Positing that something is impossible provides no motivation to change how data is interpreted. Particularly when the data provides no indication that the something is impossible.
And again, data can change the theory. But it takes data, not an analogy.
There are documented and objective facts in a matter which you are failing, or refusing, to acknowledge â objective facts of meaning, purpose and function between otherwise unrelated events. Saying there is no fact in the matter does not make the facts go away, nor does merely saying âthey are in contention in the human domain, in the measurable worldâ mean that they really are. I guess what must be subjective is the obligation to accept the reality of âhow things standâ.
In your (Not So Humble) view.
Even that is not actually true. Data can always be assesed in more than one way, and be interpretted in more than one way.
But you say no
The end
Richard
And you are failing to see that meaning and purpose lie squarely in the human domain. You have nothing by way of proof but coincidences glued together with your personal human perspective. Given who you continue to show yourself to be, that Carries no weight with me. I leave it there.
You left out function. The combined events had a function, an objective function. Actually that should be plural, because we are talking about multiple sets among multiple individuals that had an obvious function in each case.
Who says this? Where is it written? You may find some notable scientist (I think you already have) but they are biased. They are scientists.
You do not find analogies relevant or persuasive. You.
(I do, and there are quite a few like me, believe it or not!)
The tilte of this thread is arguing well. As far as you are concerned the argument must be in data. That is not arguing well, it is very restrictive.
Richard
The point, Richard, is that analogies are over-simplifications. As such, they are always going to be approximations of reality at best. Often, they will be highly inaccurate and in some cases even misleading.
The purpose of an analogy is to help explain complex subjects to people who donât have the extensive background knowledge, training or experience to understand and apply them accurately and in detail. They manage reasonably well for that purpose up to a point. But they are completely useless for the purpose of trying to determine whether an explanation is correct or not. For that you need to drill down into the details. Analogies are not a substitute for data.
Not always.AN analogy can illustrate a process or a process of thinking.
Like I said, they can be a re-evaluation or different perspective on existing data.
They can also illustrate the aplicatio, or consequence of a theory. Which is where i find it strange. Why canât scientists verbalise or cognicise their theories beyond the basic stating or expounding? In their own words? All I get is cut and paste or regurgitated rote learning.
I have asked for a simple description of the Evolutionary process (not Hereditary DNA, and Not Evolutionary theory. The process by which it happens (and the scope of it)
I am still waiting.
I have even been told that I must look up Neutral drift. Why? Why canât someone actually describe it in their own words instead of copying and pasting, or referral to another source?
Richard
Neutral drift is the idea that in a population mutations occur that have little or no impact on protein formation. This allows a mutation that would be detrimental on its own to actually be an advantage when combined with a neutral mutation. And yes this idea has been tested in the lab. If I didnât get this right I am sure someone will correct me.
Happy?
It is written in the fundamentals of the scientific method. The scientific method is based on empiricism which means theories rise or fall based on data. The development of the scientific method from Francis Bacon in the 17th century to the modern day is all about empiricism.
Empiricism replaced Rationalism. You are still stuck on Rationalism which science abandoned 300 years ago.
A photon can not be a particle or a wave because a duck can not be a duck or a dog.
Have I disproven quantum mechanics?
OK Richard. Give us an example of an analogy that is not an over-simplification. One that drills down into the subject matter in as much detail as the original, with the same level of detail.
Because science is, by its very nature, very mathematical and technical, very rigorous and exact. There are a lot of nuances and subtleties in the details, and if you overlook those nuances and subtleties, you can end up going waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.
I work as a software developer. I face this problem every single day. Product owners and stakeholders are constantly coming to us asking for something that does A if you do B then C, only for us to find that if you do C then B you end up in a state where A is impossible for obscure technical reasons that are difficult to explain to anyone without a background in maths or computer science.
True, but if the only tool understood is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
That analogy works for me! XD
Quite a bit of statistics was in fact invented to describe biology.
Then why can you not accept a similar situation within the applications of Evolutionary? theory?
Evolution claims one thing, the process shows a limitation that demonstrates it cannot do all of what the theory demands of it. And all you can do is shout "âThre are no limitations!â instead of working it through and seeing them.
Richard
So you are saying that a creature could develop something that is neither use nor ornament but because it is part of a larger group it will survive until another deviation occurs that miraculously now makes the first one beneficiary?
Do you know how implausible this actually sounds in terms of random deviations?
Richard
It would help your case if you gave some specifics here, Richard. What limitations are you talking about? Also, why havenât you responded to this point that I raised above?
In any case, this thread isnât about the limitations or otherwise of evolution specifically. Itâs about the general principles of what does or does not constitute a good argument. Discussions about the limitations of analogies in general fall under that remit. Discussions about the limitations of evolution in particular do not, and would probably be better off on a separate thread.
And to get back to the point of this thread, do you not see why arguing something is implausible doesnât make sense when it has been seen and studied in the lab? Application of the scientific method and not just thinking about it. This is not about interpretation of data in one way or another. You canât argue with success as the saying goes.
Who has shouted âThere are no limitationsâ? No one, as far as I can see. Perhaps you should address what we are actually saying?
The first obvious limitation would be the number of mutations that could accumulate over time. I have yet to see a difference between two species that could not be produced by observed mutation rates.
The second obvious limitation would be large scale sequence convergence in the absence of horizontal genetic transfer.
I could probably come up with more, if you like.
And yet you canât show us one example backed by evidence.
It happens all of the time. Itâs called epistasis.
Reality is not limited by what you deem plausible or implausible.
âHeavier than air flying craft are impossible.ââLord Kelvin
Are planes falling out of the sky because Lord Kelvin deemed them impossible?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.