• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
buckshot24 said:
Demonstrate that mutation and selection is adequate or say nothing at all.
Click to expand...

The theory does so adequately which you would know if you had a basic understanding of it. I linked a course on the matter but you didn't want to read the transcript or watch the video because your ignorance is set in stone.
 
J.Wilkins said:
Yes it is you idiot, your claims are wrong and demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

If you know better then I don't know why you keep erecting this strawman to say "this is what you believe" when it is not your opinion at all.
Click to expand...
I don't see a demonstration of the power of mutation and selection here. But no, that wasn't the point. You're wrong.
 
J.Wilkins said:
The theory does so adequately which you would know if you had a basic understanding of it. I linked a course on the matter but you didn't want to read the transcript or watch the video because your ignorance is set in stone.
Click to expand...
The theory requires this mechanism to be adequate, not sure how you can say it demonstrates it. If the mechanism isn't adequate then the theory can't be correct. Its that simple.
 
buckshot24 said:
I'll be sure to take a survey of the board next time I need to know what the truth is about something.
Click to expand...

You have the truth about adding numbers? 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, 1+3 = 4 ... now do you have to do this a million times to know that 1+1.000.000 equals 1.000.001? Cause if you do you are welcome to take a survey of the board and maybe we will save you some time.
 
buckshot24 said:
The theory requires this mechanism to be adequate, not sure how you can say it demonstrates it. If the mechanism isn't adequate then the theory can't be correct. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

You cant talk your way out of a math problem. Its been tried. Cant be done.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Literally, exactly how I argued as a young deist.

*I was never all in, my gut wasn't in it 😛, but I was heavily influenced by religion. In some ways, still mildly

I had to take books out of the library regarding science and evolution because my Christian school refused to teach it
Click to expand...

There's a pretty big difference between people who become informed upon receiving sufficient information and buckshot types who take pride in ignorance.

Moonbeam said:
You are right and there is no way to prove that evolution happened by direct observation. It' is just a story we tell ourselves and one into which we put our faith. From a body of data and scientific theorizing we have devised explanations that create faith. The faith so produced satisfies minds with ordinary schepticism, but will not reach those who have a bias for an alternate agenda. That is why those of us not deep in the weeds of evolutionary theory look to scientific consensus to give form our opinions.
Click to expand...

It's progressively easier to observe evolution in species with fast enough reproductive rates, and gradually extrapolate that to species with the same genetic reproduction mechanism but lower rates. This is obviously an entirely different process to unrelenting faith & defense of what someone remember another guy saying once.
 
cytg111 said:
You have the truth about adding numbers? 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, 1+3 = 4 ... now do you have to do this a million times to know that 1+1.000.000 equals 1.000.001? Cause if you do you are welcome to take a survey of the board and maybe we will save you some time.
Click to expand...
This board isn't the arbiter of truth. A completely irrelevant point to bring up.

No, I do not need to do every calculation in that case. Now all you have to do is show that observed "evolutionary changes" adds up like that.
 
buckshot24 said:
The theory requires this mechanism to be adequate, not sure how you can say it demonstrates it. If the mechanism isn't adequate then the theory can't be correct. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

Science is evidenced based, you have to look at the evidence to see the demonstration of the function. The theory has predicted that the mechanism was adequate and the evidence verifies it.

That is how scientific research works, it's inductive and makes predictions but those predictions are separate hypothesis until evidenced. When evidenced they are demonstrated and can be included into the theory (or be a separate hypothesis or theory, the theory of evolution is really a collection of verified hypotheses).
 
@buckshot24, honest question for you: what do you lose if you accepted the Modern Synthesis? What aspects of your religious belief or your moral system would it threaten?

I ask this because it's very obvious that you aren't just ignorant of evolution; something about it frightens you. What it is, and why?
 
J.Wilkins said:
Science is evidenced based, you have to look at the evidence to see the demonstration of the function. The theory has predicted that the mechanism was adequate and the evidence verifies it.

That is how scientific research works, it's inductive and makes predictions but those predictions are separate hypothesis until evidenced. When evidenced they are demonstrated and can be included into the theory (or be a separate hypothesis or theory, the theory of evolution is really a collection of verified hypotheses).
Click to expand...
What evidence verifies it? Please be specific. That is what I'm challenging you to produce.
 
This thread is a good analogy to explain scientific theory to Buckshat. You proposed...something, not really sure what. And we all peer reviewed your something and found it lacking any real thought process and were not able to reproduce it. So this means your theory does not work and needs to be abandoned. 😀
 
buckshot24 said:
The theory assumes that it does just that. Without the mechanism it can't work.
Click to expand...

Again you scientifically illiterate twat, that is not how science works.

Scientific theories do not assume things, they are well evidenced or they are not scientific theories.
 
What are you afraid of, Buckyball? Do you think evolution has any bearing on morality? It doesn't. What do you lose by accepting it?
 
buckshot24 said:
Whether or not I understand it is irrelevant. You can't demonstrate it and that is why you're blustering about like this.
Click to expand...

Of course it's relevant, if you don't understand it you'll just hand wave it away as "not evidence" which is the main problem here. You don't understand it so it didn't happen, as if your ignorance could control reality itself.

http://nectunt.bifi.es/to-learn-more-overview/mechanisms-of-evolutionary-change/

You won't get this but there are the various different mechanisms, all evidenced.
 
J.Wilkins said:
Again you scientifically illiterate twat, that is not how science works.

Scientific theories do not assume things, they are well evidenced or they are not scientific theories.
Click to expand...
Your name calling is irrelevant. If this aspect of the theory is evidenced then it shouldn't be difficult for you to present it. Yet all you do is bluster nonsense.
 
J.Wilkins said:
Of course it's relevant, if you don't understand it you'll just hand wave it away as "not evidence" which is the main problem here. You don't understand it so it didn't happen, as if your ignorance could control reality itself.

http://nectunt.bifi.es/to-learn-more-overview/mechanisms-of-evolutionary-change/

You won't get this but there are the various different mechanisms, all evidenced.
Click to expand...
None of those things is "evidenced" to be able to produce the results you blindly believe they can. Again, I am not relevant to your total lack of ability to demonstrate that the mechanism is adequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top