Yeah - it is a strong word, and yet - I stand by it for at least one reason. The people I begin to trust enough to want their opinions and takes on things … I continue to go back to them and begin to feel some investment in their version of the world. I may have a lot of reasons - maybe very good ones - to trust that their grasp of basic reality has better grounding and much more actual warrant than a multitude of other voices, but it would still be naive of me to think my narrative is in any way independent of all these listening choices I make. So my own narrative is beholden to all this; as it must be - and should be. There is no “I will be independent of this” - no “I will refuse to listen to any voices but the bible or God or whatever else my delusions may tempt me to think I enjoy some privileged access to” … none of that nonsense of course. It’s really a matter of choosing my sources and friends well - and hopefully widely and from varied walks in life. What separates good influences from less good ones is something I’ll keep reflecting on - whether here or elsewhere. I don’t want to detract from good discussion more closely tied to the OP.
I think this is where Matt 23 when Jesus talks about not calling anyone “teacher” comes in. Once we identify a reliable source of knowledge we can come under their spell or authority to the extent that we “follow” them like a disciple taking us away from God.
Richard
Another thing for me is that the more someone wants to argue a position the more accountable they are for what they know. Everyone knows that to counter something you must understand it. It’s their responsibility to make sure they know both sides if they hold strong opinions on it.
Now there is a condition.
Having “discussed” Evolution with so called “experts” they only seem to know their understanding not any opposing ones.
Richard
What part do you think the experts are missing?
Let’s clarify. I am talking about the people on forums like this one or proponents of ToE. I have neve talked with Mr Dawkins so I have no idea what he might, or might not know.
TOe is a soecific branch of Biology. It should encompass Physiology, and ecology but it doesn’t seem to and the people i discuss with do not see the significancde of either branch in relation to the validity of the theory… You can;t understand irreducibily if you do not know the physiology involved. They tal about bones, because they are in the fossils, but bones need muscles and tendons and nerves. A bone on its own is worse than useless.
As I understand it they just assume the soft parts by comparing them with modern fauna. The positioning could be way off and they would never know it.
Wings just sort of appear, fully fledge and with all ancilliary workings intact. Brilliant. And the automated abiblity to use them. Even better…
I argue skin composition and the incompatibility of sale with hair or the porous ampibians. But it doesn;t seem to sink in what i am saying. it’s all “Hot air” or irelevant. It wouldn’t be irrelevant to the poor creature trying to breathe through scales or keep cool under hair with no internal regulator. (Not that either creature has ever been found). Mammals are mammals. Reptiles are reptiles, Dinosaurs could now be either endothermic or ectothermic but nowhere will there be a halfway house because it can’t exist.
Richard
No. The theory of evolution is one of many theories in biology. Theories aren’t branches of biology.
We don’t find any significance in your opinions on physiology and ecology. The theory of evolution absolutely covers ecology and physiology.
What are you even trying to get at? Do you think we are saying tetrapod transitional had no muscles or tendons? Do you think lobe finned fish have no tendons or muscles?
How do you determine wings appeared fully fledged? What criteria are you using to determine if a wing is fully fledged? What evidence are you going off of?
It doesn’t seem to sink in that opinions aren’t data.
Those are all vertebrates.
In my experience, the new modern synthesis does bring up ecology all the time. Coevolution ties directly into relationships between species spanning kingdoms even.
Glib answers that don’t address the assertions.
I should not have to demonstrate the differences between ectotherms and endotherms or different skin types and how they fit in with the said systems.
Show me a fossil where they are not.
There you are. You haven’t a clue. And so it must be gibberish.
Show me a limb without ancillary muscles, tendons and nerves.
Show me an incomplete backbone. Show me a liver without a lymphatic system.
Show me a cartillagenous skeleton with just a little bone in it.
They do not exist.
Richard
Why is it any different to say vertebrates are vertebrates than to say mammals are mammals?
Then show us the difference between endothermic tuna and other exothermic fish?
You don’t accept fossil evidence, so it’s a waste of time.
The precursor to limbs already had all of those features.
Hagfish and lampreys only have a notochord and lack ossification. Tunicates are the same.
The combined blood and lymphatic system found in tunicates.
Why would we need to show this?
Okay, let’sforget the specifics.
They are all integrated systems whereby one part relies on another to work. A Kidney needs a urine system, a limb needs the muscles, tendons and nerve systems. How do you build that up slowly? You cant have limb trailing around like a ball and chain. And all limbs come in pairs. You grow one, you grow two. And they are mirrored not identical. How do you produce such things by accident? Or build them up slowly?
All fossil mammals are already mammals. All fossil birds are already birds. You have show a few sporadic feaher and hollow bones but nothing t prove that they are in direct lineage.
Archaaeopterix has full wings, the predecessors have full wings. It is unlikely that you will find an animal with partial wings, even if you now have vestigial ones. Are we now going to make the Ostrich a precurser of flying birds? They have wings and don’t attmept to fly or even use them to breathe. They are big enought to get an Archaeopterix type creature out of them.
But I digress.
The point is that irreducibility relies on you understanding the systems involved. There is no way I can compare and contrast two skin types on this forum,.I have seen some sites with them on but not trying to change from one to the other.
And if you don’t consider it a problem you are not going to look for it.
Ecology involves disparate creature working in harmony. How does a pitcher plant know what smell will attract an insect? And why has it got the enzymes to use that material when they are not found in most plants? The changes are just too great (IMHO) but you can obviously just disagree or poo poo it as fantasy.
It boils down to perspective not science. And there lies the problem. it is not strictly empiric so you can ignore it.
Richard
When it comes to modern angiosperms and pollinators it’s important to remember that these families of insects were around before flowers. We can also see interactions , such as marks on leaves in the fossil record. After work, I can maybe show some papers I’ve read focused on this before. Depends though. Come Saturday after work it will be 81 hours this week.
I’ve shown you the fossil evidence, but you refuse to even acknowledge it.
Do lobe finned fish have paired fins with bones, muscles, and tendons?
How do you determine this? For example, how do you determine if a fossil is a bird or a non-avian dinosaur? What criteria are you using? How do determine if a fossil is a fish or a tetrapod, given the fact that we have fossils of fish with limbs?
Based on what evidence? How did you determine that every single ancestor of Archaeopteryx had full wings?
I understand it just fine. For example, we have the fossil record of how the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear evolved from two ancestral jaw bones.
![[Figure1.4.3 (cartoon of vertebrate jaws)]](https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif)
But of course, you refuse to accept any fossil evidence.
Then show me the data.
Why would it have to know? If a mutation changes the smell of a plant so that it attracts more insects, and hence more food, then that mutation will be selected for. The plant doesn’t have to know anything.
Selection of mutations that confer those advantages.
Yes, in your opinion. Opinions aren’t scientific data.
Science requires empirical data. That’s why I am telling you that your claims are not scientific.
And this is the ultimate dogma.
Science must be answered with empirical data
And if it doesn’t exist we will assume it is either not necessary or to be found.
Ireducibility is subjective not empirical.so that is that.
Richard
PS I think as much of the ear progression as I do the Jawbone one. They make no biological sense and seem to be visual similarity or optical illusion.
You need empirical data in order to do science. It is the one thing that separates science from non-science.
You need evidence that something doesn’t exist. In the meantime, science will keep going with the data we do have.
I’m at a loss for words.
I’m not, but my words will have to be imagined.
No, if it doesn’t exist we will look for it and if not found where expected, change our hypotheses.
What we will not do is insist on retaining preconceived ideas that should have plenty of evidence, but don’t. We definitely don’t retain preconceived ideas if there is evidence against them.
Nor do we slander many thousands of people simply because they have come to different conclusions.
That’s your approach.
Let’s emend those to “ought not”, not “will not”, as all of us will do those at some point.
How about “try not to”?
It would be libel as it is written, but as I do not make it personal I have no idea what you think i have done.
I am entitled to my opinion. I do not have to accept your opinion.
Richard