amphibian transitional form resulting in the discovery of Tiakaaak)
- Vestiges and atavisms (Ostrich wings, human's with tails, whales with vestigial pelvis/hind-leg bones)
Evolution indeed has happened. It seems more like you are wanting to use the pre-cambrian/cambrian era not becuase it should be easy to see evolution, but precisely becuase it would be hard to see the common ancestry.
If what you are wanting to do is find evidence that would completly blow common ancestry out of the water in the pre-cambrian strata (since this is what you are focusing on) would be to find avian or mammilian fossils in that strata (i.e. something that common ancestry says is impossible to exisit at that time period).
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
We know definitively there is NO “common ancestry” fossil tree coming out of the Precambrian strata. Fossils supporting this fictitious idea do not exist.
Do you expect all evolution to happen at a constant slow and gradual rate? Have you considered that the speed of evolutionary change can be different depending on the environment? (i.e. punctuated equilibrium is one such hypothesis regarding the rate of evolution by natural selection). Also consider that fossilization is a rare event (and finding them even rarer), so if evolution happened quickly during that time period, we shouldn't expect to find fossils capturing the intermidate forms.
That said, I did a quick look at some recent research in this field. Here is a "common ancestry tree" that includes the periods before and after the Cambrian. It uses molecular clock dating and data from 62 genes from 122 taxa to infer the phylogenetic relationships and approximate time of divergence. Below is the tree from this paper. I'll admit I haven't read all of that paper, but wanted to bring it up as it seems somewhat related to this subject. -
544
FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!
by punkofnice ini have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.
he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.
finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?
-
-
cognisonance
Darwin proposed a hypothesis. In the last 150 years the mountain of evidence for evolution has become overwhelming. It is no longer a hypothesis its a fact.
“ Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. - Dawkins in The Greatest Show on Earth
It is only possible to deny the fact that every living thing descended from a common ancestor by avoiding the evidence.
Cofty, I also accept evolution as a fact, but to be pedantic, technically Natural Selection (which readers of your comment might assume you are refering too) has become a scientific theory, not a "fact." I know you probably realize this and I'm responding late to this thread, but I wanted to make sure this is crystal clear to others that may not be as familiar to this topic. To use Dawkin's words in that same book:
“Our present beliefs about many things may be disproved, but we can with complete confidence make a list of certain facts that will never be disproved. Evolution and the heliocentric theory weren’t always among them, but they are now.
Biologists often make a distinction between the fact of evolution (all living things are cousins), and the theory of what drives it (they usually mean natural selection, and they may contrast it with rival theories such as Lamarck’s theory of ‘use and disuse’ and the ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’). But Darwin himself thought of both as theories in the tentative, hypothetical, conjectural sense. This was because, in those days, the available evidence was less compelling and it was still possible for reputable scientists to dispute both evolution and natural selection. Nowadays it is no longer possible to dispute the fact of evolution itself – it has graduated to become a theorum or obviously supported fact – but it could still (just) be doubted that natural selection is its major driving force.” (Greatest Show on Earth p. 17)
He also mentions:
“Darwin came to publish On the Origin of Species in 1859, he had amassed enough evidence to propel evolution itself, though still not natural selection, a long way towards the status of fact. Indeed, it was this elevation from hypothesis towards fact that occupied Darwin for most of his great book. The elevation has continued until, today, there is no longer a doubt in any serious mind, and scientists speak, at least informally, of the fact of evolution. All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although – as some biologists insist more than others – not the only one.” (Greatest Show on Earth p.18)
And Jerry Coyne agrees:
“Because a theory is accepted as “true” only when its assertions and predictions are tested over and over again, and confirmed repeatedly, there is no one moment when a scientific theory suddenly becomes a scientific fact. A theory becomes a fact (or a “truth”) when so much evidence has accumulated in its favor – and there is no decisive evidence against it – that virtually all reasonable people will accept it. All scientific truth is provisional, subject to modification in light of new evidence. There is no alarm bell that goes off to tell scientist that they’ve finally hit on the ultimate, unchangeable truths about nature. As we’ll see, it is possible that despite thousands of observations that support Darwinism, new data might show it to be wrong. I think this is unlikely, but scientists, unlike zealots, can’t afford to become arrogant about what they accept as true.” (Why Evolution is True p. 16)
"Obvious conclusion: we can provisionally assume that natural selection is the cause of all adaptive evolution – though not of every feature of evolution." (Why Evolution is True p. 143)
-
90
Can this logic be refuted?
by notsurewheretogo ini was an elder until march 2012 until i resigned.
i then stopped going to meetings in october 2012 and have enjoyed 9 months of freedom that i have found to be jouful!
i loved learning ttatt and sites like this and jwfacts.com have been excellent.. i told the elders that i needed a break and that they should not contact me unless it was a social visit and true to their word they have done that.
-
-
cognisonance
I see my logic that has no answer, either Holy Spirit teaches us wrong things or the men teach us wrong things...it's one or the other...is that right? Is there any answer that would negate my logic?
False Dichotomy. While they won't tell you this, it isn't an either or situation. You leave out the possibility that out of the thousands of Gods man has worshiped, none of them exist (including the Judeo-Christian god of the bible), so both the Holy Spirt and Men could also be wrong.
-
56
Cancer Research Worthless?
by metatron inhttp://www.hangthebankers.com/evidence-suggests-that-up-to-90-of-landmark-cancer-research-may-be-false/.
a surprizing and shocking report, if true.
tends to confirm some of my biases about how medical research is grossly distorted.. .
-
-
cognisonance
For instance, suppose you get cancer in 2000 and it is the one that will not self-cure. Under older diagnostics, you might be diagnosed in 2014 with 2 years left to live. Despite treatment, you die in 2016 after 2 years. Under newer screenings, you are diagnosed in 2002 and get chemo. The chemo takes out that cancer, and in 2005 or 2006 you get another cancer because your immune system was trashed. The second cancer takes you out in 2008, or 6 years after the initial diagnosis but still some 8 years before you would have died from the first cancer. Have they extended your life by 4 years, or shortened it by 8?
Wow, that's a pretty provocative conclusion! Can you please point me to the empirical evidence used to support this? I mean no disrespect and information like this needs to be substantiated, otherwise it is conjecture.
Additionally, how do you know that the person in the later situation would have lived longer had he received treatment later in life? Your hypothesis can't really be tested for verification or falsification. Thus, I suspect there is no empirical evidence.
-
56
Cancer Research Worthless?
by metatron inhttp://www.hangthebankers.com/evidence-suggests-that-up-to-90-of-landmark-cancer-research-may-be-false/.
a surprizing and shocking report, if true.
tends to confirm some of my biases about how medical research is grossly distorted.. .
-
-
cognisonance
I'd like to see the original article, I suspect it doesn't say what this article says it says.
I'm about to hit the road here's a homework assignment for those who take this article seriously:
Find the 53 articles and a detailed description of what was wrong with them and/or what the attempts to duplicate produced and we can talk.
Jeff,
Here is the original article published in Nature:
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
The problem with finding those 53 articles and especially which ones could not be independently duplicated is made painfully salient by an editorial clarification to that article:
In their Comment article 'Raise standards for preclinical cancer research', C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis (Nature483, 531 – 533 ; 2012) refer to scientists at Amgen who were able to reproduce findings in only 11 % of 53 published papers. Several correspondents have asked for details of these studies, which were not provided in the article.
The Amgen scientists approached the papers' original authors to discuss findings and sometimes borrowed materials to repeat the experiments. In some cases, those authors required them to sign an agreement that they would not disclose their findings about specific papers. Begley and Ellis were therefore not free to identify the irreproducible papers — a fact that the Comment should have mentioned.
Nature, like most journals, requires authors of research papers to make their data available on request. In this less formal Comment, we chose not to enforce this requirement so that Begley and Ellis could abide by the legal agreements.
The scientists at Amgen could not have implemented their study had they reserved the right to reveal the outcome for individual papers. The Comment highlights important systemic problems in preclinical cancer research, which we felt appropriate to communicate to our readers, even though the authors could not disclose the studies in question.
